
Toxins That Threaten Our Brains - akbarnama
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/03/the-toxins-that-threaten-our-brains/284466/
======
SAI_Peregrinus
The problem with many of these is that, as in everything else, the dose makes
the poison. Fluoride is a perfect example: too little and your bones are weak
& tooth decay sets in easily, too much and you get fluoridosis. Just the right
amount (which is a reasonably large range) and you're healthy.

Maganese is the same, it's an essential trace nutrient for pretty much all
living things, and you'll die without it, but too much will kill you.

The most dangerous agricultural pesticides are the neonicotinoids, and they're
used in organic farming. They tend to decay quickly, so if the food is
properly managed and they're not applied too late they won't be found in the
food.

Now, not everything that is dangerous is necessary. There's no benefit from
eating mercury, for example, but there are always safe exposure levels. Some
compounds bio-accumulate, so the safe exposure levels have to be set for a
lifetime. Most organic mercury compounds are of this sort, and due to their
extreme toxicity the safe exposure levels are very low.

~~~
adrianwaj
Do you think the Chinese toxic waste, aka "manufactured sodium fluoride and
byproducts" that is put in public water supplies resembles anything like the
calcium fluoride that the body needs?

~~~
sslott
As groundwater courses over rocks, it picks up the compound Calcium Fluoride
from those rocks. Once in the water, CaF releases a certain amount of fluoride
ions into the water. These F ions are to what is commonly referred as being
"naturally occurring fluoride".

The compound most frequently utilized to fluoridate water systems is
hydrofluorosilic acid (HFA). HFA is derived from naturally occurring
phosphorite rock as a co-product of the process from which the other co-
product, phosphoric acid, is derived.

Once HFA is added to water, the pH of that water (~7) causes the immediate and
complete hydrolysis (dissociation) of the HFA. The products of this hydrolysis
are fluoride ions, identical to those which already exist in water as a result
of release from CaF, and trace contaminants in barely detectable, minuscule
amounts that fall far below EPA mandated maximum levels of safety. After this
point HFA no longer exists in that water. It does not reach the tap. It is not
ingested. It is therefore of no concern, whatsoever.

EPA drinking water quality standards begin at the tap, as this is the water
which is ingested and/or otherwise utilized. Water from the tap must meet the
stringent Standard 60 certification requirements of the National Sanitary
Foundation, as mandated by the EPA, or it is not allowed. Thus, whether
additives come from the US, Mexico, China, or the moon, is irrelevant. If
water in which these additives are incorporated does not meet NSF
certification requirements at the tap, it is not allowed. It's as simple as
that.

A fluoride ion is a fluoride ion, regardless of whether the source compound is
CaF, NaF, HFA, or any other. Elementary chemistry.

Fluoridated water easily meets all EPA mandated NSF certification
requirements. A complete listing of the minuscule trace contaminants in
fluoridated water, in their precise amounts is readily available to anyone, on
the NSF website:

[http://www.nsf.org/newsroom/nsf-fact-sheet-on-
fluoridation-c...](http://www.nsf.org/newsroom/nsf-fact-sheet-on-fluoridation-
chemicals)

A complete listing of the contents of any local public water system are
readily available to anyone from the annual water quality report of the
utilities departments of the respective localities.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

~~~
adrianwaj
From the PDF:

"NSF certifies three basic products in the fluoridation category: 1\.
Fluorosilicic Acid (aka Fluosilicic Acid or Hydrofluosilicic Acid) 2\. Sodium
Fluorosilicate (aka Sodium Silicofluoride) 3\. Sodium Fluoride All three
product types dissociate in water to form sodium, fluoride, and in the case of
the first two, silicate ions."

"The NSF toxicology review for a water treatment product considers all
chemical ingredients in the product, as well as the manufacturing process,
processing aids, and other factors that have an impact on the chemicals
attributable to the products present in the finished drinking water. The
identified chemicals of interest are subsequently evaluated during testing of
the product.... These tanker trucks, transfer terminals and rail cars are
potential sources of contamination. Therefore, NSF also inspects, samples,
tests, and certifies products at rail transfer and storage depots...... In
summary, the majority of fluoridation products as a class, based on NSF test
results, do not contribute measurable amounts of arsenic, lead, other heavy
metals, or radionuclides to the drinking water."

"The identified chemicals of interest are subsequently evaluated during
testing of the product. For example, fluosilicic acid is produced by adding
sulfuric acid to phosphate ore."

In the table presented, the current chemicals tested for are: Antimony,
Arsenic, Barium, Beryllium, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Mercury,
Radionuclides – alpha pCi/L, Radionuclides – beta mrem/yr, Selenium, Thallium.

What else is going to be in the phosphate ore that could come into the water?
To me that test range looks too small. How pure is the sulfuric acid used to
dissolve the phosphate? Also, what sort of byproducts are going to occur as
the fluoride additives and sulfuric acid corrode their containers?

I don't live in the USA but these are the sort of questions I'd be asking, and
as mentioned elsewhere, I'd want to see realtime and comprehensive information
on the additives used - and alerts if something strange or unwanted is found.
I think it's going to be more difficult to test tap water itself for such
additives, so I'd suggest testing and displaying the actual additives before
placed in the water - and from there it's going to be straightforward to
determine concentrations. Personally, I wouldn't be accepting the NSF/ANSI
Standard 60 as it currently stands... from how I perceive it. It was devised
in 1988. This sort of extra testing would have to come on top of it, likely on
a small scale by individual plants interested.

Finally, I would start thinking about testing air quality... not final air
quality... but the actual additives used in chemtrails in a realtime manner,
just like with water additives. You can argue about if chemtrails are real or
not, I am just asking... "whatever is coming out the back of those planes... I
want to know what it contains, because I am inhaling it."

~~~
sslott
Again, water at the tap is that which is ingested and otherwise utilized, thus
the only water of relevance. This is why NSF Standard 60 certification
requirements begin with water at the tap. It makes no difference what
additives are used, the process by which these additives are produced, or the
location from where they are obtained. If the water at the tap does not meet
Standard 60 certification requirements, it is not allowed.

If you want to argue with the US EPA about its standards and procedures, feel
free. I, personally, have survived just fine with them for 61 years.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

~~~
adrianwaj
tl;dr - the bottleneck to alleviating brain toxins right now is informational

To me standard 60 is insufficient. I would be happy to pay for extra testing
to my water, or rather the additives used. I think many people would.

While we're on the topic of toxins for brain, I would also be happy to know
more about the emf generated by smart meters, cell phone towers, and wireless
equipment. But mainly smart meters. If I had one installed, I'd want very
accurate readings of what is being emitted and when. Also vaccines.

The message is simple: "government/corporation: feel free to do whatever you
want to my air, food, water, emf spectrum and blood that you believe or
purport to be in my best interests (you already do).... but I want to know
precisely and accurately what it is you're doing, changing and adding to it. I
can be driven to do this for no reason, any reason, false reasons or accurate
reasons. And whatever reason that may be, you'll have to accept it because you
are the one tampering with long-standing internal and external ecosytems to
which mine (and others') body and mind have adapted over millenia."

From there, I would either want the choice to opt-out, and if I cannot or it
is not possible, then I can look for legal, political or economic (boycott)
routes to address the problems I find, which could include the need for even
greater informational transparency than the ones being offered.

~~~
sslott
By all means, have your water tested right down to the subatomic level if you
so desire.

Obsessive demands to search for problems in the absence of valid evidence that
any exist, are an integral aspect of antifluoridationist tactics. However, it
is not justification to deny entire populations the benefits of a valuable
public health initiative such as water fluoridation.

You have just exemplified the true root of antifluoridationist objections
dating back 69 years to the very beginning of the initiative. It is not based
in science, but in ideological distrust of government and authority. Thus, no
matter how much valid science is presented to antifluoridationists, as long as
it does not agree with this ideology, as it never will, it will be rejected by
them.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

~~~
adrianwaj
Who comes to HN and starts signing their name and credentials? Steven does.

~~~
dang
That is a mean thing to say to a newcomer who wouldn't necessarily know that
signing comments isn't customary here. Please don't be mean.

~~~
sslott
It is of no concern to me whether it is customary to post one's name, or not.
I do not hide behind pseudonyms. Neither do I care whether people view my DDS
as a positive, negative, or nothing. I post it as a matter of full disclosure
of my perspective.

It is simply a matter of accountability. Antifluoridations flood the internet
with patently false, misleading information, and an endless barrage of
unsubstantiated claims, all while hiding behind pseudonyms. I make no claims
of being an expert, and don't ask people to trust me on this issue. I simply
urge them to trust the peer-reviewed science obtained from legitimate,
authoritative sources, instead of junk found on antifluoridationist websites.
I can provide evidence to support my claims and do not fear being held
accountable to do so. Contrast this to antifluoridationists posting blatant
misinformation for which they can provide no valid evidence, while hiding
behind pseudonyms and insidiously attempting to steer readers to the filtered
and edited nonsense on their biased little websites.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

~~~
lotharbot
The HN guidelines [0] ask you not to sign your comments. Your username is
already on your comment, and people can click your username to see any further
information you include. If it's directly relevant to the discussion at hand,
you might say it once in the form "source: I'm a [whatever]", but please don't
repeat it. Otherwise, it's just clutter.

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
sslott
If HN does not approve of my comments, it is certainly free not to post them.
However, I do not hide behind pseudonyms.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

~~~
wglb
Good comments.

You can edit your profile to put information there that you would normally put
in your signature. For example,
[https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=wglb](https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=wglb)
for mine.

------
jamesash
A long but very shallow article. \- interviewed authors of paper that used the
phrase, "silent pandemic" when claiming widespread behavioural and cognitive
problems as a result of 12 compounds. Evidence presented in the article
itself? "Rates of diagnosis of [autism] and ADHD are increasing..." [diagnosis
is not necessarily preponderance], an increase in "subclinical decrements in
brain function" [as measured how?] , and "genetic factors account for no more
than 30-40% of brain development disorders" [based on what exactly?] From this
thin stuff the authors then get plenty of column space to expound on their
opinions. Re: the IQ experiments. If Bellinger's own lead-IQ model is correct
[from the linked Environ Health Perspect. Jul 2005; 113(7): 894–89] , a
decrease in blood lead concentration from >10 ug/kg [1970's] to 1.8 ug/kg
[2009] should have resulted in 3 point increase in IQ scores. Where's any
discussion of this? \- FMRI reveals effects of methyl mercury in 3 [?]
adolescents. How can you possibly determine loss of IQ points due to methyl
mercury exposure on this set while controlling for other factors? Talk about
small sample size. -The article asks, "Impressive as all this research
investment is, the larger question remains: Why are we looking at these
hazards now—instead of before we introduced these chemicals into the world?"
80k chemicals mentioned as being on "the market" although what this means
isn't specified. "It would cost $5 million and 5 years per chemical to run the
full battery of tests" according to quoted researcher. 400 billion dollars if
done on the full set. 1) Who pays? 2) Why would any chemical company have a
research presence in the USA if their product had a several year lead time for
rollout due to testing requirements?

~~~
ern
_If Bellinger 's own lead-IQ model is correct...decrease in blood lead
concentration..should have resulted in a 3 point increase in IQ scores_

This is an interesting point. I haven't seen an explanation for the Flynn
Effect continuing as blood lead levels rose through the 20th century. If IQ
levels would have risen _faster_ without lead then the increases should have
been even more substantial since lead levels dropped.

------
microcolonel
Could be safe in agricultural use even if it wasn't safe enough in household
use. Best not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Cheap food with /almost no/ risk of developing a condition or losing functions
of the body is better than expensive food with a marginal reduction in risk.

Even if we were "missing out on" 41,000,000 IQ points(this alone sounds
arbitrary and unprovable) in the U.S., that would be 0.2 IQ points roughly per
person... I'm not even sure that's statistically significant by any
definition.

Then again, maybe I'm just dead wrong about that and I need to shut up and hop
on the hysteria bandwagon.

I certainly don't like that Dow conspired to suppress completed research,
although it is also abhorrible that people gave in to that pressure, probably
through paltry bribes.

~~~
jaekwon
> Could be safe in agricultural use

Didn't we find that some pesticide(s) is/are (partially) responsible for bee
colony collapse disorder?

~~~
Houshalter
I don't think so, since many of the pesticides being blamed have been in use
long before CCD appeared.

~~~
jonnathanson
Neonicotinoids, the class of chemical pesticides most commonly blamed for CCD,
were introduced into widespread use around the time CCD appeared. I don't
think anybody has definitely proven causation (and see the various posts, even
today, about problems in deriving causation from correlation). But there
appears to be neurobiological evidence for _some_ link between the way the
pesticides work and the way bees behave. As far as likely suspects for the
cause of CCD go, it's high on the list.

------
DanielBMarkham
_Frty-one million IQ points. That’s what Dr. David Bellinger determined
Americans have collectively forfeited as a result of exposure to lead,
mercury, and organophosphate pesticides. "_

Okay, I bailed. It's rare that a lede is so bad that I'll bail -- usually I
just don't click on stuff that looks like crap. But this looked interesting.

Why did I bail? First, IQ points are not cumulative. It's not like you can add
them all up and get anything at all useful. It's not even like we could come
to a reasonable agreement that IQ points are a useful metric, but I'll just
let that go.

More to the point, the question isn't society overall, it's individual choice.
Would you trade the loss of 2 or 3 IQ points for better food, a modern world,
access to transportation, and so on? I would -- in a heartbeat. It wouldn't
even be a tough decision to make. Live to 80 in a modern world full of modern
conveniences while being a tiny bit less bright? Count me in.

So I went into scan mode for the rest of the article. For all I know, it
looked good. But I'm left believing what I already believe: Yes, there
probably are some statistical clusters that warrant societal intervention.
Perhaps poor people living in a lead-infested housing project next to a
chemical factory. But to use terms like "Silent Pandemic" is to be terribly
irresponsible. Alarmist even. It does not describe the problem in enough
detail for the reader to know what to do about it, and it's just a cry for
attention.

Sorry. No so much.

------
scythe
Hm. I'm only going to talk about fluoride, because it's the easiest to pick
on: yes, China does have dangerously high levels of fluoride in groundwater in
some areas. Those levels are much higher than the levels added to water in
Western countries, and, in fact, Western countries already implement policies
to _limit_ the concentration of fluoride that makes it into drinking water (so
in, e.g., Colorado Springs, fluoride is removed):

[http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1104912/](http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1104912/)

>Opportunities for epidemiological studies depend on the existence of
comparable population groups exposed to different levels of fluoride from
drinking water. Such circumstances are difficult to find in many
industrialized countries, because fluoride concentrations in community water
are usually no higher than 1 mg/L, _even when fluoride is added to water
supplies as a public health measure to reduce tooth decay._ [emphasis added]

Additionally, as even this week's Chicken Little proclaims:

> “Not at all,” Landrigan said. “I think it’s very good to have in
> toothpaste.”

\--- of course! Do you really think that nobody studied the addition of
fluoride to toothpaste when it was first adopted?

[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD002278...](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD002278/abstract)

> "Seventy-four studies were included."

The end. Fluoride is not a routine risk to neural health in developed
countries.

~~~
judk
Not saying that fluoride is necessarily bad, but brushing and spitting
toothpaste is different from _drinking_ gallons of fluoridated water each
week.

~~~
eqdw
That statement is meaningless unless you know how much fluoride is in the
water

------
jqm
This article rambled and jumped around and was too sensationalistic for my
taste.

Not that it didn't contain some good points but it was unduly alarmist in tone
and kept lumping all chemicals in one class. Lead is a different case from
fluoride is a different case from agricultural pesticides (themselves many
different classes of compounds...some more harmful than others).

Certainly there are toxins in our environment and this is an issue. Well known
toxins like lead have no place in our biological system. But this is not a new
realization. Measures have been taken to address lead, maybe more are needed,
I don't know, but people can't freely disperse lead in the environment
anymore. (Except NRA members of course).

The article contained a dash of conspiracy for good measure and appeared about
as scientific as a 1980's anti-recreational drug commercial...."This is your
brain on fluoride!". Exactly the same type of hysteria (albeit from a
different political spectrum) as well.

Here is reality...we can't live this lifestyle without chemicals so there will
be some trade offs. That's the bottom line. Want to use plastic and drive a
car and buy raspberry pi's? Then there are going to be some toxins. Maybe
things have been too lax and more research and regulation should occur. No
argument. But all chemicals and all pesticides are not evil and we are going
to need some for the foreseeable future.

------
sizzle
Thanks for sharing, this reminded me of an article[1] in a similar vein.

Excerpt: "Today, a novel class of illnesses is on the rise, and neither theory
sufficiently explains it. TILT shows how a person can have a toxic exposure
and never recover. Exposures trigger a bewildering array of symptoms that many
people never trace back to synthetic chemicals in their daily life. They may
experience cardiac and neurological abnormalities, headaches, flu-like
symptoms, bladder dysfunction, asthma, depression, anxiety, pain, cognitive
dysfunction, and sleep disorders"

[1]: [http://nautil.us/issue/15/turbulence/is-the-world-making-
you...](http://nautil.us/issue/15/turbulence/is-the-world-making-you-sick)

~~~
BinaryIdiot
You don't actually believe that pseudo science bullshit, do you? Please tell
me you jest / troll. That article / interview is just full of half-assed
science and made up bullshit.

~~~
sizzle
From the nautilus article: She calls her theory “TILT,” short for Toxicant
Induced Loss of Tolerance.

TILT posits that a surprising range of today’s most common chronic conditions
are linked to daily exposure to very low doses of synthetic chemicals that
have been in mass production since World War II. These include organophosphate
pesticides, flame-retardants, formaldehyde, benzene, and tens of thousands of
other chemicals."

Given this is HN, I would like to believe that you understand what a 'theory'
is. I found that it was an interesting theory and nicely parallels with the
article from the OP. Whether I believe the theory or not is irrelevant. I'm
sharing knowledge cause it's fascinating.

~~~
BinaryIdiot
It's not sharing knowledge it's spreading "theories" that are well known to be
incorrect. Spreading pseudo science, regardless of how much you believe in it,
is not a good thing.

These people are great at constructing a narrative that everyone would love to
believe. Wouldn't it be great if this single thing was the cause of ALL of
these aliments? Unfortunately life doesn't work that way but our minds are
great at drawing invalid correlations.

~~~
sizzle
take your pick:

knowl·edge ˈnälij ; noun 1.facts, information, and skills acquired by a person
through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of
a subject.

2\. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation. "the
program had been developed without his knowledge" synonyms: awareness,
consciousness, realization, cognition, apprehension, perception, appreciation

Prove the article wrong if you are so compelled to do so. Part of the reason I
share things on HN is for the discussion it creates, which expands my
knowledge so I can form educated opinions. I appreciate this aspect of HN,
it's why I keep coming back so please, inform me with some links, resources,
or research and relieve my of my pseudo-scientific ignorance or stop telling
me I'm wrong.

------
grannyg00se
Dow knowingly spreads poison, pays a fine, withdraws a product from household
use, and that product continues to be used in farming? I had to stop reading.

~~~
srean
...And greenwash them away by grandiose ad campaigns such as "human element"
where they portray themselves as a part of the (humanitarian) solution to
potable water.

If they really cared a tiddly bit about devastating human costs caused by
their wholly owned subsidiaries, they would have at least spent a miniscule
fraction of what they spend on such ad campaigns to actually clean up their
mess.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster)

The particular example I have in mind is the Bhopal disaster, and
contamination of Bhopal's groundwater caused by the same company but prior to
the disaster. Notably they dont shy away from claiming any of the assets of
their wholly owned subsidiary Union Carbide, but none of their liabilities.
20,000 have died because of these causes, more have been disabled beyond the
capacity to earn livelihood wages, but they do zilch about it. Well, not quite
correct, they spend billions in ad campaigns, sponsor olympics and get a free
pass. While Chernobyl rules the roost in western media as a prominent example
of an industrial disaster (fits the narrative of "look how bad Russian
technology is" very nicely) few if at all recall Bhopal although it is a
tragedy of as epic proportions, I would argue that its (official) human cost
was more.

I have not started on Nemagon or dioxins.

~~~
nickles
According to the Wikipedia article you linked to, 3787 deaths are confirmed as
resulting from the incident and 16000 deaths are claimed in total. The page
does not support the assertion that the disaster was responsible for 20000
deaths.

From the same page: "In 1994, UCC sold its stake in UCIL to Eveready
Industries India Limited... Eveready Industries India, Limited, ended cleanup
on the site in 1998, when it terminated its 99-year lease and turned over
control of the site to the state government of Madhya Pradesh. Dow Chemical
Company Purchased UCC in 2001, seventeen years after the disaster."

Dow Chemical did not own Union Carbide at the time of the incident.
Additionally, EIIL had assumed, and shed, liability for the cleanup prior to
Dow Chemical's acquisition of UCC. Dow Chemical is absolutely responsible for
damaging the environment in various ways; however, constructing narratives to
implicate the company in the Bhopal Disaster is disingenuous.

~~~
srean
The death toll numbers vary with which source you cite. I was being
conservative with 20,000. The ~4K number is of course those who dies
immediately after the leak, many have perished due to long term effects and
still continue to do so. It hasnt stopped.

It is irrelevant that Dow did not own UCC then, it owns it now, and not in
part, wholly, that comes with liabilities too. Liability does not disappear in
the thin air just because some other company buys it out. To vindicate this
point, Dow has paid millions for UCC liabilities in US. Dow did not own UCC at
that time either.

UCC has ceased to exist and Dow owns all of the assets, and I argue that
includes UC all its liabilities liabilities. The gold standard has been that
the polluter pays, the polluter was UCC, which is now owned by Dow (which
means all property physical and intellectual). EIIL never assumed liabilities,
it obtained the lease of the land that had been lent out to UCC by the govt,
it did not buy UCC.

If you want to know the facts I would say dig around, if you want to push an
predetermined opinion, continue what you are doing. As the owner of UCC, Dow
has been summoned by the Indian courts which it has refused to do, so as per
Indian law its a fugitive from justice.

[http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/183715.Five_Past_Midnight...](http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/183715.Five_Past_Midnight_in_Bhopal)
does a good job, but from your tone it seems you wont be interested much.

> constructing narratives to implicate the company in the Bhopal Disaster is
> disingenuous.

Thats really cute, what name would you give to profiteering from human
disaster by using US sovereignty to shield it from criminal and tort
proceedings.

------
msane
The Atlantic has great brand capital, which for some reason doesn't erode much
when they regularly print sensational clickbait like this, or do things like
print PR stories for the Church of Scientology
([http://archive.today/vca4i](http://archive.today/vca4i)). I'd take this
article and most of what they print with a grain of salt.

------
BinaryIdiot
Oh good an article about complete bullshit. I haven't read enough bullshit
lately.

Edit: Oh good the pseudo science crew is here to downvote me. Good lord people
read the article; you can tell by the opening paragraph it's complete
bullshit. Look at the studies they reference and how shitty their controls
are. Good god people try being skeptical for once.

Edit2: Today I learned Hacker News is a great venue for spreading pseudo
science and quackery. That kinda makes me sad.

~~~
_delirium
> Today I learned Hacker News is a great venue for spreading pseudo science
> and quackery.

On non-programming topics that's always been the case. HN is full of
programmers who are not knowledgeable in science, and tend to trust their
personal political or cultural beliefs on other subjects where science might
be applied. Today's frontpage is actually great because it contains an example
of that with both political valences. There's a "left-ish" pseudoscientific
story about toxins, and "right-ish" pseudoscientific story about evolutionary
psychology. Amazing. We're only missing a thread on weightlifting or
nutritional fads to complete the bingo card.

~~~
ZenoArrow
Do you know the difference between pseudoscience and a soft science? I don't
think you do.

Hard sciences like physics and chemistry are able to describe processes in
minute detail because the systems being studied are relatively simple. As you
scale the systems up, the level of detail that science produces is diminished,
because there's a higher level of uncontrolled variables. This is why people
make the difference between hard science and soft science, you can still try
to follow scientific principles without getting a high level of conclusivity.

What soft sciences rely on is a body of observational evidence. Here's a
classic example from the article... "For decades, chlorpyrifos, marketed by
Dow Chemical beginning in 1965, was the most widely used insect killer in
American homes. Then, in 1995, Dow was fined $732,000 by the EPA for
concealing more than 200 reports of poisoning related to chlorpyrifos. It paid
the fine and, in 2000, withdrew chlorpyrifos from household products. Today,
chlorpyrifos is classified as “very highly toxic” to birds and freshwater
fish, and “moderately toxic” to mammals, but it is still used widely in
agriculture on food and non-food crops, in greenhouses and plant nurseries, on
wood products and golf courses."

~~~
BinaryIdiot
> Do you know the difference between pseudoscience and a soft science? I don't
> think you do.

Science follows a well known process. There are no hard or soft sciences.
There is one that follows evidence and another that's pseudo science bullshit.
With great claims comes great evidence and your soft science example not only
lacks proper, vetted scientific evidence but is actually complete bullshit
that simply fits with your cultural belief.

~~~
nisa
You won't make a lot of friends here with this kind of reasoning. Please
refute the article in a way that is at least somewhat open to scrutiny from
the wider audience. That should at least include concrete examples and
preferably sourced rebuttal of said claims.

Calling something "pseudo science bullshit" because of "science"... is a lot
more similar to pseudoscience than having an actual sourced debate based on
concrete examples.

------
cel1ne
What threatens personal health is mostly stress and sugar. So start
exercising, lower your pace every now and then and stop drinking soft-drinks.

And even this isn't entirely correct since people get older and older
nowadays. Why is there so much fear about personal health when the situation
actually keeps getting better?

~~~
buttscicles
I'd imagine it's due to us actually being able to discover what effect things
have on our bodies in ways we've never been able to before.

------
Jekyll
Regardless of these 'toxins' \- I'm sure if you evaluated the toxicity and
exposure to chemicals in an average household it would be probably exceed that
of industrial labs in the past. Think deodorants, washing-up liquid,
detergents, hand-washes, shampoos riddled with obscure-and-difficult-to-
pronounce ingredients, cleaning liquids such as bleach. Forget the risk of
being exposed to manganese within a steel can - we are already actively
polluting our households and probably breathing in higher amounts of nasty
chemicals hidden in household products than the examples mentioned in the
article.

~~~
slapshot
I think you severely underestimate the fatality and occupational exposure rate
in old industrial labs.

Here's a classic pre-OSHA example of producing tetraethyl lead with no
containment whatsoever (1924):
[http://blogs.plos.org/speakeasyscience/2011/08/24/at-the-
doo...](http://blogs.plos.org/speakeasyscience/2011/08/24/at-the-door-of-the-
loony-gas-building/)

Madam Curie's papers are still radioactive due to lack of containment (early
1900s):
[http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Horizons/2011/1107/Marie...](http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Horizons/2011/1107/Marie-
Curie-Why-her-papers-are-still-radioactive)

Herea re the "Radium Girls" who would lick radium-laced paintbrushes to make
watches (1917):
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls)

And don't forget that nearly all heat-related surfaces in old labs were
insulated with asbestos:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos#Industrial_era](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos#Industrial_era)

Don't forget the countless people who played with mercury as pranks (!) in old
labs, nevermind the fact that old lab thermometers used to be made of the
stuff and that it was used in countless experiments of yore (today, a broken
mercury thermometer will evacuate a school or lab):
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(element)#Historic_uses](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_\(element\)#Historic_uses)

Etc. Unless you've got a small lead factory, asbestos, some radioactive
liquids, and a bottle of mercury laying around your house, I'm quite certain
that it is quite a bit safer than "industrial labs in the past."

