LETTERS: MOST FOLKS OPT FOR HEALTH

To the editor:

Although concerned residents would like the highly toxic PCBs dumped at the Missouri Electric Works Superfund site on Kingshighway in Cape Girardeau to be cleaned up as soon as possible, we do not need to blame the Environmental Protection Agency for the length of time it has taken to reach this point.

The MEW site is typical of the many sites across the U.S. that have been contaminated by industrial or commercial activity. We are well aware that those responsible for contaminating the site would not be involved in any kind of a cleanup effort if it were not for the EPA and the federal regulations that it develops and enforces. Cape girardeau would be exposed to the contamination forever.

Politicians and business leaders may whine about the role of the EPA and may engage in all manner of name-calling, but we are well aware that given a choice between the health and environmental protection offered by corporations (such as tobacco companies and corporate hog-farmers) and that offered by the EPA, folks who breathe the air and drink the water certainly are better off relying on the EPA.

The tobacco industry's years of denials about the health risks of smoking testify to how well we can trust some businesses to regulate themselves.

While most folks involved in business and commercial enterprises certainly behave in a responsible, community-conscious fashion, a significant and life-threatening minority do not. I is this minority that must be held accountable and responsible for their actions. Only agencies such as the federal EPA and Missouri's Division of Environmental Quality within the state Department of Natural Resources are able to regulate and monitor commercial ventures. These agencies not only protect environmental health, they also ensure that those involved in a given business activity compete on a playing field that is both level, and responsible to community needs.

Those who constantly target such agencies with criticism need to ask themselves serious and soul-searching questions about how we are to protect our health in an age when carcinogenic pollutants have contributed to current lifetime cancer rates as high as 1 in 2 for men and 1 in 3 for women.

Surely the concept of freedom should incorporate the principle that we be free to breathe the air, drink the water and eat the food available to us, without the fear that just by living we are consuming potentially toxic chemicals.

The fundamental issue is whether we humans serve the economy, or whether the economy serves us. Given a choice between increased cancer risk, and a few dollars added to the economy each year, most folks would opt for health rather than a little extra wealth, especially when they suffer the health risks while someone else acquires the wealth benefit.

Politicians and business leaders arguing against regulations that reduce premature death rates should beware of earning a reputation for themselves as holding a pro-cancer rather than pro-freedom position.

As someone who has undertaken an extensive battle with cancer myself (fortunately, so far at least, with success), I can sincerely say that I would wish such an experience upon no one else. Further, I will continue to argue that society should try to reduce rather than increase the probability that others should be forced by a toxic and polluted environment to undergo a similar experience.

ALAN R.P. JOURNET

Cape Girardeau