LETTER: ENVIRONMENTALISTS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE FUTURE OF OUR WORLD

To the editor:

Peter Kinder doesn't appear to understand the seriousness of environmental degradation in this country, judging from his derogatory remarks concerning environmental organizations and environmentalists.

In the Soviet Union those concerned about their environment couldn't express themselves. To do so was akin to treason. As a result, the republics of the former Soviet Union are an environmental nightmare.

U.S. cities were, until the late 1960s and early 1970s, dumping raw sewage into rivers, and industries were using the rivers as toxic dumps. Cities and industries upstream from Cape Girardeau had no concern for the health of people here, just as no concern was shown for health in the Soviet Union. The river Cape Girardeau residents use for drinking water was called "the colon of America." However, the quality of Mississippi River water was improved from the mid-1960s to the present, thanks to environmentalists who harangued Congress to pass laws that required cities to construct sewage treatment plants and industries to reduce pollution.

Environmentalists have absolutely nothing personal to gain for expressing their concern. On the contrary, industrialists have everything to gain by polluting, because it costs money to remove chemical before air and water are released to the environment. But why should industry and investors profit at the expense of people's health?

Environmentalists are concerned about toxic dumps that pollute ground water, depletion of the ozone in the atmosphere resulting in increased skin cancer and cataracts. They are concerned that birth defects have doubled in the last 25 years, that the leading cause of death from disease in children under 10 years old is cancer and that 80 percent of our cancer is caused by environmental factors. And they are concerned about the great increase in human population, which is the root of many of our problems.

In a recent column, Mr. Kinder stated that the Missouri Department of Natural Resources testified against requiring a cost-benefit provision on environmental laws, a provision he proposed as a state senator. I support the DNR, because they are environmental professionals and were hired for their depth of knowledge and understanding of environmental matters. They understand it may be easy to put a cost on some environmental laws and entities, but how can a value be put on the experiences of fishermen, hunters, campers, swimmers or hikers or people's health?

Luckily there were enough visionary environmentalists to create the first national park in 1872, Yellowstone National Park, without whom it would have gone into private hands. Later President Theodore Roosevelt helped to create more national parks and advanced the idea of wildlife conservation and the national forest concept.

Mainstream environmentalists believe wildlife should be properly managed and harvested. Without hunters or predators, deer would increase exponentially and would severely overgraze the forest, resulting in their starving. Don't tell hunters that forests should be clear-cut or than marshes and swamps should be drained, and don't tell fishermen that it is necessary to pollute rivers for the benefit of industry.

The term "environmentalist" includes a broad spectrum of people from the professional to the campers, hikers, hunters, fishermen and citizens who are concerned for their children and grandchildren and want no poisonous substances in the water they drink, the air they breathe and the food they eat.

Before Mr. Kinder is tempted to make further unkindly remarks about environmentalists, I wish he would think about the consequences of not caring for the environment. Perhaps Mr. Kinder will live longer due to environmentalists' efforts.

RUSS KULLBERG

Cape Girardeau