NEXT PAGE -->
|
HEADLINES:
ORIGINS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IDEAS
Where did the grass-roots environmental movement come from? Most people would say it began with action by citizens in the late 1970s and early 1980s --and of course they would be partly right. But the world was prepared for grass-roots environmentalism because of certain IDEAS, and to a surprising degree those ideas originated with one person --a scientist in St. Louis, Missouri, named Barry Commoner.
Commoner was born May 28, 1917, in Brooklyn, N.Y., the son of a Russian immigrant tailor. In 1933 he entered Columbia University, then Harvard, earning a Ph.D. in cellular biology in 1941. During World War II he served in the Naval Air Force. In 1947 he took a faculty position with Washington University in St. Louis where he soon distinguished himself as an exceptionally creative and insightful researcher, studying viruses and elusive "free radicals" in living tissues.
Commoner continued to publish work on proteins and free radicals for 20 years, but in the early 1950s, something happened that caught his attention and turned his interest to larger questions. On the morning of April 25th, 1953, a nuclear bomb was exploded at the Nevada Test Site. Thirty-six hours later, an intense rain storm occurred in the city of Troy, New York, 2300 miles distant from the Nevada Test Site, and radiation counters at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) began recording atomic fallout three times as high as natural background radiation.[1] Radioactive debris falling out onto Troy became an important news event and suddenly the public began to understand that you didn't have to live near the Nevada Test Site to get yourself irradiated by atomic bomb tests.
That event started Barry Commoner thinking in a new direction --a direction that would eventually lead to the present grass-roots environmental movement.
When Commoner tried to learn more about atomic fallout in 1953, he found that much of the information was secret --classified so by the U.S. government. This made it impossible for academic scientists to examine the data --a violation of the principles of science.
As Commoner expressed it, science can only work when scientists can communicate freely their data and their interpretations of the data. "We need to recall," he wrote in SCIENCE magazine in 1958, "that the development of a scientific truth is a direct outcome of the degree of communication which normally exists in science. As individuals, scientists are no less fallible that any other reasonably cautious people. What we call a scientific truth emerges from investigators' insistence on free publication of their own observations. This permits the rest of the scientific community to check the data and evaluate the interpretations, so that eventually a commonly held body of facts and ideas comes into being. Any failure to communicate information to the entire scientific community hampers the attainment of a common understanding."[2] The heart of science is open communication, so secrecy --whether imposed by government or by private corporations --is antithetical to science.
Commoner restated many times his view that the scientific method rests squarely on open communication: "Scientists are, individually, no more truthful than anyone else. Nevertheless, science IS a way of getting at the truth, and scientists --most of them --practice their craft in truthful ways. Why? The reason is that science gets at the truth through open discourse. Scientists learn how to practice science truthfully by making their mistakes in public. This permits their colleagues to correct mistaken information and modify faulty conclusions. This is the meaning of open publication of scientific results; it is the essential way in which science approaches the truth."[3]
The issue of atomic fallout occupied Commoner for a dozen years. While studying it, he derived many of the principles of environmental protection that now form the unspoken basis for grass-roots environmentalism.
For example, he clearly established the principle that, in a democracy, scientists have no more right to make decisions than anyone else. Today grass-roots activists might express this as "It's your world. Don't leave it to the experts." Commoner said the same thing 40 years ago: decisions with major social consequences must not be left to experts. On the contrary, Commoner said, experts have an obligation to inform the public about the scientific facts and then let the public decide:
"Anyone who attempts to determine whether or not the biological hazards of world-wide fallout can be justified by necessity must somehow weigh a number of human lives against deliberate action to achieve a desired military or political advantage. Such decisions have been made before--for example, by military commanders--but never in the history of humanity has such a judgment involved literally every individual now living and expected for some generations to live on the earth."[2]
He went on to ask, who should make such judgments, which require a determination of the value of human life: scientific experts or elected political representatives?[2]
Commoner pointed out that scientists have no special competence in matters of moral judgment. Further, he said "scientists must take pains to disclaim any special moral wisdom" on the issue of continued above-ground nuclear testing. Scientists should speak on the issue, if they have relevant information to convey, but their expertise does not confer upon them any special capacity to draw moral conclusions from their data. When it comes to balancing citizens' lives against military goals, a scientist is just one more citizen making a moral judgment --his or her scientific expertise does not enter into the moral equation.
He said, "[W]e must not allow this issue [nuclear testing], by default, to rest in the hands of the scientists alone. A question of this gravity cannot be handed over for decision to any group less inclusive than our entire citizenry."[2]
Indeed, it is "self-evident," Commoner argued in 1958, that "the public must be given enough information about the need for testing and the hazards of fallout to permit every citizen to decide for himself whether nuclear tests should go on or be stopped."[2]
Commoner put his ideas into practice: he helped organize scientists and citizens into the St. Louis Committee for Nuclear Information (CNI). They started a newsletter called NUCLEAR INFORMATION, which evolved into a magazine with the important (and telling) title, SCIENTIST AND CITIZEN.
Commoner, and his fellow scientists at CNI in St. Louis, formed a working alliance with many local citizens. Commoner's work studying atomic fallout had convinced him that fallout represented a biological hazard to humans. However, the U.S. government insisted that fallout was benign. For example, President Eisenhower in 1956 said, "The continuance of the present rate of H-bomb testing[,] by the most sober and responsible scientific judgment... does not imperil the health of humanity."[4]
The Committee for Nuclear Information began collecting baby teeth and sending them to a lab for analysis of radioactivity. The goal was to show that strontium-90, one of the main components of fallout from A-bomb testing, was building up in humans. They succeeded. Eight years later, the official U.S. position on atomic fallout had changed completely. In a televised address, in 1964, President Johnson said, "The deadly products of atomic explosions were poisoning our soil and our food and the milk our children drank and the air we all breathe.... Radioactive poisons were beginning to threaten the safety of people throughout the world. They were a growing menace to the health of every unborn child."[4] In fact in 1963, President Kennedy had signed an international treaty phasing out above-ground testing of nuclear weapons. It was a triumph of citizen action, with scientists helping bring critical facts to light.
Commoner often acknowledged the important role of an active citizenry: "Nor is the collaboration between scientist and citizen a one-way street. Citizens have contributed significantly to what scientists now know about fallout. Through the St. Louis Baby Tooth Survey, the children of that city have contributed, as of now, some 150,000 teeth to the cause of scientific knowledge about fallout.... By such means, and through hard work and financial support many citizens have become partners in the scientific effort to elucidate the fallout problem."[5]
From this story, we can learn that Commoner pioneered another aspect of modern thinking about the environment. He did not call for less atomic testing. He called for an END to atomic testing. His training as a biologist convinced him that human intrusions into the global biosphere would have unsuspected consequences:
"Moreover, whenever the biological system exposed to a possibly toxic agent is very large and complex, the probability that any increase in contamination will lead to a new point of attack somewhere in this intricate system cannot be ignored. Finally, the toxic effects of many organic pollutants, like those of radiation, may appear only after a delay of many years. For these reasons, it is prudent to regard any addition of a potentially toxic substance to the biosphere as capable of producing a total biological effect which is roughly proportional to its concentration in the biosphere," he wrote.[5]
Thus the only way to prevent environmental damage from toxics would be to exclude them from the environment completely. Today we call it POLLUTION PREVENTION. Barry Commoner argued for it, and provided the rationale for it, nearly 40 years ago.
Discussing the role of scientists in controversies involving nuclear fallout, nuclear war, or "environmental contamination in general," a committee chaired by Barry Commoner wrote in 1965, "In a number of instances, individual scientists, independent scientific committees, and scientific advisory groups to the government have stated that a particular hazard is 'negligible,' or 'acceptable' or 'unacceptable'--without making it clear that the conclusion is NOT A SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSION, BUT A SOCIAL JUDGMENT. [Substitute the word 'risk' for 'hazard' in that last sentence and notice the modern ring that it takes on.--P.M.] Nevertheless, it is natural that the public should assume that such pronouncements are scientific conclusions. Since such conclusions, put forward by individual scientists, or by groups of scientists, are often contradictory, a question which commonly arises among the public is, 'How do we know which scientists are telling the truth?'[6]
Thus in 1965 Commoner and his colleagues warned us that risk assessments are political in nature, not merely scientific, and that many scientists overstep the bounds of scientific legitimacy and try to impose their (or their employer's) political decisions and views upon the public, using science as a screen.
These ideas seem entirely modern and universal because they are deeply held today (based on experience) by grass-roots environmentalists everywhere. But really these ideas only sound modern and universal. They are at least 35 years old, and they came to us through the hard work of one man of extraordinary vision --Barry Commoner.
--Peter Montague
THE WEYBRIDGE REPORT
During the past six years, evidence has accumulated indicating that humans and wildlife may be affected by industrial chemicals that interfere with hormones. (See REHW #263, #264). Hormones are chemical messengers that travel through the blood stream, turning on and off bodily processes, thus regulating reproduction, growth, development (including mental development), and health. The general term for chemicals that interfere with hormones is "endocrine disrupting chemicals." About 50 chemicals have so far been identified as endocrine disruptors, but roughly 70,000 chemicals now in commercial use have not yet been tested for such effects.
Because we are all now exposed daily to hundreds (if not thousands) of chemicals in our air, water, and food, it is worrisome (to say the least) that some of these chemicals might be permanently altering our development as humans (and the development of our offspring) --not to mention our health.
Last month, the European Environment Agency published a report[1] on a major conference on endocrine-disrupting chemicals held December 2-4, 1996, in Weybridge, England. The workshop was organized by the European Commission; the European Environment Agency; the World Health Organization's European Centre for Environment and Health; the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD]; national environmental agencies from England, Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands; plus the European Chemical Industry Council [or CEFIC, which is approximately the European equivalent of the Chemical Manufacturers Association in the U.S.]; and the European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals [approximately the equivalent of the Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology in the U.S.].
The new report, which we will refer to as the Weybridge Report, contains some important conclusions, such as these:
** "It is evident that there are adverse health trends affecting the reproductive organs of both men and women. Thus, the incidence of testicular cancer has increased quite dramatically in countries with cancer registries[,] including Scandinavia, the countries around the Baltic Sea, Germany, UK [England], USA and New Zealand. Similarly there has been an increase in the incidence of breast cancer in many countries and the incidence of prostate cancer also appears to have risen. While changes in the incidence of prostate cancer may have been influenced by better reporting and better diagnostics, this can not explain the bulk of the increase in testis cancer. Similarly, the reported increase in breast cancer incidence seems real."[1,pg.13]
** The apparent decline in male sperm counts in some countries is likely to be genuine, and not attributable to confounding factors or methodological variables;[1,pg.6]
** However, there is "insufficient evidence to definitely establish a causal link" between the health effects seen in humans and exposure to chemicals;[1,pg.6]
** Summarizing: "Although our present knowledge about environmental [endocrine-disrupting] agents and reproduction is extremely limited, we know enough about adverse trends in reproductive health to be concerned," the Weybridge Report concludes.[1,pg.14]
** In wildlife, the following kinds of effects have been noted in relation to endocrine-disrupting chemicals:
** Female molluscs (e.g., snails, mussels) have turned into males as a result of exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (a condition called imposex).[1,pg.14]
** In fish, males have been observed producing vitellogenin (a protein that gives rise to the yolk of eggs, and which is ordinarily only found in females). Furthermore, hermaphroditism has been observed in fish (a single fish having both male and female sex organs).[1,pg.14]
** Some reptiles (turtles and alligators), have reduced fertility due to undeveloped male sex organs (small penises).
** In birds, abnormal nesting behavior has been observed, namely female-female pairing.
** In mammals: disturbed fertility has been observed in common seals, grey seals, and Florida panthers.
In laboratory animals, the following endocrine-disruptor effects have been observed:
** Rats and hamsters exposed to dioxin prior to birth and shortly after birth have reduced sperm counts when they become adults. The timing of the exposure determines the effects that ensue.[1,pg.28] There is also evidence that permanent exposure to low levels of dioxin can cause endometriosis in monkeys.[1,pg.28] Endometriosis is a painful disease of the tissues lining the uterus, which often results in sterility; it presently afflicts an estimated 5 to 9 million American women.
** Rats exposed to PCBs prior to birth have disturbed thyroid hormones; as a side-effect, these rats have small testicles and reduced sperm counts as adults.[1,pg.28]
** Exposure of rodents to endocrine-disrupting chemicals can cause them to undergo puberty at an early age and can cause persistent estrus (meaning, being "in heat" for an abnormal, prolonged time).
** Male rodents exposed to chemicals that interfere with androgens (male sex hormones) can be born with hypospadias (a birth defect of the penis) and cryptorchidism (undescended testicles).[1,pg.29] The Weybridge Report notes that, in humans, "there are indications that, in some countries at least... the incidence of undescended testis and hypospadias has increased."[1,pg.13] The Weybridge Report specifically associates these effects (in rodents) with exposure to Vinclozolin, a powerful anti-androgenic pesticide. (In the U.S. today, Vinclozolin is legal for use on cucumbers, grapes, lettuce, onions, bell peppers, raspberries, strawberries, tomatoes, and Belgian endive. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has no published plans for banning Vinclozolin.)
** There is evidence from a number of animal species that sex steroids (for example, estrogen, testosterone) exert long-term effects on the size of the thymus and "on the immune system in general."[1,pg.29] In humans, the thymus is an organ, just above the heart, that produces T cells, which are crucial actors in the immune system.
The Weybridge Report reaches several other conclusions which hint at the difficulty of the job that lies ahead as researchers try to pin down the relationship between endocrine-disrupting chemicals and normal development in humans and other animals:
** "It is not possible fully to understand the significance of levels found in tissues or blood until the mechanism and timing of action of EDS [endocrine disrupting substances] and their metabolites are better understood."[1,pg.37] In other words, it is not merely endocrine-disrupting chemicals that must be understood. After they are present in the body (of animal or human), they are metabolized and they become different chemicals, which also have effects that must be examined and understood. Furthermore, the timing of exposure is critical. For example, exposing a pregnant rat to dioxin on day 15 of pregnancy causes effects that do not occur if the rat is exposed on day 14 or day 16. This makes laboratory research on endocrine-disruptors a great deal more complex (and therefore more costly) than typical toxic chemical research.
And finally, it will be necessary to test at least 2 generations of animals because effects on offspring are the main concern with endocrine-disrupting chemicals.[1,pg.43]
** "...it is not anticipated that any useful SAR relationships will emerge."[1,pg.45] SAR means "structure-activity relationship." Sometimes the unknown toxicity of a chemical can be estimated by examining the molecular structure of a chemical with known toxicity. If this can be done, a structure-activity (really structure-toxicity) relationship can be observed, and the activity (toxicity) of a chemical can be estimated from its chemical structure. Observing a SAR can help scientists decide quickly which chemicals are likely to be bad actors.
Unfortunately, the Weybridge Report concludes, endocrine-disrupting chemicals do not resemble each other structurally. Their structures vary all over the map, so no structure-activity relationships are likely to emerge to help scientists decide which ones are bad actors. This means all chemicals are candidates for testing --which greatly complicates (and boosts the price of) testing to find endocrine disruptors.
** "There was general agreement at the workshop that an endocrine disrupter could only be adequately defined through the testing of chemicals in the intact animal."[1,pg.53] This, too, is bad news. It means that test-tube testing of chemicals will not yield the needed information --tests must be done on living animals, which is expensive (and often cruel).
** The potential interactive effects of exposure to several substances simultaneously needs to be taken into account.[1,pg.41]
In sum, the Weybridge Report says that, to understand the problem of endocrine-disrupting chemicals, we must study the interactions between combinations of chemicals; we must study these interactions on at least two generations of live animals; we must expose these animals at different moments in their lives (different times prior to birth and after birth). And of course, the animals must be exposed to various concentrations of the chemicals to see if a dose-response relationship becomes evident.
The need to test combinations complicates the picture enormously. For example, to test just the commonest 1000 toxic chemicals in unique combinations of 3 would require at least 166 million different experiments (and this disregards the need to study varying doses given to animals at varying times during their lives). If we wanted to conduct the 166 million experiments in just 20 years, we would have to complete 8.3 million tests each year. The U.S. presently has the capacity to conduct only a few hundred such tests each year. Just training sufficient personnel to conduct 8.3 million animal tests each year is beyond our national capacity.
** Remarkably, the Weybridge Report recommends that, until the necessary research is completed to give us full scientific knowledge, consideration should be given to reducing the exposure of wildlife and humans to endocrine disrupting chemicals, in line with the Precautionary Principle.[1,pg.52] (As stated in Principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the precautionary principle says that, "Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.")[2]
In sum, the Weybridge Report establishes criteria for understanding the problem of endocrine disrupting chemicals, but it appears that even the wealthiest nations in the world haven't the capacity to do the necessary scientific research. This is a problem like no other we have ever faced. The danger of irreversible damage is real. Therefore, invoking the Precautionary Principle, to limit our exposure to such chemicals even before we have full scientific knowledge, would seem to be the only rational approach to take. In the U.S., this is probably not possible because of the political muscle of the chemical corporations. But perhaps other, more rational, democracies can shame us into precautionary action.
--Peter Montague
NEXT PAGE -->
|