LETTERS: BETTER TO ERR ON SIDE OF HUMAN SAFETY

To the editor:

I would like to make two points regarding the Southeast Missourian editorial of July 29 against the EPA and for PCBs.

First, your stating that the evidence regarding PCBs and human cancer is fuzzy does not make it so. Time and again we hear right-wing advocates argue that human and environmental health decisions should be based on sound science. But on almost as many occasions, we find these arguments ring hollow as the same advocates then reject the scientific evidence when it is available. They seem to reject it, as do you, solely because it doesn't suit their political agenda.

My second point concerns the strength of scientific research evidence. In interpreting the results of scientific studies, as in all decision-making, we are always faced with a dilemma. Let me explain using the example of relating PCBs to cancer in humans. As a result of our research, we might conclude that PCBs cause cancer when actually they do. Alternatively, we might conclude that PCBs do not cause cancer when actually they do not. Clearly, in either of these two cases, we would have concluded correctly and made no mistakes. Naturally, research projects are designed to produce one of these outcomes. On the other hand, we might conclude PCBs cause cancer when actually they do not. Finally we might conclude that PCBs do not cause cancer when actually they do. With scientific research, there are no guarantees and no certainties, only greater and lesser probabilities.

Since we can never have absolute proof, as users of the results of scientific research we are all forced to ask which of the errors we would prefer to make. Some folks would prefer to judge that PCBs do not cause cancer when actually they do. Others, those with a more concerned, conservative and prudent attitude towards human health, would prefer to err on the side of caution and conclude that PCBs cause cancer when actually they may not.

As the guardian of human and environmental health, the EPA is charged with protecting the nation from harmful chemicals. It is inevitable, then, that the EPA should interpret results with health protection in mind. Thus, when the results of scientific research suggest that a chemical is a probable human carcinogen, it is the duty of the EPA to protect the nation from it. It is not in the best interests of humans to deny evidence and reject research findings for fear that we might conclude a chemical is harmful when really it is safe. It is much more reasonable to be cautious and act on evidence suggesting a problem, even if occasionally we do make the mistake of interpreting a chemical to be carcinogenic when it is not.

In short, we can be for cancer and against human and environmental health, or we can be against cancer and for human and environmental health. The Southeast Missourian would be well-advised to reconsider where it wishes to be.

ALAN JOURNET

Cape Girardeau