Why not leave
it
to the experts?
Commentary
by DICK DORWORTH
Remembering
the forgotten promises of yesterday’s experts is always a good exercise
in historical perspective and an object lesson in current civics.
Only a few
decades ago nuclear scientists promised mankind an unlimited source of
power from nuclear energy. They said it would be safe, clean and cheap and
that the world would be a better place for it. A few reputable (or, at
least, highly knowledgeable) nuclear scientists even proposed in all
seriousness the use of atomic bombs as a construction tool for jobs like
blasting out harbors in Alaska and canals in central America. Many people
even believed them, for they were experts. If the citizenry can’t
believe the experts, who can they believe? And who wouldn’t want to
believe in a cheap, safe and clean source of power?
But it
turned out that the experts didn’t have it quite right, or, conceivably,
weren’t telling it quite the way it is. Actually, they still aren’t.
We now know that nuclear energy is neither cheap, safe nor clean; it is
expensive, dangerous and its waste products are so unclean as to beggar
all normal human concepts of foul matter and toxicity, not to mention
longevity. We know that no one, including the experts, fully understands
the biologic action of radiation.
To give the
nuclear experts whatever benefit is conceivable to such a very large
doubt, maybe they simply didn’t know as much about nuclear power in the
world as they thought they did. Possibly they knew a lot about the
mechanics of creating nuclear power but not much about, for instance, the
effects of radioactivity on a human cell or gene. Or perhaps the experts
only tweaked the truth a tad in the interests of the aims of their
government and nuclear industry employers. Even experts have been known to
ignore the consequences to the rest of the world of their actions and
knowledge, as well as the ethical mandates of truth, in the interests of
job security. Stranger things have happened.
Remembering
the forgotten promises of yesterday’s experts is always a good exercise
in historical perspective and an object lesson in current civics.
It’s
difficult for non-experts, both skeptics and the simple, to know when and
when not to believe the experts; but there are usually a few red flag
indicators that should draw the interested layman’s scrutiny. Chief
among these warning signs is the cloak of secrecy covering the
machinations of power and money, which, of course, all too often go
together. Few if any legal industries have ever in history operated with
as much secrecy as nuclear merchantry.
For the
past several years a different crew of experts have been touting the
future benefits to mankind of GMOs, or genetically modified organisms.
Think of that, an organism whose genes have been modified by an expert or
experts to make the world a better place. Radiation, too, randomly
modifies genes, but according to the experts the modifications in GMOs are
scientifically controlled and understood. There are no random side
effects, they say.
Most people
have heard of (and eaten, often without knowledge of what they were
eating) foods the skeptics call "Frankenfoods," victuals like
strawberries containing fish genes that will more easily resist cold,
allergy-producing corn and trademarked (and sterile so they can’t
reproduce naturally without buying the next generation from the trademark
holder) soy beans with a genetically inserted pesticide. GMO foods are
with us now. Misbegotten 500 pound Chinook salmon are on the way. Those
who sell GMO foods to the citizenry—corporations and the people who
speak for and represent them—have done all in their considerable power
to keep their products from being labeled as what they are … GMOs. If
GMOs are so wonderful, why shouldn’t the public know when they are
buying them? What are the experts afraid of?
As
mentioned, secrecy covering the machinations of power and money is, or
should be, a red flag indicator. When big government and big business team
up behind the cloak of secrecy, as happened with the development of the
nuclear industry and is happening now with the proliferation of GMOs, the
bountiful benefits of public inquiry are smothered.
The same
secrecy surrounds the new industry of what might be called GATs
(genetically altered trees), but which skeptics call "Frankenforests."
GATs include both fruit trees and forest species—plum, cherry,
grapefruit, aspen, eucalyptus, cottonwood and several species of pine.
Among the corporations pushing for GAT plantations are Alberta Pacific,
Boise Cascade, Fort James, Georgia Pacific, International Paper, Nippon
Paper, Potlatch, Westvaco, Weyerhaueser, Shell and Toyota. Transgenic
trees are entirely new species and no one, not even the experts, knows
what immediate or cumulative threat they present to the infinitely complex
lacework of life that is a forest ecosystem. In the U.S. the agency in
charge of approving Frankenforests is the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service. On the APHIS application form for approval of
genetically modified organism the specific transferred gene and its source
species can be answered with the acronym "CBI": classified
business information. This eliminates public scrutiny. International trade
in transgenic trees will be regulated by the World Trade Organization, a
secretive body known for destroying international environmental standards
on behalf of large, multinational corporations.
Frankenfoods
and Frankenforests, like nuclear power, are an unacceptable risk to the
integrity and health of the natural world on which all life depends. Don’t
take the experts at their word. Educate yourself. Don’t buy in. Remember
the wise words of Ed Abbey: "Resist much, obey little."