Frontline
Jeff Bump (jtbump@midplains.net)
Wed, 03 Jun 1998 13:34:20 -0500
Watching the Frontline program on environmental chemicals, I found the EPA
person's viewpoint interesting. I'm rather new to this whole debate, so if
this is old stuff please forgive. My take on her position was: There is no
doubt that synthetic chemicals have an enviromental impact and that this
will impact human health -- but the real issue is does the positive out
weigh the negative. Chemical use is a technology much the same as the
automobile and as such it can do substantial harm, but it can also do
tremendous good. The problem is that we all have potentially a different
value assessment of what is good and what is harm, thus to get anywhere
with the discussion it seems the whole debate needs to eventually get to an
economic analysis. (The real question I guess is why so much attention is
given to the economic impact of Michael Jordan and not estimates of the
costs of lower IQs??)
If indeed I read this correctly, am I justified in being hopeful? If he
EPA official was steering this toward an economic analysis, some money may
become available to put some numbers to this debate and get it translated
into the universal language of money (or if this has been done, why was it
not presented?). Unfortunately and despite most wishes to the contrary,
our species doesn't generally veer from the worn path until we get a good
swift kick in the pocketbook.
I would appreciate any references on new work about the issue of economic
analysis in this area.
Jeff Bump
Pasture Talk
PO Box 620732
Middleton WI 53562
608-831-3787
jtbump@midplains.net
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".