Before serving in a parish, I worked as a hospital chaplain on a cancer ward at a Chicago hospital. Arriving at work each morning was like entering the night of the living dead. After seeing dozens of people dying and hundreds of families afflicted by grief, religious teachings about the importance and sanctity of health made very clear sense. Jesus' commitment to healing; the Hindu and Buddhist commitment to ahimsa, or non-violence; the Koran's recognition that good health is a sign of Allah's mercy; Judaism's demand that society and individuals protect human health: each of these teachings recognizes life's value, and that protecting health is a sacred duty.
When I left the parish to work as a religious environmentalist, I didn't expect to spend time with cancer victims. To my surprise, when I visited sites polluted with toxic chemicals, many of them in poor communities, I continued to meet people with cancer, people who wondered why so many others in their community had cancer, too.
I learned about cancer clusters and the health threats posed by toxins. And there was more. I visited Appalachian mining counties where everyone's water was stored in ugly plastic tanks in their backyard because the groundwater was poisoned. I visited urban and rural communities within an hour of New York City where there's so much chemical pollution in the ground that the clean-up strategy is to pump groundwater through filtering systems and back into the ground, 24/7, for years on end.
I met a New Jersey scientist who, when asked at a forum about what he would do to protect his family from cancer-causing chemicals, said, "I wouldn't drink well water in New Jersey."
And I've started reading that new genre of environmental stories, the mutating reptile stories -- frogs growing extra legs, alligators growing stunted genitals, male fish inexplicably laying eggs -- with growing scientific proof that chemicals called endocrine disruptors are to blame.
The more I read about this topic, the more I got the sense that there's a massive science experiment taking place, that we're all being exposed to a growing number of toxic chemicals in varying doses, without knowing anything about it.
I don't know about you, but I never signed the release form for this.
Then, earlier this year, the President's Cancer Panel issued its report for 2008-2009, dedicated to the topic of environmental cancer. This panel, whose members were appointed by President Bush, called for surprisingly strong government action to reduce the public's risk of cancer from chemical exposure. The panel's co-chairs reported the following:
With nearly 80,000 chemicals on the market in the United States, many of which are used by millions of Americans in their daily lives and are un- or understudied and largely unregulated, exposure to potential environmental carcinogens is widespread ... [T]he public remains unaware of many common environmental carcinogens ... [and are] also unaware that children are far more vulnerable to environmental toxins and radiation than adults. Efforts to inform the public of such harmful exposures and how to prevent them must be increased. All levels of government, from federal to local, must work to protect every American from needless disease through rigorous regulation of environmental pollutants.
Make sure you read that last sentence carefully. Yes, in our day and age, it really does represent an unashamed call for stricter, tougher regulation.
Last Thursday, the House of Representatives introduced the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act, an important piece of legislation that would go a long way towards protecting people and the environment from toxic chemicals.
This would be the first major overhaul of our nation's chemical policy since 1976, when Congress passed the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). TSCA (pronounced like the opera) is in a woeful state of affairs. Around 62,000 chemicals were grandfathered under TSCA. About 20,000 more have entered commercial use since then. But since 1976, according to the non-partisan Government Accountability Office -- a widely respected government agency -- only 200 chemicals have been tested for safety.
The evidence that chemical policy reform is needed is clear and convincing, and more and more groups are calling for action. In recent years, scientists have found that numerous chemicals once thought to be safe are dangerous at very low levels. Environmental justice groups, concerned about pollution's impact on communities of color and poor communities, have been watching the studies and sounding the alarm for years.
Now, religious groups are getting involved. Last month, GreenFaith, the National Council of Churches, the Religious Action Center for Reform Judaism, and religious groups in ten states released The Interfaith Statement for Chemical Policy Reform.
The statement calls for increased protections for our nation's most vulnerable communities; for workers, children, and pregnant mothers; and for natural systems. It also calls for investments in a "green" economy, so that our economy creates jobs and products that protect the web of life rather than tearing it apart. The groups are collecting signatures from concerned people of faith in an effort to move public opinion on this issue.
In the end, chemical policy reform is about protecting health and life -- the lives of people, the life of the planet. The Bible puts it succinctly when it says, "Choose life." It's time for our country to do exactly that.
The Rev. Fletcher Harper, an Episcopal priest, is Executive Director of GreenFaith, an interfaith environmental coalition.
Ted Kaufman: Captive Regulators Contributed to Oil and Financial Disasters
Public health - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
ASPH | education, academic public health, education, graduate ...
ScienceDirect - Public Health, Volume 124, Issue 7, Pages 365-426 ...
Public Health News from Medical News Today
Chemicals Policy Reform - Health - Environmental Defense Fund
Chemical Policy Reform – Business and NGOs Get It Together - Tonic
Patricia J. Beattie: Safer Chemicals Policy Reform Needs to ...
Legislation was introduced in the Senate, the House, and a cosmetics bill has been introduced. Sadly I have written for 12 years trying to get someone to listen. I have friends all over the world that get very ill just around fragrance, soaps, detergents. I would like somone to test the dryer exhaust which most of us really suffer from because exhaust systems are by the windows.
I can't begin to tell you how tired I am of vomiting for hours when I get exposed to certain chemicals. I never know when it will happen. Migraines are the worse. It is hard to believe it has taken so many years but will this legislation do something for the most sick of the sick. It is like living in a bubble and people don't like this illness at all so we are open to abuse.
Thank you for writing such a nice post. I will share with people I know. I am not as sick as some that have to live in a tent or someplace not indoors. So sad. Linda
So I really wonder why you chose here to blog?
The Rev. Fletcher Harper, an Episcopal priest, is Executive Director of GreenFaith, an interfaith ENVIRONMENTAL coalition.
An interesting use of religion. One has to wonder what is driving what?
1) The people don't support our agenda.
2) The people are largely religious.
3) If we cast our agenda in religious terms the people will support it.
If this is a position that the Rev. truly holds (and I have no reason to doubt he does) then why would anyone need to "use" him? Absolutely, the green movement is looking for people generally associated with the "right" to help them make their case to the general populace, but that doesn't negate what they are doing or even the message.
In fact, I would say that it's smart thinking as finding someone who can span that gap generally helps to drive home the point that environmental concerns are not "Right" or "Left" issues as they are "Human" issues.
The religious gave us George Bush for a second term who continued his dismantling of the EPA. They "chose life" by electing an anti-abortion and gay rights denying candidate. George, accepted his godly calling and in the view of his conservative religious adherents could do no wrong.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_regime_environmental_record
In view of their past detrimental failure, exactly how do the religious plan to effect their new mandate? By reminding us that it's a "sin"?
There are many recent blogs on HP that feature the religious tooting their own whistle. We heard their screeching before. Absence a definitive and efficacious plan, this is just another lame attempt.
Please tell us how the religious plan to effect their mandate. This is an issue of science that the religious are trying to usurp in a vein attempt to promote credibility. Now they have the hutzpa to align themselves with the issue.
To truly apply the principles and processes of science to industry would make things safer and less risky -- because small-scale tests would be conducted and the results analyzed before large-scale projects were initiated.
Also, dumping chemicals (like benzene) into the environment would be no-brainers. . .
But then again, it would be more expensive to run any business this way and, heh heh heh, we all know that the pursuit of maximum profits is the real god of this country.
The green issue is in the ambit of science.
Religions are always slow when it comes to seeing reality. Thank God they are beginning to see the light.