For a person to consume the same proportional amount of Alar given these mice, he’d have to eat 14 tons of apples a day for 70 years. When mice were given half that proportional dosage, they developed no tumors.

The media also distorted the Love Canal case. When eco-activists blame the Hooker chemical company for causing pollution endangering schoolchildren in Love Canal, New York, they omit the complete story.

What really happened was that, when the Niagara Falls Board of Education tried to buy the land from Hooker to build the school, Hooker turned the deal down, fearing for people’s health.

The BOE then used the government’s eminent domain to force Hooker to sell it the land. So why is the corporation blamed but not the government? Thankfully, still no illnesses have resulted from this.

Finally, there’s something to be said about Erin Brockovich -- the legal-assistant-turned-environmental-icon.

According to the famous movie about her, she proved that PG&E corporation poisoned the water of Hinkley, California, with the chemical Chromium-6, making everyone sick. After all, in real life, PG&E was caught destroying important documents.

But as New York Times science writer Gina Kolata mentioned in her paper’s 4/11/2000 issue, Brockovich’s case contained glaring flaws. Brockovich charged that Chromium-6 caused brain cancer, breast cancer and uterine cancer, among a whole cluster of cancers.

As Kolata and scientists have stated, it’s extremely rare for one toxin to cause as many different types of cancer as Brockovich claimed Chromium-6 did.

University of Chicago health studies professor John Bailar said, “Any time I see half a dozen diseases attributed to some exposure, I get nervous. Biological agents are very well targeted.”

Furthermore, while Chromium-6’s gas form has proven carcinogenic, there’re no documented cases of illness resulting from its liquid form.

In short, Brockovich’s case is far from being as scientifically compelling as that of a case involving mercury’s cause of Minamata disease in Japan (which, strangely enough, isn’t as widely publicized by American environmentalists).

When Brockovich sees an article in a prominent publication challenging her, she often sends off a form letter accusing the author of being a corporate tool.

Her letters also say that, contrary to what so-and-so said, “Chromium 6 kills.” She dares anyone who disagrees with her to drink water with this chemical in it.

That’s a straw man argument. Brockovich’s critics often dislike PG&E, and they don’t want anyone to drink Chromium-6.

All they’re saying is that Brockovich exaggerated her case and that people should be informed of the scientific facts, rather than believe everything Hollywood tells them.

That is their message -- not “PG&E did no wrong and Chromium-6 is safely edible.” They simply want to people to know the facts, and that’s the point Brockovich’s letters have conveniently evaded.

Sure, chemicals can be dangerous, and we should be careful with them. The problem is that the environmental movement hasn’t approached this subject objectively, but with a presumption of guilt against modern technology.

But what if a specific chemical really is dangerous?

As Peter Schwartz noted, “Yes, it may turn out that some allegation of theirs [environmentalists] happens to be true -- by accident, as a parrot’s squawking may coincidentally parallel some fact of reality. If this occurs, as one has ascertained by rational means, appropriate steps should be taken to alleviate danger -- steps that logically cannot include any renunciation of technological progress.” Nor should it include an abandonment of capitalism.

Chemicals, genetic engineering, hydroelectric power (which environmental groups are now fighting against), and all other forms of technology are humanity’s attempts to “control nature.” And, as Carson declared, “The ‘control of nature’ is a phrase conceived in arrogance, born of the Neanderthal Age of biology and the convenience of man.”

Convenience? More like necessity.

Without the “control of nature,” hospital patients wouldn’t have life-support machines and they’d die.

Without our pesticides, animals would ravage our crops, agricultural yields would decrease, and food would cost more. It’s because of pesticides and chemicals that America no longer has famines like it did in the 1700s.

The safety concerns of technology should be considered, but, overall, the “control of nature,” particularly our use of chemicals, is something mankind can be grateful for.

Stuart K. Hayashi is the president of the Reason Club of Honolulu and an undergraduate in Entrepreneurial Studies at Hawaii Pacific University, though his opinions do not necessarily reflect that of either institution. He can be reached at radical_individualist@hotmail.com (If you would like to continue seeing Stuart Hayashi's editorials on this site, please let Hawaii Reporter know at info@hawaiireporter.com)

Guest Commentary...