A Perspective on Pollution
Pollution is not a recent problem. It has been documented for centuries in metropolitan areas of the world. The emphasis has largely shifted from the mundane problem of disposing of tons of horse manure, human waste and garbage from the streets to the more esoteric one of what to do about mere ounces of chemicals such as dioxin. Some ancient problems remain basically the same. For instance, air is still polluted by burning sulfur-rich coal. Centuries ago in England, citizens were actually beheaded for burning such coal during pollution episodes, but this measure barely checked the practice. Today, the sulfur dioxide problem is labeled "acid rain."
Until about a decade ago, the only "solution" was to build taller smoke stacks, but taller stacks and more sophisticated cleanup procedures are not keeping pace with the overall increase in pollution. Neither is nature's ability to clean up our mess.
In another vein, consider what happens in modern societies when we delegate seemingly harmless tasks to central producers. Bread baked in your home produces a wonderful aroma. The same chemicals which produce this aroma can become truly nauseous around large commercial bakeries which produce millions of loaves a day.
We are rightly concerned about toxic effects of many modern drugs on a small percentage of the population. A single aspirin can kill someone with an allergic reaction to it, but we hear nothing about banning it or making it a prescription drug. To balance the picture, we should realize that foods are nothing but complex combinations of chemicals and that some, such as milk or nuts, can be highly toxic to some people.
A century ago, very few chemical compounds were synthesized, and those that were, were produced in pound lots or less. It was not until the twenties and thirties that large quantities of synthetic materials were produced from petroleum. Some products had many desirable properties. For example, PCB, which we now know to be a dangerous substance, was used as a flame-resistant, non-corrosive coolant in transformers. At that time, it appeared to be nontoxic as well.
Mankind literally has been swallowing all kinds of toxic materials for centuries to find relief from various ailments. It was felt that if no harmful side effects appeared within a matter of minutes to months, the substance was safe to use. Only through statistical analysis of mountains of data in the last two or three decades has it been possible to identify malignant effects due to long-term contact with materials such as man-made PCB or natural asbestos.
What should we do? Should we expand the notion that taking a reasonable risk is worth the price if it is for the overall good of mankind, or should we try to eliminate the risk entirely even though the socioeconomic impact is enormous?
For example, we all realize that we need to do away with general pest control agents such as DDT. On one hand, if we simply eliminate it, then a large portion of the earth's population must simply die due to lack of food. On the other hand, it has been possible for more than a decade for a single skilled chemist to produce a few ounces of a natural compound called a pheromone which can control a specific pest in an entire state. The latter course of action would eliminate the jobs of thousands of people earning millions of dollars for their families to produce, transport and deploy tons of general toxic pest control agents. This is a facet of one of the modern pollution/societal dilemmas.
