Industrial Chemicals Impair Child Brain Development

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2...6-11-07-09.asp

Industrial Chemicals Impair Child Brain Development

BOSTON, Massachusetts, November 7, 2006 (ENS) - Researchers from the
Harvard School of Public Health and the Mount Sinai School of Medicine
have found that 202 industrial chemicals have the capacity to damage
the human brain. They conclude that chemical pollution may have harmed
the brains of millions of children worldwide.

In a new study, the authors conclude that the toxic effects of
industrial chemicals on children have generally been overlooked.

Fetal and early childhood exposures to industrial chemicals in the
environment can damage the developing brain and can lead to
neurodevelopmental disorders - autism, attention deficit disorder, and
mental retardation. Still, the researchers say, there has been
insufficient research done to identify the individual chemicals that
can cause injury to the developing brains of children.

In the study, published online in "The Lancet" today, researchers
examined publicly available data on chemical toxicity in order to
identify the industrial chemicals that are the most likely to damage
the developing brain.

"The human brain is a precious and vulnerable organ. And because
optimal brain function depends on the integrity of the organ, even
limited damage may have serious consequences," says Philippe
Grandjean, adjunct professor at Harvard School of Public Health and
the study's lead author.

One out of every six children has a developmental disability, usually
involving the nervous system, the scientsts said.

Treating neurodevelopmental disorders is difficult and costly to
families and society. In recent decades, a gathering amount of
evidence has linked industrial chemicals to these disorders.

Lead, for example, was the first chemical identified as having toxic
effects to early brain development, though its neurotoxicity to adults
had been known for centuries.

Grandjean and co-author Philip Landrigan, professor at Mount Sinai
School of Medicine, conclude that industrial chemicals are responsible
for what they call a silent pandemic that has caused impaired brain
development in millions of children worldwide.

Today, it is estimated that the economic costs of lead poisoning in
U.S. children are $43 billion annually; for methylmercury toxicity,
$8.7 billion each year.

"Other harmful consequences from lead exposure include shortened
attention spans, slowed motor coordination and heightened
aggressiveness, which can lead to problems in school and diminished
economic productivity as an adult. And the consequences of childhood
neurotoxicant exposure later in life may include increased risk of
Parkinson's disease and other neurogenerative diseases," says
Landrigan.

To protect children against industrial chemicals that can injure the
developing brain, the researchers urge a precautionary approach for
chemical testing and control. Such an approach is beginning to be
applied in the European Union under the new REACH system. It puts in
place strong regulations, which could later be relaxed, if the hazard
were less than anticipated, instead of current regulations that
require a high level of proof.

At present in the United States, requirements for toxicity testing of
chemicals are minimal.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Note from Ilena Rosenthal: Unfortunately, the chemical industry pays
junkscience.com and ACSH.org to disinform the public on the dangers of
chemicals via their quacky frontgroups.

http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.or...WatchWatch.htm

"Ilena Rose" wrote in message
...
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2...6-11-07-09.asp

Industrial Chemicals Impair Child Brain Development

BOSTON, Massachusetts, November 7, 2006 (ENS) - Researchers from the
Harvard School of Public Health and the Mount Sinai School of Medicine
have found that 202 industrial chemicals have the capacity to damage
the human brain. They conclude that chemical pollution may have harmed
the brains of millions of children worldwide.

In a new study, the authors conclude that the toxic effects of
industrial chemicals on children have generally been overlooked.

Fetal and early childhood exposures to industrial chemicals in the
environment can damage the developing brain and can lead to
neurodevelopmental disorders - autism, attention deficit disorder, and
mental retardation. Still, the researchers say, there has been
insufficient research done to identify the individual chemicals that
can cause injury to the developing brains of children.

In the study, published online in "The Lancet" today, researchers
examined publicly available data on chemical toxicity in order to
identify the industrial chemicals that are the most likely to damage
the developing brain.

"The human brain is a precious and vulnerable organ. And because
optimal brain function depends on the integrity of the organ, even
limited damage may have serious consequences," says Philippe
Grandjean, adjunct professor at Harvard School of Public Health and
the study's lead author.

One out of every six children has a developmental disability, usually
involving the nervous system, the scientsts said.

Treating neurodevelopmental disorders is difficult and costly to
families and society. In recent decades, a gathering amount of
evidence has linked industrial chemicals to these disorders.

Lead, for example, was the first chemical identified as having toxic
effects to early brain development, though its neurotoxicity to adults
had been known for centuries.

Grandjean and co-author Philip Landrigan, professor at Mount Sinai
School of Medicine, conclude that industrial chemicals are responsible
for what they call a silent pandemic that has caused impaired brain
development in millions of children worldwide.

Today, it is estimated that the economic costs of lead poisoning in
U.S. children are $43 billion annually; for methylmercury toxicity,
$8.7 billion each year.

"Other harmful consequences from lead exposure include shortened
attention spans, slowed motor coordination and heightened
aggressiveness, which can lead to problems in school and diminished
economic productivity as an adult. And the consequences of childhood
neurotoxicant exposure later in life may include increased risk of
Parkinson's disease and other neurogenerative diseases," says
Landrigan.

To protect children against industrial chemicals that can injure the
developing brain, the researchers urge a precautionary approach for
chemical testing and control. Such an approach is beginning to be
applied in the European Union under the new REACH system. It puts in
place strong regulations, which could later be relaxed, if the hazard
were less than anticipated, instead of current regulations that
require a high level of proof.

At present in the United States, requirements for toxicity testing of
chemicals are minimal.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Makes Peter Bowditch, Mark Thorson and most all of the *gang* liars.

Cue for Peter Bowditch to post with Kaching.

Note from Ilena Rosenthal: Unfortunately, the chemical industry pays
junkscience.com and ACSH.org to disinform the public on the dangers of
chemicals via their quacky frontgroups.

http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.or...WatchWatch.htm

"Jan Drew" wrote:


"Ilena Rose" wrote in message
.. .
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2...6-11-07-09.asp

Industrial Chemicals Impair Child Brain Development

BOSTON, Massachusetts, November 7, 2006 (ENS) - Researchers from the
Harvard School of Public Health and the Mount Sinai School of Medicine
have found that 202 industrial chemicals have the capacity to damage
the human brain. They conclude that chemical pollution may have harmed
the brains of millions of children worldwide.

In a new study, the authors conclude that the toxic effects of
industrial chemicals on children have generally been overlooked.

Fetal and early childhood exposures to industrial chemicals in the
environment can damage the developing brain and can lead to
neurodevelopmental disorders - autism, attention deficit disorder, and
mental retardation. Still, the researchers say, there has been
insufficient research done to identify the individual chemicals that
can cause injury to the developing brains of children.

In the study, published online in "The Lancet" today, researchers
examined publicly available data on chemical toxicity in order to
identify the industrial chemicals that are the most likely to damage
the developing brain.

"The human brain is a precious and vulnerable organ. And because
optimal brain function depends on the integrity of the organ, even
limited damage may have serious consequences," says Philippe
Grandjean, adjunct professor at Harvard School of Public Health and
the study's lead author.

One out of every six children has a developmental disability, usually
involving the nervous system, the scientsts said.

Treating neurodevelopmental disorders is difficult and costly to
families and society. In recent decades, a gathering amount of
evidence has linked industrial chemicals to these disorders.

Lead, for example, was the first chemical identified as having toxic
effects to early brain development, though its neurotoxicity to adults
had been known for centuries.

Grandjean and co-author Philip Landrigan, professor at Mount Sinai
School of Medicine, conclude that industrial chemicals are responsible
for what they call a silent pandemic that has caused impaired brain
development in millions of children worldwide.

Today, it is estimated that the economic costs of lead poisoning in
U.S. children are $43 billion annually; for methylmercury toxicity,
$8.7 billion each year.

"Other harmful consequences from lead exposure include shortened
attention spans, slowed motor coordination and heightened
aggressiveness, which can lead to problems in school and diminished
economic productivity as an adult. And the consequences of childhood
neurotoxicant exposure later in life may include increased risk of
Parkinson's disease and other neurogenerative diseases," says
Landrigan.

To protect children against industrial chemicals that can injure the
developing brain, the researchers urge a precautionary approach for
chemical testing and control. Such an approach is beginning to be
applied in the European Union under the new REACH system. It puts in
place strong regulations, which could later be relaxed, if the hazard
were less than anticipated, instead of current regulations that
require a high level of proof.

At present in the United States, requirements for toxicity testing of
chemicals are minimal.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Makes Peter Bowditch, Mark Thorson and most all of the *gang* liars.

Cue for Peter Bowditch to post with Kaching.

Absolutely.

KACHING!! $1.

Please provide a reference to where I have ever said anything that
suggests that industrial chemicals are harmless.

The reason I didn't comment on the article when Ilena posted it is
because it didn't say anything new or surprising.


Note from Ilena Rosenthal: Unfortunately, the chemical industry pays
junkscience.com and ACSH.org to disinform the public on the dangers of
chemicals via their quacky frontgroups.

http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.or...WatchWatch.htm

--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Peter Bowditch wrote:

Makes Peter Bowditch, Mark Thorson and most all of the *gang* liars.

Cue for Peter Bowditch to post with Kaching.

Absolutely.

KACHING!! $1.

Plus, of course:

KACHING!! $1 for *gang*.

Double whammy!!
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Peter Bowditch wrote:
Peter Bowditch wrote:

Makes Peter Bowditch, Mark Thorson and most all of the *gang* liars.

Cue for Peter Bowditch to post with Kaching.

Absolutely.

KACHING!! $1.

Plus, of course:

KACHING!! $1 for *gang*.

Double whammy!!

Jan must delighted with all the money she's having donated to a group
that fights health fraud. Well done, Jan!

Cathy


--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Right on cue. Poor Peter.


"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
...
"Jan Drew" wrote:


"Ilena Rose" wrote in message
. ..
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2...6-11-07-09.asp

Industrial Chemicals Impair Child Brain Development

BOSTON, Massachusetts, November 7, 2006 (ENS) - Researchers from the
Harvard School of Public Health and the Mount Sinai School of Medicine
have found that 202 industrial chemicals have the capacity to damage
the human brain. They conclude that chemical pollution may have harmed
the brains of millions of children worldwide.

In a new study, the authors conclude that the toxic effects of
industrial chemicals on children have generally been overlooked.

Fetal and early childhood exposures to industrial chemicals in the
environment can damage the developing brain and can lead to
neurodevelopmental disorders - autism, attention deficit disorder, and
mental retardation. Still, the researchers say, there has been
insufficient research done to identify the individual chemicals that
can cause injury to the developing brains of children.

In the study, published online in "The Lancet" today, researchers
examined publicly available data on chemical toxicity in order to
identify the industrial chemicals that are the most likely to damage
the developing brain.

"The human brain is a precious and vulnerable organ. And because
optimal brain function depends on the integrity of the organ, even
limited damage may have serious consequences," says Philippe
Grandjean, adjunct professor at Harvard School of Public Health and
the study's lead author.

One out of every six children has a developmental disability, usually
involving the nervous system, the scientsts said.

Treating neurodevelopmental disorders is difficult and costly to
families and society. In recent decades, a gathering amount of
evidence has linked industrial chemicals to these disorders.

Lead, for example, was the first chemical identified as having toxic
effects to early brain development, though its neurotoxicity to adults
had been known for centuries.

Grandjean and co-author Philip Landrigan, professor at Mount Sinai
School of Medicine, conclude that industrial chemicals are responsible
for what they call a silent pandemic that has caused impaired brain
development in millions of children worldwide.

Today, it is estimated that the economic costs of lead poisoning in
U.S. children are $43 billion annually; for methylmercury toxicity,
$8.7 billion each year.

"Other harmful consequences from lead exposure include shortened
attention spans, slowed motor coordination and heightened
aggressiveness, which can lead to problems in school and diminished
economic productivity as an adult. And the consequences of childhood
neurotoxicant exposure later in life may include increased risk of
Parkinson's disease and other neurogenerative diseases," says
Landrigan.

To protect children against industrial chemicals that can injure the
developing brain, the researchers urge a precautionary approach for
chemical testing and control. Such an approach is beginning to be
applied in the European Union under the new REACH system. It puts in
place strong regulations, which could later be relaxed, if the hazard
were less than anticipated, instead of current regulations that
require a high level of proof.

At present in the United States, requirements for toxicity testing of
chemicals are minimal.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Makes Peter Bowditch, Mark Thorson and most all of the *gang* liars.

Cue for Peter Bowditch to post with Kaching.

Absolutely.

KACHING!! $1.

Please provide a reference to where I have ever said anything that
suggests that industrial chemicals are harmless.

On your sicko websites.

Some of the weirdest people you find in the anti-medicine world are the
anti-chemical loons. Some of them claim to be and appear to be one-trick
ponies, in that they concentrate exclusively on one chemical as the source
of all ills and world problems. Examples of these dreadful chemicals are
milk, aspartame, mercury, fluoride and Ritalin. Why I say they "claim to be"
one-trick ponies is that they extend their silliness into opposition to
other chemicals, and it is very rare (almost unheard of) to find one who is
opposed to one of these chemicals but not others. They are consistent in
their idiocy. It's when they extend their complaints without any apparent
reason that their true anti-science, anti-medicine (and anti-intellectual)
biases show.



The reason I didn't comment on the article when Ilena posted it is
because it didn't say anything new or surprising.


Note from Ilena Rosenthal: Unfortunately, the chemical industry pays
junkscience.com and ACSH.org to disinform the public on the dangers of
chemicals via their quacky frontgroups.

http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.or...WatchWatch.htm

--
Peter Bowditch

"Jan Drew" wrote:

Right on cue. Poor Peter.

You obviously don't understand what "on cue" means, Jan. Responding to
something on Usenet is always "on cue", so only an ignoramus would
mention it.



"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
.. .
"Jan Drew" wrote:


"Ilena Rose" wrote in message
...
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2...6-11-07-09.asp

Industrial Chemicals Impair Child Brain Development

BOSTON, Massachusetts, November 7, 2006 (ENS) - Researchers from the
Harvard School of Public Health and the Mount Sinai School of Medicine
have found that 202 industrial chemicals have the capacity to damage
the human brain. They conclude that chemical pollution may have harmed
the brains of millions of children worldwide.

In a new study, the authors conclude that the toxic effects of
industrial chemicals on children have generally been overlooked.

Fetal and early childhood exposures to industrial chemicals in the
environment can damage the developing brain and can lead to
neurodevelopmental disorders - autism, attention deficit disorder, and
mental retardation. Still, the researchers say, there has been
insufficient research done to identify the individual chemicals that
can cause injury to the developing brains of children.

In the study, published online in "The Lancet" today, researchers
examined publicly available data on chemical toxicity in order to
identify the industrial chemicals that are the most likely to damage
the developing brain.

"The human brain is a precious and vulnerable organ. And because
optimal brain function depends on the integrity of the organ, even
limited damage may have serious consequences," says Philippe
Grandjean, adjunct professor at Harvard School of Public Health and
the study's lead author.

One out of every six children has a developmental disability, usually
involving the nervous system, the scientsts said.

Treating neurodevelopmental disorders is difficult and costly to
families and society. In recent decades, a gathering amount of
evidence has linked industrial chemicals to these disorders.

Lead, for example, was the first chemical identified as having toxic
effects to early brain development, though its neurotoxicity to adults
had been known for centuries.

Grandjean and co-author Philip Landrigan, professor at Mount Sinai
School of Medicine, conclude that industrial chemicals are responsible
for what they call a silent pandemic that has caused impaired brain
development in millions of children worldwide.

Today, it is estimated that the economic costs of lead poisoning in
U.S. children are $43 billion annually; for methylmercury toxicity,
$8.7 billion each year.

"Other harmful consequences from lead exposure include shortened
attention spans, slowed motor coordination and heightened
aggressiveness, which can lead to problems in school and diminished
economic productivity as an adult. And the consequences of childhood
neurotoxicant exposure later in life may include increased risk of
Parkinson's disease and other neurogenerative diseases," says
Landrigan.

To protect children against industrial chemicals that can injure the
developing brain, the researchers urge a precautionary approach for
chemical testing and control. Such an approach is beginning to be
applied in the European Union under the new REACH system. It puts in
place strong regulations, which could later be relaxed, if the hazard
were less than anticipated, instead of current regulations that
require a high level of proof.

At present in the United States, requirements for toxicity testing of
chemicals are minimal.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Makes Peter Bowditch, Mark Thorson and most all of the *gang* liars.

Cue for Peter Bowditch to post with Kaching.

Absolutely.

KACHING!! $1.

Please provide a reference to where I have ever said anything that
suggests that industrial chemicals are harmless.

On your sicko websites.

Some of the weirdest people you find in the anti-medicine world are the
anti-chemical loons. Some of them claim to be and appear to be one-trick
ponies, in that they concentrate exclusively on one chemical as the source
of all ills and world problems. Examples of these dreadful chemicals are
milk, aspartame, mercury, fluoride and Ritalin. Why I say they "claim to be"
one-trick ponies is that they extend their silliness into opposition to
other chemicals, and it is very rare (almost unheard of) to find one who is
opposed to one of these chemicals but not others. They are consistent in
their idiocy. It's when they extend their complaints without any apparent
reason that their true anti-science, anti-medicine (and anti-intellectual)
biases show.

And where in the above do I suggest that industrial chemicals are
harmless?

And why didn't you quote everything I said? Could it be because doing
so might reveal to the world what I really said?

How about a URL?

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/history/2005/06june.htm




The reason I didn't comment on the article when Ilena posted it is
because it didn't say anything new or surprising.


Note from Ilena Rosenthal: Unfortunately, the chemical industry pays
junkscience.com and ACSH.org to disinform the public on the dangers of
chemicals via their quacky frontgroups.

http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.or...WatchWatch.htm

--
Peter Bowditch

--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
...
"Jan Drew" wrote:

Right on cue. Poor Peter.

You obviously don't understand what "on cue" means, Jan. Responding to
something on Usenet is always "on cue", so only an ignoramus would
mention it.

Carefully now, you are calling one of your *gang* buddies an * ignoramus*.



"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
. ..
"Jan Drew" wrote:


"Ilena Rose" wrote in message
m...
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2...6-11-07-09.asp

Industrial Chemicals Impair Child Brain Development

BOSTON, Massachusetts, November 7, 2006 (ENS) - Researchers from the
Harvard School of Public Health and the Mount Sinai School of Medicine
have found that 202 industrial chemicals have the capacity to damage
the human brain. They conclude that chemical pollution may have harmed
the brains of millions of children worldwide.

In a new study, the authors conclude that the toxic effects of
industrial chemicals on children have generally been overlooked.

Fetal and early childhood exposures to industrial chemicals in the
environment can damage the developing brain and can lead to
neurodevelopmental disorders - autism, attention deficit disorder, and
mental retardation. Still, the researchers say, there has been
insufficient research done to identify the individual chemicals that
can cause injury to the developing brains of children.

In the study, published online in "The Lancet" today, researchers
examined publicly available data on chemical toxicity in order to
identify the industrial chemicals that are the most likely to damage
the developing brain.

"The human brain is a precious and vulnerable organ. And because
optimal brain function depends on the integrity of the organ, even
limited damage may have serious consequences," says Philippe
Grandjean, adjunct professor at Harvard School of Public Health and
the study's lead author.

One out of every six children has a developmental disability, usually
involving the nervous system, the scientsts said.

Treating neurodevelopmental disorders is difficult and costly to
families and society. In recent decades, a gathering amount of
evidence has linked industrial chemicals to these disorders.

Lead, for example, was the first chemical identified as having toxic
effects to early brain development, though its neurotoxicity to adults
had been known for centuries.

Grandjean and co-author Philip Landrigan, professor at Mount Sinai
School of Medicine, conclude that industrial chemicals are responsible
for what they call a silent pandemic that has caused impaired brain
development in millions of children worldwide.

Today, it is estimated that the economic costs of lead poisoning in
U.S. children are $43 billion annually; for methylmercury toxicity,
$8.7 billion each year.

"Other harmful consequences from lead exposure include shortened
attention spans, slowed motor coordination and heightened
aggressiveness, which can lead to problems in school and diminished
economic productivity as an adult. And the consequences of childhood
neurotoxicant exposure later in life may include increased risk of
Parkinson's disease and other neurogenerative diseases," says
Landrigan.

To protect children against industrial chemicals that can injure the
developing brain, the researchers urge a precautionary approach for
chemical testing and control. Such an approach is beginning to be
applied in the European Union under the new REACH system. It puts in
place strong regulations, which could later be relaxed, if the hazard
were less than anticipated, instead of current regulations that
require a high level of proof.

At present in the United States, requirements for toxicity testing of
chemicals are minimal.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Makes Peter Bowditch, Mark Thorson and most all of the *gang* liars.

Cue for Peter Bowditch to post with Kaching.

Absolutely.

KACHING!! $1.

Please provide a reference to where I have ever said anything that
suggests that industrial chemicals are harmless.

On your sicko websites.

Some of the weirdest people you find in the anti-medicine world are the
anti-chemical loons. Some of them claim to be and appear to be one-trick
ponies, in that they concentrate exclusively on one chemical as the source
of all ills and world problems. Examples of these dreadful chemicals are
milk, aspartame, mercury, fluoride and Ritalin. Why I say they "claim to
be"
one-trick ponies is that they extend their silliness into opposition to
other chemicals, and it is very rare (almost unheard of) to find one who
is
opposed to one of these chemicals but not others. They are consistent in
their idiocy. It's when they extend their complaints without any apparent
reason that their true anti-science, anti-medicine (and anti-intellectual)
biases show.

And where in the above do I suggest that industrial chemicals are
harmless?

And why didn't you quote everything I said? Could it be because doing
so might reveal to the world what I really said?

How about a URL?

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/history/2005/06june.htm

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/histor...ne.htm#25patel

Liar.

"Jan Drew" wrote:


"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
.. .
"Jan Drew" wrote:

Right on cue. Poor Peter.

You obviously don't understand what "on cue" means, Jan. Responding to
something on Usenet is always "on cue", so only an ignoramus would
mention it.

Carefully now, you are calling one of your *gang* buddies an * ignoramus*.

KACHING!! $1 - mention of a *gang*.




"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
...
"Jan Drew" wrote:


"Ilena Rose" wrote in message
om...
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2...6-11-07-09.asp

Industrial Chemicals Impair Child Brain Development

BOSTON, Massachusetts, November 7, 2006 (ENS) - Researchers from the
Harvard School of Public Health and the Mount Sinai School of Medicine
have found that 202 industrial chemicals have the capacity to damage
the human brain. They conclude that chemical pollution may have harmed
the brains of millions of children worldwide.

In a new study, the authors conclude that the toxic effects of
industrial chemicals on children have generally been overlooked.

Fetal and early childhood exposures to industrial chemicals in the
environment can damage the developing brain and can lead to
neurodevelopmental disorders - autism, attention deficit disorder, and
mental retardation. Still, the researchers say, there has been
insufficient research done to identify the individual chemicals that
can cause injury to the developing brains of children.

In the study, published online in "The Lancet" today, researchers
examined publicly available data on chemical toxicity in order to
identify the industrial chemicals that are the most likely to damage
the developing brain.

"The human brain is a precious and vulnerable organ. And because
optimal brain function depends on the integrity of the organ, even
limited damage may have serious consequences," says Philippe
Grandjean, adjunct professor at Harvard School of Public Health and
the study's lead author.

One out of every six children has a developmental disability, usually
involving the nervous system, the scientsts said.

Treating neurodevelopmental disorders is difficult and costly to
families and society. In recent decades, a gathering amount of
evidence has linked industrial chemicals to these disorders.

Lead, for example, was the first chemical identified as having toxic
effects to early brain development, though its neurotoxicity to adults
had been known for centuries.

Grandjean and co-author Philip Landrigan, professor at Mount Sinai
School of Medicine, conclude that industrial chemicals are responsible
for what they call a silent pandemic that has caused impaired brain
development in millions of children worldwide.

Today, it is estimated that the economic costs of lead poisoning in
U.S. children are $43 billion annually; for methylmercury toxicity,
$8.7 billion each year.

"Other harmful consequences from lead exposure include shortened
attention spans, slowed motor coordination and heightened
aggressiveness, which can lead to problems in school and diminished
economic productivity as an adult. And the consequences of childhood
neurotoxicant exposure later in life may include increased risk of
Parkinson's disease and other neurogenerative diseases," says
Landrigan.

To protect children against industrial chemicals that can injure the
developing brain, the researchers urge a precautionary approach for
chemical testing and control. Such an approach is beginning to be
applied in the European Union under the new REACH system. It puts in
place strong regulations, which could later be relaxed, if the hazard
were less than anticipated, instead of current regulations that
require a high level of proof.

At present in the United States, requirements for toxicity testing of
chemicals are minimal.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Makes Peter Bowditch, Mark Thorson and most all of the *gang* liars.

Cue for Peter Bowditch to post with Kaching.

Absolutely.

KACHING!! $1.

Please provide a reference to where I have ever said anything that
suggests that industrial chemicals are harmless.

On your sicko websites.

Some of the weirdest people you find in the anti-medicine world are the
anti-chemical loons. Some of them claim to be and appear to be one-trick
ponies, in that they concentrate exclusively on one chemical as the source
of all ills and world problems. Examples of these dreadful chemicals are
milk, aspartame, mercury, fluoride and Ritalin. Why I say they "claim to
be"
one-trick ponies is that they extend their silliness into opposition to
other chemicals, and it is very rare (almost unheard of) to find one who
is
opposed to one of these chemicals but not others. They are consistent in
their idiocy. It's when they extend their complaints without any apparent
reason that their true anti-science, anti-medicine (and anti-intellectual)
biases show.

And where in the above do I suggest that industrial chemicals are
harmless?

And why didn't you quote everything I said? Could it be because doing
so might reveal to the world what I really said?

How about a URL?

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/history/2005/06june.htm

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/histor...ne.htm#25patel

Nothing there about industrial chemicals. Just talk about how a bad
doctors was a bad doctor.

KACHING!! $1 - adding nothing


Liar.

KACHING!! $1.



--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
. net...

"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
...
"Jan Drew" wrote:

Right on cue. Poor Peter.

You obviously don't understand what "on cue" means, Jan. Responding to
something on Usenet is always "on cue", so only an ignoramus would
mention it.

Carefully now, you are calling one of your *gang* buddies an * ignoramus*.



"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
...
"Jan Drew" wrote:


"Ilena Rose" wrote in message
om...
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2...6-11-07-09.asp

Industrial Chemicals Impair Child Brain Development

BOSTON, Massachusetts, November 7, 2006 (ENS) - Researchers from the
Harvard School of Public Health and the Mount Sinai School of
Medicine
have found that 202 industrial chemicals have the capacity to damage
the human brain. They conclude that chemical pollution may have
harmed
the brains of millions of children worldwide.

In a new study, the authors conclude that the toxic effects of
industrial chemicals on children have generally been overlooked.

Fetal and early childhood exposures to industrial chemicals in the
environment can damage the developing brain and can lead to
neurodevelopmental disorders - autism, attention deficit disorder,
and
mental retardation. Still, the researchers say, there has been
insufficient research done to identify the individual chemicals that
can cause injury to the developing brains of children.

In the study, published online in "The Lancet" today, researchers
examined publicly available data on chemical toxicity in order to
identify the industrial chemicals that are the most likely to damage
the developing brain.

"The human brain is a precious and vulnerable organ. And because
optimal brain function depends on the integrity of the organ, even
limited damage may have serious consequences," says Philippe
Grandjean, adjunct professor at Harvard School of Public Health and
the study's lead author.

One out of every six children has a developmental disability, usually
involving the nervous system, the scientsts said.

Treating neurodevelopmental disorders is difficult and costly to
families and society. In recent decades, a gathering amount of
evidence has linked industrial chemicals to these disorders.

Lead, for example, was the first chemical identified as having toxic
effects to early brain development, though its neurotoxicity to
adults
had been known for centuries.

Grandjean and co-author Philip Landrigan, professor at Mount Sinai
School of Medicine, conclude that industrial chemicals are
responsible
for what they call a silent pandemic that has caused impaired brain
development in millions of children worldwide.

Today, it is estimated that the economic costs of lead poisoning in
U.S. children are $43 billion annually; for methylmercury toxicity,
$8.7 billion each year.

"Other harmful consequences from lead exposure include shortened
attention spans, slowed motor coordination and heightened
aggressiveness, which can lead to problems in school and diminished
economic productivity as an adult. And the consequences of childhood
neurotoxicant exposure later in life may include increased risk of
Parkinson's disease and other neurogenerative diseases," says
Landrigan.

To protect children against industrial chemicals that can injure the
developing brain, the researchers urge a precautionary approach for
chemical testing and control. Such an approach is beginning to be
applied in the European Union under the new REACH system. It puts in
place strong regulations, which could later be relaxed, if the hazard
were less than anticipated, instead of current regulations that
require a high level of proof.

At present in the United States, requirements for toxicity testing of
chemicals are minimal.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Makes Peter Bowditch, Mark Thorson and most all of the *gang* liars.

Cue for Peter Bowditch to post with Kaching.

Absolutely.

KACHING!! $1.

Please provide a reference to where I have ever said anything that
suggests that industrial chemicals are harmless.

On your sicko websites.

Some of the weirdest people you find in the anti-medicine world are the
anti-chemical loons. Some of them claim to be and appear to be one-trick
ponies, in that they concentrate exclusively on one chemical as the
source
of all ills and world problems. Examples of these dreadful chemicals are
milk, aspartame, mercury, fluoride and Ritalin. Why I say they "claim to
be"
one-trick ponies is that they extend their silliness into opposition to
other chemicals, and it is very rare (almost unheard of) to find one who
is
opposed to one of these chemicals but not others. They are consistent in
their idiocy. It's when they extend their complaints without any apparent
reason that their true anti-science, anti-medicine (and
anti-intellectual)
biases show.

And where in the above do I suggest that industrial chemicals are
harmless?

And why didn't you quote everything I said? Could it be because doing
so might reveal to the world what I really said?

How about a URL?

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/history/2005/06june.htm

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/histor...ne.htm#25patel

Liar.


The response was to completely snip the quote from Clark's site and repeat
the question "Just who believes that all cancers are caused by a liver
fluke?".

http://groups.google.com/group/misc....1ae959144a49a5

Hulda Clark says it.



Jan did a bit of snipping to change the meaning without mentioning it.

I will repeat what I said:


Hulda Clark says it. Anyone who does not believe that she is a lying
sack of **** agrees with her.


http://groups.google.com/group/misc....147b49755280fd

For ****'s sake, try to show a little honesty. Haggardly slag Hulda
Clark says it. I don't know if she believes it (I doubt that she
does), but this is what it says on the crook's web site:


The Cause
For many years we have all believed that cancer is different from
other diseases. We believed that cancer behaves like a fire, in that
you can't stop it once it has started. Therefore, you have to cut it
out or radiate it to death or chemically destroy every cancerous cell
in the body since it can never become normal again. NOTHING COULD BE
MORE WRONG! And we have believed that cancers of different types such
as leukemia or breast cancer have different causes. wrong again!


In this book you will see that all cancers are alike. They are all
caused by a parasite. A single parasite! It is the human intestinal
fluke. And if you kill this parasite, the cancer stops immediately.
The tissue becomes normal again. In order to get cancer, you must have
this parasite.


How can the human intestinal fluke cause cancer? This parasite
typically lives in the intestine where it might do little harm,
causing only colitis, Crohn's disease, or irritable bowel syndrome, or
perhaps nothing at all. But if it invades a different organ, like the
uterus or the kidneys or liver, it does a great deal of harm. If it
establishes itself in the liver, it causes cancer! It only establishes
itself in the liver in some people. These people have isopropyl
alcohol in their bodies.


All cancer patients have both isopropyl alcohol and the intestinal
fluke in their livers. The solvent, isopropyl alcohol, is responsible
for letting the fluke establish itself in the liver. In order to get
cancer, you must have both the parasite and isopropyl alcohol in your
body.


(From: "The Cure for all Cancers", p.1f.; copyright notice)


Read it for yourself at http://www.drclark.net/cancer/cause.htm



Now, Mr LYING DECEIVER, you have one more added to you list of claims to
prove.



Do you believe it? If so, I am correct and you support Hulda Clark. If
not, say it and tell us why you disagree with the lying smirker.



Do show us where I said Who says rather than who believes.

You can't, You are LYING AGAIN.

http://groups.google.com/group/misc....ceb6555354112a

Just who believes that all cancers are caused by a liver fluke.?



I see that Jan has changed her question from "who says ..." to "who
believes ...".


Oh, Where?

"Just who says cancers are caused by flukes?


Your search - "Just who says cancers are caused by flukes.?"
- did not match any documents.

Looks like you are lying again

The response was to completely snip the quote from Clark's site and repeat
the question "Just who believes that all cancers are caused by a liver
fluke?".

Prove yourself to be a liar right there.


Get busy with your other claims.

This wasn't addressed to you.

As is continually being pointed out to you, this is a public forum and
everything is addressed to whoever comes along to read it.



snip Peter's obssesed obssession

Name them please. Show us the proof.


Jan


--
Peter Bowditch

Hulda did NOT say:

Anyone who does not believe that she is a lying
sack of **** agrees with her.

You LIED again. These lies are on your LYING website.

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/history/2005/06june.htm

Page last updated on November 02, 2006


The response was to completely snip the quote from Clark's site and repeat
the question "Just who believes that all cancers are caused by a liver
fluke?".


http://groups.google.com/group/misc....1ae959144a49a5

Hulda Clark says it.



Jan did a bit of snipping to change the meaning without mentioning it.

LIE. I did not snip what you said.

http://groups.google.com/group/misc....147b49755280fd




Searched all groups Results 1 - 4 of 4 for "Just who believes that
all cancers are caused by a liver fluke.? "
(0.75 seconds)


The person doing the demanding is a strong supporter of cancer quack Hulda
Clark

LIE.

Searched all groups Results 1 - 12 of 12 for "I can only attest to
her methods I have tried" (0.20 seconds)


http://groups.google.com/group/misc....883db54a17f7d1

http://groups.google.com/group/misc....ba51dd81a37432

http://groups.google.com/group/misc....62be55466519bf

http://groups.google.com/group/misc....499aa58b942299

http://groups.google.com/group/misc....688f9cdd54b789