Environmentalists are one of the MSM saints. Them and Gun-Controllers, Abortion Rights Activists, and any other apparently PC related nut case.
This article talks about that wonderful Environmental Working Group report on chemical compounds that were found in umbilical cord blood samples. It is a body burden report, which I'm a bit skeptical about after looking at the methodology. Ten samples? That's a pretty miniscule sampling. The title linked article give some brief relevant discussion after their rhetorical rant.
You can find the detailed results here. You may wish to remain skeptical though of their conclusions. They fail to provide comparisons as to what levels of the chemicals are known to be dangerous for the found chemicals. They do give a page of references, but parsing the data would have been much more effective rather than just spouting the effects.
You can look at the CDC body burden report which is at least scientific not to mention less inflammatory. They don't give any risk comparisons either. I'm coming to believe that that may be a fairly large effort. Considering the variations for acute exposure and systemic exposure.
Personally, I think that there should be some in depth study of the nature of these chemicals and the related effects. But the conclusions put forward by the EWG study strike me as being knee jerk reactions. Some are likely warranted.
In any case, this specific case I at first assumed was from a non-propagandist group and was based on clear scientific results. Again, the MSM has lead the public astray with giving voice to a group that uses junk science and fails to perform studies that could at least provide useful information. The results provided in the EWG report should be evidence for a call for a study, not a call for actions against the chemical industry.
This article talks about that wonderful Environmental Working Group report on chemical compounds that were found in umbilical cord blood samples. It is a body burden report, which I'm a bit skeptical about after looking at the methodology. Ten samples? That's a pretty miniscule sampling. The title linked article give some brief relevant discussion after their rhetorical rant.
The current EWG study is called "Body Burden: The Pollution in Newborns," and it is another bonanza of junk science. Dr. Gilbert Ross of the American Council on Science and Health states, "EWG has taken substances known to be a toxin or carcinogen in high-dose animal experiments, disregarded the actual concentration, and used it for a scare campaign. They've ignored one of the sound principles of toxicology: the dose makes the poison. Any substance can be toxic at a high enough dose."From the report's own methodology you get this jewel:
The actual data in the report makes this clear. For example, EWG claims methyl mercury at 58 parts per billion (ppb) in the mother's blood during pregnancy "causes measurable declines in brain function in children." Yet the tests EWG ran on umbilical cord blood found no level of methyl mercury higher than 2.3 ppb.
The American National Red Cross obtained ten umbilical cord blood samples from live births in U.S. hospitals in August and September 2004. Besides each child's birthday, the Environmental Working Group obtained no identifying information, either personal or geographic, regarding the samples. [emphasis mine]So that allows for no understanding of the environment of the sampled child or how representative that sample should be considered of the population as a whole.
You can find the detailed results here. You may wish to remain skeptical though of their conclusions. They fail to provide comparisons as to what levels of the chemicals are known to be dangerous for the found chemicals. They do give a page of references, but parsing the data would have been much more effective rather than just spouting the effects.
You can look at the CDC body burden report which is at least scientific not to mention less inflammatory. They don't give any risk comparisons either. I'm coming to believe that that may be a fairly large effort. Considering the variations for acute exposure and systemic exposure.
Personally, I think that there should be some in depth study of the nature of these chemicals and the related effects. But the conclusions put forward by the EWG study strike me as being knee jerk reactions. Some are likely warranted.
- Remove from the market chemicals for which tests demonstrating safety are not conducted.
- Eliminate confidential business protection for all health, safety, and environmental information.
- Provide strong incentives for green, safer chemicals in consumer products and industrial processes.
- Grant the EPA clear and unencumbered authority to demand all studies needed to make a finding of safety and to enforce clear deadlines for study completion.
Require chemical manufacturers to demonstrate affirmatively that the chemicals they sell are safe for the entire population exposed, including children in the womb. In the absence of information on the risks of pre-natal exposure, chemicals must be assumed to present greater risk to the developing baby in utero, and extra protections must be required at least as strict as the 10 fold children's safety factor in FQPA."Demonstrate affirmatively" would come down to extremists arguing that the industry didn't test broadly enough or didn't research long enough to provide useful data. Who would then be in charge of deciding what is reasonable testing?
In any case, this specific case I at first assumed was from a non-propagandist group and was based on clear scientific results. Again, the MSM has lead the public astray with giving voice to a group that uses junk science and fails to perform studies that could at least provide useful information. The results provided in the EWG report should be evidence for a call for a study, not a call for actions against the chemical industry.
No comments:
Post a Comment