Environmental News, Articles & Information | Global Warming News | EcoWorld

Ranchers & environmentalists work together to restore rangeland & save a way of life

Quivira is a Spanish word that is not easy to translate:,

“an elusive golden dream… fabulous realm just beyond the horizon… unknown territory beyond the frontier.”

The Quivira Coalition, based in Santa Fe, New Mexico, began as an alliance between two environmentalists and a rancher; in the last eight years, it has snowballed into an environmental force to be reckoned with, and is as difficult to squeeze into easy definitions and categories as its name.

The basic philosophy of the group is that the best thing for environmentalists, ranchers, and the environment itself is to stop fighting long enough to see the ranching issue in a new way. Hard-core environmentalists want to stop ranching altogether; hard-core ranchers want to keep on ranching the way their forefathers have done it for a century. This we know destroys the ecosystem, and eventually their own profits; but putting ranchers out of business often results in the land being resold to developers and turned into condominiums, parking lots or shopping malls, which is the last thing either side wants.

The Quivira Coalition

Quivira’s task is to try to get both parties to see what they have in common, and work together. Observation and an ever-deepening understanding of grazeland ecosystems can and has led to new ranching methods that are less and less harmful, and that even help heal the environment from the ranching wounds of the past. In their own words, “It is a nonprofit organization dedicated to bringing ranchers, environmentalists, public land managers, and other members of the public together and demonstrating to them that ecologically healthy rangeland and economically robust ranches can be compatible.”

Our mission is to define the core issues of the grazing conflict and to articulate a new position based on common interests and common sense. We call this position the New Ranch.

Jim Winder, who owns the Beck Land and Cattle Company, is one of the co-founders. He points out the radical reality that we humans have doubled since 1950 and will reach the mark again near 2050. The question is how to keep our lands healthy enough to provide that food to enormous number of fellow humans we will have by this time.

Enlightened mystic Osho said, “if you are violent and your food is vegetarian, then your violence will have to find some other way of expression. It is natural, because eating non-vegetarian food gives release to your violence.” Humanity has now plenty of violence seeking release– as well as the habit and fondness for the taste of meat.

The land needed to produce a one-year food supply for a person who has to support a meat-eating habit is 3.25 acres. For a pure vegetarian, 1/6 acre. Not to mention the fact that producing one pound of meat requires about 2,500 gallons of water, which is 12 times more than the requirements of a pure vegetarian.

Lester Brown of the Overseas Development Council has estimated that if Americans would reduce their consumption of meat by only 10%, the amount of grain wasted on animal feed that could be diverted for direct human consumption would be sufficient to adequately feed every one of the 60 million people who die from hunger each year.

To consume more primary foods and less secondary foods, i.e., more vegetation than animals, is healthier for our bodies as well as our planet; but this is another issue, and as long as there are customers for meat, ranching will be of concern to the environment.

Courtney White – CoFounder & Exec. Director of The Quivira Coalition

Courtney White is the executive director and one of the co-founders of the Quivira Coalition. A realization at age 16 changed his life, and in turn, his influence and that of the Coalition has changed many lives now. In his words, after taking a backpacking tour of Yellowstone and other National Parks with his math teacher and some chums, “it was not just environment that turned my head, but the whole idea of the American West — its beauty, space, people, and diversity. I more or less decided right then and there to devote my life to exploring the region, understanding it, and assisting it in some way.”

When the Quivira Coalition was formed in 1997, the environment in New Mexico was in desperate need of assistance. 400 years of ranching with the techniques acquired from more temperate regions had led this semi-arid region to a state of disappearing grasslands with excessive trees and shrubs. Recurrent drought and the rancher’s suppression of natural fires further disturbed the ecosystem. As soon as cattle crowded into the remaining meadows, savannas and riparian areas, the problem rose to its peak.

The quick and impulsive response to the situation by Federal land managers was to cut down the number of cattle, at a time when beef prices were low enough to lead many ranches out of business.

Further, the pressure of environmental groups and the public pushed ranchers to find new and improved ways to preserve the wildlife habitats and clean water. Environmentalists flooded the courts with lawsuits against ranchers.

In 1997, the Quivira Coalition was formed and began spreading the New Ranch idea.

In the last 8 years they have developed into a powerful organization which is bridging the gaps and bringing awareness among ranchers, environmentalists and others.

Nowadays, funded by private foundations, government grants and individual donations, they spread it through newsletters, workshops, outdoor classrooms, management demonstration projects, videos, publications, site tours, community meetings and other educational forums.

So what exactly is in the curriculum? How does one go about ranching in an ecologically sound way? What is the Quivira vision of ranching and the environment?

Overgrazing leaves the land stripped of vegetation and topsoil vulnerable to erosion

First of all, the group asserts that grazing is not an unnatural process, but “one of several types of natural disturbance to which many range plants are adapted.” Bison and other roving ungulates have always been a natural part of the ecosystem.

There should be a high degree of biodiversity as well- as humans have learned again and again, the web of nature is complex and species that seem to have no “economic value” are almost always related to the rest of the ecosystem in ways we may not be aware of. Biodiversity increases the rangeland’s ability to recover from any single source of disturbance, i.e., grazing.

The Coalition also explains that, if managed properly, grazing can actually strengthen the plants. As Quivira states:

“The application of small stresses and disturbances such as grazing and hoof action exercises the recovery mechanisms making the ecosystem more resilient to large disturbances like drought, fire and flood.”

What it all depends on is how the grazing is done– the three magic words are intensity, timing, and density of grazing. Properly grazed plants are more likely to survive catastrophes than those that have been either overgrazed or have had extended periods of
rest.

Intensity is the measurement of how much biomass livestock remove from a plant. It is a function of three variables: the number of animals in a pasture, the size of the pasture, and how long the animals graze there. Traditional ways of measuring intensity have generally left out one or another of these three components; the New Ranch uses Animal-Days per Acre, or ADA’s. After adjusting for the class of livestock being grazed, ADA’s seem to be the best way to accurately measure and manage intensity of grazing.

On the new ranch, the livestock are managed in a way that actually stimulates vegetation

The principle of timing is that plants should be neither overgrazed nor overrested. A plant that is grazed once or twice and then allowed to rest for the remainder of the growing season, according to the Coalition, is very likely to recover completely. The basic principles of timing are that:

1. Recovery will take longer depending on how much leafy area of the plant has been grazed off;

2. Plants that are overgrazed weaken over time, because the lose the ability to store energy and can’t recover as easily from any catastrophe.

3. In any given pasture, grazing should not happen at the same time of year every year. If it does, this will cause the impact to be worse on the palatable species that are young and green at that time. That species will eventually decline in comparison to those

around it.

Finally, timing is difficult to manage because certain variables are difficult to predict, like when and how much it will rain. This affects all other decisions about the ability of plants to recover from grazing.

Density, the third and last aspect of New Ranch grazing, means how many animals graze in a certain area at once, or in other words, how many animals should be in a herd. This is the most controversial issue in ranching. It’s easier to control a single herd, and saves the overhead cost of labor. Some ranchers and conservationists have tried and preferred to allow animals to move as individuals over large pastures.

Ways of control over grazing have included fencing, mineral blocks, and turning water on and off, and the most ancient technique– herding. Herding is currently considered back as it’s cost-efficient. The Quivira Coalition favors a single or in some cases double herds, as it’s easier to monitor the livestock and they are less vulnerable to predators than if they were alone and spread out.

On the New Ranch, the rancher must be pro-active, in planning, monitoring and adjusting his or her approach in response to the land. He or she must keep records carefully of what works and what doesn’t. The New Ranch should be flexible and able to grow.

The Radical Center

People should share these qualities as well, and if they don’t, they don’t qualify for the New Ranch. In an interview with Grist magazine last year, Courtney White described the “radical center”:

“We work in what is being called ‘the radical center’ with the idea that the extremes are too entrenched in their positions to move.”

“I don’t want to waste a minute of my time prying open closed minds, so I don’t. They don’t come to us either, which is fine.”

“We’re too busy mobilizing the middle to worry about the extremes. We don’t facilitate, mediate, or try to achieve “consensus” on thorny issues. Instead, we grab progressive ideas and plow ahead in trying to implement them and spread the news.”

Environmentally, The Quivira Coalition has had many successes and some failures too. The most valuable thing about the group is the idea that in order to progress, people must find common ground.

The radical thing about the “radical center” is that this is the first ever mass-consciousness approach to ranching. When a group of people drop their old ideas and open themselves to the new, growth becomes possible.

For more information about the Quivira Coalition contact Courtney White, Executive Director, at 505-820-2544 or send a letter to: The Quivira Coalition, 551 Cordova Rd., Suite #423, Santa Fe, NM 87501. E-mail: wldwst@rt66.com. FAX: 505-466-4035. Or check online: www.quiviracoalition.org

In full sun nearly half a megawatt streams off this PV array installed in 2004 by Pacific Power Management. Located in Auburn, California, the system is among the largest in the USA

Editor’s Note: How photovoltaic cells proliferate could be compared to how a few plants proliferate and eventually become a forest. The primary variable cost incurred to manufacture photovoltaics is electricity, which is produced by, you guessed it, photovoltaics. Each photovoltaic cell will produce twenty times more energy in its lifetime than the amount of energy required in its manufacture, and this ratio continues to improve. From the perspective of energy payback as well as resource availability, photovoltaic cells are perhaps the most renewable energy source available today. They literally can create themselves. They are also absolutely pollution-free.

The problem with photovoltaics remains the costs. But two things mitigate this factor: First of all, photovoltaics are being bought as fast as they can be made. They may not be competitive with electricity derived from natural gas or other conventional sources, but this fact seems to have no impact on world demand for photovoltaics. The market worldwide is growing at 30% per year with no end in sight. Current world output of photovoltaics stands at about 1 gigawatt per year, and the installed base of photovoltaics in the world is probably just under 10 gigawatts. Not much considering the world consumes nearly 20,000 gigawatts of energy (all types – about 500 quadrillion BTUs put another way) per year. But the plants could become a forest.

A second factor which mitigates the cost of photovoltaics is the cost to operate and replace them is far more competitive than the cost to install them. In the table below, using California as an example, it can be seen that the cost to install photovoltaics to replace all of California’s electricity would be a prohibitive 1.5 trillion dollars. But the cost to replace photovoltaics on such an array as they wore out would be a more reasonable 30 billion dollars per year. This is only 50% greater than what Californians currently spend on conventional sources of electricity, which is about 20 billion dollars per year.

WHAT IF CALIFORNIA’S ELECTRICITY WAS 100% PHOTOVOLTAIC?

It would cost roughly $1.5 trillion to replace California’s electrical capacity with photovoltaic arrays at today’s prices without subsidies. But the replacement cost on such an array, once installed, would only be 50% greater than the $20 billion per year Californians currently spend on electricity.

-

For the last thirty years the price of photovoltaics has been predicted to plummet within the next five years, and it never did. But in the meantime, the price of photovoltaics has come down, to as low as $2.50 per watt factory wholesale, and under $10 per watt installed. The reason world output isn’t rising faster isn’t because demand isn’t strong, demand exceeds supply by a wide margin. The reason is because investors are convinced the breakthrough in costs is just around the corner, and they’re reluctant to invest $100M in a photovoltaic manufacturing plant that could become obsolete a year later. In many applications, particularly where electricity rates are higher during the day, photovoltaics already cost less – on a replacement basis – than conventional electricity. For this reason, they will continue to represent a long-term investment by companies and by nations that makes compelling economic sense. – Ed “Redwood” Ring

Nearly 100 million miles away shines a star that has been a part of life on earth from the beginning: The Sun.

The sun’s power has inspired many religions in almost every culture. The ancient Egyptians worshipped the sun god, Ra, who was believed to control the day and night by traveling through the twelve domains of the underworld and the twelve domains of the day. The impressive circle of stones found in Great Britain, known as Stonehenge, was designed to track the sun’s orbit around earth 5000 years ago. Ancient temples dedicated to the Incan sun god, Inti, are still standing today.

Atlantis Energy’s “Sunslates” generate electricity while also replacing roof shingles

The sun has had a major influence on our beliefs and an even larger influence on our planet. The location of the sun relative to earth determines the season, we rely on it for light, and we rely on the sun’s rays for warmth. With new technology, the sun can provide us with energy as well.

PHOTOVOLTAIC PIONEER National Aeronautics & Space Administration

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) describes the immense power of the star: “At the core, the temperature is 16 million degrees kelvin (K), which is sufficient to sustain thermonuclear fusion reactions. The released energy prevents the collapse of the Sun and keeps it in gaseous form. The total energy radiated is 383 billion trillion kilowatts, which is equivalent to the energy generated by 100 billion tons of TNT exploding each second.”

Many advances have been made in the solar panel industry and we have the equipment to harness the energy provided by sunlight to run a large part of our lives.

“The first conventional photovoltaic cells were produced in the late 1950s, and throughout the 1960s were principally used to provide electrical power for earth-orbiting satellites.

“In the 1970s, improvements in manufacturing, performance and quality of PV modules helped to reduce costs…In the 1980s, photovoltaics became a popular power source for consumer electronic devices, including calculators, watches, radios, lanterns and other small battery charging applications.” Florida Solar Energy Center

PHOTOVOLTAIC RESEARCH National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Almost everyone has enjoyed the practical uses of photovoltaics. Just a little light needs to shine on a battery free calculator before the digits appear clearly on the screen. Yet these little photovoltaic systems are more complicated than they seem. Photovoltaics, or solar cells as they are often called, are panels that convert sunlight to energy. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL, http://www.nrel.gov) explains that solar cells “are made of semiconducting materials similar to those used in computer chips [PV cells are made of thin layers of phosphorus-doped silicon on top of thicker layers of boron-doped silicon]. When sunlight is absorbed by these materials, the solar energy knocks electrons loose from their atoms, allowing the electrons to flow through the material to produce electricity. The process of converting light (photons) to electricity (voltage) is called the photovoltaic (PV) effect.”

This completed photovoltaic array by Atlantis Energy completely replaces the building’s roof

Solar panels are now more versatile than ever and are gaining as much popularity ON the home as they are IN it. Joe Morissey at Atlantis Energy Systems, Inc. describes the potentials of their product with great enthusiasm: “We have two types of photovolatics and they are literally the building’s skin. You place the skin on the building and you immediately have power generation. The typical solar panel consists of a large aluminum frame that is rectangular. Since most roofs aren’t rectangular these PV frames look very ungainly on a home. Our product lends itself nicely architecturally. They are aesthetic and practical.” Consumers have many choices when it comes to PV producers. “Most of the large-scale PV manufacturers are now making a “roof-shingle” style product, including BP Solar, GE Energy, Sharp, and Kyocera Solar,” says Marianne Walpert, Vice President of Marketing and Sales at Pacific Power.

INNOVATIVE INSTALLATION Atlantis Energy

Neighbors are unlikely to complain about the system even if the house isn’t as pleasing to the eye. Since everyone in a neighborhood shares the same grid, they all get to use the solar electricity (although they don’t enjoy the cost savings). Morissey states that “the power generated by the panels will be sent back to the grid once the battery packs are full, and the power from your home will offset neighbors demand and the local utility company does not have to supply that extra power”
The intricate solar panels are not easy to produce. Morissey explains that “the highest output cell is called single crystal. They are grown like a 7th grade science experiment that involves a growing crystal. But what goes into the photovoltaic cells is highly cleaned quartz sand. It is first smelted, then grown in a form and finally thinly sliced and treated with certain chemicals. Metal contacts are then placed on it and it is prepared for power generation. Everything has to be wired together with one panel wired to the next and so on. The net effect is a steady supply of power. It is an expensive process and used to take a large amount of energy. In the past it was hard to justify the extreme amount of energy used to make it. Back then solar panels where only made for remote locations such as space. As the technology improved, the process of slicing and smelting the product became quite advanced.”

In this example the photovoltaics form awnings that would have to be constructed anyway

Unfortunately, PV cells are still pretty expensive. The Atlantis Energy website explains that “your roofing and electrical contractors will on average be charging $12,000 per 100 square feet (there is just over 1kW per 100 square feet) or $12.00 per watt.” Marianne Walpert of Pacific Power explains: “It is expensive because current PV panels take a lot of energy to make and they need purified silicon. It has to be 99.999% pure, and this is where the expense comes in. Purchasing the raw material, crystallizing it, cutting it into wafers and cells; these are all expensive processes. We all believe that cheaper solar panels will eventually exist, but in the past twenty-five years it has hardly changed at all. The manufacturing process has improved, but everything else is still the same.”

The market for photovoltaics has existed for quite some time, yet the popularity of this product is much lower in the United States than it is in other countries. Solar panels are visible on numerous rooftops throughout Europe and Japan whereas these panels are a rare sight on homes in the states. Photovoltaics are not cheap, but in the long run the investment is a good one: the power bill is less outrageous, the system is environmentally friendly and maintenance is practically non existent.

PHOTOVOLTAIC MANUFACTURER Sharp Solar

“Photovoltaics have caught the public’s imagination,” says Morissey, “it is clean, efficient and there is minimal maintenance. That is what we do, we install the system and then we’re done with it. The movement to solar power is a world wide phenomenon. Remember the time before cell phones? Everyone was hard wired. But there are areas where it is impossible to bring in hard wiring. What about houses in remote locations?” The potential for PV is immense and people seem to realize it. Even with less of a demand in the U.S than other countries PV businesses are doing extremely well. “Right now there is not enough of the product to get it around. Demand has outstripped supply,” says Morissey.

This photovoltaic array by Atlantis Energy completely replaces the original roof

With an incredible demand for photovoltaics worldwide, it is obvious that the systems are working. Walpert says “the industry has grown at 40% a year over the last couple of years so obviously people can afford it and demand is rising.” Demand for the photovoltaics is still much higher in Europe than in the United States though. Morissay explains that “demand in Europe is phenomenal because power is more expensive there. The return on investment is higher. The government in Germany is also paying locals up to 54 cents for each kW/hour. If you are generating 20000 kW/year times 54 cents you are talking real money. The system will pay for itself 20 times over. What the government wants to ensure is a redundancy and long lived power so new power plants are unnecessary. They are making a serious shift to wind and solar power generation while the U.S is lagging behind.”

A considerable amount of harmful gases are produced when generating electricity through burning fossil fuels. “Three hundred and twenty five thousand pounds of carbon dioxide, twenty-seven hundred pounds of sulfur dioxide and over one thousand pounds of nitrogen oxide can be mitigated annually by a 100 kW commercial photovoltaic system. That’s about 25 home systems,” says Walpert. Countries like Germany and France have already stopped millions of pounds of harmful pollutants from escaping into the environment by shifting to solar power.

INNOVATIVE INSTALLATION Pacific Power Management

It is surprising that a product that relies on sunlight to function is more popular in overcast Europe than it is in sunny California. The amazing thing about photovoltaics is that direct sunlight is unnecessary for it to function. Of course some light is required, but the cells are actually most efficient in colder conditions. This is why the solar panels are so successful in space. Photovolatics work wonderfully in countries like Germany and Norway where the weather is never too hot. “You think of the northeast [U.S] as being more cloudy,” says Walpert, “but you get about 80% as much energy in Boston as you would in Los Angeles. The sunnier it is, the better it works. Ideal conditions are cool and sunny but power is still produced if it is hazy or overcast.” Energy will be produced regardless of where the building in question is located.

PHOTOVOLTAIC MANUFACTURER Kyocera Solar

One concern about solar panels is the amount of energy it costs to produce them. Fortunately, it has been established that PV systems pay for themselves in a relatively short time and more than make up for the high cost of their production. The U.S Department of Energy answers the question in more detail: “How long does a PV system have to operate to recover the energy-and the associated generation of pollution and CO2 that went into making the system? Energy paybacks for rooftop systems range from 1-4 years, depending on the system. With assumed life expectancies of 30 years, and taking into account the fossil-fuel-based energy used in manufacture, 87% to 97% of the energy that PV systems generate won’t be plagued by pollution, greenhouse gases, and depletion of resources. Based on models and real data, the idea that PV cannot pay back its energy investment is simply a myth.”

PHOTOVOLTAIC MANUFACTURER BP Solar

The real question is whether solar energy will ever offset the need for electricity generated by the city’s nuclear power plant. Walpert likes the idea but doubts it will be possible in the near future: “It is highly unlikely be able to rely on pure solar energy until you get the right storage mechanisms. Fuel cells don’t produce energy; they make electricity from the energy stored in hydrogen. If you can imagine enough solar power to make enough hydrogen then it is possible. The obvious problem with solar power is nighttime. Batteries are not that efficient. If you could convert solar to hydrogen and then hydrogen to electricity it would technically be feasible to get all the energy you need from solar.” Systems that utilize both wind and solar panels in a type of hybrid system do exist and have a lot of potential as well.

The benefits of alternative clean energy are immense. Air quality is so horrible in many areas that the fumes block the blue sky for miles. With improved environmental awareness and ever advancing technologies, natural resources like the sun and wind may eventually generate all the power we need to live life without the guilt of over using the A/C.

Africa, vast and ancient, beckons the traveler Campi Ya Kanzi: Chyulu Hills, Kenya

How can you appreciate a landscape you’ve never been to?

Thundering waterfalls and towering mountains lose their luster when seen on television or in books. You have to go there yourself – and many of us do. Everyone looks forward to a vacation to beautiful places.

Sunny beaches, tropical rainforests, green woods or vast expanses of ever-changing desert are so much more pleasing to the eye. Unfortunately, many tourists don’t leave these natural wonders the way they find them. It is not uncommon to step on the bottle caps and cigarette butts left behind on public beaches. Lizards and snakes are often killed or run over unknowingly by the adventurous in deserts. Trudging through the dense vegetation in forests will leave a path of squashed plants and scared animals.

The truth is that most humans are still clumsy travelers who have a habit of leaving destruction in their wake. “Take Cancun, for example,” says Laura Ell of the International EcoTourism Society (www.ecotourism.org), “If you have a large resort that’s not owned by anyone in the local community, mass tourism will destroy a lot of the environment. When tourists arrive and use so much water and other local resources, it really has an influence on the area. In Cancun, the beach is completely changed and now artificial.” In an era where accessibility to exotic locales is as simple as purchasing a plane ticket or chartering a boat, more and more people are becoming globetrotters and more natural areas are influenced as a result.

Through the use of ecotourism, thousands of tourists not only avoid destroying the environment they are so anxious to see, but also help to protect it for future generations. There are many definitions for ecotourism. “This is one of the challenges in our industry,” says Ell, “but we have the most widely used definition where ecotourism means responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and improves the well-being of the local people.”

When residents of exotic regions first noticed the onslaught of tourists many of them quickly did all they could to promote their natural resources as lures. Hunting, safaris, kayaking or scenic jungle tours were (and in some cases, still are) pushed on travelers by residents or even international companies. Even though locals may benefit when they successfully sell a tour, it is not considered ecotourism since the environment often suffers. Internationally owned bars, hotels and restaurants also pop up to entice tourists to stay and spend their money in the area but since the most successful hotels are owned internationally the money typically doesn’t stay in the region.

Bluewater Adventures

When it comes to environmental awareness, tourism has improved immensely in the last few years.

Bluewater Adventures (www.bluewateradventures.ca) offers exciting ecologically friendly excursions to coastal British Columbia and South East Alaska. Randy Burke, director and owner of Bluewater Adventures loves his work. “I took over this position in 1988,” Burke says, “but there was a fellow who got this company going during the 1970′s. He was a pioneer. Ecotourism wasn’t even a term back then, but the founder of Bluewater realized there were wonderful opportunities for wildlife viewing in the area and teamed up with the local community. We currently operate three 65-68 foot boats. While giving tours we educate the travelers about wildlife and the cultures of Coastal British Columbia and South East Alaska. We travel with a biologist on every trip and with small groups of 12-16 people it is a very hands-on type of experience. On these trips we see fabulous scenery with an abundance of wildlife. Over 100 whales can be seen on a 1 week trip. Depending on the area, tourists will have the opportunity to see humpback whales, orcas, sperm whales and in some cases the extremely rare fin whales-the second largest whale on the planet.

Several of our trips also focus on bears, with trips along the British Columbia main land coast. This area is referred to as the Great Bear Rainforest in which the White Spirit Bear can be found. In this area the black bears have a recessive gene in 10% of the animals that make them all white.”

Indigenous people benefit from Bluewater Adventures as well. “The indigenous people benefit in a couple of ways,” continues Burke, “First of all, we have signed a protocol agreement with three of the nations along the British Columbia coast. In the agreement, we are committed to paying the local cultures for the use of their traditional areas and we are also committed to hiring native guides on our tours. For example, guides hired from the Gitga’at nation will take us bear viewing at a viewing stand that they have built. Also, when we need fuel or food, we will buy it locally going to the native coop store in the village rather than shipping it in or buying it from a larger city.”

Tropical Travel is another company with some great trips to offer. “We have conservation lodges in three different countries: Ecuador, Brazil and Peru,” says Elizabeth Sanders, President of Nature Travel (www.tropicalnaturetravel.com), “The newest lodge-the Napo Wildlife Center-in Yasuni National Park is run by the local Anangu Community. There are about 120 people within this community. It is their land, and they came up with the idea for the ecolodge…Some of the locals are trained to be guides, cooks, boatmen, and some take care of the rooms and maintenance. They have a salary, which is an improvement in their lives. In the past, they might have hunted in the jungles and sold the meats for food staples in the market, but they did not have an income.”

Napo Wildlife Center – Amazonian Equador

Like all ecotours, the activities offered by Tropical Travel all involve educating tourists about the environment and the locals living in the area. “On excursions people have the chance to see all kinds of wildlife,” says Sanders, “in the Napo Wildlife Center, tourists travel on lakes and streams in dug out canoes made from trees that have fallen victim to rain or floods (they are never cut). From these boats you can see parrot licks up close. Parrot licks are exposed clay hills where the birds come for the minerals in the clay which break down ingested toxins [found naturally in many of the foods eaten by these birds]. In the wildlife center in Peru, you can go out at night and see big 400-500 pound tapirs and watch these animals feed.” Sanders remembers how exciting it was for her: “On one of the excursions I went on, we traveled along the river in the southern forest of Cuzco and we saw a capybara laying along the bank. Not thirty minutes later, coming along the bend, we saw the head of an animal swimming across the river. When it reached the bank, it pulled itself out of the water and turned out to be a giant anteater. It was an amazing sight.”

Even though, ecotourism is known to be better on the environment, the issue of money has a major influence on the decision making process. For example, “Many governments love the idea of tourism as an investment in their country and they don’t really make international companies follow strict environmental guidelines on their development – they worry about losing business,” explains Ell of Ecotourism International.

Search for Alaska’s elusive Spirit Bear Bluewater Adventures

Hotels also worry about how ecotourism will affect business. In a report written by the Center for Ecotourism and Sustainable Development (CESD) (www.ecotourismcesd.org) and The International Ecotourism Society, hotel managers in popular tourist destinations voice their opinion about eco tourism: “In Costa Rica, while they agreed that CST (Certification for Sustainable Tourism) could probably help to improve the environmental reputation of their hotels, it was too expensive to adopt CST standards. Most importantly, these managers were not convinced of the appeal of green reputations to business travelers, their main customer base.”

These concerns are unfounded however. In 2004, The World Tourism Organization (www.world-tourism.org) released findings that ecotourism and nature tourism are growing 3 times faster than mass tourism. TIA was also quoted saying that of US travelers, over 75% feel their visits should not damage the environment; 38% are willing to pay more for that. The United States Department of State explains that “the economic benefits of ecotourism in many local communities across the country has been significant.” The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (www.fws.gov) estimates that in 1995 nearly 25 million visits to over 100 national wildlife refuges generated an estimated $245 million from non-consumptive uses only (e.g. excluding hunting and fishing). Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge on the Virginia coast alone generated $21 million from non-resident visitors, supporting 545 local jobs. Birdwatchers visiting Santa Ana Refuge, Laguna Atascosa Refuge, and Sabal Palm Audubon Sanctuary contributed over $59 million in direct expenditures to the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Obviously, ecotourism is growing in popularity and is a sizeable market. According to the World Tourism Organization, Ecotourism is considered the fastest growing market in the tourism industry with an annual growth rate of 5% worldwide and representing 6% of the world gross domestic product.

Alaska’s Stunning Central Coast Bluewater Adventures

Through education and employment in the tourism industry, local communities benefit from the travelers that pass through. Ell explains that “we want to make sure that the local people benefit financially. Travelers make donations which can be used for schools, libraries, hospitals and so on. In the case of Cancun, all the money spent doesn’t even stay in the community. We call this leakage, the money goes out of the country. Locals are not being hired to work there and they have to witness the area [their home] being damaged by foreigners. This should be avoided.”

There are many reasons that ecotourism is so enticing; tourists can witness the local customs and not depend on international tours with no real history or relation to the area as their guides. Mass tourism through stereotypical tours leaves the traveler with no real idea of local cultures. “From the travelers’ perspective, it’s not really a unique experience where they can understand the culture and their relation to the environment [when going through a mass tour group]. This is basically a resort where you learn nothing about locals. You don’t interact with them and you don’t see authentic local culture,” emphasizes Ell, “ecotourism, on the other hand, will encourage the local traditions to continue.”

There are even examples where the creation of ecotours within an existing culture has enhanced the lifestyles of locals dramatically. With an alternate source of income, locals abandon illegal activities that previously where the only way they could make a living. Ell mentions an example in Africa: “Hunting and poaching reached such an intense level that the wildlife parks came to an agreement with the poachers and offered them jobs as guides. The guides obviously knew the jungle very well and made much more money this way than they did poaching.”

Land of the Midnight Sun Bluewater Adventures

Ecotourism has become so popular that many companies advertise as having ecotours when in fact they do not. Burke from Bluewater Adventures describes the challenges: “Some companies run at a small scale, which is usually the case with legitimate ecotourism, but a cruise ship with one biologist and 2000 people on board advertising as an ecotour is not the real thing. The line is often blurred between real ecotours and fake ones. I think it is great that these tours have hired a biologist that can explain the natural environment, but it is still a limited program. The tour is on a set schedule. You can’t put ecotourism into the company’s description just because they’ve changed the bed sheets over to green.” Proper research on the traveler’s part is key.

Ecotourism seems like the perfect vacation. Unfortunately, even ecotourism has its flaws. When an area is popular, no matter how careful tourists are, they will still have an impact on the environment. “There is a danger that ecotourism could ruin our environment if we’re not careful,” says Burke honestly, “ecotourism needs to be careful if it gains popularity. We need to be careful not to love nature to death.” However, most environmentalists are confident that with proper planning and environmental awareness, well managed ecotourism will leave unique and sensitive environments intact.

There are some fascinating tourism opportunities out there. It is a misconception that ecotourism is more expensive than the alternative. Prices range between expensive luxury bungalows to relatively cheap excursions that include everything a person needs without all the extras that many tourists don’t desire. Ecotourism is for everyone. It all depends on personal preference. There are literally hundreds of ecotours and ecolodges to choose from. Many companies also offer a variety of packages where you have the choice between relaxing on pristine beaches with no other person in sight, or taking in all the sights on exciting jeep, boat or even balloon rides.

The following are some examples of what to expect while on an ecotour.

AFRICA

Campi Ya Kanzi: Chyulu Hills, Kenya

Tour the endless savanah of East Africa, see the magnificant wildlife and feel the ancient culture.

In Kenya tourists have the option of going on land-based safaris or viewing lions, elephants, rhinos, thousands of zebra and wildebeest from the heights of a balloon ride.

Micato Safaries (www.micato.com) offers these experiences. The Campi ya Kanzi camp (find them through Uncharted Outposts, Inc. www.unchartedoutposts.com) is another style of ecotourism. The camp is owned by the local Masai herdsmen and while here, tourists will have the chance to experience the incredible wildlife in the area and learn more about the cultures in the region.

Campi ya Kanzi is one of the most environmentally friendly camps in East Africa. The weather there is sometimes compared to that of California with subtropical, temperate temperatures.

With great weather conditions it is no wonder that this area of Kenya is such a popular tourist destination. Solar power is used to heat the water and instead of firewood, charcoal made of coffee husks is used in the kitchen.

Perhaps the most unique feature of the Campi ya Kanzi is the water that is recycled through lava filters, which supplies the camp’s vegetable garden and ponds where local wildlife, including lions, come to drink. Just imagine waking up before dawn and hearing lions eagerly lap up water right in front of your door at sunrise.

ASIA

Sunset on the rim of the endless Pacific Voyages Wilson Island

Asia offers the eco-traveler lands that span the range from vast dunes to boreal forests to the world’s mightiest mountains.

If you prefer to relax, you can do so at Sri Lanka’s famous ecolodge- Ranweli Holiday Village (www.ecoclub.com/ranweli).

North by North East Tours (http://www.ede.ch/nne/) offers boat tours along the Mekong where tourists can see pristine areas hardly touched by western civilization.

EUROPE

Ecotours are not restricted to the tropics. Neophron Ltd. (www.neophron.com) is a tour operator operated for the Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds (BSBP). Cultural tours, historical heritage tours, bird watching, botanical tours and brown bear and wolf watching are just a few of the memorable experiences to enjoy through Neophron.

In Sweden, Saga Adventures (www.sagaadventures.com) offers exhilarating tours where visitors ride through the highlands on horseback during the day and appreciate local cooking and storytelling around the campfire at night. This is definitely a top tour for those who appreciate horses.

MIDDLE EAST – JORDAN

Jordan’s Royal Society for the Conservation of Nature (www.rscn.org.jo) offers a variety of phenomenal adventure tours. RSCN provides tours from the highlands of Northern Jordan to the river canyons leading to the Dead Sea where tourists have come for centuries seeking out the healing properties of the saltiest sea in the world. You can enjoy hikes in the desert canyons, safaris through the endangered Oryx reserve, boating and archaeological site seeing.

LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

When people imagine a vacation, the image of palm trees and beaches appears more often than anything else. Here you can snorkel through coral reefs, doze off amongst sea grape and coconut trees or take part in guided fishing tours. Casuarina Beach Club (www.Casuarina.com), Tiamo Resorts (www.tiamoresorts.com), Adventure Life (www.adventure-life.com), and Nature Air (www.natureair.com) are just a few of the great companies offering ecotours to the public.

OCEANA

A turtle lumbers in the Pacific on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef Voyages Wilson Island

Australia has an incredible array of tours for eco-travelers. There is so much to see in this unique country.

Along the verdant east coast of Queensland Kingfisher Bay Resort (www.kingfisherbay.com), and O’Reilly’s Oceanfront Guesthouse (www.oreillys.com.au) offer tours that allow tourists to experience the incredible wildlife via guided walks or atv rides.

One of the most recognized ecotourism destinations in the world is Turtle Island (www.turtlefiji.com). This beautiful island is covered with white powder beaches and gorgeous tropical forest. As a finalist in the World Legacy Awards and the filming location of “Blue Lagoon” starring Brooke Shield’s it is no wonder that this resort is considered the closest thing to heaven on earth.

UNITED STATES & CANADA

Bluewater Adventures (www.bluewateradventures.com) is just one of the great ecotourism companies operating in the region. In areas like the Alaskan coast, North American parks, and Canadian reserves you can enjoy everything from wildlife viewing, kayaking, hiking and boat tours.

The list is seemingly endless. There is an ecotour out there for anyone who is interested. Ecotourism is the ultimate package, where everyone benefits. You enjoy yourself and you know you are doing your part helping natural and cultural heritage sites. What could be better than that?

Additional Great Resources:

International Ecotourism Club

www.ecoclub.com/

The International Ecotourism Society

www.ecotourism.org

Conservation International’s Ecotravel Center

http://www.ecotour.org/

Sustainable Travel International

http://www.sustainabletravelinternational.org/

Are organics always less toxic than synthetics?

Paracelsus, a 16th century alchemist and physician, invented the science of toxicology.

Today, if you are a graduate student in toxicology at major university, you need answer only one question correctly during your final oral exam to get your PhD: The professor asks: what did Paracelsus have to say about potentially toxic chemicals? You answer, “umm, the dose makes the poison??” Huzzah! Here’s your PhD! “The dose makes the poison” means that of the thousands of various chemicals we ingest from breathing and eating, i.e. living, practically all of them are toxic if ingested at a high enough dose. For example, virtually all the various vitamins and minerals we need in order to survive can be toxic if taken in excess. But, excess may mean amounts far higher than one could possibly ingest on a daily basis during your lifetime, no matter how hard you tried.

American Council on Science & Health

This brings us to the topic of chemical carcinogens. In 1958, Congress inserted the now infamous Delaney Clause into the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. It prohibited the presence in foods of any synthetic chemical (pesticide, food additive, etc.) in any amount if that chemical had been found to cause cancer in laboratory animals (1). Notice the law said synthetic chemical (more about that later). This law is still in effect (loosely, because even EPA regulators understand that zero is impossible), even though today’s analytical techniques enable chemists to detect any chemical of interest in food or water at levels a billion to a trillion times lower than was possible in 1958. Back then, if you put a gram of DDT into your backyard wading pool and sampled the water, you could detect the DDT using analytical techniques available at that time. Today, that same amount of DDT could be detected in a water sample from Lake Michigan!!

It was in 1959 that we had our first national cancer panic in the U.S. Traces of a synthetic herbicide that was a carcinogen in rodents were detected in cranberries, so nobody ate cranberries that Thanksgiving and the industry suffered mightily. This was OK with me because I never liked cranberries anyway. It was pointed out at the time that one would need to eat 15,000 pounds of cranberries every day of one’s life to match the dose rodents were given, but no one seemed to care. There have been many more such media and special interest group (including scientists who love grant money) inspired scares since then: dioxin everywhere, nitrites in bacon and sausage, alar in apples, cell phones causing brain cancer, etc. etc. When I was a kid in the 50s, sitting too close to those newly available “television sets” was widely believed to be a cancer risk because of exposure to the T.V. tube “rays”. Hey, cancer is scary, and very little was known at that time about the biochemical mechanisms involved in cancer etiology, and even less about how our immune system defends us against it.

So by 1959, the major tenet of toxicology, “the dose makes the poison,” was tossed out the window from 100 stories up, crushed like roadkill on the Jersey Turnpike.

After that, the man who got the carcinogen ball really rolling was the noted U.C. Berkeley chemist Bruce Ames. He invented a quick, easy, and cheap test (strangely, now called the “Ames test”) to determine if any chemical of interest can cause mutations in the DNA of bacteria in vitro. If mutations were observed, then that particular chemical was considered likely to be a carcinogen in lab animals (usually it is, but not always). Dr. Ames became a campaigner for environmental groups wanting to ban various pesticides and herbicides. Today, he has totally changed his position, but that’s another story for next time.

By the mid 1960s, rodents bred to be cancer prone (GMO rats and mice) became commercially available for carcinogen testing (it is very difficult to induce cancer in normal rats and mice).

Here’s how testing a chemical is done, then and now:

1) Do the Ames test on some pesticide, food additive, preservative, or whatever and find it to be mutagenic. This means the bacteria’s DNA in a gene is altered in some way or other.

2) Determine what is called the “maximum tolerated dose” (mtd) of this mutagenic chemical in your rats or mice. The mtd is the amount of the chemical that almost kills the rodents in a single dose. It is also a dose that, depending on the particular chemical, can be thousands to millions of times higher than a human could ever eat in a lifetime. Next, feed the rodents just 10% less than that dose daily for their entire lifetime, usually between one and two years. If you really care if your research might be relevant to reality (and if you have enough grant money because these tests are very expensive), you can also include groups of animals fed only the mtd and rarely even the mtd. Oops, I forgot to mention, if the test chemical is so noxious that the rodents won’t eat their food, use gavage, i.e., inject the chemical into their gut every day. This technique obviously mimics human exposure to pesticides, right?

3) After a year or two, sacrifice the animals and count up all the various tumors they might have in various organs. Most of the rodents in the control group, fed a normal diet, will have various tumors anyway because they have been bred to be cancer prone. So, if the test group of rodents fed some noxious chemical at the highest dose has an average of, say, four tumors per animal in a particular organ, and the control group has an average of only 1 tumor per animal, then the chemical being tested increases cancer incidence by 400% !!. Call the media!

U.S. Food & Drug Administration

Next, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will classify this test chemical as a possible human carcinogen, as if rodents were nothing more than miniature humans, and establish acceptable levels of the chemical in foods using a HUGE margin of safety factor based on a very faulty mathematical model. Sometimes a test chemical will induce cancer in male rats but not in females, or visa versa. It doesn’t matter. Even if the test chemical caused cancer at the maximum tolerated dose (mtd), but did NOT result in ANY excess cancer at HALF the mtd (remember, the dose makes the poison?), the chemical will still be classified as a possible human carcinogen subject to government regulation. Remember, maximum tolerated dose is defined as an amount which will almost kill you with ONE exposure! Now, various “consumer safety groups” and professional fear mongers will launch scare attacks in all the “we love to report this kind of stuff” news media. The EPA will decide what levels are acceptable in the air, water, soil, etc., based on politics more than science, and the FDA will decide acceptable levels in foods based on politics and their faulty mathematical model.

Now let’s consider known human carcinogens. There are very few of these, but I will give you an example of how they came to be known, and it’s not because of rodent testing. About 60 years ago, a huge experiment was started in which millions of human volunteers, at their own expense, were exposed to really high daily doses of a suspected carcinogen over a period of at least 25 years. At the end of the test period, their cancer rates were compared to the rates found in a group of millions of people not exposed to that suspected carcinogen. It turns out that the exposure group had lung cancer incidence at least 10-15 times higher than the non-smoking group! Other types of cancers were also significantly increased. Oops, I forgot to say it was cigarette smoke that was the suspected carcinogen! Obviously, such controlled experiments using some chemical cannot be ethically conducted on humans in a laboratory setting. Because rodents go crazy if forced to breathe noxious stuff like cigarette smoke, it has never been shown that rats can get cancer from breathing it. So we have a situation where we know cigarette smoking causes cancer in humans, but we can’t be sure it does so in rats. Is there some irony here?

The “Junk Science” Website attacks environmentalist groupthink

There are only a few dozen known human carcinogens, and it takes long term exposure to them to increase cancer risks. Unarguable statistics (NOT rodent testing) have shown that the coal tar chimney sweeps are exposed to daily can cause cancer of the scrotum. If inhaled over a long period, asbestos fibers increase risk of lung cancer and lung disease. Ditto for uranium miners who inhaled lots of silica dust and radon down in the uranium mines in the 1950s and 60s. Mustard gas can cause cancer in doughboys (WW I) and Saddam victims, if the dose doesn’t kill them first. But the absolutely most dangerous, for sure, human carcinogen of all is something that each and every one of us is exposed to almost every day of our lives (unless you live in Seattle anytime or San Francisco in the summer). It’s called sunlight. You want some type of skin cancer? Hang out in the sun as much as possible all your life, don’t use sun block, and look really tanned and beautiful.

But let’s put this stuff in perspective. Asbestos fibers and silica dust need to be inhaled often over a period of many years to increase cancer risk. Asbestos sitting in your attic as a fire retardant insulation is no danger to anyone unless you insist on stirring it up and breathing it every day. Silica is sand, so are you afraid to go to the beach? You don’t inhale sand, but if you’re drilling down in a mine and stir up lots of silica dust and inhale it, you definitely increase lung cancer risk over the years. Even though long time smokers have a risk for lung cancer 10-15 times higher than non-smokers, 85 to 90% of those smokers never get lung cancer, although they may not be able to climb a flight of stairs without panting. And consider sunlight (the ultra violet portion of it). If the EPA could regulate our exposure to UV light using the same criteria it does for all the various pesticides and food preservatives that are carcinogens in rodents, we would all be mandated, like vampires, to stay indoors during daylight hours. We could not go out in daylight without using 200 power sun block, while wearing head to toe clothing and big floppy (government approved) hats! Hawaii would be off limits to humans! I’m not making this up, folks! So the next time you visit the tanning parlor or lie out on the beach, be absolutely sure to avoid eating any snacks containing those evil preservatives!

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393308294/ecoworld0f-20

Learn Much More: Buy Books! (Amazon Affiliate)

Technological Risk by H.W. Lewis

You are still not convinced that the hundred-fifty or so chemicals found to be carcinogenic in rodents really shouldn’t be all that worrisome for us humans at levels of exposure that are related to real life?

Remember in paragraph two above how Congress mandated, with the Delaney clause (1958), that amounts of synthetic chemicals in foods must be zero if they caused cancer in rodents? It was not known then that virtually all the carcinogens in our environmental are natural, and that many (probably all) of the foods we eat contain thousands of different chemicals, some of which are rodent carcinogens. Apples, bananas, basil, cabbage, citrus fruits, mushrooms, turnips, and so many more foods we eat all contain chemicals that cause cancer at huge lifelong doses in laboratory rodents. Broccoli, for example, is known to be protective against cancer in humans when eaten at realistic levels over your lifetime, probably because it contains high levels of various natural antioxidants. It also contains at least four different possible human carcinogens based on the wonderful rodent testing I described above. If you ate 10 or 20 pounds of broccoli every day of your life, you just might increase your risk of some cancer or other. At an American Chemical Society meeting, where I chaired a Symposium (and gave a great talk myself, of course debunking the whole rat model), I had lunch with two FDA guys. As we ate our carcinogen loaded broccoli, I asked them “what if broccoli were a new food that no one had ever eaten before and you guys had to review it for approval as a food additive?” They admitted that it could not be approved under the present FDA rules for food use! I’m not making this up, as Dave Barry would say.

Plants have evolved defense mechanisms against attack by various bug, animal, and bacteria predators. They include, “natural” toxic chemicals and pesticides. For example, there are many mushrooms you do NOT want to eat. I know what some of you are thinking, because I’ve been through this with various friends and enemies who all refuse to listen to anything that goes against their green religion. You think that these “natural” chemicals in our foods are safe because us humans have developed an immunity, over hundreds of thousands of years, to these natural chemical toxins and carcinogens, but not to the relatively new synthetic food additives, herbicides and pesticides. That argument is unequivocally, without any doubt, completely wrong. “Artificial” food additives (preservatives) are chemically very similar to natural antioxidants and bioflavonoids found in vegetables, and everyone knows these chemicals are good for you. I know this because I am a brilliant biochemist who helped elucidate just how us humans metabolize chemicals that in the 1970s and 80′s we called “xenobiotics”, i.e., chemicals imbibed from eating, drinking, and breathing that are not native to our bodies.

Learn Much More: Buy Books! (Amazon Affiliate)

Junk Science Judo by Steven J. Milloy

In the 1960s, very little was known about how all those thousands of xenobiotic chemicals we absorb into our bodies after we eat were metabolized. Now we know exactly how it’s done. All the foods we eat are broken down in the digestive tract into constituent chemicals that are then absorbed from the small intestine and dumped into our wondrous liver (of all our organs, only the brain is more wondrous). If our liver thinks we can use these chemicals (e.g., amino acids from proteins, sugars from starches, vitamins, etc.) they go into the bloodstream and travel to whatever part of the body that needs them. The thousands of other chemicals that our liver doesn’t think we need, such as drugs, all the chemicals responsible for the flavor and odors of foods, are subject to enzymatic activity that makes those chemicals ready to be eliminated from the bloodstream through the kidneys into the urine. If you feed a rodent or a human any chemical, “natural” or “artificial”, those chemicals will be metabolized in the same way. You can detect the metabolites in the urine, and that’s that.

We will finish this essay with two examples of carcinogen BS. They will either leave you thinking that I am a right wing extremist moron because you yourself are a left wing extremist moron, or your possession of normal common sense will convince you that I am absolutely right and you were really misinformed all your life about these matters:

Benzo-a-pyrene: This chemical is a potent carcinogen in rats. It is created in meats during roasting and grilling in the very tasty browned exterior of the meat. If you like BBQ and roasted meats of all kinds, you will ingest lots of rat carcinogen BaP over your lifetime (often sitting in the carcinogenic sunlight at an outdoor BBQ without any sunblock lotion). Should you never eat roasted meats ever again? Here is how research I did in the late 1970s helped make me feel the way I do today about all these so called carcinogens in the whole food supply and environment.

If you conduct an experiment in which rats are daily fed a diet containing BaP at levels talked about above, then cancer rates in those rats will be higher than a comparable group of rats fed a normal rat diet. But here’s the rub, unknown to biochemists in the 1960′s, a family of remarkable enzymes in the liver of the rodent, and in this case rat livers and human livers are similar, will chemically alter the BaP so that it is easily excreted from the bloodstream into the urine and out it goes harmlessly. One big problem for the poor lab rats, however, is that there is WAY too much of this altered BaP to be excreted all at once. So it then circulates around in the blood and goes through their liver a second time. It is chemically changed again, some goes out harmlessly, but we still have overload. This means un-excreted stuff goes through the liver a third time, and is chemically changed again, and then a fourth (still harmless) time! None of this would happen in a lifetime of you eating your beloved BBQ at extremely lower levels. Once and out is the story for BaP in our livers in real life exposure! But finally, for the overdosed rat, the fifth time through it’s overtaxed liver, a VERY potent carcinogen is created that can react with DNA and initiate the cancer process by mutating a susceptible gene in some organ or other. It you want to know, it is a diol epoxide (us chemists have to use some jargon sometime to sound intelligent. So, does common sense say anything about “the dose makes the poison”?

Finally, consider dioxin, the poster chemical of environmental contamination. The EPA once called dioxin the most potent carcinogen ever! It gained fame after the Viet Nam war because it was a contaminant in the herbicide “agent orange” widely sprayed for defoliation. Since then, there have been zillions of claims from veterans of that war (which I didn’t like at all, and I even marched against it as a good Berkeley hippie!) that exposure to it caused veterans to have increased risk of various diseases, including cancer. Subsequent studies have found no correlation with dioxin exposure and any disease, but many special interest groups still believe it is total environmental evil. What we didn’t know then, but know now, is that dioxin is a natural, ubiquitous chemical in the environment. Every time wood is burned in your fireplace, every time there is a forest fire, dioxin is created and spreads all over the place. If I specifically look for dioxin in virtually any food we eat, using today’s analytical techniques, I will find some. And it will be there at higher levels than the EPA considers safe. This is a really big “so what”, because the levels the EPA thinks is safe for humans are about a gazillion times lower than the level that might actually be dangerous, except to male rats. Remember, those EPA “safe” levels are based on rodent studies, and include a huge margin of safety.

Here is real life example: In 1976, a catastrophic explosion occurred in a chemical plant in Seveso, Italy. Literally tons of noxious chemicals, including huge amounts of dioxin, were spewed into the air, only to settle into the soil and people’s bodies. Those workers who didn’t get killed by the explosion, but were heavily doused with dioxin, developed a severe form of acne that lasted for several weeks or months and then healed. That’s it! This is when various environmentalists were saying that a gram of dioxin could kill millions of people! Twenty-five years later, according to the most recent review of cancer mortality among Seveso residents, there have been no significant increases in overall cancers in the general population. In fact, it looks like dioxin protects against breast cancer in women. That is probably just a statistical fluke, but who knows when you are dealing with statistics? Ask Viktor Yushchenko, the new leader of Ukraine, how toxic dioxin is. Before the recent democratic elections in his country, his enemies tried to poison him by giving him a huge dose of dioxin. They believed the “conventional wisdom” of the world’s “green” groups that dioxin is really, really toxic. They could easily have killed him with traditional poisons such as arsenic, cyanide, ricin (a truly potent “natural” poison from castor beans) or whatever. Instead, they gave him a really bad case of acne from which he will recover, not need to worry about any future cancer, and be able to lead his nation on to greatness. There will be a part two of this carcinogen discussion in the future. Just keep visiting Ecoworld!

About the Author: Edward Wheeler, Ph.D, is a very old biochemist, who actually conducted pioneering cancer/nutrition research in the 1970′s and ’80′s for the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. He authored some really, really good research papers in journals such as “Cancer research” and others. So he really, really knows what he’s talking about!!! Wheeler’s earlier essays from the “Monsters in the Closet” series are

Bring Back DDT?, and
GMOs, Salvation or Monsters?