I was asked, at one point during a discussion, "What good is your theory to a child who has leukemia from chemical exposure? What do you say to that child?"

Personally, the "theory" that I work on cannot help such a child. For that child the damage has occurred, and no future efforts can take it back.

One thing that Risk Assessment (RA) can and has done for some people with adverse health effects is to show that, in all likelihood, these effects were caused by a chemical exposure, rather than being random events, making it possible for them to seek and hopefully obtain redress in the courts. The fact that RA has been used in this way to directly help affected individuals is part of the reason why I call it a two-edged sword.

What my efforts in Risk Assessment can do is help us to focus the limited resources at hand for toxic waste remediation and pollution control on the greatest problems or risks. Did this tragedy occur because too much time and effort were being spent on truly inconsequential risks? I hope not, but it is possible. Because the resources and efforts to control chemical exposure are indeed limited, it is important that those be used in the most effective way possible.

Finally, what do I say to the child? That is tough, because I am not trained in any form of counseling, and I'm not sure that my expressions of sympathy, though sincere, would be wanted. Perhaps the best I can offer is the hope that, with the knowledge of this most unfortunate case, we can learn enough to keep at least one other child from suffering the same consequences.
[Comment Form]

Return to main Environmental Justice page.