LETTERS: DANGER IN CHEMICALS

To the editor:

The Contract With America is being driven by the argument that the health risk to the population is a cost that society should bear in order to promote economic gain. As one who is combating leukemia, I argue strongly that this is not only unjust, it is immoral. No political philosophy should demand an increased cancer rate among humans. We should ask ourselves if we are the servants of the economy, or if the economic system is our servant. The public as a whole shouldn't be placed at risk on the altar of economic gain for the few.

Many congressional representatives, particularly those in the House who have signed the Contract With America, have committed themselves to decreasing the role of the federal government as a regulator of cancer-causing chemicals and, maybe unwittingly, to an increase in the occurrence of cancer among Americans.

Unfortunately, the Contract With America is becoming chemical warfare against Americans by a Congress doing the bidding of business and industry. There exist many chemicals that are in need of regulation because they put Americans at risk. There are many more that will be under-regulated if, as these legislators propose, the Environmental Protection Agency is under-funded or functionally destroyed and the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act are modified to reduce their effectiveness.

If you think that protecting the health of the planet and we humans should be given greater weight in congressional legislation than the profit of those engaged in the production and release of carcinogenic pollutants, make sure your federal representatives are aware of your views. Many of them are shifting the regulatory balance in favor of profits for the few but an increased cancer risk for you.

ALAN R.P. JOURNET, Professor of Biology

Southeast Missouri State University

Cape Girardeau