By Rich Kozlovich - Originally published 6/6/2010 and updated 1/12/2016
There is a report published a few
years ago called Making
Sense of Chemical Stories, which attempts to point out some very basic
concepts most people are not grasping about chemicals. We need to see
things clearly and not through a telescope of activism which makes it impossible
to see the whole picture. We live in a world where pollution has become “the
cause” for celebrities of every ilk. Movies, television and sports notables will
come out and take a position on subjects of which they know little or nothing
about. Jenny McCarthy, with the support of Oprah Winfrey, and her crusade against vaccinations is one recent and deadly celebrity promoted insanity. We have been inundated by so many articles and television shows regarding
chemicals that we in the developed world (which owes so much to chemicals) have
Malaria in the developed world is thought of as
being impossible. Why? DDT largely eliminated it in developed countries! Our
economy, which supports a life style that most would not be willing to give up,
came about as a result of an innovative chemical industry. Our ability to feed
ourselves, and huge portions of the rest of the world, is a direct result of
that research. Research that resulted in the Green Revolution, for which Norman
Borlaug was largely responsible, and who literally saved a billion lives with
extensive use of high yield varieties of crops, synthetic fertilizers and
Rachel Carson, the author of the science fiction book Silent Spring, railed against that chemistry and became the mother of the modern environment movement that is directly responsible for policies that killed hundreds of millions and sickened billions.
During my young years it was not uncommon for
mothers to take their dry foods such as pasta, rice and beans and dump them into
a boiling pot of water and wait with a strainer to filter out the dead bugs that
would float to the top. We would be outraged now if that happened. The chemical
industry provided the answers for that. Pesticides were developed that gave us
not only abundant foods, but mostly pest free foods.
Why then - as a society - do we
strive to be kept away from “that stuff”? Why do we have the attitude that all
manufactured chemicals must be avoided at any cost? The universe (that includes
us by the way) is made up of chemicals. I see advertisements that claim
something is chemical free. If it is chemical free it doesn’t exist. We can’t
survive without them because we are them. In fact Americans live longer,
healthier lives than Americans have ever lived as a result of our chemical rich
society and environment.
I have great cartoon in my computer that shows
two cavemen sitting in a cave and one of them says, “Something is just not
right. Our air is clean, our water is pure, we get plenty of exercise,
everything we eat is organic and free range, and yet nobody lives past 30.”
In 1840 when everything was “natural” the average life span was
approximately 40. Today, when everything that is important in our lives was
created by manufactured chemicals the average life span is about 80. What part
of that is so hard to grasp? What part of that is so terrible? We live longer as a direct result of those
chemicals and it is obvious that these chemicals, when properly used, are not
damaging the environment or us, no matter what the activists say, the BP oil
A cup of coffee contains 11 chemicals that are
considered carcinogenic. You will be exposed to more carcinogens in that one cup
of coffee than all the carcinogenic potential of all of the pesticide residue on
all of the food you will eat in one year.
City councils all over the
country have taken up the cause of banning potentially harmful substances that
have already been tested, regulated and approved for use by the Environmental
Protection Agency. We have to ask: Why have they decided to take up this task for which they're totally unqualified?
Is it because they spent three hundred million on research and came to a
different conclusion than did the EPA? Is it because these city councils are
filled with toxicologists and chemists who looked at the original research and
decided that the scientists who performed the research were lackeys of the
chemical companies and their work should be dismissed? Or is it perhaps a case
of merely taking the word of anti-chemical activists who may have even less
scientific acumen and less qualified to determine the worth of these products
than are these local politicians. Then again, these politician often number themselves among
them. Try and picture a society that would elect all of their officials from the
Sierra Club or PETA.
A city council in California wanted to ban
dihydrogen monoxide because it burns human tissue in its gaseous state and
prolonged use in its solid state could cause severe tissue damage. What is
dihydrogen monoxide? Water! Were they embarrassed when they found out what it
actually was? Probably not, after all, their intentions were good.
rather their actions were correct.
The EPA is spending a fortune to
promote IPM and Green Pest Control. The School Environmental Protection Act
(SEPA) had been introduced and re-introduced in Congress - why? Because anti-pesticide activists
“know” so many things that simply aren’t true and they have the power and money
to promote these untruths. Name one thing you know for sure about IPM. You
can’t. It is indefinable and Green Pest Control is even worse. Everyone has his
own ideas about IPM. Such foolishness is seen for what is worth in the third
children are dying because of a lack of pesticides. Is it our desire to
become one with the third world? The actions of anti-pesticide activists
indicate that is exactly what they want, and EPA is part and parcel of this
When we read labels at the grocery store it gives the impression
we are being poisoned because we clearly don’t understand the chemical terms.
Whether chemicals are naturally occurring or manufactured they have been given
names and reading those names do not give most of us any clue as to whether they
are safe or not. In short, we don’t know what's good or what is bad.
saved more lives than any chemical, naturally occurring or otherwise, in human
history, and yet we hear how terrible it is. And I will state this again.
Everything everyone “knows” about DDT is a lie. Those who actually read books
about Rachel Carson's work realize that she was not a great
scientist. In point of fact an argument can be made she wasn't a scientist at all since she did no research. She was a writer with a degree in science reporting on research done by others. Oh, she was a great writer - unfortunately her signature book, Silent Spring - was science fiction.
(I would like to recommend reading Klaus and Bolander’s 1972 issue
of “Ecological Sanity” and Roberts and Tren’s “The Excellent Powder, DDT’s
Political and Scientific History”, which just came out. )
actually look at the facts we find most of what comes from the
greenies is a lie. Not necessarily lies of commission, of which they are surely guilty,
but mostly lies of omission. The end result is the same - we draw wrong conclusions. For them to satisfy
their egos and enact their entire slate of feel good policies people must die.
Why? Because their policies kill people! We have the evidence of science and the
truth of history, which proves that beyond any shadow of a doubt. The
“conventional wisdom” of the activists was nothing more than the “philosophical
flavor of the day”, and has not and will not become traditional wisdom.
traditional when it stands the test of time.
Greenie wisdom has not
stood against the march of time or the uncovering of the facts, that's why they
have to move from one "crisis" to another. Something must always be on a back
burner for them to exploit because it soon becomes obvious the latest one
is a lie, such as anthropogenic climate change AKA Global Warming. No matter
how many times a lie is told (even if everyone believes the lie) it will never
become the truth! As Benjamin Franklin said, “truth will very patiently wait for
us”. What is of concern is how much damage will be done until we find it. The
world has suffered upwards of 90 million deaths from malaria and upwards of 13
billion unnecessary cases as a result of banning DDT in 1972. How much patience
can the world afford while truth waits for us? How many lives must be lost?
Recently there appeared a
CNN special report called “Toxic America” which falsely claimed “that trace
levels of environmental chemicals are causing myriad diseases in America, from
cancer to diabetes and more. Dr. Elizabeth Whelan from the American Council on
Science and Health stated “It was worse than I could have imagine. “ She went on
to say that “The most shocking part of it was that they recruited people from
certain towns who thought that they were harmed by chemicals, and brought them
all together to talk about how dangerous these substances are.” ACSH's Dr.
Gilbert Ross agreed with Whelan saying that, “Their segment about so-called
‘toxic towns’ was bizarrely unscientific. When a physician bills himself as an
expert and gathers people in a room who believe they were sickened by chemicals,
taking a show of hands to see who believes they were harmed, there’s no
scientific basis to that whatsoever.”
These "chemical scare” specials
from the media are a no win situation for real scientists unless the entire
scientific community stands up and condemns them. The emotional drama of parents
who have lost children to cancer, and who believer trace chemical elements are the
reason for their death, will be so emotionally overwhelming to any viewing
audience no matter how accurately you present the actual science, and no
matter how logical your arguments are - emotion will triumph over actual science
every time. And our corrupt media and the green movement knows that and feeds this insanity to society. They must all share in the guilt for those lost lives.
Everything we are told should bear some resemblance to reality. At the
end of WWII the world’s population was approximately 2 billion people. Currently
we have about 7 billion. It took thousands of years to get to 2 billion and
yet in less than 75 years we have soared to 7 billion and we live in a
chemical rich society. When tested, our bodies will show over 2 hundred
different chemicals produced by the chemical companies - and we live longer
healthier lives than ever in human history.
Somewhere there is a serious
disconnect between what we see going on in reality and what we are being told.
Is it possible that what we are being told is merely the propaganda of an
irrational movement with an agenda? A movement with an agenda promoting the idea the world's population has between 4 and 5 billion too many people that need to be eliminated - and those are the moderates among them. The radicals want humanity eliminated.
To be green is to be irrational, misanthropic and morally defective!
additional link was posted 6/8/2010. Please read my next post Facts Versus