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.
Lesley Stalled: Dr. Theo Ree, before reading your book, I didn't know that humans are "inefficient breeders who tend to produce barely the number of sperm required for successful fertilization."
I was always under the impression that human male ejaculate contained hundreds of millions of sperm. And based on what I remember from junior high school biology, it only takes one sperm to fertilize an egg.
How is it that hundreds of millions of sperm are barely enough for successful fertilization?
And how do you support this in the real world where, as even you put it, the human population is well on its way from five billion to ten billion?
Dr. Theo Ree: It's as plain as the nose on your face, Lesley. Look, male ejaculate contains hundreds of millions of sperm. But the world only has five billion people in it.
With all that sperm being produced by all those men, we should have a lot more people in the world. Don't you think?
Lesley Stalled: Oh yeah. Gee you're smart.
I was also intrigued by the story about the two scientists who discovered that a chemical, p-nonylphenol, leached from a plastic flask they were using and caused breast cancer cells to replicate. That sure convinced me that manmade chemicals could cause breast cancer!
Edit Broadley: Yeah, but the biological workings of real live humans are far more complex than those of several already abnormal cells in the controlled environment of a test tube. If nothing else, the chemicals that you claim leached from plastic are several thousand times less potent than natural estrogen.
Dr. Theo Ree: Edit, skeptics say that the hormone effects of synthetic chemicals are far weaker than those of natural hormones and that humans are not being exposed to enough to pose a hazard.
This assertion is not supported by the evidence. If you survey the available information and scientific literature, you would see that too much information is missing to provide even a rough picture of how much humans might be taking in or to allow for definitive conclusions.
Edit Broadley: Obviously, these "missing pieces" haven't stopped you.
Dr. Theo Ree: Of course not. First, none of what I said applies to me. I can jump to all the conclusions that I want. Remember Edit, all I have to do is make an allegation. I don't have to defend it.
Second, you're ignoring the precautionary principle developed by that great scientist, Dr. Par A. Noid. If we don't know absolutely for sure that something is totally safe under every conceivable condition, then it should be banned.
The unrealistic worst-case scenario is the only case to consider when there is the least doubt.
Edit Broadley: But isn't that a prescription for no change whatsoever, no experimentation, and no innovation?
Aren't you saying we should give up any hope of progress and live with whatever risks and dangers now exist?
If the precautionary principle had been adopted a thousand years ago, wouldn't we all still be living in grass huts, and dying of infections and diseases that can now be treated or cured?
Dr. Theo Ree: Now you're starting to get it, Edit! Remember, nature good, people bad.
Mike Walrus: The book chronicles several anecdotes that you claim show how manmade chemicals have harmed wildlife. They include: declines in populations of St. Lawrence River beluga whales, Florida panthers and turtles, English otters and Lake Michigan minks; small alligator penises in Florida; poor bald eagle reproduction, and several others.
Biologists estimate that there are thirteen to fourteen million species of wildlife. Even if these problems are as you've described--and even I have some doubts--you've still identified a problem affecting only a tiny part of the natural world.
And to document even this small number of cases, you've had to plunder the record of almost fifty years of wildlife observation.
You even acknowledge that animal populations often explode and then crash in the normal course of their existence. Frankly, I'm not sure that you've established a very convincing case.
Dr. Theo Ree: Well,... I may not have much of a case, but it's not like I'm not trying to convince a jury or a scientific peer review committee.
I'm trying to sell books and become famous. I want to be the next Rachel Carson. At best, all I need to do is win in the court of public opinion. And, frankly, that's not a very high hurdle to clear.
Mike Walrus: Dr. Theo Ree, I'm curious about something. You say that you want Our Swollen Future to be the next Silent Spring. You extol the virtues of Rachel Carson for alarming the world about the alleged cancer epidemic she linked to manmade chemicals.
But then you go on to say that, as a society, we've been wasting our time for the last thirty years looking at cancer--the very calamity that Rachel Carson alarmed us about.
Why do you hold Rachel Carson in such high esteem when you clearly repudiate the alarms she set off?
Dr. Theo Ree: You've got me all wrong Mike. I admire Rachel because she made a killing off Silent Spring, not because she was right or wrong about what she wrote. I want to emulate, and even surpass, her in fame and fortune.
Steve Krock: Let's talk about some of the human health issues you raise in Our Swollen Future. In general, I would say that you've found a way to blame almost every human health problem on manmade chemicals.
You say sperm counts are falling. But in fact many studies contradict this assertion, studies you've chosen to ignore.
Even if one were to accept the notion that sperm counts have fallen in recent years, there could be myriad reasons for this, including more frequent ejaculation, more drug use, more sexually transmitted diseases or more of any activity that raises scrotal temperature like, tight underwear, hot tub and sauna use, or exercise.
Dr. Theo Ree: Well, you may be right. But, while we're on the subject of underwear, let me ask you a question.
Briefs or boxers? You're awful cute!
Steve Krock: Dr. Theo Ree...
Dr. Theo Ree: O.k., we'll talk about it later. Back to the point you were trying to make.
Let's say I walk into a crowded theater and scream "Fire!" Who will the people in the theater hear? Me or the guy who's being trampled as he calmly explains there is no fire?
Steve Krock: Point well taken.
You say that prostate and breast cancer rates are rising, but the National Cancer Institute (NCI) attributes the reported increase in these cancer rates to better screening techniques, improved diagnosis, and the well-recognized fact that people are living longer while cancer is largely a disease of aging.
Dr. Theo Ree: I predict that they'll soon be changing their tune. Just wait until they realize the potential budgetary increases to be garnered by hopping on the endocrine disrupter bandwagon. NCI's biggest worry is going to be the looming threat of having funds reallocated to a new National Endocrine Disrupter Institute.
Mike Walrus: You try to link a reported increase in undescended testicles in England and Wales between 1962 and 1981 with manmade chemicals. But the researchers could never make this link.
Another study of hospital records maintained from the mid-1950s to 1992 reported no increase in the prevalence of this disorder in the U.S.
You've also linked endometriosis, lower IQ and SAT scores, learning problems, attention deficit disorder, and behavioral problems, to name a few, to manmade chemicals.
What you seem to be doing is implicating manmade chemicals as the cause of virtually all of our problems--but without anything even close to convincing evidence!
Dr. Theo Ree: Do you think that maybe the reason I can get away with this is because maybe some of what I'm saying is really true, at least with respect to intelligence?
Mike Walrus: Let's talk about what you think we as individuals should be doing about the hormonal threat posed by manmade chemicals.
Dr. Theo Ree: First and foremost, everyone should buy my book. Don't borrow someone else's copy. Buy your own and burn the receipt. No returns. No refunds. No exchanges.
Next, invest in businesses that test drinking water. Our Swollen Future recommends that everyone have their water tested. And in the meantime, don't drink water that hasn't been tested.
Avoid animal fat found in meats and dairy products. This is especially recommended for women from birth through the end of their childbearing years...
Mike Walrus: What do you recommend that these women eat instead?
Dr. Theo Ree: Vegetables, grains, fruits,...
Edit Broadley: Plants!!??! You're recommending plants? Didn't you just say that the plants were out to sterilize us? And they were targeting women?
Morley Suffer: Edit, no matter what you do, you can't make up for Alar.
Dr. Theo Ree: And women should think twice about breastfeeding.
Edit Broadley: Now hold on for a minute. Doesn't Our Swollen Future mention a woman who was so frightened by just your kind of pseudo-science that she stopped breastfeeding her child and substituted a mixture of water and Coffeemate?
Is that what you want people to do?
Dr. Theo Ree: Edit, please listen to me. I just told you not to drink the W-A-T-E-R.
Edit Broadley: So babies should just get nondairy creamer, right?.
Dr. Theo Ree: Right. Also, wash your hands frequently. Manmade chemicals are everywhere.
Edit Broadley: I see you've already washed your hands of the truth!
Tick...tick...tick...
Copyright © 1996, 1997 Steven J. Milloy. All rights reserved. Site developed and hosted by WestLake Solutions, Inc.