[*quote*]
This year-end list is from the
American Council on Science and Health:
https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/12/27/10-worst-bogus-health-stories-2018-13688 As a long-time member of Zero Population Growth (now Population
Connection), I take offense at the treatment of Paul Ehrlich in Item 5:
"#5. Discredited doomsday prophet Paul Ehrlich speaks again. Whenever Paul
Ehrlich opens his mouth, something weird is bound to come out. For the
uninitiated, Ehrlich is the author of The Population Bomb, a widely
discredited book that predicted mass starvation due to overpopulation.
Obviously, that never happened, but data and dignity don't matter to him.
Like a turd in a swimming pool, Ehrlich resurfaced again this year to push
conspiracy theories about overpopulation, chemicals, and the World Economic
Forum."
I don't agree with everything Ehrlich said, and he may have been wrong
about his predictions of mass starvation, but he was basically correct in
asserting that overpopulation is a serious threat. It underlies global
warming and widespread environmental destruction, as well as some degree of
starvation, civil wars, and disease. Many biologists agree with him that
the present world population is unsustainable without catastrophic effects
on the environment.
Turning to the article cited in point #5, it says:
"Dr. Ehrlich's concern over 'synthetic chemicals' is simply based on
ignorance of chemistry and biochemistry. It doesn't matter if a chemical is
'natural' or 'synthetic.' From a toxicological perspective, the only thing
that matters is the dose and how an organism's metabolism handles it.
Chemists can make pretty much anything they want in the laboratory, so
there is little practical distinction between natural and synthetic
chemicals. There is neither anything magical about the former nor evil
about the latter."
But there is a difference between a natural chemical and a synthetic one
that does not exist in nature. For the former, bacteria and other
organisms have had millions of years to evolve mechanisms to degrade them,
so they do not accumulate in the environment. Organisms have also had time
to evolve protective mechanisms for the chemicals or their metabolic
products. Chemicals that are created by humans may accumulate in the
environment and exert effects for which living things have no protection.
Even if the chemical exists in nature, industrial production may lead to
environmental levels that surpass the ability of living things to deal with
them. As the article says, the dose matters.
The ACSH is funded by corporate donations and has been criticized for its
pro-business, anti-environmentalist bias.
[*/quote*]
So it is!
