Book Review: Trashing the Planet by Dixy Lee Ray Essay

In Trashing the Planet, Dixy Lee Ray marshals the evidence of knowledge to perforate the fragile hot air balloons of the global warming, ozone reduction, and acid rain theorists. With scientific facts and sound philosophy she also demolished the nonsensical arguments behind the hysterical crusades against pesticides, alar, dioxin, PCBs, radon, asbestos, and nuclear power. Few of us have escaped the green propaganda onslaught unscathed; virtually everyone has been victimized with needless worries over alleged dangers lurking in the most common and benign substances in our homes, workplaces, and neighborhoods. Few of us have the academic background, the access to the scientific data, and the time to investigate the validity of the continuous outpouring of environmental doomsday scenarios. Ray covers a wide range of environmental topics, including acid rain, the greenhouse effect, ozone depletion, pesticides, etc. She attempts to use available scientific data to â€Å"clarify environmental issues, to separate facts from factoids, to unmask the doom-crying opponents of all progress, and to re-establish a sense of reason and balance with respect to the environment and modern technology.† (Merline, 14) In the course of this exercise, several interesting facts are presented, among them (Merline, 2001): The amount of ultraviolet radiation reaching the earth has decreased since 1974, contrary to what one would expect if the earth’s protective ozone layer (which filters out most of the sun’s ultraviolet rays) has been depleted from the use of chlorofluorocarbons.    Several known carcinogens, such as arsenic, cadmium, and chromium, are found naturally in human cells. As Ray argues, â€Å"it is the dose–the size or amount of exposure [to carcinogens]–that is important.† (Lee Ray, pg. 58) In addition, 11% of the radiation we are exposed to comes from our own bodies. A total of 82% of our exposure to radiation comes from natural sources, including radon, cosmic rays, elements in the earth, etc. The remaining 18% comes from man-made sources such as medical X-rays (11%), nuclear medicine (4%), consumer products (3%). All other sources, including nuclear power, account for less than 1% of our exposure to radiation. (Lee Ray, 1991)    Concerning radon gas, Ray notes that energy conservation as urged by the U.S. government will approximately double the number of cancer deaths due to exposure to radon gas, because â€Å"sealing up a home for the purpose of energy conservation inevitably leads to higher levels of indoor radon.† (Lee Ray, pg. 69) Yet despite this, no warnings have been issued about the dangers of this form of energy conservation. In fact, as Ray points out, â€Å"our government has actively promoted energy-efficient homes with everything from do-it-yourself literature to tax breaks for insulating your home.† (Lee Ray, pg. 78) Ray’s three assertions-that ozone would be produced in the lower atmosphere regardless of human activity, that it is produced by the interaction of sunlight and hydrocarbons, and that those hydrocarbons are largely produced by plants-are, respectively, a technical truth hiding a falsehood, a sloppily garbled half-truth, and a bit of these two mixed with an outright lie. Specifically, sea-level ozone is formed when sunlight splits nitrogen dioxide into nitric oxide and atomic oxygen. The atomic oxygen reacts with molecular oxygen to form ozone. Now it is technically true that, in nature, oxides of nitrogen are produced by certain bacteria, forest fires, and lightning, so that a small amount of sea-level ozone would indeed be produced in the absence of human activity. However, the main source of oxides of nitrogen in southern California is combustion: nitrogen combining with oxygen at high temperatures. So whether it’s from gas water, heaters and ovens, coal-fired power plants, or automobiles, most of the nitrogen dioxide in the air-and, thus, most of the sea-level ozone-is directly produced by human beings. (Lee Ray, 1991) As for Ray’s second claim, hydrocarbons contribute to increasing the level of ozone in smog by a very indirect route. Ozone in the lower atmosphere often reacts with water to form hydroxyl radicals. These hydroxyl radicals will either react with impurities in the air to break them down or react at night with nitrogen dioxide to form nitric acid, which is either washed out of the atmosphere by rain or broken down by sunlight the next day into hydroxyl radicals, nitric oxide, and atomic oxygen (Merline, 2001). In L.A. smog, the soupy mix of unburned and partially burned hydrocarbons reacts with hydroxyl radicals and oxygen to form organic peroxides. These, in turn, react with nitric oxide to form nitrogen dioxide. By generating even more nitrogen dioxide than was produced by combustion, these peroxides contribute more of the source material that sunlight will turn into ozone (Lee Ray, 1991). Thus, the ozone level goes up when hydrocarbons are added to the soup, but ozone is not created by a simple interaction between sunlight and hydrocarbons, as Dr. Ray asserted. As for Ray’s third claim-that hydrocarbons come from trees-here she was particularly devious. Her characterization of hydrocarbons as those wonderful things that you smell coming off pine trees is technically correct to the degree that the terpenes, which are indeed given off by trees, are a family of hydrocarbons. (One of these terpenes is pinene, which gives pine trees their pleasant smell; terpenes also react with oxygen and ozone to form a bluish haze in forested areas.) However, hydrocarbons comprise a huge family of compounds, encompassing everything from methane (natural gas) to such plastics as polyethylene, polypropylene, and polystyrene (Styrofoam) (Lee Ray, 1991). Just as the hydrocarbons in smog are not from Styrofoam, neither are they from trees; they are, in fact, unburned gasoline vapors-compounds such as ethane and ethylene. Moreover, pinene reacts with ozone to form pinol, which combines with water to form a hydrate that has a melting point higher than the boiling point of water. (Merline, 2001) As for my assertion to the thoughts developed by Dixy Ray that acid rain releases plant nutrients and is thus beneficial to forests, this is a sterling example of twisting the truth. The acidity of rain does, indeed, break down silicates and oxides, converting them to clay and sandy soils, and releasing ions of such beneficial metallic elements as sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium, iron, and manganese in the process. However, when the rain is too acidic, it not only burns the leaves of trees but can also release aluminum ions, which are toxic to fish, into rivers and lakes. Much of the concern voiced by environmentalists stems from a belief that technological advances are fouling our nest. The author takes pains to point out that technology often improves our environment, making it safer and cleaner for humans to live in. One example is with food irradiation. Deemed harmless by several heath groups, including the World Health Organization, irradiation helps to eliminate microorganisms that can cause food spoilage. Despite the obvious benefits to consumers from low spoilage rates, many consumer groups have fought irradiation for health reasons. References Lee Ray, Dixy (with Lou Guzzo). 1991. Trashing the Planet: How Science Can Help Us Deal With Acid Rain, Depletion of the Ozone Layer, and Nuclear Waste (Among Other Things). Regnery Gateway. Retrieved on October 6, 2006. Merline, J.W. 2001. Trashing the planet. Consumers’ Research Magazine. Retrieved on October 6, 2006.