EDITOR:
“When an activity raise threats of harm to human health or
environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some
cause-and-effect relationships are not fully established
scientifically.”
EDITOR:
“When an activity raise threats of harm to human health or environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause-and-effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.” (Wingspread Consensus Statement, 1998)
This precautionary principle (PP) is the basis for the European Union’s unreasoned opposition to safe genetically modified foods and the Kyoto Protocol’s draconian carbon dioxide regulations intended to avoid a falsely forecast future. It is the guiding principle of the ideological environmentalists and is now being universally incorporated in every risk assessment being made on behalf of the public.
What has this to do with peanuts and perchlorate?
A Bay Area school recently banned peanut butter from its cafeteria to protect a new student with potentially fatal hypersensitive peanut allergy. Now the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many. Better safe than sorry, say the PP proponents.
But how far will this thinking take us? Peanut snacks on airplanes, peanut butter in the school cafeteria, what is next? Somewhere the few will have to stop asking the many to compromise for them. The “logical” extension of the precautionary principle in this situation would be to band the production and sale of any peanut products in the world. That is the absurd result of applying the precautionary principle.
Morgan Hill, San Martin and Gilroy residents are painfully aware that perchlorate has tainted their local groundwater. The question now is: “What to do about it?”
The first order of regulatory business is to set an MCL (maximum contaminant level for perchlorate in drinking water. Reliable and credible clinical studies have shown that perchlorate levels must significantly exceed 200 ppb (parts per billion) before there is any interference with normal thyroid function. Why not set the MCL at 200 ppb? Because some fetal and infant developmental problems have been associated with thyroid deficiencies, and the effect of perchlorate on impaired or supersensitive thyroids is not known.
The Environmental Working Group, whose mantra no doubt includes the precautionary principle, would have the MCL set at 0.1 ppb. No matter that analytical detection limits are about 4 ppb. Analytical techniques will improve. Better safe than sorry.
Why not accept the precautionary approach and set the MCL at the lowest possible level? Because it would be extraordinarily expensive. But that is alright because Olin is going to pay for it, right?
Well, maybe. Olin’s past performance in waste handling was not criminal. It appears to have been accepted operating procedure at that time. In hindsight, Olin has acknowledged that it could have done better, and is now trying to make it right. But do not expect things to be returned to the conditions of 50 years ago.
It is not economically feasible to treat the groundwater now and return the aquifer to less than 1 ppb perchlorate. Anyone expecting or insisting on that might as well say bye-bye Olin. Any unnecessary expense incurred by municipal water districts is going to be paid by somebody, and that somebody could well be the water user.
If instead, the MCL were set around 100 ppb, thyroid normal people would be adequately protected. But what about the fetal and infant supersensitives? There is no evidence that this supersensitive population would react differently to perchlorate than thyroid normal people. In fact, there are epidemiological studies of infants in Chile where their drinking water contains naturally occurring perchlorate at 100 ppb, showing no difference from areas with no perchlorate.
Medical screening for thyroid dysfunction of the small supersensitive population would certainly be more effective. Iodide supplements might be indicated, and bottle water is available. Are we going to hold the many economically hostage for the perception of absolute safety for the few, when those few have alternative precautions that can and should be taken?
R.M. Peekema,
retired chemist
San Jose
