
Chemical exposure and brain health - hunglee2
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/the-toxins-that-threaten-our-brains/284466/?single_page=true
======
0xcde4c3db
> I found that the real issue was not this particular group of 12 chemicals.
> Most of them are already being heavily restricted. This dozen is meant to
> illuminate something bigger: a broken system that allows industrial
> chemicals to be used without any significant testing for safety.

I think this is the real take-away. How many times have we found a particular
Chemical X to be harmful, only to have it replaced by something whose hazards
are _less known_ rather than _known to be lower_ just so that things could be
marked "Chemical X-free"? Look at the replacement of saturated fats with trans
fats, for example.

~~~
tyleraland
BPA-free also comes to mind: [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bpa-
replacement-a...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bpa-replacement-
also-alters-hormones/)

------
pasbesoin
Paragraph 9 (grr...):

 _The chemicals they called out as developmental neurotoxins in 2006 were
methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, ethanol, lead, arsenic, and toluene.
The additional chemicals they’ve since found to be toxins to the developing
brains of fetuses—and I hope you’ll trust me that these all are indeed
words—are manganese, fluoride, chlorpyrifos, tetrachloroethylene,
polybrominated diphenyl ethers, and dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane._

------
pavement
This image alone is the scariest graphic I've seen in a while:

[https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2014/03/a...](https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2014/03/all_icons/578acfc36.png)

While concentrated hydrofluoric acid is well-known as a nightmare mode poison,
it's still scary to see a toothpaste icon make the same list as the rest.
Chalk it up to industrial accidents though, which is certainly a reasonable
argument against municipal flouridation.

Bags like these are loaded into the potable water supply as part of a routine
program:

[https://organicolivia.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/02/Screen-...](https://organicolivia.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/02/Screen-
Shot-2016-02-16-at-4.48.01-PM-1-e1455660564956-500x480.png)

It seems like a pretty low-tech operation, and trivial errors involving
accidental concentration foul-ups (maybe two bags of mix in the water supply,
instead of one) probably fly under the radar, and the dynamic changes during a
hot summer when everyone's using more ice cubes and drinking more iced tea.
Decades later bones are more brittle and everyone's senile.

Meanwhile, growing up, I think I must have inhaled kilograms of toluene vapor,
given all the airplane model kits I built.

I avoid dry cleaning simply because it costs too much, takes too long, and
those sorts of expensive clothes just feel generally wasteful.

Mercury is probably the most threatening item on the list, given that I enjoy
lots of seafood, but I feel guilty enough already, given the rampant
destruction of the oceans my appetite contributes to.

Pesticides and other persistent bioaccumulative toxins, I pretty much feel
powerless to control, and so I try not to think about them.

It's amazing my brain works at all.

------
bsenftner
The sensationalist tone and hand waving at "top scientists" ended my interest
during paragraph one.

~~~
SamUK96
It's my general opinion that if anybody feels the need to write "top" before
scientists, it's because they want people to believe it more.

And once you know that, then you have to ask why do they want people to
believe that more than anything else.

And then I close the article and move on :)

------
jack9
The moment I saw flouride, I was done.

[https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/but-not-simpler/why-
por...](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/but-not-simpler/why-portland-is-
wrong-about-water-fluoridation/)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_controversy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_controversy)

~~~
erroneousfunk
In the article Landrigan says that fluoridation is a good thing in small
doses. He agrees with what you've posted. He doesn't appear to be particularly
concerned about water fluoridation at all, but says in HIGH doses it can cause
problems, which is true.

~~~
jack9
I believe the science shows this as well. However, putting it on the same
level as heavy metals in an infographic...is just fear mongering.

