“Ecology” and Liars. ComputerraOnline Column #3
Those who think about morality must solve an extraordinarily difficult task. Of course, one has to reject the rhetoric of “ecological” liars. But under no circumstances must we lose the priority of nature conservation.
← Dmytryy Shabanov →
Textbooks. Straight to the day after tomorrow. "Ecology" and liars Why are there men and women?
Column in Kompyuterra Online #2 Column in Kompyuterra Online #3 Column in Kompyuterra Online #4
Let me begin by recounting two dialogues; when reading the column, you will understand why. The first. I meet a fellow student who is now the head of a large organization and ask what is irritating him. He explodes (I omit the obscenities): “How sick I am of ecologists! They come to inspect us. I want to choose the best of various ways of solving problems, but they are not interested in what is best; they simply destroy.” I reply: “Don’t confuse the terms. The ecologist is me (at these words he recoils); I have a degree in ecology, and I study the population ecology of amphibians, while they are ‘greens,’ conservationists.” The second dialogue. My elderly mother asks me again whether fires in a hot summer can indeed intensify the effect of radionuclides released during the Chernobyl accident. They can. “So does that mean degeneration really awaits us?” “Where did you get that?” She says: in “Komsomolskaya Pravda” there was an interview with some scientist-ecologist. We read: “Radiation is strong in any amount, both in small and in large doses. Only it won’t be you and me, nor our children or grandchildren, who know it, but our great-great-great-grandchildren, when they begin to grow tails, three pairs of ears, and so on.” This is said by Vladimir Boreyko, director of the Kyiv Ecological-Cultural Center. I calm my mother: this is not an ecologist but a hysterical journalist. Although he did receive a biology diploma, he never learned that a certain radiation background is normal. A significant lowering of the background is unfavorable for organisms, and a certain increase is often used as a therapeutic, tonic factor. According to WHO data, observations provide no grounds for claiming that even a tenfold increase in the “average” background creates a threat to health. I cannot resist a quotation: “...A symptomatic story flashed through the news. A person on a forest path, dosimeter in hand, showing 137 microroentgens per hour, declared that one could go no farther. Meanwhile, in the Brazilian city of Guarapari the natural radiation level is fifteen times higher, and this city is a resort.” My mother asks why Boreyko is frightening ordinary people. It is not easy for me to answer her. Is he increasing his information capital? In reality, the propaganda of fears is far from harmless, and one can understand this from the example of Chernobyl itself. Here are a pair of quotations from the WHO report mentioned above. “Reviews conducted by the WHO Expert Group found no evidence of an increased cancer risk (with the exception of thyroid cancer) associated with radiation at Chernobyl.” “The accident had a profound impact on the mental health and well-being of an entire generation of people...” The detailed report shows that a significant portion of patients’ complaints is connected not with irradiation but with the “sense of danger.” Psychogenic abnormalities are accompanied by real suffering. One of the most important conditions for reducing the adverse consequences of accidents is the completeness and honesty of information about threats to health. Attention: after the Chernobyl accident, for most affected people (except the liquidators), radiophobia turned out to be more dangerous than radiation! How will you perceive the revelations of the “ecologist” Boreyko in light of this information? The disasters that have fallen upon Japan have given the “greens” a new reason for self-promotion. The same Boreyko called for people to stop consuming seafood produced after March 1. But there is more interesting news. “Fukushima” radioactive iodine is being registered in both Russia and Ukraine. Data are cited showing that its concentration, for example in Vladivostok, is less than one hundredth of the maximum permissible value. If this is true, there is no need to fear iodine; for peace of mind (and simply for better health) one can take iodine preparations or switch to iodized salt. Will the “ecologizers” support such a program? “In this case the concentration of iodine-131 is of secondary importance,” declared <...> Vladimir Slivyak, co-chair of the international ecological group Ecodefense. According to him, the important thing is the very fact of inhaling iodine-131. The expert noted: if there is iodine deficiency in the human body, “iodine-131 occupies the place where stable iodine should be, irradiating human organs, above all the thyroid gland.” In a number of cases this ends in thyroid cancer. <...> “Taking iodine in hopes of protecting oneself is most often useless. Iodine tablets must be taken with an accuracy of three to four hours before the moment when iodine-131 may enter the body. Before that it is pointless, and afterward it is already useless.” How is it that concentration is of secondary importance? Does Mr. Slivyak really not understand that the complete absence of any isotope is incredibly unlikely; its “absence” means only an exceedingly low concentration. It is true that radioactive iodine is especially dangerous in the case of iodine deficiency. The thyroid hormone thyroxine contains iodine atoms. Thyroxine is the most important regulator of metabolism. It performed this function already in our ancestors — fishes inhabiting the iodine-rich sea. The terrestrial descendants of those fishes often face deficiency of this element, and the tissues of the thyroid gland accumulate it in reserve. If the gland binds radioactive iodine, its tissues receive an additional dose of irradiation. By “saturating” the body with ordinary iodine, one can reduce the binding of radioactive atoms. And why does the co-chair of “Ecodefense” convince us that taking iodine is pointless or useless? For the same reason that he lies about the danger of marginally low concentrations of the radioactive isotope. His goal is not protection but intimidation, information terror. Perhaps neither Boreyko nor Slivyak said what I am quoting, and journalists slandered or distorted them? Perhaps. But either way we are dealing with information terror. Do you dislike the harshness of my assessments? For some reason many of us think that good intentions justify “excesses.” I want to remind you that both the Leninist-Stalinist and the Hitlerian chimera appealed to good intentions. Incidentally, one of the reasons for our society’s susceptibility to fascist propaganda is that we know little about the roots of fascism. Young people who think that in the Second World War the Soviet Union fought some kind of degenerates turn out to be non-immunized against pro-fascist propaganda of health, will, moral purity, mutual support, and large-scale achievements. Thus, a rational person should not deny these values; he should subject not so much the declared ideals as the practical conclusions that follow from them to moral evaluation. We all understand that nature protection is a noble task. The role of defenders of nature allows the associates of Messrs. Boreyko and Slivyak to lie while planting fears. So what if their speeches may inflict greater damage than the pollutants with which they frighten us? Can one forbid them to express their opinions? No. Their propaganda must be countered with honest educational work. Those who think about morality must solve an extraordinarily difficult task. Of course, one must reject the rhetoric of “ecological” liars. Of course, one must not participate in their games. But under no circumstances must one lose the priority of nature conservation. It must be filled with rational and moral content, and we must pass between the Scylla of consumerism and indifference and the Charybdis of hysteria and irresponsibility. This is difficult, very difficult. But we have no other way out.
← Dmytryy Shabanov →
Textbooks. Straight to the day after tomorrow. "Ecology" and liars Why are there men and women?
Column in Kompyuterra Online #2 Column in Kompyuterra Online #3 Column in Kompyuterra Online #4