RE: [pf] Risks, imposed or chosen

by Fitzsimmons, Diane

18 December 2000 17:07 UTC

David, I believe if anybody else on this list comes as close as you to
having faith in science, it's probably me.

Science has meant I didn't die from eclampsia, pneumonia, a tubal pregnancy,
hypothyrodism and cancer.  (Of course, the jury is out as to what *caused*
my thyroid cancer; having had it has made me feel a special kinship with the
people who lived around Chernobyl.) Science has meant that I can see, have
teeth and relatively normal skin (I have seborrheic dermatitis).

I used thalidomide as an example only because I believe that counting the
blessings of medical advances does not rule out that there would be
problems. Of course, science isn't perfect, because it is translated into
our daily world via human beings.  And, truth be told, there are, it
appears, good uses of thalidomide, when used properly.  But how do we use it
properly? -- and we certainly don't rush it into use without careful study.

My point is that I understand why we are cautious.  My gosh, I've alreay
been exposed to countless amounts of radiation, pesticides, second-hand
smoke, air pollution, drivers going the wrong way on the interstate.  So
some of us lobby for smoke-free offices and better enforcement of drunken
driving laws, wear seat belts, go for annual Pap smears and want labels on
our food.  Yes, science has managed to keep me alive so far, or luck, or
divine intervention (depending upon your world view).  But I figure that I
need my science in places other than food manufacturing.

The force-feeding I was referring to is that *some* scientists believe
GMO-foods will spread their "enhancements" to other plants via pollination,
wind, etc., that someday our food chain will not be free of what I believe
to be a contaminant.  Consider it the second-hand smoke of the food world.
Not to mention that Starlink was obviously not kept separate and possibly
eaten by me (I buy Mission) without my knowledge or consent.

Diane Fitzsimmons
Norman, Okla.