Hoosick Falls versus Bedford Falls:
Guardian angel for one but not the other
Greed almost ruined Bedford Falls, the idyllic fictional town in the Frank Capra classic “It’s a Wonderful Life.” When George Bailey (James Stewart) felt overwhelmed by a looming bank disaster and decided to commit suicide, angel Clarence Odbody (Henry Travers) set to work convincing George his life had meaning, and he had helped people throughout his community.
The real life Hoosick Falls is a quiet, historic community in upstate New York on the Vermont state line. Greed under the guise of corporate profit has upended the town. It has come to light that the town’s water supply is contaminated with high levels of perfluorooctanoic acid, (PFOA), a toxic chemical linked to cancer, thyroid problems and complications during pregnancy. The chemical was used in manufacturing Teflon. Recent public disclosure indicates officials right up to the New York governor appeared to have had knowledge about the danger but failed to inform townspeople.
Obviously, in the case of Hoosick Falls, no angel can step in to save this town. There is no Clarence Odbody. Help (whether it’s for Hoosick Falls; Flint, Mich.; or Peoria and our childhood lead poisoning) can only come from us in the form of government regulation and oversight. We have an opportunity to vote in a presidential election for a candidate who wants environmental regulations tightened and enforced or a candidate who wants less government oversight and has pledged to abolish the Environmental Protection Agency.
It’s now a familiar pattern: corporations pollute as they increase quarterly profit. Corporate ownership changes, profits are disbursed and toxic pollution remains to sicken entire communities. Once these toxins are identified, often after decades of exposure, cleanup happens at taxpayer expense. So we pay with our health, our children’s health, our environment and our tax dollars.
If this doesn’t seem right, vote for candidates who recognize the needed role of government environmental regulations.
Some politicians complain they don’t want to saddle small businesses and corporations with regulations. But far worse is what’s happening now: saddling future generations with the toxins and pollution left in the name of corporate profit. The solution is reasonable regulatory oversight.
America has historically assessed risk from chemical exposure on a cost-benefit analysis while European countries follow the precautionary principle. Does one childhood brain cancer merit environmental protections that might cost industry money? That’s a ridiculous question but one evaluated in a cost-benefit analysis.
A more reasonable approach is to recognize single causations can’t always be isolated and evaluated, so childhood exposure to a toxin often can’t be definitively identified as the cause of cancer a decade later. But under the precautionary principle, when a chemical is shown to pose a reasonable cancer risk, absolute causation is not necessary. It is reasonable to prevent unintended exposure. That is the evaluation process followed by the European Community.
Another consideration is the flaw of assessing risk based on what we know today. Science evolves and risk calculation becomes more accurate over time. Obviously we can’t assess risk based on what we will know in the future but we can exercise reasonable caution recognizing that risk is often more severe and pervasive than we assume with today’s incomplete knowledge. Take lead poisoning as an example. In 1960, the threshold for high blood lead levels was 60 micrograms per deciliter. Additional research showed permanent damage at much lower levels and the threshold was lowered to 10 micrograms per deciliter in 1990. Today, the threshold for triggering action is considered 5 micrograms per deciliter, however, it is also acknowledged today that there is no safe threshold. Any blood lead levels even below 5 are known to cause damage.
It should be heartbreaking when anyone hears the governor of Michigan declare that the lead poisoning of 8,000 children in Flint happened on his watch, and he’s going to make it right. No. It’s scientifically impossible to make it right. That’s why we should be switching from a cost-risk assessment to the precautionary principle. There is no guardian angel to save us. We can only rely on informed voters supporting candidates who recognize tight environmental regulations are absolutely necessary. Unless we make this change, we are implicitly saying the Constitutional right to a healthy environment applies to children living in Dunlap but not children living in Peoria zip codes 61603, 61604, 61605 and 61606 with the highest levels of lead poisoning.
An estimate of costs over a lifetime associated with a cohort of 194,000 children age 6 and under with elevated blood lead levels of at least 10 micrograms per deciliter include: up to $53 billion in medical care; $233 billion in lost lifetime earnings, $35 billion in lost tax revenue; $146 million in special education expenses; and $1.7 billion in direct costs of increased crime associated with elevated lead levels. (Cost calculation from Environmental Health Perspectives, July 2009)
Clare Howard