All situations, events, and persons depicted herein are fictional. Any similarity without satirical intent is purely coincidental. All opinions are solely those of the author. Copyright 1996, 1997 by Steven J. Milloy. All rights reserved. Portions of this text may be reprinted for book reviews. October 1996.
Mike Walrus: Let's move along. In your book, Dr. Theo Ree, you cite two episodes in medical history, involving thalidomide and diethystilbesterol (DES), that you say leave no doubt that humans are vulnerable to hormone-disrupting synthetic chemicals.
Thalidomide and DES were used as medical treatments. They were drugs. Doesn't it seem logical that the taking of drugs is fundamentally different from being exposed to chemicals in the environment?
With a drug, a person is generally taking a very high dose in a chemical form that is designed to be readily absorbed and metabolized by the body. That is totally different from environmental exposures to chemicals at much lower doses in perhaps less biologically available forms.
Dr. Theo Ree: You're absolutely right, Mike. But thalidomide and DES are classic horror stories that are too useful to pass up. Images of thalidomide babies still send chills up people's spines.
The fact that thalidomide and DES were used as medical treatments is not the point.
The fact that thalidomide and DES were used at much higher doses in more readily absorbed forms as compared to exposures to chemicals in the environment is not the point.
Are you with me so far?
The fact that thalidomide and DES are manmade chemicals is the point.
The fact that these two manmade chemicals have caused tragedies is another point.
The fact that most readers of Our Swollen Future will completely miss the points you raised is even a further point.
Edit Broadley: Dr. Theo Ree, I've got to ask you about how you toy with words and facts in the book. The take-home message about DES is that DES made it clear that the human body could mistake a manmade chemical for a hormone.
Isn't this statement--to be polite--somewhat misleading?
DES is not just some manmade chemical. It's a manmade estrogen. It was designed to act like a hormone, and it did. The human body made no mistake.
Dr. Theo Ree: Edit, I'd like to take credit for all the wordsmithing in the book. But I've got to admit that was Dumbasanoxski's literary handiwork.
The fact is that we exploited the thalidomide and DES tragedies to promote an irrelevant theory, and it is working beautifully.
Morley Suffer: My favorite part of the book is about the plants and the natural estrogens that they make. First of all, I simply love how you made the plants animate.
The image of plants conspiring to make estrogens to act as oral contraceptives on predators so that the plants can defend themselves was truly imaginative.
Dr. Theo Ree: Why do think there's a contraceptive device called Norplant?
Morley Suffer: I was especially fascinated that, as part of this defensive strategy, plants "logically," as you put it, "target females rather than males because plants know that a predator's reproductive capability is limited by the number of fertile females." I never knew plants could think.
Dr. Theo Ree: That's Dumbasanoxski. What does she know? She's a hack reporter.
Edit Broadley: Dr. Theo Ree, part of your theory is that our fertility is being threatened because, as you claim, sperm counts are declining. But then you say that plants target females because they're the limiting fertility factor. Pardon me, but you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Dr. Theo Ree: That's right Edit. A good advocate is firm on purpose but flexible in argument.
Lesley Stalled: I understand that there is some published scientific research that estimates that the level of plant estrogens in our diet is forty million times greater than the level of synthetic estrogens.
If this is true, and if it is true, as you claim, that plant and synthetic estrogens impact health, it would appear that the chances of synthetic estrogens having an impact would be vanishingly small, like roughly one in forty million.
Dr. Theo Ree: Yes, but natural plant estrogens are passed through our bodies in about one day while the synthetic estrogens can get lodged in our fat for long periods of time. So the threat from synthetic estrogens is constant and long term.
Lesley Stalled: But Dr. Theo Ree, even I can see that your logic doesn't hold up. Most of us eat every day. And if we consume natural plant estrogens every day, there's always a constant and ready supply of them in our bodies. Whereas the synthetic estrogens are tied up in fat.
Edit Broadley: Dr. Theo Ree, if you are correct, clearly there's a need to deal with this natural estrogen threat. Let me ask you this. What steps should we as a species take to defend ourselves against the plants?
Should the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulate plants as it would any pharmaceutical company that makes oral contraceptives?
And if so, what mechanism do you think plants would develop to defend themselves against the FDA?
Will plants try to sterilize FDA employees? Do you think plants could manufacture their own lawyers?
Dr. Theo Ree: Very funny Edit.
Mike Walrus: You also listed a number of common foods that contain natural estrogens, including parsley, sage, garlic, wheat, oats, rye, barley, rice, soybeans, potatoes, apples, cherries, plums, pomegranates, coffee, and bourbon.
Humans have been consuming these products for years with no detect-able adverse effects on health, fertility, intelligence, or survival.
Dr. Theo Ree: I disagree. Look at intelligence alone, Mike. Where do you think the terms "pea brain" and "potato head" came from?
Mike Walrus: I see your point. Hey! Has anybody seen my french fries?
Dr. Theo Ree: Also, these effects are happening gradually. Men are gradually being feminized and women are gradually becoming more masculine. One day you'll walk into your supermarket and you'll be able to see the changes.
Mike Walrus: Like what?
Dr. Theo Ree: Look for a number of new products to start appearing on your grocer's shelves, including Aunt Ben's Converted Rice, Uncle Jemima's Pancake and Waffle Mix, Benny Crocker Cake Mixes, and Columbian coffee with Juanita Valdez on the label.
Lesley Stalled: Dr. Theo Ree, is this all bad? Isn't it good that we are moving toward a genderless society?
Dr. Theo Ree: Yes, but we should accomplish it through brainwashing our young, not chemicals.
Steve Krock: I was fascinated by your story of the PCB molecule. Manufactured in the spring of 1947 in Anniston, Alabama and doomed to spend its life in an electrical transformer located somewhere in west Texas, this persistent molecule escaped from the transformer only to wind up in the rump of a polar bear in the North Pole after decades on the lam.
But, while it's a fascinating odyssey of one molecule's world travels, I'm not sure I understand your point.
First, you never identified any health or reproductive problems among polar bears, much less link any health or reproductive problems to PCBs. You insinuate that the reason the size of one year's litter of polar bear cubs was smaller than the previous year's is the PCBs.
But your insinuation is contradicted by polar bear researchers who say that the reason for the smaller litter is that the polar bear population is reaching its limit because of the available food supply.
Dr. Theo Ree: How can you believe polar bear researchers? They're insane! Imagine believing nuts who spend their time freezing at the North Pole waiting to chase down ferocious animals that could kill them with one swipe of the paw.
Edit Broadley: You also mention a village of 450 people on Broughton Island, west of Greenland. You say that "Canadian health studies have shown that the people on Broughton Island have the highest levels of PCBs found in any human population except those contaminated in industrial accidents."
Yet, you also state that provincial health officials have not found any health problems with the villagers. In fact, the health officials have recommended that the villagers continue eating the same diet that gave them the high levels of PCBs in the first place.
I guess my question is, why should anyone be worried about persistent manmade chemicals like PCBs when here's a population who, if your theories were even remotely true, should be infertile, imbecilic, and on the brink of extinction?
Dr. Theo Ree: You should be worried because, as I have already said, PCBs and the like are chemicals and chemicals are bad.
Steve Krock: You say that there is no place that is safe from PCBs. While it may be true that PCB contamination is ubiquitous, you don't support with facts your claim that there is a health problem.
Dr. Theo Ree: Steve, you're forgetting my formula:
Manmade chemicals + Innuendo about health effects = $uccess for me.
It's no wonder you're stuck on 60 MINUTS.
Copyright © 1996, 1997 Steven J. Milloy. All rights reserved. Site developed and hosted by WestLake Solutions, Inc.