Try Not To Breathe!

[Guest guest]

http://alternet.org/envirohealth/19201/

 

Try Not To Breathe!

By Catherine O'Neill, Center for American Progress

Posted on July 12, 2004, Printed on July 14, 2004

http://www.alternet.org/story/19201/

 

An industry spokesperson once offered this cheap

solution to the problem of air pollution: on " bad air "

days " asthmatic kids need not go out and ride their

bicycles " – the idea being that industrial facilities

should not have to take steps to reduce health risks

caused by their pollution; rather individuals should

take steps to avoid these risks.

 

The Bush administration followed this reasoning in its

recent proposal on mercury emissions, offering a

reprieve in pollution reductions while suggesting that

people should protect themselves by forgoing

mercury-contaminated fish.

 

This proposal overturns a determination that mercury

is a " hazardous pollutant " requiring the strongest

possible controls – which would cut mercury emissions

from coal-fired utilities by 90 percent within three

years. Instead, the administration's plan would

achieve reductions of only 38 percent to 46 percent by

2020, according to Environmental Protection Agency

calculations highlighted by the Environmental

Integrity Project (which refute administration claims

of a 70 percent reduction).

 

Shortly after this proposal was put forward, EPA and

the Food and Drug Administration issued expanded

national fish consumption advisories due to mercury

contamination. Thus, while these agencies aim to

tolerate more mercury emissions for a longer period of

time, they place responsibility on a broad swath of

the population – specifically women of childbearing

age and children up to age 20 – to avoid the resulting

risk of neurological damage by decreasing their fish

consumption.

 

While the proposal has generated a record half

million-plus comments from the public, relatively

little attention has been given to the

administration's embrace of risk avoidance as the

supposed " solution " to this and other health hazards.

 

Environmental regulatory efforts have traditionally

reduced environmental risk by eliminating the source

of the risk, i.e., contamination. Risk avoidance

strategies, by contrast, permit contamination but look

to risk-bearers to alter their practices to avoid the

risk. The approach is flawed for several reasons.

 

First, it's not clear that risk avoidance measures are

effective. In order for risk avoidance to work,

advisories must be received and understood;

restrictions must be enforced; and ultimately human

behaviors must be changed.

 

Even proponents of risk avoidance concede the

considerable hurdles here. For example, signs meant to

warn against eating fish from contaminated waters get

taken down; fences intended to keep children from

playing in contaminated soils get scaled; and zoning

restrictions designed to limit future uses of

contaminated properties get waived. These hurdles loom

larger when those affected do not speak the language

or share the culture of the predominant population.

And they may become insurmountable when those affected

refuse to change their way of life on philosophical,

moral or cultural grounds.

 

Second, risk avoidance does not provide a

comprehensive solution to environmental problems.

While human health has been the touchstone for

traditional regulatory efforts, pollution reduction

has benefited ecological health as well. Risk

avoidance strategies do nothing for non-human

components of ecosystems, such as fish-eating birds.

Even if only human health is at stake, risk avoidance

may disappoint. Strategies that leave contamination

untreated may beget multiple indirect human health

effects. As a result, any cost savings may be

overstated.

 

Third, risk avoidance – if it works at all – can only

work for so long. As risk avoidance measures supplant

risk reduction efforts, and uncontaminated

environments become degraded, it gets harder to avoid

risks. Eventually, we would live in a world in which

there were no longer any healthful alternatives.

Asthmatics would search in vain for a place to move

with clean air. Pregnant women would avoid albacore

but be left with only poor substitutes in terms of

protein and other nutrients.

 

Finally, risk avoidance is unjust. The burden of

avoiding mercury risk, for instance, will likely fall

disproportionately on American Indians and native

Alaskans, other communities of color, and low-income

communities. It is these communities – who frequently

depend on catching fish for subsistence or live near

coal-fired power plants and other industrial

facilities – that are likely to be among the most

exposed. Moreover, the burden of avoiding risk may be

understood differently by the general population than

by those asked to alter their basic way of life. A

member of the general population who habitually

consumes two meals of fish per week might be able to

accommodate a suggestion that she find substitute food

sources. A member of the various Ojibwe tribes fishing

the Great Lakes might see such avoidance as

impossible.

 

Unfortunately, the administration's mercury proposal

is not designed to protect public health but to save

industry some money – placing the burden of risk

avoidance on the most vulnerable among us while

allowing levels of pollution that are dangerous to us

all. It would be more effective and more just if we

aggressively address the problem at its source.

© 2004 Independent Media Institute. All rights

reserved.

View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/19201/