"But you are asking for a subtle evaluation of the effects of various chemicals in a situation of rising longevity and improving health."
>>> Sure. But also in a 'situation' where certain maladies that were nearly unheard of in 1900 in a 'pre-chemical' culture (cancers, immune disorders, alzheimers, etc.) are widespread in today's society.
>>> To take just one example, ('estrogenic compounds', i.e., chemicals that in the body that mimic the effects of female hormones... as hundreds of chemicals do, including many pesticides and herbacides, chemicals found in many consumer products such as shampoos, etc.), the sperm counts of men in nearly all western societies have been falling for some 50 years or so. Now, it is common to find sperm counts at half or less what they were at the turn of the century --- with who-knows-what other effects yet to be determined. The most likely explanation of the effect, is the influence from fetus on of multiple estrogenic compounds.
>>> (And these effects are found in many other species --- not just humans --- which should not surprise anyone, as the chemicals are pervasive in the natural environment now. The unexplained radical declines in many species of frogs around the world are an as yet unexplained event --- but are most likely due to the environmental impact of persistent estrogenic compounds like PCBs....)
>>> Most of these chemicals have NEVER been tested for ANY of these health impacts... many because they were 'grandfathered', with their use begining before there ever was an EPA or FDA.
>>> Many likely could not pass safety testing if they were examined today.
>>> Deliberate ignorance... may not be bliss. |
