AUSTRALIANS think nuclear waste is a bigger health risk than motor vehicle
accidents, according to a research report released last month by the enHealth
Council, an advisory body to the Federal government on issues of environmental
health.
More than 20 000 people died on Australian roads in the past decade, and a
further quarter of a million were seriously injured. I cannot recall any public
injury arising from nuclear waste during that period. So, as a member of the
council, I was startled by the data collected for the report by South
Australia鈥檚 Centre for Population Studies in Epidemiology.
The data also reveals vast discrepancies in the way different segments of
society perceive environmental risks. For example, there is a clear link with
education. People who stopped formal education after high school are more likely
than graduates to rate any environmental threat as high risk. In some cases, the
difference is small. About 80 per cent of both groups view cigarette smoking as
a high risk behaviour. But about 80 per cent of non-graduates also see illegal
drugs as high risk, compared with about 50 per cent of those who attended
university.
Advertisement
Age too makes a significant difference. People over 55 believe illegal drugs
are more risky than tobacco. And nearly 60 per cent of older people think
diseases carried by mosquitoes are a high risk, while only 25 per cent of people
under 30 share that view. And there are gender differences. Women are much more
likely than men to see pesticides and food residues as risky.
But it was the overall ranking of risks that really caught my eye. Cigarette
smoking topped the list, followed by illegal drugs. But then came suntanning and
nuclear waste. Crime and violence, stress, and chemical pollution all ranked as
more risky than motor vehicle accidents.
The concern about chemicals is reflected in the responses to specific
statements included in the survey. The majority think the use of chemicals has
harmed us more than it has improved our health. This is despite the fact that
chlorination of water supplies is probably one of the most significant advances
ever made in public health. A remarkable 80 per cent of Australians say they try
hard to avoid contact with chemicals and chemical products in their daily lives.
And a majority of those surveyed agreed with the statement that natural
chemicals are not as harmful as 鈥渕an-made chemicals鈥�.
Psychological studies show people tend to underestimate the risks of
activities they undertake voluntarily, such as smoking or driving a car, and to
overestimate risks over which they have no control, like crime and violence or
chemical pollution. Even so, the general attitudes to chemicals should be a
worry to the scientific community. Perhaps we need a campaign to improve the
image of the chemicals that play a critical role in our everyday lives, from
sodium chloride and acetic acid to polyethylene and DNA.
ACRELAB is not an outfit for testing farm soil, but a new facility in Western
Australia for putting renewable energy equipment through its paces.
Recently opened by WA Deputy Premier, Hendy Cowan, the impressive new
laboratory at Perth鈥檚 Murdoch University is now fully operational as part of the
Australian Centre for Renewable Energy (ACRE). Not only can ACRELab assess how
solar cells and wind turbines perform, it can also check their impact on
electricity supply systems.
And a special environmental test chamber makes it possible to simulate field
conditions by allowing testing to occur at temperatures from below freezing to
more than 50掳C. The set-up should help to ensure that equipment generating
energy from renewable sources performs reliably in remote areas, where technical
back-up can be hard to provide.
CRAIG Cormick, director of the public awareness program for Biotechnology
Australia, has taken me to task for my recent comment that his program promotes
genetic engineering (Antipodes, 8 July). Cormick says the program 鈥渟eeks to
place itself in the middle ground of the GMO debate acknowledging both the
benefits and the risks of the technology鈥�. In a paper to the Australian
Biotechnology Association meeting in Brisbane, however, he stated that the
program counters the 鈥渕isinformation and hysteria鈥� of those opposed to genetic
engineering. There was no mention of countering misinformation from the
promoters. I agree with him that people should make their own judgement. Readers
can obtain copies of the material by ringing Biotechnology Australia.