Environmental-Health Books

The best test of a novel is does it stay with you or does it disappear like so much morning mist. It has been several years since I read this book, but I find myself thinking of it often. My wife and I have discussed the ending a number of times often in sharp disagreement. However, as we have grown older and gained more life experience, the story has become truer, if not less painful, and a favorite of both of ours. It is Mary Gordon's best work which is high praise.

Everything in this book depends on whether or not you can stomach the protagonist, Ellen Macnamara. Ellen is an Irish girl who comes to America around 1890, marries, starts a large family. She is also cruel, selfish, consumed with rage and prone to enormous self pity. In other words, Mary Gordon is crafting a self portrait and daring the reader not to respond.

Problem is, aside from the hateful, overbearing nature of the main character, there are a lot of details that just don't ring true. Mary Gordon loves to whine about how tough the Irish had it, (toiling away in those cotton fields, being lynched, you know) yet she's so insufferably genteel that she can't bear to actually show Ellen in grinding poverty. So Ellen works as a "seamstress" and finds employment with a very wealthy Irish family. Problem is, even there, Mary can't seem to hit the right note of persecution. The lady of the house asks Ellen to help her with some sewing, and says something like, "here, sit down and help me with this sewing, and while you do it, tell me something about your life." Supposed to be cruel and overbearing, but comes across as gracious and rather sweet. And this was as bad as it got for Ellen? No wonder she's mean all the time! Uh, I am not convinced. I never bought her as poor, angry, or in any way representative of the huddled masses.

Later on, Ellen gets work in a "sweatshop" (though she never seems to sweat) and makes friends with a -- gasp! -- Jewish girl. No Italians or Poles for Barnard Mary -- oh no. Well, okay, so the Jewish girl and the Irish girl meet, at the sweatshop, and it's love at first sight. Problem is, the two hold elegant conversations in Barnard English, chatting about Jane Austen and so on. Something tells me that two working girls in New York in 1910 would have less than perfect diction. Ellen should have a brogue you could cut and the Jewish girl should have an accent all her own. But it doesn't happen. Mary wants to cry about the immigrant experience . . . but she doesn't want to experience it.

Through the years, the unreality grows. Ellen becomes a feared and respected matriarch, ruling over a miserable clan she tyrannizes with her razor sharp tongue. Supposedly. But when the police come to the door to reprimand her for keeping chickens in the yard, she crushes the young patrolman with a feeble crack like "I remember when you and my Johnny used to climb apple trees together." Wow! Move over, Don Rickles. Ellen just never comes to life as a tyrant, a rebel, or anything else Mary Gordon wants her to be.

Not only does Mary Gordon never make Ellen real, she never deals with any of the more unpleasant sides of the Irish character. Racism, anti-semitism, violence against outsiders, none of these things are even hinted at. Mary wants it both ways -- the Irish are victims, out of place in America, yet somehow they rise to wealth and respectability without ever getting their hands dirty.

Back in 1989, Mary actually lowered herself to appearing on the TODAY show to promote this dog, and I remember her saying that she wasn't interested in the "mini-series" version of the immigrant experience. But it's not clear why this book is any better. It's not more insightful, there is no self-criticism, and the characters aren't especially charismatic.

But at least Ellen speaks correct, Barnard English.

Sometimes when I can't get into a book at first, I hang in there thinking that I'll get hooked in soon. Usually that happens, but unfortunately, it did not in this case. The book centers on an Irish family in the early - mid 1900's, three generations, their motivations, the love they did/didn't receive from their parents, their sagas. Yet, I could not connect with any of the characters, and could barely recall who was who and what had happened from one reading to the next. I loved Mary Gordon's book, Spending. When I read a book and enjoy it, I will read and study other books by the same author. I was very disappointed in this book.

I also thought the book was a little "deep" but it's very comprehensive. I like what David is doing....

This book is highly technical and not for the layman. I was looking for simple answers and got PHD type answers. A lot of money for a book you can't understand.

On July 3, 1997, the National Cancer Institute released the results of a massive four-year study of power lines and cancer. These results appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study itself was based on the most rigorous methods available for the study of cancer. This study conclusively and unambiguously found no health effects associated with electromagnetic fields. Sometimes, a little knowledge is a bad thing. Brodeur has furthered the waste of countless tax dollars, and in the process, likely caused the death of countless sufferers of cancer.

Very interesting information on electromagnetic pollution...I wonder why so my schools are built next to large power supplies?

The facts presented make a great deal of sense. I am surprised that the US government is not looking into the cause of SIDS and taking action like the countries of New Zealand and Australia. The book explains the tragic occurrence and the solutions for prevention are so simple. Every new parent should read this book!

I actually rate this book as absolutely ZERO stars. There is ACCURATE information available!

I consider this book difficult to read because it devotes so much attention to what the people involved in the safety experiment at Chernobyl were trying to accomplish, and the only entries for the neutrons in the index are on pages 216, 219, 220, and 225, which are a bit late in the scheme of things to be considering the fundamental subatomic elements driving whatever chain reactions were to be expected in a nuclear power station. Philosophically, the Chernobylization of thought ought to be associated most closely with the idea that long tubes called "control rods" might actually control the activity of the neutrons, whose activity might surge quite rapidly compared to the reaction times of the big dumb human beings who were trying to slow them down by inserting control rods into a core which had already suffered local deformations which prevented entry precisely at the points in the reactor where the neutrons were able to maintain high speed. Describing the event on 26 April 1986 as an explosion and fires, as is typical of the inadequate vocabulary used by the kind of people who never discovered neutrons until 1932, is so human in its perspective of this event that it raises questions about how such people could ever understand the incredible speed at which nuclear reactions occur when the opportunity presents itself to the materials which react when conditions are right for them. If people had figured out what was going to happen before trying this kind of secret circus stunt, this book would have no reason to report that "world perception, both lay and scientific, of nuclear possibilities has been ineradicably altered." (p. 8)

Don't waste your money on this-more than half of this book consists of out of date regulations. What little content exists is available from other sources for less money.

This book did not help me at all. In fact, I returned it the day I received it. If you are a high school student and don't really have an idea what you want to do, or aren't familiar with a lot of the options in the environmental field, this book may be good for you. But for me, as someone already in the professional environment and looking to find out about unique opportunities that don't fall into categories like biology, ecology, or agriculture, this book provided no help.

Toxic Legacy is ably written. Clear writing helps navigate an arcane topic in which the author is well-versed. The book provides an interesting assortment of photographs of DDT uses during World War II and in the home. DDT's inventor received a Nobel prize for its enormous public-health contributions.

Wargo focuses on legal issues in the U.S. regarding pesticides. This sidesteps some broader scientific matters. As Wargo notes (p. 127), Bruce Ames and Lois Gold have made a case that the chemical ingredients that naturally make up our foods provide risks that dwarf those from residues of synthetic pesticides. The Ames/Gold argument meets common sense expectations, because foods are consumed in high doses for sustenance. Wargo dodges, because an implication is the triviality of risks posed by pesticide residues (the topic of his book): "it hardly seems prudent to avoid regulating synthetic toxins simply because we are commonly exposed to natural ones." This evasion is telling. Why ignore 99 percent of the risk (presented by natural ingredients in foods) and only pay attention to pesticide residues? Maybe because it is easier to stigmatize chemicals that protect foods supplies.

All living things constitute systems of interacting chemicals. Our choices in foods, drink, and pharmaceuticals very much influence health and development. Plants (fruits and vegetables) contain chemical ingredients to ward off predators. These toxicants collectively present much higher dose and risk than residues of chemicals used to protect crops against predators and disease agents like fungi, viruses, and bacteria. What are the health tradeoffs between disease agents versus pesticide residues? Or among various ways of protecting foods against disease agents?

Synthetic pesticides give many thoughtful people pause and can surely cause harm, if in excess dose. They deserve to be carefully managed by applicators. For decades, the U.S. has had ways of regulating pesticides to minimize unwanted impacts. Because children are more vulnerable to any and all chemicals, Wargo may contribute constructive suggestions, deep within the arcane field of pesticide regulation. Yet the subtitle, How Science and Law Fail to Protect Us from Pesticides, seems unjustified.

It is commonplace for environmental scientists to analyze only a select few pesticides present within the environment. When found, these few are stigmatized and their uses curtailed. Yet, this is a "free lunch" illusion, based on highly selective analytic chemistry. In reality, society uses a great number of pesticides and there is no holistic consideration of whether their collective levels within the environment pose any greater or lesser risk than before the cancelling of DDT and regulation of other pesticides. Wargo may not be mindful of this larger surrounding context, trusting too much in the scientific understanding of the environmental industrial complex that he is endeavoring to improve. He is narrowly focused on a problem that he believes we should fear: synthetic pesticide residues. He seems conscientious in intention.

For the reader interested in books on chemicals and health, some options are:
-- J. Rodricks. Calculated Risks: understanding the toxicity and human health risks of chemicals in our environment (Cambridge U. Press).
-- John Emsley. The Consumer's Good Chemical Guide. (W.H. Freeman)
-- W. Baarschers. eco-facts & eco-fiction. (Routledge)
-- Aaron Wildalsky. But is it True? (Harvard U Press).
-- John F. Ross. Living Dangerously: navigating the risks of everyday life. (Perseus)
-- National Research Council. Carcinogens and Anticarcinogens in the human diet. National Academy Press.

The authors practice all the arts of yellow journalism. Present are scare tactics, lots of loaded words and phrases, and accurate but scary facts that are out of context and unrelated to the questions the book is supposed to be about. For instance, that fluorine gas is lethal is has nothing to do with the concerns the book is meant to be about. This is just as stupid as suggesting table salt is bad for you because chlorine gas was used in WWI for killing troops in the trenches.

And there are subtle but apparently intentional inconsistencies that seem to be alarming. Consider the cover photographs with a picture of a non-stick coated cooking pan next to the word "Lethal" in large and contrasting colors. Yet buried toward the end of the early chapter a brief statement that they are not the cause of alarm.

The tactics used in the book are just plain sophomoric and dilute and detract from the seriousness of potential problem. They certainly skewed my opinion about the trustworthiness of the materials presented. There are legitimate public questions about the presence of perfluorinated materials loose in our environment that need answering. This book is worth reading if you've never heard of PFOA or C8, but don't stop reading with this book.

I got this workbook to help me get through the required text in a class and so I could prepare better for exams. It would be perfect except for one glaring problem. There are no answer keys. The teacher doesn't have the answers either. This means there is no way to check the accuracy of what you have answered. To me, this meant the workbook was a complete waste of time and money. The questions seemed relevant but with no way to check, whats the point? Someone should make the answers available somewhere. Then it would be a terific resource.