1. “… a globalized economy and society is evolving that will not necessarily be homogenous.”
2. “The earth is increasingly … engineered” and “… human choice and technology determine the structure not only of human lives and environments, but ”…” other life forms as well.
3. “… reductionist science …” must “… be augmented … by more systems-based, comprehensive approaches.”
4. “Policy generally functions in the short term …” temporally and a limited area spatially.
5. Modern institutions are “… changing in both unparalleled and little recognized …” ways.
6. Both sustainability and sustainable development are ambiguous terms both “… because of a lack of knowledge …” and “… because they involve social choice.”
7. “Evolution toward an economically and environmentally efficient economy will differentially favor certain industrial sectors and technological systems and disfavor others.”
8. Although “… environmental issues are occasionally framed in apocalyptic terms … [w]hat is threatened from a human perspective … is the stability of global economic and social systems.”
Graedel26 notes that “technological resources should cycle just as nature’s resources do.” He gives a superb discussion of the basics of municipal ecology or, as Newcombe27 names it, “the metabolism of a city.” Graedel26 uses the term ecocity and maintains that cities be “… regarded as organisms, and analyzed as such, in an attempt to improve their current environmental perfor- mance and long-term sustainability.” This view provides a clear opportunity for ecotoxicologists since they are accustomed to determining response of complex systems to chemical and other stresses. However, it will require an array of methods, procedures, and endpoints suited to this new undertaking.
42.4.1 Mimicking Natural Cycles
Nature’s wastes are most often used by some other part of nature (e.g., dung by the African dung beetle),28 and there are few waste products produced by any species that are not of immediate value to one or more other species. Some plants and animals produce particularly toxic materials, but they are not usually widely distributed and are not usually persistent. Other species have varied means of avoiding exposure, and, in fact, many toxics are produced in order to avoid predation.
Industrial wastes, on the other hand, often have no value to other species or organisms and may be fatal to them.
Although some materials do accumulate, such as fossil fuels, most of nature keeps moving.
Industrial ecology attempts to mimic natural cycles, which mostly keep materials moving in a way that does not disrupt the biosphere, and to modify industrial wastes so that they are more amenable to cycling in natural systems. The concept of industrial ecology or industrial symbiosis with natural systems is to model industrial systems after the cycles characteristic of natural systems. A more specific definition of industrial ecology is provided by Graedel and Allenby:2
Industrial ecology is the means by which humanity can deliberately and rationally approach and maintain a desirable carrying capacity, given continued economic, cultural and technological evolution.
The concept requires that an industrial system be viewed not in isolation from its surrounding systems, but in concert with them. It is a systems view in which one seeks to optimize the total materials cycle from virgin material, to finished material, to component, to product, to obsolete product, and to ultimate disposal.
Similarly, municipal ecology proposes to model municipal systems (towns, cities, and other concentrations of human population)26 after the cycles characteristic of natural systems. Both industrial and municipal systems should be designed to cycle materials in such a way that they are used serially, rather than in a once-through system in which raw materials are extracted from natural systems and transformed into products, and then ultimately both the product and the waste are discarded into natural systems without regard for the ability of the systems to assimilate and cycle them. Recycling is not an afterthought, as it now is in most human societies; but, rather, the concept is incorporated into all aspects of a cyclic process. It is not enough that the waste products do no harm to natural systems; rather, the essence of industrial and municipal ecology is that the wastes are amenable to incorporation into the natural systems in a way that will promote ecological integrity and health.
If the waste products of anthropogenic activities are not harmful to natural systems but of benefit to them, there is no justification for transporting the wastes considerable distances from the point of generation. If human society mimicked the economies of nature and produced wastes that are not dangerous to natural systems and a threat to their integrity but, rather, are beneficial to natural systems and improve their health and condition, there would be no need to transport such wastes or store them in containers for long periods of time. If wastes were indeed beneficial to natural systems, then producers of the wastes would be losing a valuable resource by exporting them. In fact, the only reason for exporting wastes is the recognition that they are harmful to human
health and the environment. The only justification for doing so is that the exporter is so exceptional that the health of its citizens and its environment are more important than the areas to which the wastes are being exported. The fact that other areas are willing, even eager, to accept these wastes does not in any way diminish the moral dilemma of the exporter.
Regrettably, this dumping of harmful wastes on others has been discussed in economic terms and not in ethical and moral terms, which should make the action unthinkable. Even for those favoring economic thinking, unethical and immoral practices are not good for either the exporter or the recipient. Resolving these ethical issues entails determining how to develop wastes that can be reintroduced into natural systems without harm to the natural systems or to human health. There is no moral or ethical dilemma if the wastes are effectively resources to the recipient. However, there is a dilemma if the wastes are harmful to the exposed organisms or effectively block access to essential resources.
All aspects of each industrial processing system must be examined in terms of its compatibility with natural systems wherever and whenever the two interface. Within this conceptual framework, industrial and natural processes are designed to be more compatible and, ultimately, symbiotic, rather than isolated from each other conceptually, as they now are. Human society must operate in such a way that its waste products are readily and beneficially reincorporated into natural systems.
If a judgmental error is made in the ecosystem assimilative capacity for anthropogenic wastes, ecosystem stress should be apparent in one or more of a series of departures from the nominative state, such as ecological integrity, resilience,29 biotic impoverishment,30 and increased variability, all of which are exceedingly difficult but not impossible to measure.
The example most often cited for industrial ecology is the Danish industries of Kalundborg.28,31 In this small city, the industries act as if they are an integrated system or a web linking the
“metabolism” of one company with that of the others. For example, the “waste” energy in the form of spent steam from a power plant is used to heat the town, to heat fermentation vats for a pharmaceutical company, and to heat water for aquaculture. Thus, the spent steam does not become an environmentally harmful waste discharge, but rather an economic asset cycled through a system that consists of a web of previously isolated components.
On March 10, 2000, the Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) held a conference on drinking water entitled “Drinking water and disease: what every healthcare provider should know.”
The news media have given enormous attention to disease problems associated with poor drinking water, food processing, and the like. What has received less attention is the fact that chlorination for disinfection of drinking water supplies, although it has helped to control cholera and other diseases that once menaced much of human society, has a downside in that the chemical by-products formed as a result of chlorination may be associated with increased risk of bladder cancer, colorectal cancer, and adverse reproductive and developmental effects.32 The report also notes that anthropo- genic pollutants contaminate ground and surface water that supply drinking water. Leaking under- ground storage tanks and hazardous waste sites, for example, can contaminate groundwater use for individual and community drinking water supplies. Agricultural and livestock production introduce pesticides, fertilizers, animal waste, and antibiotics into the hydrologic cycle. All sorts of contam- inants have been identified in drinking water including trace amounts of caffeine.
Tests to identify complex chemicals with precision are costly and are well beyond the analytical capabilities of most water-treatment facilities, except possibly those of large metropolitan areas. In addition, even when the chemicals have been identified, targeting sources is still problematic because wastes are now moved considerable distances from their site of production to sites within the United States and to some other developed countries. Quality control monitoring of safety of underground storage sites has often been inadequate. Industrial ecology can do much to alleviate this problem by minimizing the production of wastes that are unsuitable for release into the environment and by treating wastes as valuable resources and reusing them in a variety of ways.
Spreading wastes over wide areas throughout the environment primarily by means of the transpor- tation system and faulty and poorly monitored long-term storage systems should be remedied.
42.4.2 Toxicants in Human Behavioral Problems
New research suggests that millions more children than previously thought might have lead- linked mental impairment,33 while another study supports a strong link between that exposure and juvenile delinquency. Other such findings have also been reported elsewhere.34
Suppose there is significant evidence that these contaminants are capable of producing behav- ioral changes, particularly in the young, and that they are ubiquitous in the environment. This scenario means, first of all, that reference specimens are impossible to obtain or, at best, are exceedingly rare. Even the investigators studying the problem are likely to have altered behaviors.
In addition, if humans are as unique as some believe, tests on surrogate species, however scientif- ically reproducible, may not extrapolate well to the human species.
Even if the possibility of contaminant-altered behavior is remote (and it appears not to be), the precautionary principle requires that precautionary action be taken, especially when the means for such action, namely industrial ecology, shows considerable promise and has been tested to a significant degree.
Even if the principles, concepts, and procedures of industrial ecology are immediately imple- mented, the environmental concentrations of persistent chemicals and their various transformation products will remain for some time. Since these chemicals are numerous and likely to have at least some interactions, there are two quite obvious tasks for ecotoxicologists — determine routes of exposure and means to avoid them and determine the rates of degradation and the ways in which particularly important chemicals partition in the environment, which will provide both the means to avoid exposure and the possibility of inþsitu treatment of the highest concentrations.
42.4.3 Quality Control Monitoring
Environmental monitoring is carried out for the purpose of determining that previously estab- lished quality-control conditions have been met.35 The quality-control conditions will be those developed by environmental scientists.36 At the very least, monitoring should provide an early warning that quality-control conditions are not being met and provide a degree of validation of the predictive models developed from ecotoxicological testing. In the early development of this area, both false negatives and false positives are likely to be common, possibly even frequent, especially if multiple lines of evidence are not gathered because of cost-cutting measures. A false positive is a signal that quality-control conditions are not being met when in fact they are, and a false negative is an indication that no adverse effects are occurring when in fact they are. These false positives and negatives will be a source of frustration to the general public and its representatives if their ecotoxicological literacy is not raised well above present levels!
In order for quality control monitoring of ecosystem conditions to be effective, the information systems must, above all, be rapid and comprehensive. Decision makers will likely insist that monitoring systems also be economical, but, as is the case for preventative medicine, the cost of ignorance often far exceeds the cost of the preventative measures. The need for speed in effective biological monitoring systems has been recognized for years.37,38 Major problems will arise in spatial and temporal complexity at the landscape and larger levels; investigators may initially cope with these problems through the use of echelon analysis39,40 and various other types of system-level assessment.41,42 Although methods and procedures for the determination of ecosystem health are still in the early development stages, a considerable body of literature already exists.43–47
In any widespread activity, the sampling methods, procedures, and protocols become standard- ized. There are organizations whose mission may be entirely or substantially devoted to such activities (such as the American Society for Testing and Materials, the American Public Health Association, the American Water Works Association, the European Island Fisheries Committee).
When any activity becomes increasingly common, it is important to know how a particular number is derived and whether it is from a biological, chemical, or physical sampling. In addition, when
any activity becomes particularly common, measurements are made by persons with less formal training than research investigators. Even research investigators should be obliged to collect some data in the same way in order to facilitate comparisons between studies made in widely differing geographic areas or measurements made over considerable spans of time at the same place.
Researchers tend to be attracted to the latest methodologies and technologies; but for studies covering large temporal and spatial spans, consistency in making the measurements, especially in highly variable systems, results in a marked reduction in uncertainty. “Unknowns” in “round robin”
testing evaluations are often used to determine the reliability of the laboratory or individual’s analytical procedure. It is often a shock to many environmental professionals when they first find how important standard methods are in courts of law. Courts of law are particularly fond of standard methods for three important reasons: (1) they usually represent a strong consensus by practitioners in a particular field as to how a particular measurement should be made; (2) each step of the analytic process is described in painstaking detail so that it is extraordinarily difficult to inadvertently deviate from the established methodology; and (3) because of their widespread use, especially in compliance to regulatory requirements, they are subjected to continual intense scrutiny, reevaluations, and descriptions of situations, which would produce spurious results.
Standard methods already exist for many chemical and physical parameters, and they already have a well-established role in many other areas that affect the daily lives of humans and the environment. Biological standardized methods exist, but they are not nearly as numerous as those in other categories. Before a methodology has achieved the status of a standard method, it is often termed a provisional method, which has less status than a standard method. However, the provisional method is already attracting more attention than would otherwise be the case had it not entered a standardization process. The disadvantage of standard methods is their extreme rigidity. Rigidity has notable advantages in replication, etc. but is often frustrating when adjustments must be made for conditions of a specific site, many of which are unique.
Protocols are produced by a consensus of carefully selected professionals and have a certain stature in courts of law. Even protocols are regularly revised and subcomponents of them explored in great detail. Standard methods and procedures give confidence to the general public, decision makers, and regulatory agencies that appropriate methods are being used. Modification of protocols gives confidence in the process of decision making, integration of information, and predetermining the normal state that, if not met, calls for immediate corrective action.
In historic times, environmental monitoring was practiced in an informal sense. The nobility in many countries, from India to many parts of Europe and, more recently, in parts of North America, had large nature preserves predominantly used for recreation, such as hunting. They employed gamekeepers, river wardens, and the like to keep a watchful eye on the condition of the preserve and also, especially if it was very large, to drive off poachers. The people charged with preserving the system often had little or no formal education and were definitely not acquainted with the complex ecological and statistical analyses at the system level. Nevertheless, these keepers had direct observation of the condition of the system based on a life-long association with it and an encyclopedic knowledge of its components and processes. If they used poor management skills, they suffered severely and, in some primitive cultures, often died. Today, when most inhabitants of the planet have only a fragmentary understanding of natural systems and very little personal involvement with them, society must rely upon rather complex assessments. In an era when many people have a distrust of science, communicating this complex information to the general public will indeed be a challenge. However, society will suffer if its relationship with natural systems is not managed skillfully.
Espousing keepers is in sharp contrast to most of this discussion. At worst, it might be construed as an argument against science and informed management. It does, however, recognize two realities:
(1) there are, at present, insufficient professionals to implement these practices on a large scale and (2) even if they become available, many countries will be too poor to employ the professionals and provide them with adequate equipment. One hopes this situation will change; but, in the
meantime, it will probably be essential to implement some older practices that may alert manage- ment of the need to acquire, temporarily or permanently, more skilled professionals with better equipment.
42.4.4 Cessation of Production of Persistent, Non-Degradable Compounds
The most common justification for producing persistent chemicals, many of which are known to be toxic and all of which have the potential to be toxic or environmentally harmful, is that technology will be developed in the future that will transform them into nonpersistent, harmless chemicals. However, the existence of a need is not likely to create the funding necessary to develop this new technology unless there is evidence that the storage systems are not working. The monitoring costs to assure that storage systems are working are too high. There must be unmis- takable, or at least persuasive, evidence that faulty storage sites present an immediate threat to human health or the environment before such practices are halted. The many proponents of a future technological solution never mention an alternative that is more attractive in terms of reducing risk. The alternative is to use human ingenuity, creativity, and technology to produce nonpersistent chemicals that need no storage and do not depend on the development of some future, unknown technology in order to be rid of them. In addition, society is running out of storage space because most people resist such sites in their backyard, near their groundwater supply, or near other aquatic ecosystems.
When the United States Congress developed legislation to identify and decontaminate hazardous waste sites (Toxic Substances Control Act), the number that already existed was startling to most people. The difficulty of determining who was responsible for the hazardous wastes was beyond the capability of the justice system in practically every instance. Instead of the allocated funds going toward cleanup of the storage sites, which would have reduced their potential for harm, most of the money went into legal fees, which regrettably have neither led to substantive reductions in risk nor identified a satisfactory means of addressing the problem. Scientists are the ones who must make the most critical judgments on risks to human health and the environment from toxic substances. Ecotoxicologists, of course, have a role to play, both in the development of nonpersistent chemicals and in the detoxification of persistent chemicals. Since there are no courts of science and technology that are comparable to courts of law, the work of ecotoxicologists is directed by, and all too often suppressed or ignored by, the legal system.
In one view, science is supposed to be value-free; however, personal values of scientists determine what research is carried out, how teaching is designed, and the choice of words and phrases in professional publications and presentations at professional meetings. Most scientists attempt to maintain objectivity, and some even carry the effort to the extreme limit of not expressing any opinion about even the possible extinction of their favorite species. The quest for objectivity is greatly assisted by the peer-review system, but even this rigorous quality control system permits value judgments to appear in many journals, even if they are not clearly labeled as editorials, commentaries, or speculations.
The quest for sustainable use of the planet is basically a value-laden goal. A central value is that it would be a good goal for human society to be able to use the planet indefinitely. Other species and the natural systems they inhabit are viewed as valuable as the ecological life-support system of human society and the source of natural capital upon which other forms of human capital depend. Those who use the term “sustainable development” add a further value, that is, development as it is now understood in human society is good and should never cease. Scientists have an ethical and moral responsibility to speak up when damage being done by toxicants to natural systems destroys or impairs the integrity of those systems. Using the excuse of scientific objectivity to avoid speaking out when systems are being destroyed is far worse than stating a value judgment that is clearly identified as such and based on evidence and reason. It is instructive to examine the