Letters to the Editor
-
Less rhetoric
Well written, but old message, not news, with same old clichés and added window dressing. The ‘uncovering’ evidence of disturbing fallout of global warming by pesticides , PCB, mercury in trace amounts is “increasing faster than anticipated”. The thesis of the research offered is plausible and now must be ‘proven’. That is the way science works; nothing wrong or surprising about that. However, reporting it should be balanced and even skeptical. Please, Mr./Ms. Editor let’s have some more balanced reporting instead of one-sided campaign literature.
How are contaminant levels down here where most people live? Are we actually more ‘polluted’ than the arctic residents? What are the levels of mercury, the ‘powerful neurotoxin’ in people in the lower 48s?
“Some toxic contaminants are at ‘remarkably high levels”- are there others at remarkably low levels?
It states that traces of DDT and PCB “long banned” still are there. Does that not undermine the policy to “ban” chemicals. Is it not a utopian view that we can rid ourselves of the negative effects of our existence by banning a few chemicals. These chemicals will be around forever. PCB are still plentiful in the US , in the ground, in rivers, not just trace amounts. The “reservoir” is full and will remain full. Let’s not kid ourselves. Let’s not propagate the utopian view that “banning” makes the problem go away. The banning of DDT, of course, has resulted in millions of people dead, dying and with severe suffering, but who is counting when we can worry about trace quantities in the Arctic. Unbalanced?
Pesticides, fungicides, waterproofing fire and stain retarding compounds are discovered and produced for our benefit and eager adoption by us. The very research vessel to study their trace residues uses them and would not be able to survive without them . How does one spell “hypocracy”?
Did we miss in Kindergarten, elementary school, high school that there are consequences? Why would one not expect that there are impacts, even negatives, for any of the ‘smart’ choices we make? Are Salon readers presumed to live in a dream world, Nirvana, heaven, with no consequences?
Are we oblivious to the basics of environmental knowledge? Do we deny the fundamentals that every life form affects, interferes with, and even destroys other life forms? So humanity is not alone when it has a negative effect on the rest of the environment. Without protecting ourselves by using our intellect to destroy or keep at bay damaging life forms, we would not survive one season, perhaps not even one day. One might as well ban humans – they definitely hurt the environment.
Salon readers should be better served than this type of article.