They’re Poisoning Us

Yes, but if the government forces the plastics industry to change formulas to something safe, the price of zip-lock baggies will go up 3000%. You don’t want to have to pay more for your bag lunch, do you?As we used to say when spraying on the DEET – “Anyone up for a little neural rearrangement?”

Look at history:How hard of a fight was it remove lead from paint?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead-based_paint_in_the_United_StatesCertainly none of the manufacturers were ever held fully accountable!How about asbestos? We’re still paying billions to clean that shit up!Why should we be surprised that industry is still poisoning us?

Dodged what spray?From the article linked: “Today, ten years and tens of millions of dollars later, not a single chemical has been evaluated for endocrine disrupting effects!”Until testing is done, all else is mere speculation. Fortunately, the author agrees:“For now, these ideas are just interesting theories….”That’s the important line in his post. Sadly, it’s buried within a 19-paragraph mountain of maybes. Get the science right, and then make a claim.Of course, testing is vitally important because the circumstantial evidence is intriguing – but it’s far from conclusive.Let’s withhold judgment until more information is available. Otherwise we’re wandering toward Jenny McCarthy territory.

Rereading the article, I have a huge problem with it.“The NCS will establish over one hundred study centers across the US to test the blood of 100,000 newborns for scores of synthetic chemicals, including many EDCs. (Workers have already begun going door-to-door enrolling pregnant moms into the program.) For the next 21 years, scientists will carefully follow the children’s health, comparing the body burden of chemicals at birth to diseases developed later in life.The NCS may be our generation’s best chance to solve the autism riddle. It is exactly the type of study needed to tease out the subtle relationships that may exist between autism and chemicals.”No, that isn’t exactly the sort of study to run. What that sort of study is going to “tease out” is mere correlation, which as we know does not equal causation. Such a study can show trends, but it can’t prove anything. Too many variables; it won’t tell us much more than we already know – a correlation exists.You need a control group to demonstrate a given chemical’s effects – to prove that the chemical in question is effecting the endocrine system.Not to mention going door-to-door isn’t exactly the best way to enroll subjects. Social demographics need to be taken into account (for all I know, they are – but no mention is made or . This goes back to the “too many variables” line – unless these children record every single computer and piece of plastic they ever come into contact with, this study is of little value, since the source of the chemical in question sort of matters.And an addendum:“Beside the NCS, I support other new studies to look at: 1) the autism risk in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated kids…”Risk can’t be gauged until causes are known. I have a higher risk of being eaten by a bear in the wild than I do in the the city park – we know that, because bears live in the wild. Same thing here. We can’t know about risk unless causes are identified. Not to mention that there isn’t a solitary shred of evidence to correlate vaccines and autism. The Jenny McCarthy crusade was debunked years ago.

I’ve known about the danger of phthalates for a while, which is why all of our bath and body products and cosmetic bottles are phthalate-free. But hell, I have friends who’ve got a developmentally disabled kid because the mother ate mercury-laden fish while living in Hawaii. If the corporate scumbags don’t get you one way, they’ll get you another. Sigh.

Klaus,IMHO there are two ways to look at such things:(1) Lets just expose the public to and and see what the consequences are.(2) Lets try to be reasonably certain what the consequences are before exposing the public to it.For instance I’m quite certain that my neuromuscular disorder is largely due to exposure to the processing of FEP (a TEFLON product), but I can not prove it!I would bet 20 years from now every taxpayer will be pissed off about what it’s costing them to care for the tens of thousands suffering due to similar substances! Far too often we ignore the red flags and just plow onward with reckless abandon.

“You need a control group to demonstrate a given chemical’s effects – to prove that the chemical in question is effecting the endocrine system. “I think you had better lay off the science belief system. A Control group for a huge amount of variables!?!? So many variables that it will be impossible to prove anything in this fubared milieu of thousands of chemicals?I think having the NCS draw blood samples from newborns is freaking awesome – but only if they do the follow up blood sample after every vaccine round.Where did you think those chemicals come from Klaus? This isn’t about thimerosol; we’ve got a a witch’s brew of other toxins in vaccines such as aluminum and antifreeze in there, not to mention that every vaccine includes pig saliva – how can a virus not be part of a vaccine?I’m with kansasdem on this one. Nobody is ever going to prove anything. But avoiding any man-made crap can go a long ways.Bob: they are not narrowing down anything but merely distracting from the huge amount of variables involved with individual physiological dynamics. Comparing black rot in PA to black rot in CA is fruitless. WHat works in PA might not work in CA.Same thing with this chemical soup we live in. You’re probably more exposed in PA than I am in CO but we do have our own local issues to contend with.

Remember when we were told to be afraid of black licorice? Then we were told that cell phones caused brain tumors?I prefer to wait until the actual science is done before I start buying liquids stored in wax coated concrete.

Pooper, good for you.I, on the other hand, think that I will go with my gut.

@ec -It’s one thing for you, or Bob or me to make personal decisions regarding products and medicines in our homes, etc. It’s another when it’s a matter of public policy.For anyone to say “There’s poison in them thar canned tuna!” they’d better be able to back it up with evidence. If they further suggest that said poison leads to autism, they had better be able to back it up with… yes, evidence. To do otherwise is misleading at least, possibly libel, and life-threatening at worst.I knew of a guy who went with his gut rather than finding sufficient evidence for something, and it led to a war.Just sayin’.