SEES Cancer and chemicals PART TWO By RICHARD LANE On Sept. 15, 1978, a U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare (HEW) Teport prepared by 10 experts of the NCI, National Institute of Environ- Mental Health Sciences, and National Tnstitute of Occupational Safety and Health, estimated that 38% of total Cancer mortality over the next three de- Cades will be associated with asbestos, fsenic, benzine, chromium, nickel Oxides and petroleum fractions. S.S. Epstein (1979) claims this is a Conservative estimate because it ex- Cludes ‘‘radiation and a wide range of Other known occupational carcinogens”. No consideration of the pollution ef- fect on the general public is included either. Although this figure is low, it ives a much better starting place to as- S€ss cause than the 1-5% estimates by Other cancer war scientists, many of whom have been directly in the smoke- — protection of big business indus- es. NCI has the responsibility to test Chemicals in the environment for Carcinogenicity and pass on the infor- Mation for ban or restriction of a toxic Chemical. Six years after the war on Cancer had begun in 1971, only 200 of the thousands of chemicals in the environ- ee ment had been tested and only six had been reported on. This program has improved slightly in recent years; ‘‘It nevertheless has be- comeclearthatthe bio-assay program was proving an embarassment to the NCI.” (S.S. Epstein — 1979). Chemotherapy, drugs or chemicals used as a cancer ‘‘cure’’ are a profitable side business of the petrochemical industry. Meanwhile the NCI spent $75-million annually test- ing some 30,000 chemicals (1978) for possible use against cancer. Paradoxical- ly, only 200 chemicals were tested in six years for carcinogenicity. Dr. G. Newell (Acting Director, NCI, 1977) said: ‘‘We cast our nets throughout the world to look at all kinds of com- pounds including those that were pro- duced for various reasons by the chemi- cal companies. It was a random ap- proach.” Big Business Chemicals The end of World War II was the turn- ing point of a momentous growth of the chemical industry. The huge productive capacity developed during the war re- quired that the industry develop new products at an unparalleled rate to keep plants and refineries operating. S.S. Epstein (1979) writes: “‘It set to work aggressively developing ‘‘needs’’ for THE WAN | FIGURE IT Yourt HEATH 15 COMPANY PRoMERTY ff Hows Tear? 4 You CAUSE WHEN Leave wiTHeuT 7 Gh f | YAS «1-81 AIC new types of goods and services. As a by-product of this prodigious effort, more new chemicals to be used in making these goods were created, which in turn required the creation of new markets to produce them on a large and hence eco- nomically profitable scale.”’ The U.S. total synthetic organic chem- ical production in 1940 was one billion pounds. By 1976 it had risen to 300 billion pounds a year. Until the Toxic Sub- stance legislation of 1976, chemicals could be manufactured in the USA in limitless quantities and introduced into industry and environment with no testing for toxicity or carcinogenicity! This is still true in Canada (1982) even though there is now at least legislation (federal and Ontario) which could be used, but has not been. The 300% rise in 35 years is a huge increase but lost is the fact that the total production when added up year after year would equal almost 4,500,000,000,000 pounds of chemicals. Is part of this tremendous production surrounding us right now as toxic, car- cinogenic pollution? Why was there this tremendous effort? Synthetic Revolution Did the average Canadian and U.S. citizen, eat more and better? Did he use more clothing (synthetics)? Use more cleaners (solvents)? Drink more beer? Drive more cars (plastics)? No! But his fuod is grown on less land with more fertilizers and pesticides than before. His clothes are made from synth- etic fibres. He washes with detergents. Aluminum, plastic, glass and concrete have replaced wood and steel in build- ings. His beer is chemically aged and sold in metal, non-returnable cans.. Commoner (1971) points out that af- fluence was no greater for the average American between 1946 and 1970. The basics now came in new forms which are more profitable but offer little more in social value. In industry after industry, high- energy-using and _ pollutant-creating technologies and materials have dis- placed older production techniques and older products. Profits rose tremen- dously. Barry Commoner, author of The Clos- ing Circle (1971) estimated a tenfold jump in pollution (and profits) in the years be- tween 1946 and 1970. Production and population increased less than 40%. Richard Lane is a pseudonym for a working scientist. ’ Next week: The body count ee The prime minister casts a wide net Prime Minister Trudeau’s three-part address to the Canadian public aired over CBC (October 19-21) was instantly dub- da “‘bust’’ by the instant economic and political analysts interviewed by the Media. These media mind-benders not Only missed the bus, they grossly misled € public as to the main burden of the M’s address. . These hand-picked ‘‘experts’’ gutted © PM’s message by directing public attention to the absence of concrete Propositions to cure Canada’s economic S. They dismissed the main thrust of his dress as empty rhetoric to coverup the ‘ankruptcy of government economic Policy. While one cannot argue about Such bankruptcy, the fact remains that - these alleged economic and political ex- Perts, not only did the public a dis- Service, they also seriously under-rated the prime minister's astuteness as a poli- Ucian and champion of the corporate lite. To underrate a major opponent in Class Struggle is to court defeat. * * * j __ The main burden of Trudeau’s mes- Sage to Canadians was a direct appeal for Partism in the battle to pull Canada out ofits persisting recession, imposed upon anada and her people as a result of the “tisis policies of monopoly and govern- Ment. The PM asked the working people, W trade unions and political organiza- Ns, to join hands with the big mono- -lY corporations and the financial ‘stitutions, and governments at all €vels, to work together unselfishly to put ada onto the highroad of recovery. tio fee PM drew attention also to the Rg, fierce trade wars being waged on a capitalist world level and appealed to all Canadians, regardless of their place in the production chain, to produce more goods of better quality and lower cost, so Canada could compete more favorably and profitably in the world market to the benefit of all. In other words, the prime minister proposes more speed upon the production line, a thinner wage packet and higher profits for the monopoly cor- porations. It is no wonder that the giant industrial corporations and the banking fraternity approve Trudeau's projection on the road ahead. So did Conservative leader Joe Clark, who publicly declared that if the concept projected is poe ied by practical measures in parlia- ai: he lhe 5 support them. And, NDP leader Ed Broadbent, in his CBC reply agreed with the broad assessment of the general situation projected by the PM. Thus, the broad outline of a tripartite understanding appears to be unfolding between the three parliamentary parties, which can only serve to encourage the virus of tripartism. * * * is address the PM went out of his aa : stress that cooperation between _.| Marxism-Leninism Today - Alfred Dewhurst | government, industry and labor to achieve a Canadian economic ‘‘miracle”’ could not be legislated. He said that compulsion could only breed distrust, enmity and division between the various sections of the population. Therefore, conveniently overlooking the imposition of the 6/S formula on federal employees, he rejected mandatory controls to bring down inflation and the cost of produc- tion, because this would defeat the con- cept of voluntary cooperation by society as a whole. The prime minister thinks that it will take time to achieve the Canadian eco- nomic miracle. He speculates that it will be at the beginning of the 21st century. But first, he said, we must face the hard, cold winter that we are already entering. Then we will begin a long, hard 17-year march of unifying our ranks, streamlin- ing our production costs and marketing techniques in anticipation of an upturn in the world market, able and ready to take our rightful place in the foremost ranks of the world’s industrialized countries. This ‘is the carrot at the end of the road. This is the bait to screen the trap the PM has cast to trap the unwary, namely, to utilize tripartism as a method to extri- cate the monopolies from the economic crisis they created in their unrelenting search for maximum monopoly profits. * * * The depth of the crisis can be best measured by the level of idle production capacity. At the present time it stands at 37.2% in Canada. It is measured also by the level of unemployment, which is the highest since 1929, as well as in the sharp decline in living standards. Unemploy- ment is becoming unmanageable under present conditions, stimulated as it is by the technological revolution, and the vir- tual collapse of new capital investment. These new features of the present economic crisis have created a new situa- tion for the working class. Massive unemployment in turn creates a massive reserve army of labor. This army of job- less is one of monopoly’s main levers to weaken the position of the trade union movement, its bargaining strength and ability to defend the vital interests of its members. * * * This relatively new situation calls for effective and principled strategy and flexible tactics tailored to defend gains while going on the offensive for new eco- nomic policies. This means using all forms of struggle depending on current situations. It calls for constant struggie -against policies of class collaboration. Above all, it calls for meaningful struggle to defeat the combined aim of monopoly and government to- integrate the organized labor movement into the mechanism of state-monopoly capitalism. preg be 30)