NYTimes.com Article: In a World of Hazards, Worries Are Often Misplaced

[Guest guest]

This article from NYTimes.com

has been sent to you by mlmj75@....

In a World of Hazards, Worries Are Often Misplaced

August 20, 2002

By JANE E. BRODY

Spared from worry about whether they will have enough to

eat today or a roof over their heads tomorrow, most

Americans have the luxury of worrying about the hazards

that may be lurking in their air, water and food as a

result of all this progress and affluence.

We are healthier, live longer, have more sources of

pleasure and convenience and more regulations of industrial

and agricultural production than ever, but we are also more

worried about the costs to our health of environmental

contaminants.

This is not to say there is nothing to worry about. In an

ideal world, progress would result only in benefits, no

risks. In an ideal world, we would be able to produce,

organically and inexpensively, all the food we need and the

food our importers rely on. In an ideal world,

manufacturing would leave no residues in air, water or

soil, and people would be smart and disciplined enough to

resist exposure to health-robbing substances like tobacco

and consistent about using protective devices like seat

belts, helmets and condoms.

But this is not and never will be an ideal world, so bad

things will occasionally happen. Regulations cannot control

every risk. Besides, every regulation has a price. The

millions or billions spent in compliance and enforcement

might be better used in ways that would save many more

lives, and sometimes the cost is not worth the potential

benefit. I say " potential " because in many cases, the risks

involved are only hypothetical, extrapolations from studies

in laboratory animals that may have little or no bearing on

people.

For example, despite widespread belief and laboratory

studies in rats that link pollution to breast cancer on

Long Island, this month an $8 million federal study found

no evidence that environmental contamination from

pesticides and industrial chemicals was responsible.

Why People Worry

" People are scared about environmental

dangers, " noted Dr. Glenn Swogger Jr., a psychiatrist in

Topeka, Kan. " Being scared affects their ability to think

realistically and use good judgment. " Underlying these

fears, he believes, are uncertainty about the effects of

exposures to certain substances, a tendency to overreact

and seek scapegoats in stressful situations, guilt about

our affluence and an unspoken wish to return to a simpler

and purer world.

Experts in risk perception say people who become agitated

about real or potential risks are influenced by a number of

" outrage " factors. Prominent among them is control. Is the

risk voluntarily assumed or imposed by others? A woman I

know who eats only organically grown food enjoys rock

climbing, skiing and whitewater rafting, sports far riskier

than all the chemical fertilizers, pesticides and

antibiotics combined. Likewise, does it make sense for

smokers to worry about pollution from a nearby factory?

In short, too often, the risks people worry most about are

out of proportion to the actual dangers involved.

Next is the fairness factor. Is there a benefit to the

consumer, or are consumers assuming risks resulting from

benefits gained only by the manufacturer? A classic example

is toxic waste dumped on a community. Or, if there are some

consumer benefits, are they out of proportion to the risks?

One example is the use of antibiotics in animal production,

a process that has led to the spread of

antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Is the hazard natural or caused by people? Although there

was a brief flurry of concern about radon, which emanates

naturally from soil and rock, perpetual and far more

intense concern arises over radioactivity from mine

tailings and nuclear power plants. Yet the known cost to

lives from other energy sources, including solar power, gas

and oil, still far exceeds that associated with nuclear

power.

How new or familiar is the risk? People worry much more

about possible accidents caused by new technologies than

about ones they have known about all their lives.

Traditional plant-breeding techniques have resulted in no

protests. But the introduction of genetically modified

foods has prompted some people to pay premium prices for

foods said to be free of any genetic manipulation, even if

it results in more wholesome products.

Is there potential for a catastrophe? Consumers have

repeatedly ranked nuclear power as the No. 1 hazard among

more than two dozen activities and technologies, including

smoking and handguns. Many people are far more frightened

of air travel, especially after a plane crash, than they

are of driving, which, mile for mile, presents a far

greater risk.

Facts to Consider

It is not possible to anticipate, regulate and control

every risk. Priorities must be assigned for risk

management, with time and money devoted to those hazards

best established and most likely to cause the most harm.

Not every regulation is a good investment. For example, for

each premature death averted, the regulation that lists

petroleum refining sludge as a hazardous waste costs $27.6

million while the rule that does the same for wood

preserving chemicals costs $5.7 trillion per death avoided,

according to estimates from the Office of Management and

Budget.

The asbestos ban, at $110.7 million per life saved, was a

bargain compared with the exposure limits placed on

formaldehyde, which cost an estimated $86.2 billion per

death averted.

Animal tests that result in cancer caused by a suspect

substance do not necessarily apply to people. Half of all

chemicals that have been tested have caused cancer in one

or another experimental animal, but not always in all

species or strains tested or even in both sexes. Often

animal strains genetically susceptible to certain cancers

are chosen for these tests. When very large doses are used

in animal tests, the result is often toxicity and

inflammation, which itself can cause cancer even if the

substance is not carcinogenic.

A cardinal rule in toxicology is " the dose makes the

poison. " You can eat a dozen carrots at once with no ill

effect, but 400 carrots could kill you. Animal studies

rarely reveal the possible effects, or safety, of long-term

exposure to the kinds of low doses people may experience.

Keep in mind that we all have livers, which accrue and

detoxify small amounts of hazardous substances. Another

limitation of animal tests is their usual failure to detect

risks that may result from interactions between two or more

otherwise innocuous substances.

Remember, too, that " natural " is not necessarily safer, and

just because something is manufactured does not make it a

potential hazard. Nature is hardly benign. Arsenic, hemlock

and, despite its current medical applications, botulism

toxin are wholly natural but also deadly.

For helpful, detailed discussions of how best to consider

environmental threats, consult the new book " How Much Risk?

A Guide to Understanding Environmental Health Hazards "

(Oxford University Press) by Inge F. Goldstein and

Goldstein, who explain how controversies are investigated

and why scientists sometimes disagree and fail to find

definitive answers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/20/health/20BROD.html?ex=1030954048 & ei=1 & en=f9798\

3e50524bed1

HOW TO ADVERTISE

---------------------------------

For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters

or other creative advertising opportunities with The

New York Times on the Web, please contact

onlinesales@... or visit our online media

kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo

For general information about NYTimes.com, write to

help@....

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company