World's premier science journal posts article abt dangers of modern day chemicals

[truedelphi]

With mercury still in vaccines, including the flu vaccine, and with so many other toxins surrounding us in the air we breathe, the water we drink, the soil our crops are grown in, this troubling report comes to us from The Lancet:

http://download.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/laneur/PIIS1474442213702783.pdf?id=baak8dkBlaiXPhJTjuTsu

From the article's summary paragraph:

330
www.thelancet.com/neurology
Vol 13 March 2014
Review
Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity
Written by Philippe Grandjean, Philip J Landrigan

Neurodevelopmental disabilities, including autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia, and other cognitive impairments, affect millions of children worldwide, and some diagnoses seem to be increasing in frequency.

Industrial chemicals that injure the developing brain are among the known causes for this rise in prevalence. 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 neurotoxicants—manganese, fluoride, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane,
tetrachloroethylene, and the polybrominated diphenyl ethers. We postulate that even more neurotoxicants remain undiscovered. To control the pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity, we propose a global prevention strategy.

Untested chemicals should not be presumed to be safe to brain development, and chemicals in existing use and all new chemicals must therefore be tested for developmental neurotoxicity.
####

[exboyfil]

1. General Ripper was right

[truedelphi]

2. I lived in Scandinavia for some four months.

In that part of the world, there was no fluoride or choline in the water, at least not during that time period. On my return to the USA I noticed my skin had a translucent complexion.
Women were constantly asking me where I got my facials done, what makeup I used etc.

That informed me, just through this personal experience, that chlorine and fluoride affect our bodies in ways we are not told about.

[NickB79]

3. A translucent skin complexion from living in Scandanavia?

You weren't there, say, at a time of year when they receive less sunlight, were you?

Cause up here in Minnesota (a state populated by a lot of Northern Europeans) we have an entire state of people walking around with near-translucent skin come February.

Hell, even my Puerto Rican wife's skin gets lighter by late winter.

[truedelphi]

4. I was there in the summer, and outdoors quite a lot.

I was very surprised by many things I learned during those four months.

In the USA, I wore contacts, as the glasses my prescription required meant I had to have coke bottles inside a frame hanging off my nose.

Norway had this wonderful ultra thin material from which prescription eyeglasses were made. this same material finally showed up n the USA some three years later.

The scientists there did their data some six points past the decimal, and in some cases, even ten. While American scientists did not go that deeply.

The water was very pure. My skin did not have to tolerate the chlorine or fluoride that is in our water.

People here in the USA think the fluoride in our water comes from some ultra pure source. In many cases it is merely the debris that industrial processes have already contaminated!

[Chemisse]

5. It's about time scientists look into neurotoxins to explain the rise in cognitive disorders!!

And what a novel idea: "Untested chemicals should not be presumed to be safe to brain development"

[truedelphi]

6. Other nations observe "The Precautionary Principle" but in our nation

such "cautions" are perceived as nothing less than a communist struggle to over-regulate capitalism and destroy the "free market."


For those who are unfamiliar with the principle, here it is:

The 1998 Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle summarizing the principle this way:

"When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically."

[Chemisse]

7. That makes good sense.

It's ludicrous for companies to defend the use of potent chemicals in products that we are exposed to, by saying there is no evidence that they can cause harm.

So anything goes, unless someone can prove otherwise.

[Tumbulu]

8. Oh my goodness, yes!

Why the precautionary principle was not adopted a long time ago befuddles the mind. But actually if the EPA and the FDA and the consumer protection agency were not all muzzled and taken over by industry, we would have a system closer to it.

[truedelphi]

9. Here is some irony for you:

Back in the early years of the Clinton Administration, the Precautionary Principle was contained in legislation that industry felt would "hamper" their ability to "help" the population of the USA by offering the industry total freedom regarding the pesticide manufacture, licensing process, and distribution.

The issue was highly contentious, and back then, we still had people in the House and the Senate who were not totally owned by Big Industry.

So in the Senate, this important piece of legislation came down to a tie vote. And in the US Senate, in order to avoid a tie vote, the Vice president of the USA is allowed to vote and break the tie.

So Al Gore, the supposed "Master of all things environmental" voted with industry and against the Precautionary Principle. Not only did he vote against the Precautionary Principle, many other decent items went down a black hole when Industry won that vote and defeated that legislation.

[Tumbulu]

10. This had to have left a large hole in his soul

and thus when it came time to demand that all the votes be counted, be was weakened and unable to fight with full force.

It must have been a huge pressure put upon him, probably something worse would have happened, if he had said no to this. Who knows what bargains these people have to make to even stay alive.

But this has to have taken a lot out of him.

Sad to read this, but it explains so much to me.

[truedelphi]

11. He did not have to vote for Big Industry.

Just as he did not have to capitulate and let the state of Florida Democratic voters fight the cause of Bush vs Gore, while he got offered the big bucks to allow Bush the win.

[truedelphi]

12. Of course, I do not know for sure what he was offered.

But if you look at what others were doing to try and obtain for hm the corrected vote count and thus him the nation's highest office, and then his dismal response, then what exactly makes sense?

He had been inside the Beltway for decades, yet he didn't have a single friend in the Senate to call? He let the Black Caucus speak for free elections, and pretended their many efforts were not even happening?

From Fahrenheit Nine Eleven:


o "While Vice President Al Gore appeared to have accepted his fate contained in two wooden ballot boxes, Democratic members of the Congressional Black Caucus tried repeatedly to challenge the assignment of Florida's 25 electoral votes to Bush. More than a dozen Democrats followed suit, seeking to force a debate on the validity of Florida's vote on the grounds that all votes may not have been counted and that some voters were wrongly denied the right to vote." Susan Milligan, "It's Really Over: Gore Bows Out Gracefully," Boston Globe, January 7, 2001.
o The Congressional Black Caucus effort failed for "lack of the necessary signature by any senator." Sen. Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) had previously advised Democratic senators not to cooperate. 'They did not.'" Robert Novak, "Sweeney Link Won't Help Chao," Chicago Sun-Times, January 14, 2001.

[Tumbulu]

13. I am quite sure that all sorts of things

go on that we have no inkling of.

I think that he most likely picked to do this rather than have something worse happen. But then, when one makes these sorts of choices, one's beleif in themselves is corroded and then the person cannot stand up for what needs to be stood up for.

Just what I think, no evidence.