6 Scientific American, March 2022
STATES OF DISEASE
“States vs. Health,” by the Editors [Science
Agenda], explains how politicians in sev-
eral states are trying to prevent the lifesav-
ing work that public health officials are ex-
ecuting to protect the population by re-
quiring masking and physical distancing.
I agree with the presentation of the
article and the position that the Editors
take on the importance of letting science
and good medical practice lead the way to
deal with the devastating effects that the
COVID pandemic is having in the U.S. and
throughout the world. When state legisla-
tures pass laws that take control of public
health and safety measures away from
local agencies, as the article exposes, the
entire population is at risk of contamina-
tion and the spread of the virus that
causes COVID.
In the piece, Georges Benjamin, execu-
tive director of the American Public Health
Association, is eloquent in describing how
the health strategies being applied by the
public health agencies have been proved
to be effective for hundreds of years and
how what some state legislatures are do-
ing is “equivalent to taking away the abil-
ity of doctors to write prescriptions.”
I congratulate Scientific American for
publishing this article and invite the read-
ers to reflect on and support the science
and public health strategies that have pro-
tected lives from many viruses, including
the present one, and to avoid the intrusion
of politics in this essential and life-threat-
ening matter.
Emmanuel Padin Clermont, Fla.STORM WATCH
“Vapor Storms,” by Jennifer A. Francis, de-
scribes how increased moisture in a warm-
er atmosphere is fueling intense hurri-
canes and flooding rains. Reading the ar-
ticle reminded me of an experience I had
camping on the eastern edge of Lake Su-
perior, probably 35 years ago.
That October I was sitting on the shore
late in the afternoon. The sky was cloud-
less several hundred meters offshore, with
a breeze blowing in from the lake. The sky
above the shore was overcast, tending to-
ward drizzle.
This pattern stayed constant for the
hour or so I watched; the clouds were
forming over that short distance. Watch-
ing weather change over such a small area
gave me some appreciation for how diffi-
cult climate modeling has to be.
Erick Erickson South Orange, N.J.DIRE WARMING
“IPCC, Your Job Is Partly Done,” by Naomi
Oreskes [Observatory], argues that the In-
tergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) has fully established the “physical
science basis” of climate change and should
now focus entirely on analyzing its im-
pacts and potential ways to stop it.
I wonder if Oreskes has heard of the
University of Victoria professor Andrew
Weaver’s recent comment that limiting
warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius is now im-
possible. Weaver, whose Ph.D. is in applied
mathematics, has numerous accomplish-ments, including more than 200 published
scientific works and a period as leader of
the provincial Green Party here in British
Columbia. But most pertinent to his com-
ment is that he was a lead author in sev-
eral of the IPCC’s past assessment reports.
I was thus somewhat surprised that he
was publicly rebuked by those offended by
his assertion.
I happened to hear Weaver interviewed
on the CBC, and he clarified that his inten-
tion was not to advocate abandonment of
the goal of limiting warming as much as
possible. Rather it was to recognize that
we have passed a point where, if we were
to fix levels of greenhouse gases today, we
would still see average global temperatures
rise by more than 1.5 degrees C.
My observation is that, so far, the pub-
lic has been somewhat lulled by the nature
of scientific statements. That is, science is
cautious; science does not practice hyper-
bole even when it may be necessary from
a social perspective. All the projections of
climate change I have seen appear to be
underestimates of the severity of this ac-
celerating crisis. It may be more in the in-
terest of the greater good to speak plainly.
This dovetails with Oreskes’s sugges-
tion that the IPCC’s working group on cli-
mate change’s physical science basis
should be wrapped up and that the orga-
nization’s focus should be directed to its
working groups devoted to impacts and
mitigation. I would add that the urgency
be emphasized by all possible means.
Richard “Dick” Fahlman
Tla’amin Nation, British ColumbiaTHE PROBLEM
WITH PAINKILLERS
In “Painkiller Risks” [The Science of Health],
Claudia Wallis discusses the downsides of
high doses of analgesics, including kidney
damage from nonsteroidal anti-inflamma-
tory drugs (NSAIDs). I find it lacking,
though, that she does not expand on the
connection between over-the-counter
painkillers and kidney issues other than a
brief mention of potential adverse use of
NSAIDs during pregnancy.
Long before the current opioid crisis,
the scientific community and literature
knew of the dangers of NSAIDs and acet-
aminophen (Tylenol). NSAIDS have been
clearly associated with damage to kidneys,November 2021
LETTERS
[email protected]
“When state legis
latures pass laws
that take control
of public health and
safety measures away
from local agencies,
the entire population
is at risk of COVID.”
emmanuel padin cler mont, fl a.