Chemical exposure/brain development

[Gina B]

Looks like I'm not the only one who thinks that chemicals affect the nervous system and brains of children from the time they are in the womb and as they develop.

Wasn't I *just* being mocked a few days ago for saying this? I told you I didn't have the resources to conduct the studies - thankfully, other people do, even if the media was a couple days late for the posting. :tongue3:

Here's the story: http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/14/health/chemicals-children-brains/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

So what's the problem this time? Does it contain the words "scare, Marxist, tactic, liberal, and lies" all in one sentence, or will they be spread out this time, followed by a moving picture, since everyone knows that posting a semi-humorous gif means your post must be really really accurate.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Wasn't I *just* being mocked a few days ago for saying this?.

Where, exactly?

 

[Gina B]

I'm sorry, but you now have to post an over-emotional gif with each post in order to receive further responses from me, or not, unless I change my mind. Depends on how the moon is affecting my reasoning. Or not. :laugh::wavey:

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I'm sorry, but you now have to post an over-emotional gif with each post in order to receive further responses from me, or not, unless I change my mind. Depends on how the moon is affecting my reasoning. Or not. :laugh::wavey:

You might want to recheck the "frankenfood" thread. My post in reply to you was over the top, and I apologized. However, I don't recall taking issue with you over any statements you made about chemicals affecting children, so unless you weren't referring to something I've said, please enlighten me.

 

[InTheLight]

Looks like I'm not the only one who thinks that chemicals affect the nervous system and brains of children from the time they are in the womb and as they develop.

Once again you are engaging in selective reading - - reading what you want to see, not what is actually being said. For a self - described writer this is alarming.

The article you link to is about plastic additives, phthalates, that are known to be dangerous, if introduced into the body in sufficient concentrations. Since the article didn't tell me, perhaps you could--how do phthalates from perfume, hair spray, soap, shampoo, vinyl toys, shower curtains, miniblinds, food containers, plastic wrap, plastic plumbing pipes, medical tubing and fluid bags, vinyl flooring and other building materials, enter the body in concentrations that can be dangerous?

When formulating your answer be aware that the only cosmetic products this substance is used in is some perfumes.

Wasn't I *just* being mocked a few days ago for saying this? I told you I didn't have the resources to conduct the studies - thankfully, other people do, even if the media was a couple days late for the posting. :tongue3:

There you go again--selectively seeing what you want to see. A few days ago you were talking about chemical additives in foods and contaminated water affecting childhood development and then attacked prescription drugs as being overused and unsafe as a defense for your reason that marijuana should be legalized. No one mocked you over chemical additives to foods or contaminated water. Indeed, the article you link to is not about anything you talked about a few days ago.

Here's the story: http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/14/health/chemicals-children-brains/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

So what's the problem this time?

Same as usual. You have a scattershot, incoherent argument. My rebuttal will be to quote a scientist from your article :

"What is most concerning is that the authors focus largely on chemicals and heavy metals that are well understood to be inappropriate for children's exposure, are highly regulated and/or are restricted or being phased out. They then extrapolate that similar conclusions should be applied to chemicals that are more widely used in consumer products without evidence to support their claims. Such assertions do nothing to advance true scientific understanding and only create confusion and alarm."

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Once again you are engaging in selective reading - - reading what you want to see, not what is actually being said. For a self - described writer this is alarming.

The article you link to is about plastic additives, phthalates, that are known to be dangerous, if introduced into the body in sufficient concentrations. Since the article didn't tell me, perhaps you could--how do phthalates from perfume, hair spray, soap, shampoo, vinyl toys, shower curtains, miniblinds, food containers, plastic wrap, plastic plumbing pipes, medical tubing and fluid bags, vinyl flooring and other building materials, enter the body in concentrations that can be dangerous?

When formulating your answer be aware that the only cosmetic products this substance is used in is some perfumes.




There you go again--selectively seeing what you want to see. A few days ago you were talking about chemical additives in foods and contaminated water affecting childhood development and then attacked prescription drugs as being overused and unsafe as a defense for your reason that marijuana should be legalized. No one mocked you over chemical additives to foods or contaminated water. Indeed, the article you link to is not about anything you talked about a few days ago.





Same as usual. You have a scattershot, incoherent argument. My rebuttal will be to quote a scientist from your article :

"What is most concerning is that the authors focus largely on chemicals and heavy metals that are well understood to be inappropriate for children's exposure, are highly regulated and/or are restricted or being phased out. They then extrapolate that similar conclusions should be applied to chemicals that are more widely used in consumer products without evidence to support their claims. Such assertions do nothing to advance true scientific understanding and only create confusion and alarm."

Thanks for having a better memory than me -- or a memory that connects unrelated thoughts in the same way other posters do. :thumbsup: :laugh:

 

[Gina B]

I talked about water, air, pollution...

We all breathe. We all drink water. We all eat food that uses air and water. Plants use air and water. Animals breathe air and drink water and eat plants and food that use air and water.

Dyes - go try to buy food without dyes.

Plastic - what is your food wrapped in? What do your drinks come in? Have you sat down with an allergist and talked about the chemicals in houses that have carpeting vs the chemicals in a house that doesn't? I have. It's pretty wild! You think this stuff just sits there and doesn't go into the air, doesn't leech into the food it's holding or being microwaved or baked or stored in, doesn't go into the air when you spray something, doesn't go onto your skin when you wash something with it, doesn't stay in clothes, doesn't get on your skin after it is used in the fabric of furniture, etc.?

The thing with this is - anyone who really cares what is going on will go do their research and find out. Sure, I can sit here and link you up with resources, but why should I if you don't care enough about the issue to do it yourself? You'll start caring when it affects you, or when it affects someone you love. If that doesn't happen, that's wonderful. I mean that. It's great for that not to happen. I first got interested when I worked with people with Alzheimer's. I wanted to know why. Then I started working with people who had other neurological issues. It progressed from there.
Then I had my own issues, and a daughter with issues. I lived in a town that had extremely high cancer rates, but it was reported to be a "mystery." There was a latex factory though...it reeked. I started researching. That. The plastics being produced nearby. I started wondering why they were saying it was a mystery.
I can tell you the medical things that happened in my family there and with others, but that's not my story to tell. I will say that it convinced me of the direct correlation of hormones and chemicals in our food and air and human health.

If you are interested in the truth, you'll find it. If you're interested in just finding something to back up your viewpoint, there's not much to be done.

BTW, I didn't seek out the story. It was on the front page of CNN when I posted it. That's not selective reading, it's called skimming the headlines, and being highly amused to see something we were just talking about...

 

[InTheLight]

Plastic - what is your food wrapped in? What do your drinks come in? Have you sat down with an allergist and talked about the chemicals in houses that have carpeting vs the chemicals in a house that doesn't? I have. It's pretty wild! You think this stuff just sits there and doesn't go into the air, doesn't leech into the food it's holding or being microwaved or baked or stored in, doesn't go into the air when you spray something, doesn't go onto your skin when you wash something with it, doesn't stay in clothes, doesn't get on your skin after it is used in the fabric of furniture, etc.?

Yes, as the father of a child, now teenager, with asthma that is triggered by allergies I have talked with an allergist. Yes, this stuff can get into the air, get on your skin, can stay in your clothes, etc., but at what concentration? In the article you cited the chemical needs to get through the blood brain barrier and that is not going to happen with skin contact or breathing, only ingestion, or through thin skin, like eyelids.

So the mere presence of this stuff is not necessarily a problem, it's the amount of exposure, the concentration of it.

 

[Gina B]

ITL, how tiny is a developing fetus? How much is enough to harm his/her developing brain and nervous system? How about the amount that may be present in breast milk? How about sucking on a pacifier? What about artificial milk, what it is stored in, the bottle it is fed from, and the nipple it is sucked from? The water it is mixed with? The pipes that water runs from? What concentrations are you comfortable with a newborn sucking on, breathing in, crawling around on the carpet with, or wearing in their clothing? Having ground into or leeched into their food, as so many use prepared baby foods, stored in containers?

I don't believe a developing brain and nervous system, starting from cells too tiny for the naked human eye to see and growing up from there, are as resilient to toxins as we like to think. The human body is amazing, but what we've done with our world is pretty crazy. I think that's reflected in the neuro-based issues we see in so many people today, in the illness and disease, in the crazy number of health issues.

When you look and see that these things are relatively non-existent in areas where they do not have the developments our country has, it adds even more weight to the idea that these things play a large role in the issues we see today.

Plus it's just plain common sense. I'm pretty sure you don't deny that the things are harmful in and of themselves. What logic is there in saying something is harmful, and we can live beside it...we can walk on it, hang it on our walls, sleep on it, paint our walls with it, use it to store our food in, clean our stuff with it, but that's not close enough to cause harm? Just because they said so?
That just doesn't make sense. It's not logical. When someone puts a bunch of really dangerous things next to me and tells me they are okay, and not to worry, I tend to think they're trying to play me for a fool. And when I see bad things happening to people where the bad stuff is, and not happening to people where the bad stuff isn't, it all seems even more clear. It's just plain common sense.

And you know what? This would make a really good spiritual point. LOL If you sit down next to evil, don't expect to not be contaminated by it. You can't sit there day in and day out next to sin and go "Oh, it's okay, I'm not touching it, it just looks nice and isn't doing any harm." Doesn't work like that. Eventually, you're going to start experiencing signs of spiritual illness.

But I digress...

 

[poncho]

Children Exposed to More Brain-Harming Chemicals Than Ever Before

A new report finds the number of chemicals contributing to brain disorders in children has doubled since 2006

In recent years, the prevalence of developmental disorders such as autism, attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and dyslexia have soared. While greater awareness and more sophisticated diagnoses are partly responsible for the rise, researchers say that the changing environment in which youngsters grow up may also be playing a role.

In 2006, scientists from the Harvard School of Public Health and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai identified five industrial chemicals responsible for causing harm to the brain – lead, methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (found in electric transformers, motors and capacitors), arsenic (found in soil and water as well as in wood preservatives and pesticides), and toluene (used in processing gasoline as well as in paint thinner, fingernail polish, and leather tanning). Exposure to these neurotoxins was associated with changes in neuron development in the fetus as well as among infants, and with lower school performance, delinquent behavior, neurological abnormalities, and reduced IQ in school-aged children.

Now the same researchers have reviewed the literature and found six additional industrial chemicals that can hamper normal brain development. These are manganese, fluoride, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and polybrominated diphenyl ethers. Manganese, they say, is found in drinking water and can contribute to lower math scores and heightened hyperactivity, while exposure to high levels of fluoride from drinking water can contribute to a seven-point drop in IQ on average. The remaining chemicals, which are found in solvents and pesticides, have been linked to deficits in social development and increased aggressive behaviors.


http://healthland.time.com/2014/02/14/children-exposed-to-more-brain-harming-chemicals-than-ever-before/