Risks and Fears 3

The Old Risks and Benefits File

“I found it, Julie!  My old Risks and Benefits file.  Most of the papers in it are dated from the early 1990’s.”

“To you, Curmudge, that must seem like yesterday, but it was 20 years ago.  Has people’s judgment about risks improved much since then?”

“No, but human nature hasn’t changed much either.  Everyone still wants to live a risk-free life, and they still look up when someone comes along shouting, ‘The sky is falling.’  Then nongovernmental organizations (NGO’s) smell money to support their causes and conjure up data to show that a disaster is imminent.  Instead of ‘evidence-based policy-making, we have policy-based evidence-making’ (1).  Finally, Chicken Little is awarded a Nobel Prize.”

“So, Curmudge, what did the old file reveal about risk issues in the early ‘90’s?”

“Julie, they lay at the intersection of chemical analysis sensitivity, determination of carcinogenicity, regulatory agencies, and NGO’s.  We mentioned the sensitivity issue in our first posting in this series.  The finding of the growth regulator, Alar, in applesauce and apple juice got the most publicity in 1989.  One woman even called her local health department to find out if it was safe to pour apple juice down the drain.  With the aid of Google, we could discuss these issues for weeks.”

“Also in your old file is an article describing the work of Bruce Ames (2).  To quote Ames, ‘Most carcinogens and other known toxins are not man-made.  In fact 99.99% of the “pesticides” we consume occur naturally in plants, nature’s attempt at protecting them from being eaten.’ “

“And, Julie, Ames also said, ‘Our bodies don’t care whether a chemical is synthetic or natural.  At low doses we have these elaborate defense systems that work the same way for both.’  ‘There are more “known carcinogens” in (my) morning cup of coffee than in the pesticide residue on food one could comfortably eat in a year.’ “  

“Well, Old Guy, you’ve never been a ‘natural’ food zealot.  How do you feel about the use of growth regulators and pesticides in agriculture, specifically in the apple orchard?”

“I trust that you recall this old story: What’s worse than taking a bite out of an apple and finding a worm?”

“I know, Curmudge.  It’s finding half a worm.  I guess that answers my question.”

“So Julie, is there anything else that you have found of interest in my old file?  The papers may be 20 years old, but the information might be ageless.”

“You have collected examples to illustrate just how small analytical detection limits had become even 20 years ago.  You also have data on relative risks.  Let’s conclude today’s discussion by sharing some with our readers.”

“Okay Julie, here goes:

A part per trillion is:

One second in 32,000 years.  Expressed differently, if one counts back in time for one trillion seconds, the year will be 30,000 B.C.  (Check this; it’s easy.)

One flea per 360 million elephants.

One 6-inch banana in a line of 6-inch bananas from the earth to the sun.

A pinhead would occupy one trillionth of the surface of a road (how many lanes?) from New York to California.”

“Here are some factoids regarding equal risks.  Each of the examples would reduce one’s life expectancy by eight minutes:

Smoking 1.4 cigarettes.

Eating 40 tablespoons of peanut butter.  (Perhaps due to aflatoxin in a fungus on the peanuts.)

Traveling 300 miles by car or 6 minutes by canoe (in grade III rapids?).”

“Enough, enough!  Let’s take a week off and check the banana illustration.  By the way, Curmudge, if you had a trillion dollars, would you know how to spend it?”

“No way, Julie!  Only politicians know that, and they spend other people’s money.”

Kaizen Curmudgeon           

(1)   Ridley, Matt  Cooling Down the Fears of Climate Change.  Wall Street Journal, December 19, 2012.

(2)    Spencer, Leslie  Ban all plants—they pollute.  Forbes, October 25, 1993.