×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Putting the Next Generation of Brains In Danger

Soulskill posted about 10 months ago | from the won't-somebody-think-of-the-brains dept.

Medicine 143

An anonymous reader sends this news from CNN: "The number of chemicals known to be toxic to children's developing brains has doubled over the last seven years, researchers said. Dr. Philip Landrigan at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York and Dr. Philippe Grandjean from Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, authors of the review published Friday in The Lancet Neurology journal say the news is so troubling they are calling for a worldwide overhaul of the regulatory process in order to protect children's brains. 'We know from clinical information on poisoned adult patients that these chemicals can enter the brain through the blood brain barrier and cause neurological symptoms,' said Grandjean. 'When this happens in children or during pregnancy, those chemicals are extremely toxic, because we now know that the developing brain is a uniquely vulnerable organ. Also, the effects are permanent.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Beta is spreading (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46254273)

Danger everywhere.

Re:Beta is spreading (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 10 months ago | (#46254353)

No Anchovies?

You must have the wrong man. I spell my name "Danger".

Re:Beta is spreading (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46254387)

Warning to future parents
Exposure to Beta can cause the brain to release chemicals that can damage the fetus, eggs and sperm resulting in children that live to serve the Dice overlords
Save future generations, fight Beta

Not a single Zombie Post (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46255163)

Brains in Danger.
There should be a Zombie joke.

Re:Beta is spreading (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46254417)

Slashdot censors comments. If someone posts something they (Slashington) don't want to hear or they don't want their "audience" to hear - They delete them from the thread. As much as some don't like the anti-beta comments, do you prefer to participate in a censored discussion that is being manipulated by a bunch of corporate suits? Even Malda would have never let this happen.

Think about it, if they censor anti-beta posts then it hides the revolt they're causing in their own "audience". But as it's obvious - no one wants their fucking Beta.

They repeatedly they "we are listening to your feedback" and "it needs work we know that" They don't give a damn shit. Face it they haven't changed and thing and they won't.

Re:Beta is spreading (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46255997)

This beta stuff is irritating. As punishment, place it into production immediately. That should shut them up.

Prepare the industry stonewalling. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46254279)

The impact is not limited to loss of IQ points.

"Beyond IQ, we're talking about behavior problems -- shortening of attention span, increased risk of ADHD," Landrigan said.

Things that make it harder for people to do well in school and later on the job. And in extreme cases, contributes to being a poor and on the dole.

Remember that folks when you or you hear someone bitch about the EPA and environmental regulations. We pay for it one way or another.

Of course, industry will have their own scientists - like the cigarette industry - that will show this is "junk science" or some other critique to prevent or at the very least, slow down any sort of regulation.

Profit and money is all that seems to matter to some people in our society.

Re:Prepare the industry stonewalling. (1)

tomhath (637240) | about 10 months ago | (#46255033)

FTFA:

In 2006, they published data identifying five chemicals as neurotoxicants -- substances that impact brain development and can cause a number of neurodevelopmental disabilities including attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism, dyslexia and other cognitive damage, they said.

Those five are lead, methylmercury, arsenic, polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, and toluene.

Pregnant women are responsible for the baby they're carrying. Obviously they should not expose themselves to these elements/chemicals, or a long list of others known to be harmful. Yet how many babies are born every year to mothers who smoke, consume alcohol, use cocaine or other recreational drugs, etc, etc?

The EPA can make regulations all day long. But the primary responsibility is and will always lie with the individual. Do not expect The Government to protect you 24/7, cradle to grave. It won't happen.

Re:Prepare the industry stonewalling. (1)

fractoid (1076465) | about 10 months ago | (#46255259)

You just listed one group of chemicals, and then called out mothers who exposed their unborn children to a different group of chemicals. Make your mind up.

Re:Prepare the industry stonewalling. (1)

tomhath (637240) | about 10 months ago | (#46255753)

You missed the point entirely. Do not assume the government will protect you - protect yourself. Whether it's smoking or avoiding fish that contain mercury or not using toluene to remove fingernail polish, those are all known hazards and have been for years. Be aware of what's out there.

Yes, there is a place for regulation. Lead, PCBs, mercury are all banned for good reason. That's nice but it doesn't reduce personal responsibility.

Re:Prepare the industry stonewalling. (5, Insightful)

nbauman (624611) | about 10 months ago | (#46255379)

Pregnant women can take care of tobacco, alcohol, and cocaine themselves.

(The numbers of women in that age group who smoke has gone down dramatically in the last generation, the women I know quit alcohol during pregnancy, and cocaine among pregnant women turned out to be exaggerated.)

How can a pregnant woman protect herself against lead, if auto exhaust from leaded gasoline fills the air with it? Only government can do that job.

Similarly, General Electric dumped hundreds of tons of PCBs into the Hudson River, where it's impossible to remove. Is that supposed to be the woman's responsibility and not GE's responsibility?

Do you believe that every pregnant woman should get a degree in analytical chemistry and a home lab?

Some things are individual responsibilities, and some things are government responsibilities. Actually, some things are corporate responsibilities, but the U.S. corporations don't accept those responsibilities so the government has to clean up after them.

Re:Prepare the industry stonewalling. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46255783)

Similarly, General Electric dumped hundreds of tons of PCBs into the Hudson River, where it's impossible to remove. Is that supposed to be the woman's responsibility and not GE's responsibility?

GE is spending roughly a half billion dollars to clean up the worst of it. Might not be perfect but it's not like they didn't take responsibility.

Re:Prepare the industry stonewalling. (2)

nbauman (624611) | about 10 months ago | (#46256655)

GE's fault was that they irresponsibly polluted the Hudson River in the first place. Yes, everybody was doing it at the time, but that's the problem. We had an irresponsible chemical industry, and electrical industry, and if the government isn't watching them, they'll do some of the stupidest, most dangerous things imaginable that cost them much more money, and harm many uninvolved people, in the long run. GE didn't even admit that PCBs were harmful until they wound up in the courts, and all their remediation was the result of court settlements. And this company was building nuclear power plants.

I went to a panel at the New York bar association on PCBs. There was a guy from GE who was still arguing that we didn't have evidence that PCBs were harmful. His argument was that there was a factory in Italy that blew up where people were exposed to higher levels of PCBs without apparent harm. Actually, the factory was producing a different PCB. It turned out that PCBs are a whole class of compounds, and you can't extrapolate from one PCB to another. If one PCB happens to be shaped to wrap around your DNA, it could cause cancer. You can't dismiss that possibility.

Bottom line: GE contaminated the Hudson River with low levels of PCBs of all kinds, and nobody can figure out definitely how dangerous it is to be exposed to low levels of each PCB over long periods of time. GE spent a lot of money, and $1/2 billion sounds right, but they still couldn't undo the damage and they couldn't restore the Hudson River to its original state. There used to be commercial fishing on the Hudson River, and because of the uncertainty, that industry is gone. They (and we) were lucky that over time it didn't turn out to be as bad as some of the Japanese pollution cases.

GE shouldn't have contaminated the Hudson River in the first place. Upstate New York was an industrial area, and there was a lot of dumping pollution like that, of which Love Canal is another case.

I knew chemists from those days, and there was an attitude of, "By the time this becomes a problem, I'll be retired and gone." They knew the mess that they were creating.

I knew an editor from one of the McGraw-Hill electrical industry magazines who insisted to the end, in articles and editorials, that PCBs were harmless. Yeah, PCBs had great dielectric properties and they didn't burn. I was sorry to see them go. But what about the toxicity?

I'm reluctantly forced to let the individuals and corporations off the hook and escape their personal responsibility. It's the whole industry and their attitude up to the 1960s that was responsible. They provided lots of jobs, and created lots of useful modern products like electrical components and appliances, and GE commendably paid taxes, supported the community, and promoted science education (unlike tax-avoiding tech companies today). But they fucked up royally with their toxic waste disposal and we should at least acknowledge that and learn from it.

My conclusion: I don't want to hear about how the wonderful free market and personal responsibility will keep us safe, and government regulation will drag us into poverty. We can't trust corporate executives who are getting bonuses for their quarterly performance to be just greedy enough but not too greedy.

We need government monitoring and regulation to keep an eye on them, and make sure they don't fuck up again, and kill a lot of people, and incidentally go bankrupt (as the asbestos companies did).

Unfortunately, we have an entire political party, the Republicans, who have gone crazy and want to destroy government oversight. We also have a Democratic Party that is often ready to follow them over the cliff, in return for some (admittedly huge) campaign contributions.

Re:Prepare the industry stonewalling. (1)

diamondmagic (877411) | about 10 months ago | (#46256345)

If I dumped a bunch of lead in your back yard, wouldn't that be a crime?

If I dumped a bunch of lead in your air, wouldn't that be pretty much the same thing?

Re:Prepare the industry stonewalling. (1)

niftymitch (1625721) | about 10 months ago | (#46257133)

If I dumped a bunch of lead in your back yard, wouldn't that be a crime?

If I dumped a bunch of lead in your air, wouldn't that be pretty much the same thing?

Please define "a bunch".

At $0.95 a pound a large enough block might have me saying yes please.

It is the nano-schoshi amounts that some crazy expensive instrument can measure
that bothers me.

Re:Prepare the industry stonewalling. (1)

deroby (568773) | about 10 months ago | (#46255383)

The problem is you don't always know. Simply look at plastic baby-bottles containing BPA.

Re:Prepare the industry stonewalling. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46255971)

wrong. While i must regulate what i put into my body, i cannot personally control what others in society put into the world. thats governments job (ie by our consent to do so). If it was my job, i would have the RIGHT to go into Dow chemicals and legally kill the CEO for poisoning my children. the reason we are trying to regulate chemicals, as well as so many other govt functions, is to get away from extrajudicial killings or harm, whether commited by large groups against small, or individuals against others. If you dont like the rule of law, youll have to go very far back in human society to a time when we didnt accept some form of regulation of human behavior: maybe preliterate hunter gatherers, or earlier. good luck with that. we are trying to create a more perfect union. its never perfect. we dont give up on it just cause its not perfect.

Re:Prepare the industry stonewalling. (1)

sjames (1099) | about 10 months ago | (#46255981)

So because a small minority of women ignore sound advice for their babies it's fine to pollute the world with harmful substances such that a woman has to make a pilgrimage to some distant land untouched by modern civilization if she wants a healthy baby?

Have you considered the difficulty for a woman trying to avoid lead? Because of years of lax regulation it permeates the soil in many (mostly poor, naturally) neighborhoods.

Perhaps it's best not to poison the environment in the first place.

Re:Prepare the industry stonewalling. (0)

c0lo (1497653) | about 10 months ago | (#46256507)

Of course, industry will have their own scientists - like the cigarette industry - that will show this is "junk science" or some other critique to prevent or at the very least, slow down any sort of regulation.

Well, call me cynical but... put this in contrast with kiddy-pr0n and then ask yourself a question "Which anatomical parts of a kid the society seems to value and protect more?"

Everybody ready? (1)

irright (1369385) | about 10 months ago | (#46254283)

On your mark. Get set. CLUTCH YOUR PEARLS!

PSA for Slashington's "audience" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46254385)

Slashdot censors comments. If someone posts something they (Slashington) don't want to hear or they don't want their "audience" to hear - They delete them from the thread. As much as some don't like the anti-beta comments, do you prefer to participate in a censored discussion that is being manipulated by a bunch of corporate suits? Even Malda would have never let this happen.

Re: PSA for Slashington's "audience" (1)

mexsudo (2905137) | about 10 months ago | (#46254495)

Interesting, an this is the only place that does that?

Re: PSA for Slashington's "audience" (1)

mexsudo (2905137) | about 10 months ago | (#46254501)

Thread gone,point made

Number of _known_ dangers (3, Informative)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 10 months ago | (#46254307)

Glancing through the article, there don't seem to be any new dangers to children. There seem to be more things that are _known_ to be dangerous, but these things obviously were dangerous even when we didn't know they were. So no need to panic.

Re:Number of _known_ dangers (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 10 months ago | (#46254331)

There's a gaping hole in the side of our cruise ship, but no need to panic folks, it's been there since we left port so this is nothing new, just new to us!

Re:Number of _known_ dangers (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 10 months ago | (#46254379)

It does dramatically change things, assuming that the concentrations of these chemicals are roughly the same. The headline suggests an active change has occurred, while the actually story is that we now know of more chemicals that are potentially harmful. There's a big difference between an increase in brain damage and a chance to reduce brain damage.

Re:Number of _known_ dangers (1)

reboot246 (623534) | about 10 months ago | (#46254339)

Well, it's nice to see CNN finally catching up. Most news outlets I listen to have been telling us about these dangerous chemicals for years.

Re:Number of _known_ dangers (4, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | about 10 months ago | (#46254561)

Indeed. The worst of them have/had been in use for a century or more. Paint and gasoline used to have lead. I remember reading about a mushroom hunter who had gotten sick after eating some wild mushrooms she'd found on the side of the road. They weren't a toxic species; she'd gotten lead poisoning from gasoline fumes the fungi had absorbed. Kids were rendered mentally retarded from eating paint chips. Thermometers contained mercury, and when one broke us kids would play with the amazing metal. Yet at one point in school my IQ was measured at 150 (I'm sure I'm a lot dumber now, I've been exposed to toxins all my life).

The biggest danger to children's brains is women drinking while pregnant. I've seen it all too many times in my six decades, it's incredibly sad. Other, more dangerous dangers are blows to the head, and mental and physical abuse.

Rather than the sky falling, it's continually improving; most of the substances listed have already either been banned, or their use curtailed voluntarily. From TFA:

The American Chemistry Council, meanwhile, called the review a "rehash" of the authors' first review.

"This iteration is as highly flawed as the first, as once again the authors ignore the fundamental scientific principles of exposure and potency," said council spokesman Scott Jensen.

"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."

Re:Number of _known_ dangers (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 10 months ago | (#46254739)

Kids were rendered mentally retarded from eating paint chips.

That sounds like one of them correlation/causation thingies...

Re:Number of _known_ dangers (1)

khallow (566160) | about 10 months ago | (#46254881)

Yea, it's the causation one.

Re: Number of _known_ dangers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46255291)

correlation is not causation!

Re: Number of _known_ dangers (1)

khallow (566160) | about 10 months ago | (#46255757)

Keep me updated in case they ever do change the definitions of correlation and causation. I want to be on top of this!

Re:Number of _known_ dangers (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 10 months ago | (#46256049)

But in which direction?

Re:Number of _known_ dangers (5, Interesting)

AthanasiusKircher (1333179) | about 10 months ago | (#46255287)

The biggest danger to children's brains is women drinking while pregnant. I've seen it all too many times in my six decades, it's incredibly sad.

While it is true that heavy drinking is a severe danger to kids' brains during pregnancy, this has only really been established for alcoholic-level abuse. A few years ago, when my wife was pregnant, I spent a significant amount of time reading hundreds of articles on all the supposed pregnancy dangers, and, to my knowledge, there's not a single case of fetal alcohol syndrome/spectrum disorders or malformed infants that has been reported in numerous studies (involving hundreds of thousands of pregnancies) for alcohol consumption less than about 10-14 drinks per week during pregnancy.

Most studies that claim effects for "any" alcohol consumption don't bother to differentiate light/moderate/heavy drinkers. For the few that do, only a handful have shown any significant cognitive differences for light or moderate drinking vs. women who abstain completely. And of those studies that show statistical differences among these groups, they tend to be small effects. And roughly half of those studies show some sort of minor cognitive benefit to light drinking compared to abstaining completely.

After reviewing the literature, I frankly don't believe that alcohol actually has a benefit (even a small one) on developing brains, but I do know there are other studies showing that mother's stress levels and other things can have significant effects during pregnancy. So, for some women, if they have an occasional drink, it may be enough of a benefit to the mother's feeling of well-being overall that it may also help fetal development.

The point is -- being an alcoholic or drinking heavily during pregnancy is indeed a sad and terrible thing. But all the pressure we put on mothers now to abstain from ALL alcohol and soft cheeses and caffeine and cold cuts and whatever else can also have negative repercussions on fetuses in terms of stress and general happiness for mothers. (Plus, many of the risks are much less than doctors tend to imply -- in many cases, you're much, much more likely to be hit by a bus or even struck by lightning than to cause harm to your baby by eating some of the "banned" items.)

Other, more dangerous dangers are blows to the head, and mental and physical abuse.

Absolutely. Physical abuse is a problem. But other big risks for kids under 18 are car accidents, accidental drowning (swimming pools, in particular), suffocation, and fire. Head injuries playing football and such are also a serious concern for older kids. The common worries like guns, drinking poison, etc. are much less of a concern than your swimming pool or safety during your daily commute.

Re:Number of _known_ dangers (1)

nbauman (624611) | about 10 months ago | (#46255427)

From TFA:

The American Chemistry Council, meanwhile, called the review a "rehash" of the authors' first review.

"This iteration is as highly flawed as the first, as once again the authors ignore the fundamental scientific principles of exposure and potency," said council spokesman Scott Jensen.

"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."

Well, what do you expect the American Chemistry Council to say? They're the industry group of chemical manufacturers that lobbies against environmental regulations. (Unlike the American Chemical Society which includes academic chemists and publishes journals like Environemental Science & Technology.)

without evidence to support their claims.

Who has the burden of proof?

Do we have to prove that these compounds are dangerous, in order to get them out of the environment?

Or do the manufacturers have to prove that they're safe, in order to put them into the environment in the first place?

Re:Number of _known_ dangers (1)

AthanasiusKircher (1333179) | about 10 months ago | (#46255437)

Thermometers contained mercury, and when one broke us kids would play with the amazing metal.

Another thing about this -- exposure to elemental mercury in liquid form is really not very hazardous compared to a lot of common household chemicals. Very little is absorbed through the skin, and even ingested elemental mercury is mostly excreted without being absorbed. Playing with mercury from a broken thermometer for a little while is very unlikely to be harmful with any ventilation, and even if you were in an enclosed area and sniffed it aggressively for an hour, you'd probably absorb about as much mercury into your body as you would by eating a can of tuna. (Seriously -- I've done the numbers.)

The danger from mercury is in the vapor (which IS readily absorbed into your body), so the problem isn't playing with mercury -- it's spilling it on porous surfaces and not cleaning it up properly. A kid rolling around with mercury in his hands for a while is unlikely to result in significant exposure, but a broken thermometer spilling on a rug or couch and being rubbed into the surface where it can release vapors for weeks or months... that can lead to significant exposure to kids.

Also, this points out the issue with CFLs and mercury. Most mercury released from CFLs immediately evaporates from small droplets into a vapor cloud. So even if you have 1/1000th of the amount of mercury in a light bulb compared to a thermometer, breathing in the vapors after a CFL break can cause much greater exposure (which is why government organizations advise evacuation and ventilation before clean-up). It's still not a huge concern for CFLs -- particularly for adults -- but it points out the issue with mercury is inhaling vapor, not playing with it (if followed by proper clean-up).

Re:Number of _known_ dangers (5, Interesting)

nbauman (624611) | about 10 months ago | (#46254729)

Glancing through the article, there don't seem to be any new dangers to children. There seem to be more things that are _known_ to be dangerous, but these things obviously were dangerous even when we didn't know they were. So no need to panic.

"No need to panic" is one of the stupidest phrases in the English language.

Of course there's no need to panic. There's never a need to panic. The house is on fire? No need to panic. Your wife got shot in the head? No need to panic. The World Trade Center got hit by an airliner? No need to panic.

"Panic" is just a word to diminish a legitimate concern for a serious potential danger that is supported by scientific evidence that is about as solid as you usually get in real life.

Of course there are no new dangers to children. These are all old dangers, that are well-known to scientists, and have been denied by the industries that are selling these products. What's new here is that the evidence for these dangers is getting stronger and stronger, and the industry shills are looking more and more ridiculous when they try to argue that "the science is unproven" or "there's no need to panic."

For example, Herbert Needleman first published the dangers of lead toxicity in the 1970s. There was strong evidence that lead was causing damage to children's brains that you could measure in IQ tests and correlate with their blood lead levels. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... [nih.gov]

At the same time, the lead industry was selling tetraethyl lead as a gasoline additive, which was the best way imaginable to distribute lead into the environment in a way that nobody could escape it. They were also selling lead paints, which were a good way to target lead to children, and to painters, and to the construction workers who finally demolished the houses at the end of their cycle.

The lead industry launched a well-funded campaign including lawsuits to discredit Needleman, which finally collapsed as the evidence for the dangers of lead grew and finally become overwhelming. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

Now we have an article in one of the top 4 medical journals (which I read every week) in which the authors (endorsed by their peer-reviewers) say basically that we told you so, the evidence for the toxicity of these 11 industrial chemicals is even stronger now, and it's reasonable to conclude that these widespread industrial chemicals are causing measurable, significant neurological damage, especially in children, just like lead was doing, and we should do something about it now, rather than let industry lobbyists run the world and continue to harm people.

(And BTW they're talking about industrial chemicals, which are manufactured in quantities of hundreds of tons, and wind up being distributed widely in the environment, and have measurable and significant cognitive effects at parts per million. This isn't chemical phobia.)

Re:Number of _known_ dangers (1)

khallow (566160) | about 10 months ago | (#46254885)

Is there any one of those 11 chemicals which should be treated any differently than it is now, just because we know that it is somewhat more dangerous for pregnant women than it was already known to be?

Re:Number of _known_ dangers (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 10 months ago | (#46255617)

This is not just about what pregnant women should consume/be exposed to.

Just a couple of examples:

BPA recently switched to a "maybe we shouldn't put it in every food and drink container"

Fluoride [commonly added to tap water for teeth]. "The data, they said, suggests a decline on average of about seven IQ points." Maybe we should reevaluate the levels of fluoride we permit.

This is the one of the real problems (quote from the article):
"... I find it very irritating some of the multinational manufacturers are now marketing products in Europe and the U.S. with the same brand name and same label, but in Europe (they) are free of toxic chemicals and in the U.S. they contain toxic chemicals."

Land of the Free, Home of the Sterile.

Re:Number of _known_ dangers (1)

khallow (566160) | about 10 months ago | (#46256621)

I find it very irritating some of the multinational manufacturers are now marketing products in Europe and the U.S. with the same brand name and same label, but in Europe (they) are free of toxic chemicals and in the U.S. they contain toxic chemicals

All chemicals are toxic in the right quantities and conditions. That label doesn't in itself mean anything. And just because Europe finds some application of chemicals to be "toxic" doesn't mean that I would or should find the same.

Re:Number of _known_ dangers (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 10 months ago | (#46256855)

That is an excellent attitude, given how the US chemical industry has worked so hard to make sure you can't conclusively prove any specific chemical is causing you any specific problems.

Re:Number of _known_ dangers (1)

sjames (1099) | about 10 months ago | (#46256051)

Yes, it means that 'optional' remediation of contaminated areas should be considered mandatory now. The cost/benefit analysis for such remediation has shifted.

It also suggests greater liability for those who continue to let them enter the environment.

Re:Number of _known_ dangers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46256945)

The lead industry launched a well-funded campaign including lawsuits to discredit Needleman, which finally collapsed as the evidence for the dangers of lead grew and finally become overwhelming. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

And one of the worst things about that was that the individuals in the lead industry responsible for that campaign were probably never held accountable for the millions of lives they hurt.

I'm sick of industry/companies/unions/trade groups/government being blamed when it's usually specific individuals in those organizations who should be held accountable. Organizations are just groups of people working together, not self-aware entities of their own.

Re:Number of _known_ dangers (2)

enharmonix (988983) | about 10 months ago | (#46254771)

There seem to be more things that are _known_ to be dangerous, but these things obviously were dangerous even when we didn't know they were.

I moderated a really controversial article once and as a result I stopped getting moderator points (as I expect did anybody else who moderated in that discussion, because I promoted comments on both sides of the issue). Since I can't mod you up, I'll just say "good point" in hopes that you get modded up some more.

Taking your comment a step further, this is "Good news, everyone!" because when we know these chemicals are bad, we avoid them. Not all of them are regulated, but manufacturers know people care about their kids safety so they avoid using chemicals shown to be bad (like BPA). That doesn't mean kids are no longer exposed to all of them, but I'd wager they're exposed to significantly fewer of them in smaller amounts than we were as kids.

Re:Number of _known_ dangers (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46254993)

I moderated a really controversial article once and as a result I stopped getting moderator points

your paranoia is showing

Re:Number of _known_ dangers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46255101)

I would mod this insightful, but the Slashdot thought-regulation council would probably take away my mod points, so I'll just post AC.

Re:Number of _known_ dangers (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 10 months ago | (#46255267)

Mod ban - I did too and lost them for a year. But eventually they came back.

Re:Number of _known_ dangers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46255065)

Hey, it's CNN. This is just preemptive progressive propaganda that'll be used to explain why the next generation of blacks and mestizos will be just as stupid and dysfunctional as this generation.

This isn't news (1)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | about 10 months ago | (#46254313)

Studies [theguardian.com] correlate the rise of violence and aggressive behaviors with lead poisoning due to pollution.

Re:This isn't news (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46254381)

Heavy metal toxicity will increase in the human body when selenium inadequacy is present. Dietary selenium intake in some countries like the UK is not what it should be.

Lead pollution is far from being the only factor but is probably just the best known.

VItamin D deficiency and iodine deficiency... (1)

Paul Fernhout (109597) | about 10 months ago | (#46255979)

... also contribute to the burden by making it harder to excrete heavy metals and things like bromine and fluoride. So, with people in the USA spending more time indoors and eating bread with brominated dough conditioners instead of iodine ones (a change from the 1970s).

From: http://www.environmentalhealth... [environmen...thnews.org]
"Vitamin D performs a number of biological functions that are important for neurodevelopment, including promoting cell division and protecting against neurotoxins."

And: http://articles.mercola.com/si... [mercola.com]
"When you ingest or absorb bromine, it displaces iodine, and this iodine deficiency leads to an increased risk for cancer of the breast, thyroid gland, ovary and prostate -- cancers that we see at alarmingly high rates today. This phenomenon is significant enough to have been given its own name -- the Bromide Dominance Theory. Aside from its effects on your endocrine glands, bromine is toxic in and of itself. Bromide builds up in your central nervous system and results in many problems. It is a central nervous system depressant and can trigger a number of psychological symptoms such as acute paranoia and other psychotic symptoms. ... You probably are not aware of this, but nearly every time you eat bread in a restaurant or consume a hamburger or hotdog bun you are consuming bromide, as it is commonly used in flours. The use of potassium bromate as an additive to commercial breads and baked goods has been a huge contributor to bromide overload in Western cultures. ... The Japanese consume 89 times more iodine than Americans due to their daily consumption of sea vegetables, and they have reduced rates of many chronic diseases, including the lowest rates of cancer in the world. The RDA for iodine in the U.S. is a meager 150 mcg/day, which pales in comparison with the average daily intake of 13800 mcg/day for the Japanese. ..."

See also: http://drsircus.com/medicine/i... [drsircus.com]

So combine higher levels of toxins with a reduction in what the body needs to defend against them and you have a recipe for a health disaster.

TOTC (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 10 months ago | (#46254323)

This has got to be the ultimate 'think of the children' post. If, indeed they could think.

Perhaps this isn't so far fetched after all. It would explain the recent observation about the depressing number of Americans who think that Astrology is a science. And the depressing number of Americans [theatlantic.com] who aren't aware that the earth revolves around the sun.

It's somebody elses fault.

Re:TOTC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46254375)

ummm, yeah
Because being sold products that have toxins in it is _my_ fault...
Or living in a tenement where the landlord has just painted over lead paint that gets into my food growing up is _my_ fault
Or growing up in a housing complex that is built over a toxic was dump is _my_ fault
Or drinking water that has petrochemicals leaking into it is _my_ fault

In fact it is all _my_ fault no matter what I am exposed to, thanks for clearing that up

Re:TOTC (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 10 months ago | (#46254447)

If an AC whooshes in the forest, does it make a sound?

You forgot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46254449)

Getting sick is your fault.
Your kids getting sick is your fault.
And all of the associated medical expenses are yours because you acted irresponsibly.

And those poor poor 1%'ers who work so hard while the rest of us just sit around have to be persecuted by the EPA, FDA and the rest of government because, after all, they are creating jobs and helping our economy. Who else is going to off-shore those jobs and pollute our drinking water? Not us! We're too lazy!

By the way, since there's a 1 to 1 correlation between hard work and wealth, does that mean Bill Gates [forbes.com] worked NINE times harder than Tom Perkins [therichest.com] ? And that Bill gates worked 72,000 times harder than your typical millionaire?

And since Bill got so much richer and faster than Tom Perkins, I guess that makes Bill superior to Tom.

Tom Perkins is just a big mouth slacker and he should be lucky that he's not in Russia or Zimbabwe where the leadership can just take his wealth and if he has a problem with it, they'd declare him a traitor and put him in prison while he awaits execution.

So, he should shut up and pay a 95% income tax and 40% capital gains tax because he COULD be somewhere in Africa.

Re:You forgot (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about 10 months ago | (#46254839)

By the way, since there's a 1 to 1 correlation between hard work and wealth,

There is no correlation of that kind.

There is a correlation between someone who works hard and makes $190,000 in a year and somebody who sloughs off and makes $43K, or even someone who just collects $24,000 in welfare.

People like Gates and Perkins are outliers and not on the correlation chart.

Re:TOTC (1)

mjr167 (2477430) | about 10 months ago | (#46254453)

Hell... Given how many things either kill or children or make them grow up stupid, its a wonder the human race has managed to survive as long as it has.

Re:TOTC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46255089)

I suspect the stupidity of such people has little if anything to do with chemicals. [telegraph.co.uk] But that's an article you won't see on slashdot.

The chemicals have been around for a while (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46254337)

Just because someone changed their mind about whether they were dangerous, won't mean that we suddenly have an entire generation of retards.

We DO in fact have an entire generation of retards - pretty much everyone under the age of 25 right now - but it's not because of chemicals. It's because of the culture of entitlement foisted upon them by the public education system - the sense that it does not take work to achieve.

Re: The chemicals have been around for a while (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46254399)

Don't use that word, you shit licking cum drunk ratfuck.

Re:The chemicals have been around for a while (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 10 months ago | (#46254525)

Ah, yes. The younger generation is so terribly lazy.

At age 25, that generation has, on the whole, just left university and has had only a few short years to pull together a career. At the same time, they're pulling together the means to start a family, while trying to start paying off student debts. In a modern world, those endeavors require cell phones, computers, and a functional car. They were luxuries back in your good ol' days, but now they're just a necessity of modern life, as essential today as a good suit was in the 1920s. Of course, someone with an established career wouldn't see that. We had to take the train or bus to work when we were their age, and we did just fine... never mind that those trains and buses have shut down now.

History has always shown a gradual move toward normalization of luxuries.Once upon a time, a filet of minced beef served with soft bread and cheese would be a feast for a king. Now McDonalds will serve it to you for a dollar. The enabling factor is the ability to pool labor and resources, on an ever-increasing scale. For the king's feast, a small team would raise the cattle, harvest the wheat, and prepare the whole meal by hand, of course. Today, the economy of scale allows workers to focus on a single minute aspect of the job, minimizing the overhead cost of production. The young generation today is doing just as much work as you did in your youth, but they're doing it faster and easier that you could imagine.

The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.

-not Socrates [wikiquote.org]

What's worse: chemicals or ignorance? (1)

jennatalia (2684459) | about 10 months ago | (#46254355)

Although chemicals are bad and may be able to break the blood barrier, that doesn't happen all over the world due to access to those chemicals. Ignorance, on the other hand, happens everywhere and can spread a lot easier. Inputs from family, society, and religious dogma all contribute. Too bad there wasn't a way to change some of that. Chemicals must be easier...

Re:What's worse: chemicals or ignorance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46254545)

God forbid anyone be forced to label what they sell the public.

Keep 'em ignorant.

6 layers, right? (1)

djupedal (584558) | about 10 months ago | (#46254473)

That's how many times our brain has already been upgraded by evolution. I suspect this isn't the first time a generation or two has been sacrificed in the name of adaptation, so it's all good down the road.

Re:6 layers, right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46254725)

And it's not like that box of Kleenex next to your keyboard is ever going to bear children, so no loss to you, right?

Observer bias (5, Interesting)

argStyopa (232550) | about 10 months ago | (#46254531)

Like most histrionic headlines, that first line is meant to be read as "The number of chemicals known to be toxic to children's developing brains has doubled over the last seven years," (the bold are the letters you're supposed to mentally 'land on'.

I read it, and of course have the same reaction, initially.

But then I look again, and read it differently: "The number of chemicals known to be toxic to children 's developing brains has doubled over the last seven years,"

Big difference in meaning conveyed, and ultimately conclusion.

So I read TFA (I know, crazy, and almost disqualifies me from commenting on slashdot, but I'm a rebel).

Here's the money shot: "...In 2006, we did a systematic review and identified five industrial chemicals as developmental neurotoxicants: lead, methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, arsenic, and toluene. Since 2006, epidemiological studies have documented six additional developmental neurotoxicantsâ"manganese, fluoride, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and the polybrominated diphenyl ethers. We postulate that even more neurotoxicants remain undiscovered...."

"DOUBLED IN ONLY 7 YEARS?" yeah, from 5 to 10, and most of those have entirely natural sources. Arsenic is bad for baby's brains? Really? And that "...there are more undiscovered"? More than 10 neurotoxologically dangerous substances in the world? PhD material, that. (In fact, here, I'll give them a few to start with: methane, ethane, propane and down the list. Most aqueous solvents. Iron. Chlorine....holy crap, the list took 7 years to double, and I just likely tripled it in 5 minutes!!)

Look, I *agree* with the idea that there should be a register of neurotoxicity levels for commonly-used chemicals, and that it would be useful that newly-synthesized compounds are tested to determine toxicity levels for neurological development like they are for basic toxicity. Saying this, I have no idea of how complex, slow, or expensive this testing is.

Finally, let's all remember that a lot of chemicals are intrinsic to our way of life; it's unreasonable to compare our chemical environment against a cleanroom utopia where there are somehow no external chemicals filtering into a developing child's body....that's just nonsensical. "Fear of 'dangerous' chemicals" is one of the more commonly-encountered FUD items in the news today.

Life is a tradeoff. I prefer drinking from glass bottles, but there's no way I'd give up the convenience, safety, and economy of plastic bottled for water. I understand that burning meat leaves a host of carcinogens in the carbon, but I'm simply not going to give up delightful steak. I suspect that eventually we'll find that living in cages of shifting electrical current our whole lives likewise has an impact on us, but I'm not giving up living in a home wired for electricity.
This all seems utterly obvious to me. I wish it was to others, so we could have a sensible discussion instead of freaking out all the time.

Re:Observer bias (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | about 10 months ago | (#46255037)

What should happen is that somebody needs to define an acceptable AND SANE level of risk that children can handle and then work on limiting risk to that level.

1 Ensure that kids can grow up in an environment without a toxic environment ( no smoking next to kids use of nontoxic "stuff" wherever possible)

2 Operate daycare/schools as Sanctuaries (there should be a Bunkhouse where a kid can sleep when they do not have a safe and stable home).

3 let the kids play knowing that they could get a Boo Boo sometimes (but have decent first aid ready)

various 1,000 parts per trillion things where normal levels are dozen parts per Trillion is not the problem when we are not allowing these kids to THINK EVER.

Re:Observer bias (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46255353)

I understand there's no need to freak out after reading the news, but I'm simply not giving up my delightful American pastime. I don't see my friends and neighbors succumbing to logic and reason any time soon either. After all everyone needs a hobby.

"Known To Be" (1)

Greyfox (87712) | about 10 months ago | (#46254571)

Previous generations have all been exposed to exactly the same crap, we just didn't know they could cause brain damage at the time. And we turned out... hmm... Ok, so maybe that does explain some stuff...

Time to rethink corporate shareholder immunity (1)

Rambo Tribble (1273454) | about 10 months ago | (#46254575)

The structure of the corporation was developed to protect the shareholders from liability for corporate misdeeds. This, unfortunately, has led to shareholders turning a blind eye to, or even tacitly encouraging, nefarious management, just so long as it creates inflated quarterly profits. It's time to rethink this, "I know nothing," defense. When shareholders find themselves directly responsible for the activities of management, a "new world order" will finally find corporations acting responsibly.

Re:Time to rethink corporate shareholder immunity (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46254627)

Business ethics are taught as:

"will the negative revenues of government fines, lawsuits and lost revenues due to bad public opinion outweigh the profits of the current malfeasance"?

They then work to buy politicians to reduce fines, propagandize against legal recourse (tort reform) and convince people that what they are doing is best for everyone

The system is broken and we need to stop listening to the propaganda and vote for politicians that are looking out for OUR interests

And yes, I have an MBA

Re:Time to rethink corporate shareholder immunity (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46254697)

You're full of fucking shit. Absolutely nowhere in a graduate level business ethics class is your statement ever presented as factual or favorable. You are a fucking sack of shit liar, a fucking idiot, or a psychopath cunt who is begging for a boot up the shit tube.

Re: Time to rethink corporate shareholder immunity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46254821)

Wow. Blind obedience to the unthinking religion of American capitalism really gets people worked up sometimes.

Re:Time to rethink corporate shareholder immunity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46256689)

Whatsa matter hun? Somebody ruin your wet dream of deregulation and tort reform increasing the efficiency of free markets?

So, most business ethics courses spend a little bit of time paying lip service to companies that work for the good of the community at large, Ben and Jerry's gets a favorable mention on that one

Then they ask the question, if your practices were put on the front page of the newspaper and your sainted grandmother saw it, would you feel comfortable?
Of course that is supposed to elicit some sense of shame about being a greedy asshole, but what is really does in practice is beg the question, "How could I convince my dear granny that drowning puppies for profit is for the betterment of everybody"? And sure enough you just need to look around you and there are dozens of assholes in the press every single day trying to convince auto workers that unions are bad for them, consumers that they do not need to ever seek legal recourse against a corporation, or parents of the next generation that burning coal for fuel will not make the world of their grandchildren a freaking desert

Next they talk about how lawsuits, fines and jail time are more than enough to prevent any corporation from ever committing atrocities against the public because they would never be able to profit from it... And yet we see coal companies in Virginia cutting corners, killing miners, polluting water resources while maximizing profits. How do they get away with this? By buying politicians, lobbying for deregulation and constantly beating the drum for tort reform, which reduces the ability of public reaction from hurting the profit margins

Do all corporations practice this? Probably not, but they will be rapidly outperformed by companies who do, and we will be faced with a trove of companies driven by profit, unbound by any legal responsibility and willing to grind our bones for bread in order to increase their profits

wake the fuck up and stop shilling for faceless boards of directors and shareholders

Re:Time to rethink corporate shareholder immunity (1)

HiThere (15173) | about 10 months ago | (#46255401)

Ah. And where do I find one of these politicians running for a state or federal office. (Locally I do find a few, but they are rare even at that level.)

P.S.: Saying you will protect my interests and doing something else doesn't count. I can always find politicians that will do that.

P.P.S.: I'm moderately satisfied with my Representative. I despise one of my Senators, and am not overly pleased with the other. I'm contemplating voiting, Green, Libertarian, or Socialist next time.

Re:Time to rethink corporate shareholder immunity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46254877)

The structure of the corporation was developed to protect the shareholders from liability for corporate misdeeds.

Perhaps because shareholders DO NOT run the business?? Shareholders are only immune in a legal enterprise because they do not run the day to day operations. Directors and officers, on the other hand, are not immune..

You cannot be a shareholders in a criminal organization and be immune.

I hope this clears things up for you.

Re:Time to rethink corporate shareholder immunity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46255255)

Nobody would buy common stock ever again. You'd trash everybody's IRA and 401k overnight. The officers and directors are not immune since they actually run the company. We just need to actually go after these guys for their direct acts which are already illegal and for which they are not shielded.

Re:Time to rethink corporate shareholder immunity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46256709)

Or, perhaps you would get the people who run the mutual funds who refuse to invest in companies that put them at risk?
Maybe you would get boards of directors and corporate officers who would see a loss in demand for their stocks change the practices of their companies
Maybe you would get some change in the current direction of total immunity from the negative outcomes of their decisions which are currently alleviated via shell companies

You know what really poisons children's brains? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46254639)

Websites that automatically start playing advertisements.

World wide overhaul (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46254667)

Without a World government? You are barking mad, sir.

Toxin influences are also multi-generational (3, Interesting)

voxelman (236068) | about 10 months ago | (#46254779)

As the following article about biologist Michael Skinner's findings describes, the effects of toxins may not be limited to a single generation of offspring. This may be the smoking gun that explains the step rise in such diverse diseases as cancer and ADHD.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/... [smithsonianmag.com]

Re:Toxin influences are also multi-generational (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46255057)

Thank you for that link. I'm disheartened at how many commenters find the CNN article useless. It was very interesting to me; but then again, my mother was exposed to large amounts of DDT...

Headline has it COMPLETELY wrong (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 10 months ago | (#46254817)

Putting the Next Generation of Brains In Danger

Err, no, not really. Not unless someone is planning on using this list to make sure kids are specifically exposed to more of these now-identified-as-toxic chemicals.

What this work will, in fact, do, is keep the next generation of brains safer.

A minor quibble, I know, but what I can say? I'm a pedant.

You are the guinea pig! (2, Interesting)

mspohr (589790) | about 10 months ago | (#46254871)

The basic problem is that industry gets to invent new chemicals and to use them with very little testing. Since it can easily take 10 or 20 years to discover toxicities, this means that we are all participating in a giant uncontrolled experiment to discover which chemicals are bad for us. There are about 100,000 industrial chemicals in use today and very few of these have been rigorously tested. The rest are being tested on us. Of course, it is very difficult to sort out which of the thousands of chemicals we are exposed to are causing which of our many toxic effects so lots of opportunity for psychopathic corporations to perseverate and keep their profits flowing.
A good case in point is California TB117 which required flame retardants in furniture starting in 1975. Over the years TDCPP (chlorinated Tris... listed as a carcinogen by California in 2011), PentaBDE, (pentabrominated diphenyl ether, globally banned due to toxicity and environmental persistence) and Firemaster 550, (associated with obesity and anxiety in one animal study) were used in massive quantities causing untold damage (and no real improvement in flame resistance). After years of studies and lots of resistance from chemical companies (fake studies, astroturf groups, etc.) California finally allowed furniture to be made without fire retardants (although they were not banned). BTW, since it is inconvenient for manufacturers to make California specific furniture, everyone in the country was exposed to these chemicals.
There have been federal and state attempts to pass legislation requiring more testing of chemicals but, of course, these are going nowhere since it would interfere with chemical industry profits and they can bribe legislators to get their way.

Re:You are the guinea pig! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46255975)

I think most people don't mind being guinea pigs. They've got more important things to worry about than long-term toxicity effects of the products they buy. If they cared more, demand for products that had been through more testing would emerge and companies that refused to do this testing would lose a lot of market share.

Ask someone if they care about whether or not the food they buy at a supermarket is laced with potentially harmful chemicals and you'll get a responce. Ask those same people if they're willing to pay 20% more for all their food to have most of the harmful chemicals removed and most of your audience will walk.

The minority that still care at this point are not helping the rest of us by lobbying for mandatory testing and forcing prices up.

Does not matter (1)

prefec2 (875483) | about 10 months ago | (#46254951)

Present "education" and TV are very helpful in create dumb people who do not use their brains. Therefore, we can also dump all the poisons in everybody's backyard and don't care if women and subsequently babies get the chemicals in their brains. Also it helps us to de-evolve into apes.

 

Atmospheric Aerosols (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46255029)

Some Politicians in Cahoots claim aluminum is benign in the environment, but all evidence points to the fact that alzheimers disease is caused by aluminum adhering to brain synopses interfering with the normal firing.

That doesn't stop the spraying of heavy and light metals in the skies by the military and scientists..
If it doesn't make your kids go immediately into respiratory shock with convulsions and foaming from the mouth, I don't think anyone really gives a damn as long as it can't be shown just what we are all getting sick from. Keep it dumping on the poor bastards. Funny how they stop spraying the chemicals overhead when the bigshots come to town.

POE (1)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | about 10 months ago | (#46255075)

Purity of Essence must be preserved!

Ripper: Mandrake?
Mandrake: Yes, Jack?
Ripper: Have you ever seen a Commie drink a glass of water?
Mandrake: Well, I can't say I have, Jack.
Ripper: Vodka, that's what they drink, isn't it? Never water?
Mandrake: Well, I-I believe that's what they drink, Jack, yes.
Ripper: On no account will a Commie ever drink water, and not without good reason.
Mandrake: Oh, eh, yes. I, uhm, can't quite see what you're getting at, Jack.
Ripper: Water, that's what I'm getting at, water. Mandrake, water is the source of all life. Seven-tenths of this Earth's surface is water. Why, do you realize that 70 percent of you is water?
Mandrake: Good Lord!
Ripper: And as human beings, you and I need fresh, pure water to replenish our precious bodily fluids.
Mandrake: Yes. (he begins to chuckle nervously)
Ripper: Are you beginning to understand?
Mandrake: Yes. (more laughter)
Ripper: Mandrake. Mandrake, have you never wondered why I drink only distilled water, or rainwater, and only pure-grain alcohol?
Mandrake: Well, it did occur to me, Jack, yes.
Ripper: Have you ever heard of a thing called fluoridation. Fluoridation of water?
Mandrake: Uh? Yes, I-I have heard of that, Jack, yes. Yes.
Ripper: Well, do you know what it is?
Mandrake: No, no I don't know what it is, no.
Ripper: Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face?

another baseless anti free market hype story (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46255307)

the free market is perfectly able to prevent this kind of thing without government interference. i mean come on just as soon as anyone can conclusively prove that a chemical is bad for kids people will stop buying products with it, thats basic simple economics that too many statist slashtards seem to overlook.

But what about shelf lives? (1)

erroneus (253617) | about 10 months ago | (#46255645)

Won't someone think of the products!?

We know why some things are where they are. Most of it is either forms of fillers, addictive elements, taste stimulants or simply ways to keep government subsidies flowing and justified. (Seriously, why so damned much corn?!)

They keep pushing the envelope of what's "acceptable" and push for ever decreasing standards. You know who else had been pushing for decreased standards? THE BANKING and SECURITIES MARKETERS. We know the result of that. But that's just money. Other big players in food and pharma want to do the same things but that's our LIVES we're talking about. A crash means mass misery and death and possibly even genocide.

Tribulations (1)

Jim Sadler (3430529) | about 10 months ago | (#46255687)

In the US we simply have failed to prevent major hazards to health and life. Not only do we have a huge problem with chemicals but we also roll the dice constantly with regard to bacteria and virus problems. And it still is directly related to population size and business practices. Long distance tourism is a nightmare for disease control. Any bug that develops can be transported anywhere in the world in a single day and we don't even consider the jet fuel exhausted in our air. Cruise ships frequently have bugs that cause mass illness on board and nothing pollutes like a large ship burning heavy oil. If we simply get firm control of birth rates and immigration we can eliminate most of the problems and we must design a system that punishes companies for releasing hazardous products such that investors can not sell and step away after demanding that companies release bad products or pollution. Buy it local and sell it local can also cut down on problems. The idea that a city must contain its own waste and produce its own food within its city limits should be put into play. Whether it is coal ash or nuclear waste it should be secured and dealt with at the point of use or within the same community.

The government/industry wants this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46255779)

Don't expect any solutions, the dumber people get the easier it will be to control them. The government will do just what is required so IQ does not drop enough to prevent working at minimum wage jobs.

Not News - Get back to Nature (3, Insightful)

pubwvj (1045960) | about 10 months ago | (#46255913)

This is not really news. I was aware of this back when I was a child in the 1970's. People are screaming in the media about global warming but they're missing the real issue which is toxic pollution. Climate change is merely a distraction.

The solution is to take control over the inputs as much as possible. I pasture raise my children far out in the country raising much of our own food so I know it is good. I make sure we have good water and I limit our exposure to unnecessary chemical toxins. Very little is actually necessary.

In addition to the chemical toxins there are also social toxins. Turn off the TV and get a grip on the other media you expose yourself and your children to on a daily basis. Teach them to question these things and understand the devious psychology behind advertising. Don't be a sheep.

biased report (2)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 10 months ago | (#46255963)

So two doctors did a report in 2006 which found five out of the thousands of chemicals that exist in the world can cause brain issues in children. Five is a pretty low number. There are probably more.
Take a look at their "new" list.

Manganese is a known toxin with exposure limits.
Floride [wikipedia.org] a known toxin. I would like to see the report they are citing. Maybe at high levels beyound what is allowed in most places there is an issue. Floride has been a target of many scare studies.
Tetrachloroethylene [wikipedia.org] not a nice chemical to begin with.
Polybrominated diphenyl ethers [wikipedia.org] have been studied for years and some types banned before 2006.
chlorpyrifos [wikipedia.org] should have been included in the 2006 study.
DDT [wikipedia.org] , a chemical with more problems than infant development.
So even the chemicals they found to have issues has many more issues before 2006.

This study uses one of the most obvious tactic to sensationalize their report; percentage growth in small numbers. They could have said "the number of chemicals increased by 5" nut that would be seen by most people as insignificant considering the number of chemicals in the world. The word "doubling" has much more impact. They hope people won't see that even doubled, the number is insif=gnificant.

We know there are many more chemicals in the world that cause brain development issues that are not on that list. An obvious example is alcohol which causes Fetal alcohol syndrome [wikipedia.org] . How many did they miss? How many more years can they get funding to find issues that have already been found?

Dont Tox Me Either. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46255973)

I, also, would rather not be subjected to toxic chemicals.

can you say MEDIA BEAT UP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46256235)

seriously, you Americans scare so easily

this reminds me of the claim that WI-FI is harming young developing brains

how many of you calling for these chemicals to be banned have home WiFi networks on, flooding your children's brains with low level EM fields?

the POISON is in the DOSE

of you ingest too much, even WATER will kill you

Knowledge doubling... (1)

niftymitch (1625721) | about 10 months ago | (#46256349)

OK I can understand Knowledge doubling but
what is most important to me is the change in
substances that cause damage and yes new
substances adding insult to injury.

As I scanned the article I did not see new substances as problems
but the same list of bad actors (mercury, dioxin... ).

One article is clearly self serving as they advise the establishment
of a clearing house and income source for themselves.

Missing in this is the growing body of knowledge that
grapefruit has massive social impact and now that it
is available year round it can cause much more social
impact. Note well that grapefruit interacts with neuro transmitter
chemicals both therapeutic and natural also antibiotics.

One might say skip the grapefruit except that the white rind
often gets processed into vit-C tablets. Makes for a chewable
"natural" vit-C supplement but the side effect are ill managed
and ill understood. Heck if I was a radical I would point to
this as the single most evil fraud hoisted on Americans and
perhaps one of the major root causes of teen suicide and
mass murder.

As much as this article is not news this topic needs attention
so hey ... if it is not a slow news day.

Formerly respectable pub propagandizes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46256991)

OK, first, this is the Lancet. It USED to be a respectable source of scientific/medical information, but like so much of academia in the post-sixties world it has long permitted its more left-wing participants to infect it with what can best be descibed as propaganda. One example of this was thier attribution of Iraqi deaths to Bush and Blair, which was neither historically nor logically correct; In war, you do not get to blame all the deaths on one side, nor do you get to blame deaths from fights between factions of one side on the other side. The Iraq war was even a worse form given that it was essentially the continuation of the Gulf War (started by Saddam invading Kuwait and only ended by a cease-fire with terms that Saddam violated year after year for 12 years) and, as such blaming the deaths on Bush (who cited the cease-fire violations as part of the cause of the invasion, and by international law was therefore justified) would be like blaming WWII deaths on Churchill.

The problem with THIS luddite attack on modern life is that it is largely based on the same deception that underpins most of the recent work of the EPA and most of the left's war on science; It misleads the average reader into thinking there has been a recent tidal wave of evil, toxic chemicals (probably pushed by evil corporate titans who just want to torture children for fun-and-profit and that average people need big government and its regulations and enforcers to protect them. For those paying attention, however, the truth is that most of what's going on here, and at the EPA, is either [a] scientists with better and more-sensitive equipment detecting things that have long been present but were "below the radar" previously, and/or [b] scientists determining that substances long-present at current (or previously higher) levels are more harmful to certain populations than previously thought or harmful to small degrees not previously measurable.

This is a variation on the "arsenic in apple juice" or "arsenic in the water" or "lead in the water" scams that the anti-science left has been using for several decades. Arsenic and lead are natural elements that naturally occur in traces in nature; lead and arsenic have ALWAYS been in the water in nature in trace amounts (fresh water frequently is filtered through the ground where, lead exists, as part of the basic water cycle). Arsenic is in apple seeds and has always been in apple juice, which has alway been made by crushing whole apples in juice presses. "Arsenic in the water" was a GREAT trick of the left: Clinton passed new rules lowering the levels (and making it so that even little towns with small budgets would have to make their water much purer than what existed in nature), then suspended those rules while he was in office (so there'd be no economic impact during his term) .... and then after Bush got into office and voiced opposition to implementing the new Clinton rules, the left started screaming that he was in favor of lead in our drinking water (they scared lots of stupid "soccer moms" into thiinking Bush wanted to poison their kids... by having the same levels of lead Clinton had). The levels of these substances in our water and juice today is much lower than in previous eras and yet people like Newton and Franklin and Einstein etc were smarter than most people today.

Why aren't we considering marijuana? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46257369)

Given the huge range of developmental and behavioral problems it causes, I'm surprised America is so eager to legalize marijuana for recreational use when there is such a large body of peer-reviewed scientific evidence that shows how marijuana causes or exacerbates mental illnesses of all kinds; depression, schizophrenia, paranoia, anxiety, etc.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?