As the news cycle keeps mutating in 2020, I've found myself thinking back to some research I did many years ago on a completely different subject.
Please bear with me; this is going to seem abstract and only vaguely relevant.
In the 1970s and 1980s, I devoted much of my journalism to exploring the role pesticides play in our global agricultural systems. That work resulted in two books, "Circle of Poison" and "The Bhopal Syndrome," as well as numerous articles and two documentaries.
Most news stories by others in that era focused on one agrochemical at a time. For example, when laboratory studies indicated that DDT might be carcinogenic, the U.S. government restricted its use. That was a big story at the time.
So it went, pesticide by pesticide until a very long list had been banned, restricted, or heavily regulated in this country.
Although their use was curtailed here, these hazardous chemicals continued to be sent as "foreign aid" to poor countries around the world. There, they were responsible for poisoning farmworkers, damaging the environment, and contaminating the food crops sent back to this country for consumption by Americans. Thus, the "circle" of poison.
At some point, during a long telephone conversation with a source who was an epidemiologist, it occurred to both of us that no human being's exposure is ever restricted to a single pesticide; rather we are all subjected to what is essentially a chemical cocktail, whereby small amounts of many chemicals enter our systems simultaneously.
So, I began researching the nascent field of synergistic or interactive effects of various agrochemicals and other petrochemical products.
The existing research was sparse but suggestive. When scientists mixed two or more chemicals together and fed them to lab animals, various results were discovered. In some cases, the tests suggested, serious diseases such as cancer or central nervous damage was observed.
In other cases, a counter-intuitive result appeared: Combining certain chemicals seemed to help organisms eliminate some of the toxins, thereby reducing their overall chemical load.
The science was extremely obscure; I could find no major articles in any of the leading journals, and it remained well under the radar of most regulatory agencies.
From the point-of-view of regulators at the EPA, FDA, OSHA, FAO, WHO, UNEP and elsewhere, it was difficult enough to marshal the evidence to get any one individual pesticide banned, let alone condemning the entire system of man-made chemical inputs altogether.
The historical context was that at the conclusion of World War Two, the U.S. government (and the governments of other "advanced" countries) engaged in a massive effort to transform the chemicals developed as military weapons in the first half of the 20th century into "miracle drugs" that could vastly expand food production in the second half.
At first, this effort appeared to be an unmitigated success, as the productivity of traditional farming methods increased to the point that far fewer farmers could grow the food necessary to feed more and more people.
Visionaries predicted a world where hunger would soon be eliminated once and for all.
That did not come to pass. Within the first decade after the war, indications of problems with the new miracle drugs appeared in the form of insect resistance to pesticides. It started to become necessary to apply heavier and heavier doses of the chemicals to kill off the pests.
Eventually, it became clear, the chemicals would stop working all together. Nature would prevail.
As the huge agrochemical companies like Monsanto, which made fortunes off of pesticides, continued to devise new chemical combinations to overcome insect resistance, the issue of synergistic/interactive effects became even more relevant.
Ultimately, the research proved too inconclusive for me to present it in a popular media format, and I moved on to different topics, different scandals, different ways to use my journalistic skills. I just let the topic go.
And I never did tell that story. Or maybe I just did.
My point is a simple one: The crises we are trying to cope with -- the pandemic, the economy, the wildfires, the political upheaval, and now the impending culture war over women's rights -- are all interacting synergistically. For that reason, they resist any simple analysis.
Meanwhile, let's get back to the relatively simple, modular list of the latest news headlines:
* Wildfires Grow in Southern California and Oregon -- Videos show the continued spread of fires near Los Angeles and in parts of Oregon (NYT)
* Ginsburg’s death sets off political battle over her replacement, Supreme Court’s future (WashPo)
* Shortly before the announcement that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had died Friday, Sen. Lisa Murkowski said in an interview that if she was presented with a vacancy on the court, she would not vote to confirm a nominee before the election. (Alaska Public Radio)
* Republican Sen. Susan Collins on Saturday weighed in on the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy, saying that she believes waiting until after the election is the right decision. "Given the proximity of the presidential election, however, I do not believe that the Senate should vote on the nominee prior to the election," the Maine senator said in a Saturday statement. "In fairness to the American people, who will either be re-electing the President or selecting a new one, the decision on a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court should be made by the President who is elected on November 3rd," said Collins. (CNN)
* ‘We Are Now Seeing a Second Wave,’ Johnson Says -- Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain spoke about efforts to combat the latest wave of coronavirus cases in Europe. (Reuters)
* Long lines and hand sanitizer on the first day of early voting for general election (WashPo)
* China Sends Warning to Taiwan and U.S. With Big Show of Air Power -- Beijing sent 18 aircraft into the Taiwan Strait as a senior American diplomat held meetings on the island. (NYT)
* Dwindling ranks and declining public trust plague police agencies amid summer of protests (WashPo)
* ‘This Does Not Look Good for Children’: Fires Pose Risk to Young Lungs -- The wildfires blazing in the West could hinder developing lungs, worsen asthma and even lead to the condition in those who don’t have it but are genetically disposed to it. (NYT)
* The San Francisco District Attorney’s office has begun reviewing potential wrongful conviction cases and will soon be deciding whether to vacate the convictions of people who it determines were wrongfully convicted, the office announced on Thursday. (Mission Local)
*EBay is shifting more business to UPS and away from Postal Service because of mail delays (WashPo)
* Biden’s polling lead nears magic number in states needed to win Electoral College (Politico)
* Virus Pulls Down Trump, Poll Shows, and G.O.P. Senators Suffer With Him -- A New York Times/Siena College survey showed Joe Biden leading President Trump by wide margins in Maine and Arizona, and effectively tied in North Carolina. Susan Collins trailed her Democratic rival in Maine’s Senate race. (NYT)
* Biden is favored to win the election -- We simulate the election 40,000 times to see who wins most often. The sample of 100 outcomes below gives you a good idea of the range of scenarios our model thinks is possible. Biden 77%, Trump 22%. (538)
***
I feel like I should apologize for the arcane nature of today's essay, but that's the way my mind works. Tomorrow, promise, I'll write instead about romantic love.
Do what they say, say what you mean, and baby
One thing leads to another
You told me something wrong, I know I listen too long but then
One thing leads to another
--The Fixx
|
No comments:
Post a Comment