Document rxJ5d471v3na5ZOp7KN9DZaGa

Guilty until proven innocent Carcinogens in the environment 3 YSm Cunrtt it never n eaiy uibjeci to confiont. Given the elioiee, moil of u* would prefer not lo think 100 much about the ditcate which has become the number two killer in Canada. Sometimes its causes are unknown. Sul research has identified certain carcinogenic chemicals at huge in our environment. In fact, it Is now genrtally acknowledged that the great majority of cancer eases are environ mentally caused. Can there by any chemical which is so ini|>ortani to our way of life that we cannot make do with leu of it, ot simply do without it? Global concern among environ mentalists regarding PCBs (poly chlorinated bipltrnyls) began in 196$ when a Swedish scientist found trace amounts in fish frpm (he Baltic and in the fcatltcrs of museum eagles captured before IPM. Through the late 1960s dorms of scientific papers were published on the effects of PCBs on birds, on fish and on other animal species. In 1969 Coho salmon in lake Michigan were found to con tain five ppm (parts per million) PCBs and were banned for eating. The ilicn-lcading manufacturer of PCBs. Monsanto Chemical, volun tarily reduced production from 94 thousand tonnes in 1970 to 16 thou sand tonnes in 1971. In 1972 the com pany restricted PCB use to confined systems. Seemingly action was swift and effective. JS^iUi.OQWtenefally accepted, are carcinogens/ They are still pres ent in the water and fish of the Great Lakes. Today we debate wltcther to burn them in Mississauga cement kilns; traces are sometimes present in the oil used on county roads; a Regina 'storage depot* recently leak- HONS 002365 18 ed FCBs Into surrounding soil. One Is Ml wondering whedrer die action ttkenfn miwiiie to the PCB danger, - wlmcrti li seemed at lire lime, was, in icltosjreci, adequate. . Barry Commonci in a milestone Bmnronmfnt magazine article pub lislted in 1973 revealed a hidden side lo the history of PCBs. PCBs were first manufactured in 1929 and the first ~mrcujiatk>nal health incident was re ported in 1930. In Commoner's words: "By Octobei, 1933, 23 of the 14 men in (lie (manufacturing) plant untied with chloracne (a severe skin disorder)." Shortly thereafter it was lound that PCBs affect lives function and in 1943 die New York department of labour advised that PCB exposures be *tonirolled insofar as humanly possible." PCBs in effect had bren tested on human beings, failed the lest, and then weie put into mass manufacture. In die period between 1940 and I9G8 PCBs found their way into the wider environment. Alas, (he PCB story is not unique. In lad lire history of asbestos, benante, vinyl chloride monomer (VCM) and dozens if not hundreds of other fcatardt is similar in many ways. In the period during or immediately lotlowing World War II total production of many hazardous substances gtew vapidly as lire mimbci of industrial and consume! uses for each substance piolsfeiatcd. Many of these substances were found to be occupational hazards before iliey became or wete discover* cd lo be hazards in the wider environ ment. Almost none had been tested In safety prior to their introduction Into the workplace. From the work place they entered the national and international productive process, consumer products and ultimately, in perhaps small quantities, the wider environment. Studying the history of carcinogens leads one quickly to what should perhaps be tire new first principle of environmental protec tion: rVFRYTIIIN'C IJCAKS. Ihis principle means that we must Imply accept that any substance used In huge quantities will one way or another, sooner or later, be released in some amount into the environment. So-called 'contained* uses are a myth. The 'scaled' condensers in fluorescent light fixtures (which contain PCBs) ultimately go lo the dump, rust, and spill their contents. Production facil ities age, warelrouses burn down, by products and waste products arc never perfectly handled, all known modes of transportation have unanticipated accidents, older workers become habituated, newer workers are im perfectly trained, and many con sumers pay no attention to instruc tions regarding use and disposal. Small amounts are released -- and in nature remarkably dilute amounts of some substances can return to haunt us in unexpected ways. If we are to keep carcinogens in the en vironment to an absolute minimum we must learn to detect their hazard ous character prior to mass manu facture. We must straightforwardly limit the development of some in dustries by simply disallowing the production and use of carcinogenic substances. Before taking a closer look at this assertion, wc should consider why we have not acted more effectively in the past. How have we come to the point where we cannot eat the fish of many of our finest waters? Here arc five reasons. First, we as a society are not clear that, when we must choose, we pre fer health to ever greater wealth. This generalization has many mani festations in the way we live and work. Many corporations do every thing in their power to avoid regula tion of their production and use of carcinogenic substances. Our agricul ture ministries openly encourage the extensive use of chemical biocides as, on balance, necessary and safe when the evidence is not as clear as it might be. Medical agencies and tire medical profession have been extremely slow in shifting their effort* from cancer cure to cancer prevention. Many workers and unions have hcsiuucd to push occupational and community health concerns to the forefront of their bargaining demands. Second, environmentalist' for the most part have not considered oc cupational health to be a central con cern. This, of course, is die real mean ing of Barry Commoner's article. Today's occupational health problems arc tomorrow's environmental probkms. If we are. serious about preven tive as opposed to reactive environ mental protection, Canadian environ mentalists must orient tlieir concern towards the Canadian workplace. Third are tire difficulties arising from the considerable time lag be tween exfrosure to a carcinogen and onset of visible health effects. Ihis period is in most cases from 13 to 30 years. Given that sort of delay it is extraordinarily difficult to pin down (he several contributory causes of disease. In the case of asbestos it took decades to establish conclusively the extent to which the substance is haz ardous. Fourth, it is only vciy recently that we have been able to measure the presence of some carcinogens at dilutions whctc they have toxic ef fects. With this knowledge we have come to dismiss the myth that there are safe thresholds for carcinogens in the workplace or in the environment. The greater the dilution, wc have learned, the fewer (lie earner cases, but it is likely there are no measurable levels at which a carcinogen will not affect some individual. Fifth, cancer strikes on a `statisti cal basis' and this allows human nature the op|>ortuniiy to ignore tire possibility of personal or family im pact. Some individuals, for reasons we do not understand, can both smoke heavily and live and work in the most hazardous of communities and in dustries and never seemingly be af fected. All we know is that it is 'statistically* safer to avoid exposure to certain substances. far these reasons we have come to the point that it seems every week we learn of a new carcinogen at large in the environment. Some catcinogens HONS 002366 19 have Wen liter* lor a long lime. For example, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are die product of die incomplete combustion of any organic matter from tobacco to fossil fuels to wood. Otltci carcinogens are delibciatfly dispersed into the wider environment. For example, 19 of 15 organorhlorinc pesticides are known to be carcinogenic. Many of Ihrse pesticides ate still produced nd used in latgc quantities. Keponr. DDTandMitcxareallorganochlorinc pesticides. Other carcinogens arc Strictly post-World War II phenomena. For example, Radon-222 or Radium-226 are by-products of uranium mining, milling and processing, Radium-226 seeping from the Elliott I jikc mining complex has conlaminaied the Serpent River system of Northern Ontario. Dioxin, one of the most potent toxins known, has been widely dispersed as an impurity within the herbicide 2,1,51. -- Generally carcinogens are produccd or encountered in the asbestos, plastics, petrochemical, paint, pesticidc, rubber, metal smelling, solvent, welding and mining industries. Often these industries exercise a great deal of caution with these dangerous substances. Sometimes they do not. Often workers are not as cautious as they might be because they are not able to learn, try as they might, the dangers associated with the sub stances with which they work. And many workers, being human, arc hesitant to find out the full truth of what may be happening to (licit health. Carcinogens are carried home on-workers'-clothes and cars; small amounts are flushed down drains in the. process of `cleaning up'; residues are removed with `em|>ty' containers. Releases occur when safety regula tions are not fully followed. T hese `errors' notwithstanding, probably the majority of carcinogens in the en vironment are released in the `nor mal' functioning of the industrial process. Releases occur either prior to any knowledge of danger or piior to corporate acceptance of that knowl edge. These are generally very dif ferent points in time; the communica tion and decision process from in dependent research to expensive action is a complex one. Industrial releases, then, are ordinarily small and the substances are rapidly diluted by air or water to ppm, ppb, or ppt levels. Some few carcinogens are highly dangerous even at these levels. Most carcino gens at these levels affect only a very small number of highly susceptible individuals. Sadly one cannot effec tively predict in advance which in dividuals are susceptible and there fore precautions cannot be taken. Nevertheless it is argued that low level, localized dangers associated with certain industries are a tolerable *pike of progress'. Tim argument collapses in the face of the alterations that dynamic nature adds to Ore equa tion Four key natural processes with in living ecosystems wreak havoc with this all too commonly put argu ment. Hie first process is bioacrumulalion -- the building up of toxic subnances in food chains. In Silent Spring Radtel Carson recounted the story of Clear Lake, California. The lake was treated in 1949. 1954 and 196} with DDD, an organorlilofine kmeetkide at .02 ppm in an amimosquito campaign. After a time the 20 HONS 0023*7 DPI) midi* in the wain was so low that it was not detectable. In the plankton, however, the DPI) con centration mounted to & ppm. In small plankton-eating fish, concentrations readied 40 to 300 ppm, and in largo (fith-taling) lish they readied 2500 ppm. DPI) is fat-soluble (as are PCHs and many otliet carcinogens) and ac cumulates in tire fatly tissues of fish. At tire lop of lire food drain at Clear Lake were tlsc grebes who, at 1600 ppm, woe eliminated from the Clear lake region. It is not necessary to look far to find othet examples. Cows glare up to SO sq metres of field in a day and build up a large portion of the con taminants theicby gathered in their milk. Molluscs filter enormous quan tities of watet and tome can, for ex ample, concentrate heavy metals by a factor of 300,000 and oiganochlotine insecticides by 70,000 times over tlscsr concentration in tlie water. FCBt are highly susceptible lo such bioamplificatfon. By the time PCBs teach carnivorous sea mam mals, having been concentrated ten to one hundred-fold at each step in --i- the chain, they ihay be concenuated sen million-fold over levels in the tunounding watet. Human diets which concentrate heavily cm the lower end of food chains are dearly pttrdcni. . lire second process, natural re sistance, is related to the first. lrwer- ordet species breed in massive mul tiples and eventually shrug off con centrations of toxins to which higherorder, slower breeding, longer living species -- such as humans -- cannot adapt. The plankton and fish of Clear Lake seemingly remained healthy while the grebes disappeared. One can eliminate 99 per cent of a given insect population with an insecticide, but those remaining, and their mil lions of descendants, may be resistant to the toxin which killed their siblings. The mosquitoes of the Mississippi Delta ignore doses of poisons 120 limes stronger than those which once would have killed them. We who con stantly up the dosage of all deliberate ly spread toxins are among the most vulnerable of species. The third process is natural dis persion. High concentrations of DDT have been found in penguins and polar bears living great distances from any possible direct source of tire substance. Toxins are dispersed in the environment in a wide variety of ways. They travel in the wind and are washed out in the rain. Those buried on land are leached out by water. All ultimately travel the watercourses and ocean currents, and migrate with in the bodies of fish, birds and mam mals. Many species, having picked up toxins, migiate thousands of kilo metres before becoming dinner for a member of another species. A car cinogen that is persistent will soon find its way to the ends of t)e earth. Once in the environment (insistent substances cannot be retrieved. The fourth process is the biochemi cal interaction of toxic substances in nature. Chemical reactions occur in nature without human (Ximission, plan or even awareness. Metallic mercury was convened to harmful methyl (organic) mercury in the bot tom mud of Canadian riven and Japanese bays. In addition to such chemical changes, synergistic and catalytic chemical and biological effects occur within the human body. Asbestos and cigarette smoke are more than addittvely carcinogenic; the substances seem somehow to enhance each other's deadly effects. Some chemicals are carcinogenic primarily in combination with other chemicals: the pesticide keponc and alcohol are suspected of acting in this manner. We have hardly begun io~fl)vestigatc interactive effects for either the workplace or the wider environment. We may never undertand them fully. Together these four processes dis tinguish persistent carcinogens and other toxins from other forms of pol lution. They must, then, be treated differently legislatively and admin istratively. As we have seen, these substances are dangerous even if highly diluted in air or water. They can, as at the Love Canal, turn up as extreme haiards decades after being buried, seemingly carefully, in the ground. Those locally released can spread throughout the globe and can interact with other substances in un known ways. The burden of evidence regarding all persistent substances must be reversed. Any hint of danger certifies guilt; innocence must be proven to a lough jury. In the case of carcinogens in particular ilieie is the compound ing problem of long delays between exposure and health impact. This is merciful to the individual, but com plicates detection of danger enor mously. For alt the reasons discus sed above we simply cannot wait un- 22 HONS 002360 til more carcinogenic substance* arc M large in the environment for cri* lain proof. The only humane and rational way to proceed is in a pre ventative mannci. lire best preventa tive technique involves the acceptance of guilt on indicative evidence unless Innocence is demonstrated irrefu tably. Animal tests and such tests as the Ames bacterial mutagenicity test give us the technical ability to screen potentially hazardous substances bom our workplaces and thereby bom the wider environment. Pci* ha) nine of ten substances carcino genic in humans can be detected usfog these techniques. The Ames test k quicker and lets expensive, but less reliable than animal tests. Animal nits should be used for every sus|x*et chemical and all new chemicals in troduced into workplaces. Both types Of tests will occasionally condemn relatively harmless substaners. Con ablning the risks run in not acting forcefully this is a small price to pay. Substances found suspect should not be produced. If there arc compelling arguments for exceptions let them be made, Even so hatardous a substance s asbestos, when used as a fireproof materia! in construction or in fire men's coats, might well be excepted. These uses, by the way, do not ac count for the largest portion of asbes tos production. A good case for yet to be utilized substances would be hard er to make, and a case for substances for which less harmful substitutes can be found would be impossible to make other than for brief transition per rods. Back-up to the screening tests could come from large scale ep idemiological (disease distribution) studies built into the national health care system. These studies can and must be done in a way that protects the anonymity of all individuals. It should be easy and cheap to correlate medical, life history and occupational data and detect carcinogens that get by the initial screening process. This sort of research effort would be at least as productive a long term in vestment as research on surgical or chemical cancer cure techniques. Beyond research we need to en courage new legislation. The re search is almost pointless if we con tinue to allow carcinogenic sub stances to be produced in large quan tities. Another approach to the prob lem might be the development of legislative and legal ways to make it easier for cancer victims and their surviving relatives to gain compen sation from the producers of carcino gens. Those who benefit from the pro duction of carcinogens should at least bear the monetary costs of the disease. The Japanese have a law called "Compensation of PollutionRelated Health Damage" which is a useful beginning in this area. If the real cost of the production and re lease of carcinogens were even par tially borne by the producers they would soon find their products priced out of the market. Finally, workplace union-manage ment health committees should be supported by environmentalists, sci entists and the medical profession. Those committees should be provided access to the latest in scientific and medical knowledge. Protecting work er health today could save the health of all our children tomonow. Cancer, as the slogan goes, can be beaten. But the solution is at least as much political, legal and economic as it is medical. O Robert Paehlke is an associate professor of political studies at Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario. Ilerv'saglft idea for your frvourttr camera owner, one that ahould make you both happy. It* The Joy oTHotography\ a new Addtaon-Wcalry book by die editors of Eastman Kodak Comiwny. For Iht beginner. Ha an Invaluable rcaouive of "bow-lo* material. Available at a bookstore near you! Addlaon-WealeyPiiMinbrnt. Theglfi for people wiiHi aglfifor plrofograpliy . For the enthusiast a guMc to learning to use light, pattern, and texture to enhance photographs. It's a rtch cont|c!idluni ofsome ofthe beat work being done today. 1 The Joy ofPhotognphy*. the moat glflrd book on pbotugruphy you can buy. BIS pages. B60photon, most ofwhich arc In color. SoAcovcr dll.9$ I lardcovcr 231)5 MQNS 002369 2S