Oh toxicology, what memories! I can remember my laboratories in university applying different doses of chemicals to plants to see determine what level of exposure would be toxic and which would not. Quite fun, most of the time. It also reminded me of conducting risk assessments for sites that were so contaminated that there is no feasible way to clean it up. That was depressing.
Some of the most frustrating things that I found while working, in essence, with toxicology and with the readings was not necessarily the science. Scientists are trying to determine what is a safe exposure, because we have learned over the years that chemicals are quite dangerous. What really annoys me is that we continuously find new chemicals to replace the old dangerous ones and that we assume that they are safe after 10 years of tests and then begin using the new "safe" ones excessively. We brag about how great they are and then are shocked 20 years later to learn that they are not as wonderfully great. Will we ever learn? One of the most disheartening parts of my former job was also the economic side of it. Being a little bit of an environmentalist I wanted to clean up the contaminants immediately. I hated to wait for the time when the client was willing to pay for the clean up (mainly when the ministry was starting to breathe down their necks). It seemed like everyone recognised that the contamination was bad...but spending the money to clean it up was worse.
FISH KILL/TOWN HALL ROLE PLAYING
I think every mayor would have loved to have a town hall meeting like we did. Everyone was so civil, willing to listen, and our industry owner responsible for the spill was unbelievably willing to take responsibility and assist with compensation for loss of income.
Looking back, I think that I would have been supported to start imposing stricter environmental regulations on the industry, and therefore all industry in the town. There did not seem to be any disagreement from the pulp and paper mill owner or the chamber of commerce. We could have become the environmental leaders of the world!
Unfortunately, I do not believe all mayors are that lucky. Court cases that I have read suggest otherwise. I can understand the fine line that all mayors have to walk and do not envy them. Obviously they need to look after the health of their community: economic, social, and physical health. However, what everyone notices the most is the economic health, in other words the economic health is the most visible the quickest. Therefore, politicians are, in some ways, forced to focus primarily on that. And if they want to do something good for their community, they need to follow that system. As much as I complain about the current Prime Minister, I do think that he believes he is doing something good for Canada and that if he does focus on environmental concerns he is going to lose the economic powerhouses of Canada and completely ruin the country. I think it is short-sighted, but that is what most people notice and if he wants to be re-elected he has to focus on the short-term, noticeable health indicators: economics. I do not envy any politician their job.
1 comment:
I, too, am worried about the substances that are combining deep in the earth from all the contaminants we individually use on the surface. As North Americans, specifically many in the United States, I think we believe that if something is bad, then lets make something that is better without thinking through all the ramifications that could result BEFORE the product is put on the market. How many of the harmful substances that we now know are toxic (e.g. DDT, AgentOrange, etc.) could have been avoided if we have fully known the implications beforehand?
Post a Comment