Environmentalists are too often buffoons and scientifically illiterate.

A plague of obscurantist cults

By THOMAS GELSTHORPE

June 04, 2014 

Obscurantist means "withholding information" or "characterized by deliberate vagueness." Public policy obscurantism befuddles people with exaggeration, worst-case scenarios, scapegoating and wishful thinking — tactics that obscure key facts beneath a smog of idle speculation mixed with fear.

Popular notions that Mother Nature is benign have achieved cult-like devotion across a host of issues. For decades "organic" food and "organic" agriculture have made extravagant claims for being healthier. In the science of chemistry, organic means "containing carbon." Organic ideology — as distinguished from organic chemistry — defines what things should not contain: "synthetic" ingredients, which are tricky to define, or "chemicals," an even vaguer term.

The science of chemistry (everyone reveres science, right?) shows how matter is composed of elements. In this sense, everything is made of chemicals — air, carrot juice, horse manure and shampoo. In the all-natural cult, synthetic, chemical, or worse yet, "synthetic chemicals," are vaguely synonymous with "poison," which obscures several basic facts.

1. Not all manmade substances are toxic.

2. Not all natural substances are harmless.

3. Concentration of materials is key to measurable risk.

4. Toxicity can usually be measured with precision.

5. Dilution and degradation of dangerous materials reduce toxicity over time.

Playing loose with numbers, disregarding degradability of materials, and ignoring the abundance of natural toxins in the environment lead to misleading assessments of risk, like the recent "My View" critique of NStar's use of herbicides on its rights-of-way:

"2,000 gallons of pesticide mixture on 800 acres of Cape Cod" sounds like a lot, until you consider the context. NStar is considering herbicides, not pesticides, which are different classes of compounds. A mixture of a 2 percent solution typical of herbicides is only 40 gallons of active ingredient. Eight-hundred acres is only 3/10th of 1 percent of the Cape's 250,000 acres.

Professional application of 40 gallons of material to .003 of the Cape's land area is insufficient excuse for state Sen. Daniel Wolf, D-Harwich, to advocate civil disobedience. Legislators should make laws that enhance public order, not goad mobs with misinformation.

GreenCAPE, a local environmental nonprofit, is conjuring up a laundry list of ghoulish scenarios, speculating about groundwater penetration, and declaring the electric company "arrogant and immoral" for practices legal for other parties, including unlicensed homeowners. Reckless scapegoating impinges on NStar's equal protection under the law.

Poison ivy produces a potent toxin afflicting thousands of children yearly. Fall foliage drops tons of chemicals on living soils. Evergreens deposit "unknown mixtures" of hydrocarbons. Common plants acidify topsoil, generate their own pesticides to repel bugs, and herbicides that repel rivals. Wildlife spread pathogens and hundreds of Cape Codders get infected. My yard is raining caterpillar turds as I write this.

Hyper-emotional, politicized attacks on the electric company sound silly when you consider the ubiquity of "chemicals" in nature, and relative risks in context. In my farming career, I was a certified applicator for more than 30 years, attended frequent seminars as required by law, and never suffered ill effects or collateral damage.

When science turns into dogma and attacks critics through political means, you're mixing church and state even if you don't call it that. Darwin's theory of evolution was verifiable enough to form the foundation of biology. Genetics were understood empirically before Darwin came along. Crick and Watson's discovery of DNA lifted Darwin's work to another phase. Cumulative knowledge accelerated advances in biochemistry, agronomy and medicine. "Progressives" who scoff at "deniers" and "creationists" often scoff at cutting-edge research building on Darwin's discoveries.

Darwin did not indulge in prophecy. He documented the evolution of species, but did not speculate on how species would evolve going forward, or advocate regulations guiding their development. When all-natural champions — or worse yet, politicians — advocate the use of force based on prophecy, you're not talking science anymore; you're wielding a blunt instrument for political theater. Informed respect for nature requires a more measured approach than mobilizing round-robin attacks on emerging technologies.

Thomas Gelsthorpe, a retired cranberry farmer, lives in Cataumet. Email thomasgelsthorpe@gmail.com.