doing to their rest of the planet and that you know there was one question that kept bugging me as i was reading and scientific progress is ultimately based on the assumption that human lives are the altimeter values on this planet and whatever is done to improve them is justified can we still afford to keep that assumption. but i think clearly we can't because it's not just humans that are on this planet were inextricably linked to everything else on this planet all of the other life terms of the environment that we live in and we have to be looking at that holistically everything we do how does it affect people but also how does it affect our environment and ultimately you cannot impact the environment negatively without impacting people so even if you viewed this strictly through a human centered perspective you would still have to come away with a conclusion that we have to change the way we're doing things because we're harming the environment so much certainly we're also her mean people yeah and 'd this is i think the main takeaway at least for me and from your book about the more

you focus on the human form the improvement of the human condition the more you add up hurting humans themselves it's just works in the nonlinear way but it catches up with us in our later. yeah i think a good example of that is with pesticides in agriculture because we in order to increase fields of crops we've been using industrialised levels of pesticides for really the last century and it's but especially since after world war 2 and as a result the tests have evolved resistance so we have to use more chemicals more toxic chemicals more of them and order to achieve the yields rather than looking at it from a more diverse perspective for example we can agree to pest management where you're only using pesticides in a targeted approach so that would be a case where we're harming the environment and or even hermine our own ability to grow food through the industrialized practice of agriculture that anyone can give many examples of how scientists noble intentions to improve the human condition.

backfired on that humans themselves and certainly on be other species we share this planet with which in your view is the most striking in terms of the shared gabbett me and then the ability of intentions in the sort of being done nation of consequences yeah i would say the most striking example for me would probably be the development of hydrocyanic acid just after world war one for fighting against the body in order to prevent typhus outbreaks so i understand acid have been used in as a pesticide for several decades prior to world war one but because of typhus outbreaks which are transmitted by the body of us who was a big effort in germany after the war to to combat. this outbreak and. and this was. unfortunately morphed into the nazi terminations

chambers because they took hydrocyanic asset and they converted it into zyklon b. which was used to kill jews and other people throughout europe during the holocaust so that's probably the most striking example of taking something for the public good. just turn it into pure evil now you know i'm a very big fan of issac asimov he once said that the saddest thing about our time and he was speaking personally about the 20th century is that science gathers no much faster than society gathers wisdom genius see that speed of scientific discovery as the main culprit for allowing this hijacking all the scientific genius or is it something else i think that's a really good point because there's so many cases where our technological abilities have developed so quickly but we don't have necessarily the moral framework or the societal structures to to use those things wisely look at nuclear weapons as an

example of this where you know world war 2 wasn't that long ago that was during my parents' lifetime and that's when nuclear weapons were developed and in fact my great grandfather was in charge of the chemistry division the manhattan project so i'm very familiar with this and yet they became this global scourge ever since world war 2 and we really don't as a species have the wisdom to have things like weapons of mass destruction the same thing goes for chemical weapons and look at the horrible things that have been happening with chemical weapons used in syria and elsewhere and these things shouldn't even exist much less p. put in the hands of anyone with with the chemical factory to produce them absolutely speaking about nuclear weapons. i'm sure you know that asimov apart from being a great writer was also a professor of biochemistry but he and many others tend to approach the 20th

century through the prism of physics and engineering you know nuclear weapons as you mentioned telecommunications mass transport and what have you and i think this is why your book is so unique because it offers a totally different than kitsch point and all those inventions. great. the physics that i mentioned all tingly laughter very noticeable chemical traces then they they did i think most people are quite familiar with the major physical advances like nuclear energy nuclear weapons and it's easier for people to relate that to that than it is to the chemical innovations in fact if you go back and look at rachel carson seminal book silent spring which was published in 1062 she talks about radioactive fallout a great deal before she brings up the very 1st example of a pesticide in the book and that was because everybody was scared of that in 1962 and you know throughout my childhood as well ever scared of nuclear war scared of nuclear fallout so people could relate to that says she used nuclear fallout

a nuclear war as a metaphor for really what we're facing in terms of chemical pollution in order to enable people to understand this thing and you know you mentioned it's easy for people to know when it comes to chemistry and really they should be tuned in and it's so critical to our everyday lives everything from the medicine that we take to our farming practices to our built environment our personal use skin care products they're all based on chemistry so we're all exposed every day all day long to the products of chemistry and i would also add that the these type of approach opens up a totally different field of consequences that we perhaps. handle over and paying attention to before for example when i read in your book that there are very high concentration of pesticides in penguins agfa in an tartikoff or and the polar bears and they are sick or they're growing rates of cancer in the indigenous communities there in the north you know i you know many of us think about those

places as still relatively pristine and it will carry your show that it's actually pretty much the other way around. you know that's right so it depends on the chemical class you're looking at. because different kinds of chemicals behave in different ways but for lighter weight persistent or getting pollutants the highest concentrations in the world are actually found in the arctic and these pollutants are fat soluble and so they get into the food web and then they increase in concentration in animals they increase in concentration as you move up the food web so that's called bio magnification and so for those who persist organic pollutants the highest concentrations on earth are actually found in the long lived high trophic level animals like killer whales and polar bears in the arctic and of course you have indigenous people in the arctic even in your country in russia in my country in alaska and canada and northern europe that subsist on these long lived animals like ice seals and whales bowhead whales in alaska and these animals

have very high levels of persisting organic pollutants and people are reading them for breakfast lunch and dinner so it's really a case of environmental judge injustice because the indigenous people the arctic they have no say in the use or production of these chemicals they didn't benefit from them in any way and yet they are getting some of the highest levels of anyone on earth that you call it environmental justice but i don't think i don't know her that strong enough term for that because i don't even see whether there is any requester justice here because as you just pointed out this things tend to affect people who have the least to do about trying out by the mother's milk showing up and developmental i mean their reality if. can you imagine any way off how this could be addressed because if things that this is just the way things are . well that's

a good point so you know the problem was actually 1st discovered on baffin island in northeastern canada in the 1980 s. when scientists went there to study the breast milk of the indigenous woman on baffin island which they consider would be probably the most pristine breast milk in the world and when they compared their breast milk to the breast milk of woman who lived in industrialized areas of canada they found that the indigenous women on baffin island had $10.00 to $20.00 times higher concentration of mercury of pesticides like t.t.t. a p.c.p.'s in their breast milk than the women in the industrialized areas and so they're really alerted the world to this problem and some things have been done so for example the stockholm convention on persisting organic pollutants includes the rights of indigenous people to a clean environment and as a result of that convention there have been international bans on some of the worst of these offenders like p.c.p.'s and d.d.t. i think in that it takes many decades for these chemicals to break down and there are new classes of these chemicals that are that are increasing the concentration

in the arctic like flame retardant chemicals and perfectly or awful substances a variety of other things so the problems actually getting worse in a way those some of the older compounds are now decreasing in the in concentration in the arctic well that's very unsettling frank we have to take a very short break now but we'll be back in just a few moments they can't. respond . it's not a money spinner but it is expensive. and it's dangerous. this is a high speed. and they have no brakes it's

a. trip that cuts some people off. israel media a reflection of reality. in a world transformed. what will make you feel safe. high salacious full community. are you going the right way or are you being led. to. what is true what's his face. in the world corrupted you need to descend. to join us

in the depths. or remain in the shallowness. welcome back to worlds apart of his rank on him both author of the chemical age how

callous fought famine and disease killed millions and changed our relationship with a our friend before the break we were talking about pesticide traces and mother's milk and the community is the growing council rates there and if i were a cynic i would respond to you with an example from your own book proving that any improvement in the human condition came at a cost that always came at a cost saw the invention of hoggard culture saddled humanity of with malaria greater immunity to malaria maybe africans prime targets of the slave trade and so the efforts to increase crop yields and feed the hungry would also produce some unintended consequences isn't that inevitable all those unfair things that he may have discussed isn't that simply

a price to pay well i think that's correct in the sense that we have to consider the other side of it which is that if you go back to before the advent of modern chemistry you could expect that probably half of your kids would die during childhood or you could expect your life expectancy even if you make a few childhood might be into your forty's and certainly be rare to have a long lived life and and so you know the chemistry has also given us fulfilment in many ways by guaranteeing an abundant food supply if we look at our world today there are still famines but there are political famines are caused by political problems are not caused by an inability to grow food and if we look at infectious diseases you were in the middle of a pandemic now but that pandemic is killing less than one percent of the people it infects and in past times pandemics could kill 30 to 70 percent of the people that were infected so chemistry has given us. much improve quality of life in many ways

and then we have to ask well with these unintended consequences that are causing species go extinct that are causing environmental injustices how can we make things better because certainly we can handle those things better than we have now are thinking about making things better i have known about the damaging effects of pesticides for quite some time. in large part due to their work afraid carson and her book silent spring which she already mentioned by the way her answer was one of the very few books contemporary american books published in the soviet union in 96530 years after its initial publication that is i won't say that is an unprecedented example of that but that it was definitely a very rare and indeed delete to ban on that past the 5 years in agriculture for us in the united states. in 2004 but even that it has i get from your book was a mixed blessing it was in such err on the quick victory it wasn't it well

that's right in 1st of all it's interesting what you said about silent spring because initially the publisher and mitchell kirsten decided not to publish it in communist countries because they were worried of getting her labeled as a communist by the chemical industry so politically that's an interesting thing but you're right so what happened with the publication of simon spring is people realize the environmental cause consequences and and health consequences of these pesticides particularly the class of organic chlorine pesticides that d.d.t. belongs to and during world war 2 another major class of insecticides are going to phosphate insecticides were developed by nazi scientists name shrader those pesticides were also very effective in killing insects they have the advantage of breaking down in the environment much faster typically weeks to months rather than years to decades but the disadvantage of being actually more toxic to handle and so what we ended up doing is me. the consumer safer because you have less pesticide

residue residues on our food but we've traded off consumer safety for firm worker safety because our farm workers have had to handle much more toxic chemicals to achieve the same effect it was actually pretty safe for them to handle d.d.t. it's quite dangerous for them to handle there again a phosphates and who are the farm workers at least in in the united states they're my mostly migrant mexican farmers other latin americans who you know a little political recourse so it does set up another kind of injustice in this trade often and it's a difficult problem now rachel carson going back to her she argued that pesticides should really be called biocide because that negative impacts on the up limited to they have targeted paths a much broader and in fact she wrote about the danger that they had for the for the bird species which it i think is a very very crucial point and this is something that i want to ask you about when

you think about all the technology that has developed over the last couple of decades big data in our ability to understand the world in that far more granular detail do you think we have become any better at forecasting being those on in town that the consequences of major scientific advances or are we still dealing with them primarily in hind fied i think we're still dealing with them primarily in hindsight we see this over and over again so you know right now we have the p.f.a. yes issue with water around the world the same kind of thing that basically forever chemicals and they have these wonderful features you can have waterproof covering in your car your jacket but now we've cleared the whole world with them and we're drinking it or drinking water and it's under construction in toxic you brought up rachel carson talking about bio size one of the things that she wrote in her book is that chemical war is never one and all life is caught and it's finally crossfire and or her idea there was the coming. war is never won because the pests are

constantly evolving resistance which means you have to use more and more chemicals more and more toxic chemicals to achieve the same fact and all life is caught in its filing crossfire because all life is impacted by these chemicals not just the targets and not only are we killing the past and agriculture we're killing the birds and the spiders and the mites and the parasite toward wass that normally would control those who were removing the biological control at the same time as are damaging wildlife and human health in the farm workers and everything else so i don't think there were any better at anticipating these unintended consequences than we ever were and we just seem to keep making the same mistake over and over now let's talk about why we keep making the same mistakes over and over because i think every chapter in your book is a testament how humans are very bad at what they ration and whenever they find something working day with quins it still it turns into poison and i suspect it's not so much because of the scientists come up come up with the idea if as much as the corporate world which at least until recently put profits. everything else

what is their role of corporations in turning files and progress from serving here mad to into well essentially bad something of mate and then doing humanity to its own extinction yeah in fact i don't think that's even change that you mention maybe recently the profit motives have changed i don't think they have changed while they told me different talk of yeah d.d.t. is a good example of this so when d.d.t. was developed by paul mole muller miller in switzerland in 1939 is an effective insecticide and it was used initially during world war 2 to fight pandemics to find malaria yellow fever and typhus outbreaks and in fact in december 1903 to fairbairn 144 u.s. military in the rockefeller foundation stopped a typhus outbreak in naples and was the 1st time in human history that had been achieved and then after the war. really beginning $945.00 just to write it towards

the end of the war we in the united states and also throughout the world people started using d.d.t. for everything you could get it in wallpaper for your baby's nursery to protect your baby from flies you could get it in paint to paint your house with that is used in agriculture and forestry it was you if you took a flight the flight attendant was d.d.t. while she's walking down the aisle so that you wouldn't be harassed by flies during the airplane ride and so that's an example because if we had only restricted d.d.t. used to public health emergencies to fighting infectious disease agents like yellow fever malaria carrying mosquitoes or the body we could probably still use it today for public health but the fact that we immediately overused it used it everywhere made it so that all the pests evolve resistance within a few years and it became pretty useless is still used a little bit for some malaria control but it could have been a very effective tool and that's just one example out of thousands of this kind of behavior we just can't seem to help ourselves as people to over 'd use things until

they are useless you talk about us as people but i want to ask a specific question about america because americans have i think a very strong and not only cultural but ideological bias against regulation. which allows many on this companies to put their products on the market and kill their before that safety test that in fact i think the burden of proof is usually on conspiracists to demonstrate that the city obey all of the product and this is what is being promoted that around the world as as part of free trade. how could we ever change this data squad where the balance of power and available resources is so on and the sort of the ideological drive us to allow corporations and allow free markets to you know essentially govern itself. you know it's a great question so if you go back to the publication of science spring in 1982 that

really alerted the world including americans to the problem of pollution with pesticides and it gave rise to a flurry of environmental regulations the united states from 1960 at the national environmental policy act through superfund act in the late 1970 s. we got the endangered species act the clean water act the clean air act the safe drinking water act and so on the creation of environmental protection agency 972 and so we have this period of time i would say from 196-8176 where we had a bipartisan effort to solve these problems in the united states that produced the landmark environmental legislation that we have here and the reason that's globally important is those laws those arks became the model for other countries around the world so that was a terrific achievement unfortunately united states beginning with the presidency of ronald reagan the environment became politicized and the republican party started attacking all these regulations that promote public health and environment while the democrats were defending them we're still stuck in that fight in the united

states where the country's kind of split in half between people trying to get rid of these regulations and people trying to promote them nevertheless i would say that the environmental regulations the united states as deeply flawed as they are because again you mention and i agree that consumers have to prove things are toxic rather than companies having to prove that chemicals are safe before they can put them on the market i think the only part of the world that's done it better is the european union so really the whole world has a deeply flawed environmental regulatory framework we all need to switch to a model where companies have to prove safety before chemicals can be marketed rather than beat them being released in the environment by billions of kilograms a year for decades before we can get them off the market i think this one day i'm going to that point to segue add to what it's. called if i can pandemic because in your book i think very elegant place show that the ira. potato famine and many other large scale disasters pandemics for. in

a way matter man made in the sounds that the structure of society and commercial and agricultural practices of the town were set up in no way to make those pandemics or this famine with a lot of coal consequence i wonder if we can say the same thing about all that 19 that it's this not just a perfect storm but in a way that it is a result of the way our societies our commercial practices trade our regulation structured and citrus no question if you go back to the irish potato famine if you tried to engineer that famine you probably couldn't kill more people than were killed even though it was an engineer it was the way that the british had set up the our society made it so that it was going to happen you had over 90 percent of the population relying on a monoculture of potatoes living at the margins of existence and all you needed was a pathogen to come through in this case of water mold that destroyed the potato

crop and we had over a 1000000 irish die and over a 1000000 irish immigrate from ireland and yes you could predict the exact same thing that's going on now in fact many scientists have going back decades because were chewing into the environment all over the world going into a rain forest going into how the tab we haven't used before people are eating bush meat they're introducing zone out of diseases into the human population and then we have these modern transportation routes where once it's in people it's going to spread around the world almost instantaneously and that's certainly what happened with coded it's most likely from the bush me trade to people eating bats or the wildlife infected by bats in china and then those people get on an airplane they get on a ship and they spread it around the world and by the time we realize what's going on it's already everywhere so yes i think it could be easily anticipated i think we can say is going to happen again and it's going to keep happening with the way that we do this it's. it's kind of inevitable frank i fortunately we have to leave it

there but it's been a fascinating discussion i'm very grateful to you for having some time to discuss your book and your son i really appreciate it and thank you for watching hope to syria again next week on all the part of. the industry prefers to spend millions of you know the 3 d. daily conditions in the seas all about making money making profits in some of the big corporations international markets import export do you imagine the number of

printing diseases that are in every community it is new due to new viruses all new microbes just not true so it is due to. say you know that moment all discipline. really just accumulate could only come in to see them to be. deployed. if the so food industry is successful it will create more jobs it will create more value added it will create more growth so i don't see why we shouldn't also fight for the interest something into street out so that we have regulation we want regulation i was in just a nice freedom behave in the hospital to just find. max kaiser this is the kaiser report with stacy herbert and special year end. asked misfires by the man who i must say how the kind of

sensitivity to world events and markets we're only seeing anywhere except here on 5 or 4 minutes welcome back. an entire village in alaska has had to move if another country trying to wipe out an american town. we do everything in our power to protect the. wantonness skipping climate change poses the same threat right now alaska has seen some of the fuss just coastal erosion in the world we lost about 35 feet. 35 feet of ground in just about 3 months while we were measuring. is fast and that means the river is 35 closer than how the woman was or i don't think we're part of her thirst for.

among the stories that shaped the week here. the developer. seen sign an official memorandum of cooperation with. the efficacy rate will further rise. and new more. covert has been detected in england causing worldwide with more than 40 countries arrivals from the u.k. . or a defeat while the u.k. prime minister celebrates a historic deal across the english channel and the european union chief negotiator describes it as a lose lose risk.