We're just back from the baddest grammar lesson ever and we're chomping at the bite mark for the Bad Usage and Diction Seminar. In the meantime, let's explore an Apocalypse Now related to a Spraying Operation Then.
A 2003 study in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine found that even 30-40 years after the defoliant Agent Orange was used during the Vietnam War, people are still suffering from the consequences of its use. Jeez, doesn't this kind of stuff just break down after a while and become inert? Nope, not if it's a persistent organic pollutant, or POP.
In this case, the persistent organic pollutant is a dioxin contaminant in the Agent Orange known as TCDD. In the parts of Vietnam that were heavily spray during the war, the dioxin has remained so prevalent in the environment
and food chain that it continues to get into residents of those areas today, even into children who weren't alive back then and were never sprayed with Agent Orange. Common health effects are skin problems and liver damage, but the witch's brew of herbicide/TCDD is also a probable carcinogen, and long-term exposure may cause developmental and reproductive problems. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, there is currently no known safe level of dioxin exposure.
The good news is that only the regions of Vietnam that were heavily sprayed with Agent Orange continue to suffer the high levels of contamination. But there is a broader lesson here: POPs are bad news and are something we should eliminate from use—everywhere.
Here's another POPs quiz item for you: In a 2003 study of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDC) found in the air and dust in 120 US homes, over 60 of the EDCs were found. Prevalent among them were three POPs—heptachlor, chlordane, and DDT—pesticides that have all been banned for years in the US. It's pretty obvious that these chemicals hang around for a LONG time without breaking down into less toxic compounds.
Persistent organic pollutants are also particularly troublesome because they often accumulate in the body fat of animals and people and can be are passed from mother to fetus.
Progress on eliminating persistent organic pollutants has been a mixed bag. Some POPs have already been banned by individual countries, but most are still used or manufactured SOMEWHERE on the planet. Because they can travel long distances via wind or water, their manufacture and use anywhere on the planet is a threat to living beings EVERYWHERE. To address the POPs issue on a global scale, the Stockholm Convention was crafted in 2001. It has been signed by over 150 countries and is well on its way to being ratified into law by the required minimum of 50 countries. The treaty initially only gives the boot to a dozen of the worst POPs, but it has mechanisms to allow the banishment of additional bad-actor chemicals in the future. This point has caused US chemical companies a certain level of consternation, and their political allies have worked to stall and weaken the treaty's ratifying legislation.
The chemicals to be eliminated by the Stockholm Convention are a good start, but ONLY a good start—many other chemicals are deserving of stricter control or elimination. With 71,000 chemicals registered for use, it seems that we ought to be able to figure out how to live without the worst of them—"la crème de la crud." So, does your senator support passage of the Stockholm Convention treaty?