Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (April 24, 1978)
——... editorial - v Dioxin: guilty until proven innocent What has been long suspected has at last been con firmed by the federal Environmental Protection Agency. The herbicide 2,4,5.7 — used by Oregon forest industries to kill forest undergrowth has been shown to cause cancer, birth defects and miscarriages in mammals. The revelation came in an April 13 report by the EPA, and yet U.S. forestry officials have decided to allow the continued use of the herbicide—formerly known as Agent Orange” in Vietnam defoliation — in Oregon’s forests. The report doesn’t necessarily mean that the use of the chemical will cease; however, unless the 2, 4, 5-T users can produce evidence that the "benefits” outweigh the “disadvantages,” a ban or more severe herbicide con trols may be implemented. The movement to ban the use of dioxin-containing herbicides has been underway in Oregon for several years. In spite of repeated pleas to ban the herbicide in Oregon, the state legislature and the courts have allowed the use of the chemical for one and only one reason: The forest industry lobby is so strong that the public health and welfare has taken second fiddle to timber profits. It is indicative of the nature of the herbicide con troversy that the EPA report is based on existing scientific studies. The EPA conducted no new research. Its conclu sions are based on data that are already known — and some of them have been known for years. The study also neglects the problems of dioxin pene tration of the food chain. It does not explore the problems of dioxin concentration in soil and drinking water, nor does it consider the possibility of concentration of the chemicals in human tissues by dioxin buildup in the environment. It does not, in short, deal with the possible long-term effects of dioxin uses. In spite of the evidence of harmful effects of dioxin, the chemical is still being touted by the forest industry as the best and most efficient way to control forest growth to allow better access to harvestable timber. The forest in dustry will undoubtedly rebutt the EPA study by trying to prove that the benefits of using the chemicals outweigh the potential harms. At the last Oregon legislative session, the industry representatives cited a dioxin concentration of .05 parts per million as so miniscule as to present no harmful effects. But the EPA report says that even this concentration can cause tumors in mammals, a fact the anti-herbicide groups tried to use to support a herbicide ban during the last session. The attempt was unsuccessful. The legislature’s stand was one which can be summed up in a nutshell: if you think dioxin is dangerous, prove it. But the dioxin sprays should be considered guilty until proven innocent. To date, the evidence has shown more and more convincingly that the herbicides are guilty. The only acceptable action, then, is an outright ban of the chemicals. Danger to human health cannot be ignored because of the “benefits” to a special interest lobby. J V, Letters Mallard’s the one We, the undersigned underap preciated undergraduates of the understaffed underpaid and often misunderstood department of Mathematics, located somewhere in Deady Hall, hereby declare after many hours of deliberation, consideration and coin-flipping, that Mallard Drake, the candidate for University Duck currently held by a certain Mr. Donald Duck, hail ing from a certain large California amusement park, is henceforth and forthwith and otherwise from now on the official University Duck as far as the undersigned unoffi cial unpopular people are con cerned. We urge the remaining nonundersigned nonunderpaid nonunderstaffed nonpeople to also support our campaign for Mallard. The reasons are clear: given epsilon greater than zero, there exists a duck such that every other duck less than zero is contained in an open interval about the open cover of Donald Duck. Hence, we can clearly see that Mallard is the obvious choice. Comments from other worthy departments are welcome, whereas comments from other unworthy underhanded under water-basketweaving type de partments such as psychology and physics are unwelcome. Outspookenly Yours, Roger Brown, Senior, Math R.D. McAlister, Grad, Math Theresa Leonard, Senior, Math & Psych Dinh Tan Nguyen, Junior, Math A fucking dream One of the Daily Emerald's most important contributions to contemporary culture is its ver batim rendition of the rich, beauti ful language employed by student leaders in important public state ments. Witness the comment of Ms Jan Oliver, former ASUO pres ident and founder of the Women's L/CttGrS —(Continued) Symposium, anent that sym posium: “This thing came out of my fucking mind.” (April 11, page one, column three). This phraseology reveals the re lative weakness of the neverthe less justly acclaimed oratory of the late Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, whose tragic demise of a decade ago we have all recently been mourning. How much more effec tive it would have been had he commenced his famous Washing ton address with: “I have a fucking dream!”But Dr. King, through no fault of his own, suffered the cul tural deprivation of being forced to complete his education at Boston University, thus losing the benefit to his vocabulary which might have accured from exposure to the Oregon environment. Kenneth Wiggins Porter Professor Emeritus of History The IFC circus After attending an IFC meeting for the first time this year, I am utterly appalled at the behavior of several committee' members — especially since they justify their antics as acts in the interest of the enitre student body. Procedurally, saying the meet ing resembled a circus would in sult P.T. Bamum and would give the Committee incredible over laudation. Specifically, Janet Eggleston’s behavior prevented constructive interaction between Committee members and with the audience. Eggleston aimlessly wandered throughout the Committee’s meet ing room while the meeting pro gressed. She bantered back and forth with the Committee and the audience, commenting out of turn on virtually every remark. Unfor tunately, her comments were li mited to mildly obscene remarks and insults. Rarely did she offer helpful or even valuable insight into the issues and often the comments contradicted remarks made only moments before. It ap peared that Eggleston acted more out of a love for the sound of her voice than out of concern toward the Committee’s tasks. In such an atmosphere, valu able discussion was overcome by a total lack of order. Substantively, the meeting fared no better. Proposing that the forensics budget be cut from the amount requested, member Jeff Warren set $5,000 as an "approp riate” figure. When asked why $5,000 was appropriate, Warren replied that the figure was totally arbitrary. The Committee, which eventually passed the Warren proposal, admitted that it had made an arbitrary decision and that justification for its budget ac tion could not be made. Several members even expressed their amusement over their authority to act with total capriciousness — with little recourse for the mem bers of the audience or, more im portnatly, the student body at large. In its kangsroo proceedings, the IFC gave credence to the old adage about the utter futility of student government. Unfortu nately, the irresponsibility of sev eral IFC members points out that not only does the Committee em body the very essence of such futility, but the results of this whimsical behavior lead to un realistic and iniquitous allocation policies. Kent Mortimore Senior, Journalism/Political Science Drake, a bird brain I could hardly believe my ears the other day when a little bird told me that there was a movement a-wing to replace Oregon's cur rent mascot, Donald Duck, with the creature known as Mallard Drake. Now granted, an argument can be made that Donald is the creation of some guy named Dis ney, but then again Mallard could be easily arrested for the imper sonation of another foul com monly called Daffy. I also fear that Mallard is some what of a bird brain. Surely no one expects Donald to be teaching Psych 676 or Theory of Calculus but who can deny that our fine feathered friend hasn’t served the University well these past few years. I think Mallard may be a very nice, duck, but he quite frankly lacks the suave sophistica tion we’ve come to look for in ducks. Mallard looks more like an advertisement for an oil slick than a University mascot. In addition, the argmument for Donald’s case can be further sub stantiated by what he offers in the form of community relations. There must be thousands of Oregonians who identify with this noble bird and to cook his goose and replace him with Mallard would be an act that may de feather our own nests. I think Mal lard should remain in the occa sional Emerald in which he ap pears. Losing Donald would be like losing our best friend. Please keep the big “D." If not, we’ll end up with what should be sleeping bag stuffing as our bird of impor tance. Ronald Fuchs Journalism, Senior A question of rights I take exception to automati cally being included in the “heterosexual movement” of which Dan Jones wants to be self-proclaimed chairman. (Let ters, April 17) He makes claims for his "movement” that, as a heterosexual, I do not share. The issue of homosexual rights is misnamed. The question is one of human rights, and issue that has been raised many times since the founding of this country. By the decisions reached in this nation, all people have these rights until they do something to disqualify themselves from that privilege. The question here is, does a gay lifestyle warrant disqualifica tion? Biblical reasons for this dis qualification fall by the wayside because the Bible is not recog nized by the Consitution as a standard for determining human rights, nor should it be. Also, the Bible is applied so inconsistently in these matters that the argument of its users is negated. Those who say that gay teachers are likely to molest children had better start educating their children at home, for statistically, heterosexuals are more likely to be molesters. How ever, molesters are molesters, not gay or straight. The fact that reason (both in the area of the Bible, and the issue of molesting) is here ignored tends to show that the issue is one of emotional prejudice. The fact the human rights still need to be as serted shows that a sick segment of the American society still wants to oppress minorities. They have done so in the past to Indians, blacks, Catholics, Jews, Scan dinavians, and now, gays. Will they never leam that appealing to emotions is no basis on which to deny someone his/her human riahts. As a University that is seen as a liberal institution in the Northwest, we must show the rest of the coun try that we have learned. Gary Brower Senior, Religious Studies Letters policy The Emerald will accept and try to print all letters and opinion col umns containing fair comment on ideas and topics of concern or interest to the University commun ity. Letters and opinions must be typewritten, using 65-character margins, and should be triple spaced. Letters and opinions must be signed, with the author’s year and field of study (or faculty status) noted. Letters and opin ions will be run on a first-come, first-served basis.
