Synaptic

I nominated this piece because it exemplifies not only excellent writing within the parameters of a demanding assignment but also because of the author’s personal investment of passion for and engagement with the topic itself: cancer, human health, and the effects of environmental toxins.

-Jim Zaffiro

---

As a rare hybrid scientist-writer, Sandra Steingraber takes it upon herself to do what many well-intentioned scientific articles can’t do; effectively communicate the science behind environmental impacts on cancer. Her training as a field biologist enables to her decipher the tricky implications often times hidden in scientific jargon, while her writing ability lets her communicate the findings and tell her own compelling story. The result is Living Downstream, a book that really makes the reader think about the overly synthetic world that we live in today.

The central story that Steingraber tells is one of an industrialized world that is quietly poisoning the very things that allow it to sustain life: air, water and even food. While chemical companies deny any harm their money-making toxins might do, the research that Steingraber reveals in this novel tells a very different story. As she says in the prologue of the second edition, “to ignore the scientific evidence is to knowingly permit thousands of unnecessary illnesses and deaths each year.”1 Because I come from a science background, it is easy for me to see the connection between the environment and cancer incidence illustrated by Steingraber. When children have a closer cancer history to their adoptive parents than their biological parents or when immigrants slowly adopt the cancer incidence of their new residences over their home countries, it becomes clear that the influences are more extrinsic than intrinsic.2,3 That doesn’t mean that genetics don’t factor in, just that the environment might play an even bigger role. This is something that needs to be taken into account.

Most importantly, we need to realize, that in the case of pesticides and antibiotics, we are fighting a losing battle. Resistances in both types of pests are cropping up faster than we can create stronger biocides to kill them. Now think about that. In order to keep our food, our hospitals, our kitchens, and our lawns clean and pest free, we continually dump synthetic chemicals that are designed to cause cell walls to disintegrate, organs to fail, and ultimately living things to die. And we keep increasing the levels at which we use these chemicals. It is just crazy to think that disease and, more importantly, discomfort is only kept at bay by chemicals designed to destroy. This point has been made by many concerned authors including Steingraber and Rachel Carson.

Having read Carson’s Silent Spring, I already knew the terrifying story of pesticides. However, having read Silent Spring, I had thought the horrors of pesticides were resolved and that the nation could move on. Steingraber is saying that is not the case. Regulations are either not strong enough, not enforced, or not even written in the case of most of the carcinogens mentioned in this book. It is clear that the war Carson declared on synthetic biocides in the 1960s is far from being won.

Steingraber pays homage to Carson in Living Downstream, telling about the author’s struggles through both cancer and the backlash of Silent Spring. The letters from Carson to a close personal friend add another dimension to her story. In the film Rachel Carson, her death seems like one accepted by a wizened scientist who knew what was coming. However, the letters revealed by Steingraber uncover Carson’s hopes for another summer. These letters show a very different ending that reminds the reader that cancer robbed at least 10 years of Carson’s life.4 Steingraber also tells the story of Jeannie, her own friend that loses the battle with cancer. These friendships show that cancer doesn’t just affect the 45% of men and 40% of women who are diagnosed with it.5 Cancer impacts families, friends and entire communities. Three people in my class were diagnosed with cancer before we graduated high school. One of them didn’t make it to graduation. Almost everyone associated with Waukee High School attended the funeral.

The generation most impacted by cancer is going to be mine. I say this because I have hope that changes can be made before things get too out of hand for the generation after me. In a perfect world, the demands of Olga Owens Huckins would be met, and synthetic chemicals would cease to be used until all their effects are known and understood.6 However, this precautionary principle isn’t exactly feasible. Some products require synthetic chemicals, and not every synthetic chemical is bad. The best option is that the US could develop something like REACH, a program adopted by the European Union. While the testing period may be costly and time-consuming, this program ensures that chemicals used and manufactured in the EU are all safe for people and the environment.7 As chemicals get the all clear from toxicity testing, they become available for use on the market. It’s a good way to ensure that the chemicals being used are safe. REACH seems like a marriage between the precautionary principle and the economics of still being able to produce products that do rely on synthetics.

Unfortunately the US is still in the phase of writing right-to-know laws, which will tell you what kind of toxins you are likely exposed to in your home and workplace, and implementing cancer registries, which track cancer diagnoses. While these developments have stockpiled invaluable amounts of data to use in the fight against cancer, they are insufficient to actually get carcinogens banned from use by the EPA or FDA or whichever other regulatory body might be involved. Steingraber goes far enough to call her home state’s cancer registry a “thriving child with a stillborn twin” without the hazardous substances registry that could have linked environmentally caused cancers with their carcinogens.8 It’s not surprising that the hazardous substances registry did not get funded. It seems that if the government doesn’t want to hear something, the programs meant to uncover those facts usually lost funding. This was seen in the very costly White House review on Global Climate Change that just disappeared when it had a chance to upset the oil industry. It was also seen in the 1960s during Carson’s time when many government scientists were silenced by the possibility of losing funding.9 It is even seen today in the sheer lack of any long term cancer studies, noted by Steingraber in her prologue. It seems as though changes need to be made on a grassroots level. As Steingraber states, “From the right to know and the duty to inquire flows the obligation to act.”10 I, for one, am on board. While Steingraber’s personal stories of her own fights with cancer were meant to help tell the story of environmental cancer in a stronger way than scientific fact can alone, it has made me very wary. Much like Steingraber, I grew up in a corn and soybeans county that grows the nation’s food through pesticides and nitrogenous fertilizers. Tazewell County and Dallas County have much more in common than I would like to admit. Both are in “prairie states” that are essentially prairie-less. They both too have areas of industry that have also added to the amount of synthetic chemicals in their environments. This makes it seem like Iowa would be a hot bed of cancer due to the farming communities flanked by industrial areas. However, it seems as though the children of these families are more at risk of developing cancer. u This is supported by the cases of leukemia, lung and liver cancers at my high school as well.

Toxicity research also supports this idea. Many studies have alluded to the fact that younger organisms are more susceptible to toxins than the adults of the same species. In my own research on the biocide triclosan, we found a much lower lethal concentration for zebrafish hatchlings than had been found for adult zebrafish. Working with Dr. Palenske and Dr. Du Pre on triclosan has also opened my eyes to just how prevalent some synthetic chemicals are. While triclosan itself isn’t linked to cancer, it is linked to endocrine disruption and high toxicity to aquatic organisms. This isn’t what is discouraging. What is discouraging is the fact that triclosan has been shown to be so toxic and is still used in everything from soaps to detergent to deodorant. This is the same discouragement that cancer activists face. There is a large amount of literature out there that does link many synthetic chemicals to cancer in a wide range of animals. Still, the information is considered inconclusive for humans and the chemical remains at large. It’s maddening. While I’m not at the stage of scouring my body in the despair that I have cancer, Living Downstream has made me very aware of the possibility of cancer. Many others need to be just as aware. There are countless chemicals, either synthesized or resulting as by products, that are constantly being put into our environment. Some cause cancer. Some cause other diseases. Some like triclosan lower metabolism and could possibly contribute to the obesity epidemic. And yet the scariest part isn’t that these chemicals keep building up. The scariest part is that most people are unaware that this is even occurring. That needs to change.

The fact is cancer is very possible for many in my generation. Unfortunately, it seems like things still have to get worse before they can get better. However, I think that books like Living Downstream and Silent Spring bring attention to these easily overlooked problems. With enough attention, someday the US might be in a place where policy will reflect the precautionary principle instead of the chemical industry.

Works Cited

1. Sandra Steingraber, Living Downstream (Philadelphia: Da Capo Press, 2010) xxv.
2. Sandra Steingraber, Living Downstream 257.
3. Sandra Steingraber, Living Downstream 60.
4. Sandra Steingraber, Living Downstream 25.
5. Sandra Steingraber, Living Downstream xxiii.
6. Sandra Steingraber, Living Downstream 34.
7. Sandra Steingraber, Living Downstream 119.
8. Sandra Steingraber, Living Downstream 49.
9. Sandra Steingraber, Living Downstream 20.
10. Sandra Steingraber, Living Downstream 122.
11. Sandra Steingraber, Living Downstream 67.