Letter▼ Limits of human behavior and the role of science and technology I said, “Yes, but…” a dozen times when I read Michael Huesemann’s Viewpoint (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 37, 259A–261A). Yes, I am concerned about the large quantity of toxicants we manufacture, but we cannot ignore the large benefits society has gotten from these chemicals. Science and technology (S&T) have given us new materials, products, and technologies that have made us healthier, increased our longevity and incomes, and given us more comfortable lifestyles. But none of these “advances” are entirely benign. Chlorine disinfection of drinking water has saved millions of lives by preventing waterborne disease, but it has also produced disinfection byproducts that cause cancer. DDT is still perhaps the most effective way of preventing malaria, but the pesticide bioaccumulates in people and causes birds to lay eggs with fragile shells. In some cases, such as asbestos and chlorofluorocarbons, we were simply not smart enough to anticipate the bad effects of the new materials. In other cases, such as gasoline, used motor oil, and PCBs, carelessness and ignorance led to spilling or discharging large quantities that befouled the environment. Huesemann sees the glass as half empty. He deplores environmental releases of toxicants and protests against dilution as a management
tool. He sees people as thoughtless and ignorant. He is right and wrong. Paracelsus remarked several centuries ago that it is the dose that makes the poison. Sufficient dilution will neutralize the most toxic substance, preventing harm to people or the environment. But substances that bioaccumulate, like mercury and DDT, get reconcentrated to haunt us. I see the glass as half full. Life expectancy in the United States almost doubled in the 20th century. Medicine has enabled most Americans to live healthy, disability-free lives. Despite 6 billion people, food is abundant. The standard of living in developed nations is literally unbelievable compared to 1900 or even 1950. In developing nations, incomes have risen, some medical care is available, and hunger results from social problems, not a lack of food. But these same beneficent S&T have also made it possible for a terrorist to infect large numbers of people with anthrax or bring down the World Trade Center. Despite the problems, few doubt that S&T have made a large positive contribution to human welfare. Will the same be said in 2103? Blind faith in S&T was much more widespread 50 years ago (“Better living through chemistry”). We have learned that greedy, ignorant, or malevolent people can use S&T in ways that hurt us.
Errata “Equilibrium Sampling Devices” by P. Mayer, J. Tolls, J. L. M. Hermens, and D. Mackay (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 37, 185A–191A) requires two corrections. On p 186 A, line 37 of the left column should read as follows: The chemical potential of a chemical is logarithmically related to its fugacity, which is linearly related to its freely dissolved concentration in a certain medium. In Figure 2, the log [A/V(m2/m3)] values for SPMDs were erro-
270 A ■ ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / AUGUST 1, 2003
We have to learn to be smarter in choosing among the array of opportunities presented to us by S&T. We cannot know all the indirect effects of discharging a toxicant into the environment. Both the United States and the European Union require regulators to scrutinize new pharmaceuticals, pesticides, and other chemicals before they can be manufactured. We have decided to trade a somewhat slower rate of introducing new chemicals for greater assurance that they are safe and effective. No one can prove that S&T will make our future bright, clean our environment, increase our life expectancy, or leave our grandchildren better off. At any moment, we could go to war in the Middle East, have a SARS epidemic, or have young people decide that they are unwilling to make the effort to become educated practitioners of S&T. The more S&T advance our knowledge, the more important it is that we make good choices and manage the new knowledge well. Unlike Huesemann, I believe that we will restructure our institutions to control unfortunate effects of S&T and that we will make the right choices the vast majority of the time; we are educating young people not only in S&T, but also in notions of social responsibility, care for the environment, and stewardship of the Earth. LESTER LAVE Carnegie Mellon University
neously plotted. The correct values are approximately 4.0 rather than 1.6. The values on the ordinate are correct. The implication is that SPMDs do not fall on the same line as the other sampling devices, being about a factor of 100 slower in response. This is presumably because SPMDs were exposed in dilutors with very slow flows, while all other samplers were exposed under more vigorous mixing. Additionally, the uptake into the SPMDs might have been restricted by diffusion through the polyethylene membrane. The authors are grateful to Robert W. Gale and Jim Huckins of the U.S. Geological Survey for bringing this to their attention.
© 2003 American Chemical Society
