<HTML>
<P>A quote from below: "For sure the chemicals that we are exposed
to will have
<BR> an effect, but most of it is positive, like disinfectants and
<BR>antibiotics. You would have to gas America to put a dent in the
<BR> increased life expectancy due to those medical advances."
<P>This is quite cynical and conclusions like this "shut down" a lot
<BR>of people from looking further into their own chemical and toxic
<BR>profiles: what chemicals are in their homes and communties as
<BR>well as the workplace.
<P>I have one suggestion: listen to Rachel Carson herself in a speech
<BR>before the National Women's Press Club in 1962. She defends her
<BR>position on the event of the release of "Silent Spring."
This is one
<BR>of the rare treasures of the Internet and software such as RealAudio.
<P> <A HREF="http://www.webactive.com/webactive/pacifica/demnow.html">Democracy
NOW!</A>
<P>BTW, if the link doesn't come through, it is a Democracy Now! recording
<BR>that was done on 12/29/97 and is kept at webactive.com
<P>-steve grube
<BR>======================
<BR>
<BR>
<P>Paul Henry Rosenberg wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>Jim heartfield wrote:
<P>> In message <36AB795B.4B1A@gte.net>, Paul Henry Rosenberg <rad@gte.net>
<BR>> writes
<BR>>
<BR>> >The statistics she cites are uncontroversial. Her view that
corporate
<BR>> >chemical pollution is a major cause *is* controversial. Her
book is
<BR>> >pretty darn compelling, though.
<BR>>
<BR>> Not in my view. For sure the chemicals that we are exposed to will
have
<BR>> an effect, but most of it is positive, like disinfectants and
<BR>> antibiotics. You would have to gas America to put a dent in the
<BR>> increased life expectancy due to those medical advances.
<P>This is a red herring, mein herr. Steingraber isn't talking about
<BR>chemicals used for such purposes. She's talking about the effects
of
<BR>chemical pollutants in the environment as part of the epidimology of
<BR>cancer.
<P>But, since you mention it, our rampant overuse of antibiotics
<BR>(particular in livestock) is helping to bred new germs that are storming
<BR>back at us something fierce. This is something that's an obvious
hazard
<BR>from an environmental perspective, which has been known about for a
long
<BR>time, but with nothing like an adequate response. Having an
<BR>environmental perspective doesn't mean being anti-technology or
<BR>anti-chemcial. It means being wise about how technology is deployed.
<P>--
<BR>Paul Rosenberg
<BR>Reason and Democracy
<BR>rad@gte.net
<P>"Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"</BLOCKQUOTE>
</HTML>