protective legislation

Smokestacks, Senators and Cancer

According to a recent report from the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), one out of every two men and one out of every three women living in the United States will develop cancer at some point in their lifetimes.

Last January 31, the US DHHS released the eleventh edition of its Report on Carcinogens (RoC). This latest version of the RoC lists 246 items classified as either known human carcinogens, or agents reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens. Lead, a toxin long known for its ability to impair neurological development in fetuses and young children, is one of seventeen agents newly added to the list.

"Research shows that environmental factors trigger diseases like cancer, especially when someone has a family history," said Kenneth Olden, Ph.D., Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program.

In addition to lead, the RoC list also contains twenty other toxic pollutants the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NH DES) has already approved to be emitted from at least one New Hampshire incinerator plant planning to burn wood chips derived from construction and demolition (C&D) waste materials. That's the bad news.

The good news is last week the New Hampshire House of Representatives voted in favor of two pieces of legislation aimed at protecting the public from health risks associated with exposure to toxins released into the environment by incinerators.

One bill, House Bill 315 (HB315), would require incinerator operators to employ the best technology available to reduce smokestack emissions. The other, House Bill 517 (HB517), calls for a moratorium on the issuing of any new incinerator operator permits until after a study committee has had the opportunity to more thoroughly examine and report on issues relating to C&D incineration.

For many of us, the information contained in the US DHHS report is reason enough to support policies that reduce human exposure to environmental carcinogens. House support of the above legislation is a significant step in the right direction, but it will do little to protect NH citizens unless the bills also pass the Senate, where approval is far less certain.

Some lawmakers appear to be buying into industry lobbyists' and loyalists' claims that toxic pollutants emitted from smokestacks of incinerators pose no real threat to humans because the quantity of each toxin permitted for release falls below the maximum allowable value set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

This line of reasoning, however, is both flawed and dangerous - for a couple of reasons.

First, it is a mistake to rely on EPA guidelines to maximize protection of human health because the EPA does not generate their emissions standards with only the health and well being of citizens in mind. The current controversy over the EPA's proposed plan for reducing mercury emissions (i.e., cap and trade program) provides a clear example of how both political pressures and pragmatic concerns are able to influence EPA standards and policies in a way that favors industry over people.

Second, in developing emission standards for individual pollutants, the EPA considers harm that could come to an individual exposed to only a single pollutant, as opposed to being exposed to multiple pollutants. The reality, of course, is that all of us are exposed daily to a multitude of different environmental toxins, and science tells us different toxic agents are able to combine to cause harm. Cancer is one example of harm that can be generated in this fashion.

Cancer is a disease resulting from an accumulation of damage to one's DNA. In most cases, the damage results from low-dose exposure to multiple environmental insults over long periods of time. This is the reason older people are at a much higher risk of getting cancer than younger people -- because older people have lived longer, they have had more opportunity to be exposed to environmental carcinogens, and, therefore, have a greater likelihood to have accumulated a sufficient amount of DNA damage to turn a normal functioning cell into a tumor cell.

The current odds of getting cancer (one in two for men and one in three for women) are far too high for comfort, and much greater than they need to be. To lower our own individual risk, we can make lifestyle choices to avoid exposure to such well-known carcinogens, as cigarette smoke, ultraviolet radiation, and certain viruses. Total avoidance to all carcinogens is not possible because there will always be some we do not know about, and some we know about but can't totally avoid being exposed to. Incinerator toxins, once in the environment, will not be avoidable.

If we are truly serious about lowering cancer rates, it makes sense to reduce the amount of unavoidable environmental toxins where we are able. The twenty-one or so carcinogens produced by incineration of construction and demolition waste is a good place to begin. If you agree, then I encourage you to contact your state senator at your earliest convenience to urge him or her to vote in favor of House Bills 315 and 517. A list of state senators and their contact information can be found at ttp://gencourt.state.nh.us/senate/senatemembers