A letter to the future
VT Digger reports “Montpelier delays costly PFAS solution for wastewater plant. The decision means the city still has a PFAS problem.”
We all share that problem.
Who to look for a fix? Town and state governments are short of funds. Federal government regulators are failing to catch up with the influx of new chemicals. Corporations are driven by short-term profits and quickly find loopholes in regulations.
The largest leverage for protecting our lives from dangerous chemicals being released into our air, soil, and water and then absorbed into the bodies of invertebrates and vertebrates, including humans, is in our pockets.
Purchase decisions matter.
As consumers we purchase the products that are built or grown with these chemicals - PFA’s, neonics, glyphosate… Therefore we hold the tightest most direct grip of influence over those who originate and distribute harmful chemicals that are pervasive in a range of consumer products.
We can address the problem at its source - our consumption decisions.
PFAS and other harmful chemicals are everywhere. No body is free from their exposure. The list of health concerns from this exposure is long, and the damaging effects are expected to grow.
Yes, we must address these slow-to-breakdown chemicals already in our soil, water, and air. More importantly, we need to address the problem at its source - a much more cost-efficient way to protect our health and longevity.
We can change our own view of our consumptive culture.
We can scrutinize the products we purchase.
We can find ways to use our consumption leverage to influence corporations.
We know what is happening and what needs to be done.
We know that we as consumers have the greatest leverage to fix the problem. Will we make our purchase choices with our eyes wide open or will we make them with our eyes closed? Will we choose to ignore our part and our leverage, delaying fixing the problem at its source or will we choose to recognize our power to influence the actions of large corporations and their impact on our health and environment?
A letter to the future.
We watched our health (from birth and on) decline, we watched whole species decline and many go extinct. We watched our soil and water become poisoned many times more than from DDT of the past. We watched as the post (after chemicals entered the earth or our bodies) treatment costs became astronomically expensive if even feasible.
We know what is happening and what needs to be done.
Only you will know if we used our leverage to do it.
Bernard Paquette
Jericho, Vermont
Bernie enjoys promoting curiosity, observation, and reflection of all life forms in nature. You can find his nature posts at https://vtbugeyed.blogspot.com/
Discussion:
How can we influence businesses? Can we move businesses back to the business of the common good (ours and that of the natural world) as well as being profit-driven?
How do we change our perception of reality away from power, exploitation, and consumption? Can we move to, “Everything is connected,” human and natural flourishing are prioritized over 'exploitation and consumption'?
COMMENTS
The sheer number of novel (never known on the planet before) chemicals in our environment is of course unknown. Furthermore, the health effects on humans is known for only a fraction of the total. The exact impact of any of the latter on human health is very difficult to ascertain, much less to prove in a court of law when settlement for injury is sought. Thus, the statistical argument if you will that any cluster of increased cases of say-cancer in any one area, is often attributed to some artifact of mere chance.
Thus, proving cause and effect, where a particular chemical is strongly suspected to be the one responsible for human harm, is often very hard to prove (and expensive). Those manufacturers whose primary object in producing any chemicals is solely profit have little incentive to stop their production, as a general principle, except for the moral imperative of real concern for the potential or actual detrimental effects of their product on the health of their customers, directly or indirectly. In my opinion, this should include concerns for the degree of health risk to humans for the entire chain of events involved in both obtaining, manufacturing, and disposing of any waste products, either involved in obtaining any raw materials for its production and in any waste products resulting from its manufacture.
From a metabolic perspective, it should be known what the catabolic (break-down) of products are of any potentially hazardous chemical used by humans, as well as recognize its potential bioaccumulation in ecological food chains, over time.
Industrial wastes are arguably among the most challenging to ameliorate concerning their potential risks to human health. Of course, the risk to populations closest to where these wastes are either produced or eventually disposed of is always potentially the greatest. All too often the poorest of our Society are the ones who are most exposed to the greatest risks of industrial wastes, from most sources, whether from the atmosphere, lithosphere, or hydrosphere.
Thus, the risk that any society accepts from exposure to any potential or actual chemical known or suspected to be harmful to human health, varies a great deal. A no or extremely low-risk situation should not be claimed unless the evidence for it stands the scrutiny of the best science. Unfortunately, the true risk of any chemical to human health can be compromised by some manufacturers of industrially made or other sources of chemicals, by well-financed disinformation.
In any case, how much this risk varies among various segments of populations, such as variation with age and occupation "should be carefully evaluated". Generally speaking the youngest and the elderly in almost any population are those that are at most risk for most levels of exposure. The youngest category should include the pre-natal.
Bernie, the above is a first draft attempt for me to articulate a few of the basic issues of which everyone should be informed, based on a lifetime of concern about them.
I am especially concerned with the rate of increase of various cancers, especially among the most vulnerable of our society, that is children. We pay a lot of attention to curing or fostering remission of cancers as a medical imperative, but all too often, much less attention is paid to understanding and ameliorating their actual causes, especially those that are clearly or almost certainly linked to industrial pollution, direct and indirect.
Don Miller
Professor Emeritus, Vermont State Colleges
Consulting Field Biologist and Naturalist
No comments:
Post a Comment