Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Avoiding Everyday Toxins

By Marco Visscher, Ode. Posted November 11, 2005.


They're everywhere -- in the food we eat, in the cosmetics we use, in the houses where we live. Is there an alternative?

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Marco Visscher

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Unexpected Toxins

Without knowing it, 35-year-old Jeremiah Holland lost a lot more than weight when he decided to start seriously exercising two years ago. His racing bike helped him trim down from 118 to 90 kilos (260 to 200 pounds). What Holland could never have suspected was that during that period, he was also ridding his body of something else -- something he never knew was there: polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT), perfluoroctane sulfonates (PFOS), phthalates and a host of other unpronounceable chemical substances that are stored in fat -- and that remain in our bodies for a long, long time. Holland would never have been the wiser if he hadn't been chosen as a test subject in a project conducted by the Oakland Tribune, which studied the effect of toxic chemicals in the human body.

So as not to create too much panic, the editorial staff chose a family that the newspaper's advisory counsel of scientists felt would be at low risk. The family eats organic food, avoids chemical cleaning products, has no carpeting in their house and doesn't buy lots of new furniture and electronic equipment: in short, the newspaper selected Jeremiah Holland and Michele Hammond and their two children Mikaela, age five and 18-month-old Rowan. But as responsible and healthy as their lives seemed, the tests proved that their bodies contained traces of numerous chemicals, some at levels exceeding the legally established maximums. The blood, hair and urine of each family member showed traces of dioxins, mercury, lead, cadmium and the chemicals used for coating pans with Teflon.

What was surprising was the presence of PCBs, which are used in products such as paint, ink, glue and plastic. PCBs can damage the skin and liver, are linked to cancer, birth defects and disruptions to the hormone system and brain development. The list of health risks led to a global ban on the production and use of PCBs in the 1970s, so why are they still showing up in the Holland family?

An even bigger surprise was the strong presence of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), a flame retardant used in all kinds of products from plastics to cell phones. It is estimated that adults in the United States have 36 parts per billion (ppb) of this substance in their blood. Think of that as 36 grains of salt in 50 kilos [110 pounds]of mashed potatoes. But the father had 102 ppb, the mother 138, the daughter 490 and the son 838, more than what would normally be found in the blood of people who work with this substance on a daily basis. Scientists note that laboratory rats start exhibiting problems with their thyroid glands at levels of 300 ppb.

So what can the Holland-Hammond family do with this information? And what can you do? Are these substances in everyone's bodies? Just how toxic are they? How do they get into our bodies? How do we get rid of them? Let's start at the beginning. Yes, chemical substances are everywhere. In remote lakes in Finland, in the Himalayas, at the South Pole -- there's not an outpost in the world they have not reached. Including your body. The reason: poison knows no bounds.

Chemicals are carried along by air and water currents. The pesticides used on a banana plantation in Ecuador, the bleach used in a paper factory in Canada, the fluorine polymers produced in a chemical plant in France: they're spreading across the world, accumulating in the environment and ending up in the food chain. They are then stored in people's fat tissue and slowly released into the body. Admittedly, the amounts in question are miniscule. A couple of "parts per billion" of a substance in your blood means you're talking about pieces of a chocolate bar you're gradually spreading among the 740,000 inhabitants of San Francisco. That's not a lot of chocolate, but poison is still poison, even in such tiny amounts.

New technologies have made it now possible to detect chemicals in increasingly low doses. But the chemical industry reassures us there is absolutely no reason to panic. Fred vom Saal thinks there ís reason to panic. In a study of rats and mice, this Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of Missouri, proved that even minimal doses of a natural or synthetic hormone can have lasting effects on reproduction and fertility. And he showed how minimal doses of one of the most widely used chemicals -- bisphenol A, which is used in the production of plastic -- imitate or in fact block hormonal functions. Vom Saal reports, "The low doses are the hardest part of the story. We're talking about 0.1 parts per a trillionth of a gram in a milliliter of blood, and still we're seeing profound changes we can't explain in a different way."

Through his study Vom Saal discovered that a slight increase in the female hormone estradiol in male mice foetuses leads to an enlarged prostate. This may provide an explanation for the spectacular increase in prostate problems among men, and a surprising one considering that most medicines prescribed for prostate cancer contain estradiol.


Digg!

Marco Visscher is a Senior Editor at Ode.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Organic Top 40
Posted by: kgs1947 on Nov 12, 2005 4:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I did not find the "Organic Top 40" as indicated in this article! Anyone find it? kgs1947@yahoo.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Organic Top 40 Posted by: lhior
Organic 40 is at Ode Magazine site
Posted by: sigridfroid on Nov 12, 2005 8:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you put "Organic top 40" into google, one of the top hits is the Ode magazine site where an article (co-authored by the same author as this Alternet story) shows the "Organic Top 40" companies. Unfortunately, many of them are obscure or not super releveant to most peoples' lives (probably) but it is there for the viewing. The link should also get you there (cut and paste if necessary).

http://www.odemagazine.com/article.php?aID=4204

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Precautionary Principles
Posted by: Ahimsa on Nov 12, 2005 8:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Am I sensing something that's really there or is it just me?
It seems so easy to arcticulate a discourse opposing Precautionary Principles to Preemptive War...
Gee, are we numb...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Precautionary Principles Posted by: liberalibrarian
» RE: Montana freeman Posted by: montana freeman
The Legacy of the modern age
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Nov 12, 2005 8:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alot of the toxics we deal with today were'nt around 100-150 years back.We made most of them. We increased the amount of mecury in the air,water,and our bodies with the burning of coal,that was the beginning of human wrought biocide. Later we added oil. Something even the Mayans of Central America knew was bad news,but yet we founded our whole current economic system around it for want of a paycheck.Now we have petrol-based mecury added to the mix.To get the most from oil,we created the Chem-industry.
One of the few industries were in 10 seconds you can make a preperation that has a half-life of thousands of years and a toxic nightmare for generations. Now factor in a Govt that helps keep the poisoning going by accepting payoffs,and reducing emmission regs and you get a 21st century environment that kills you simply by living. Can we get out of this? Sure thing.It won't be easy or pretty. Why? Because it means the complete stoppage of Mining, Nuclear Power,Chemical Plants, and Oil Refining,Clear-cut Timber Ops,
and Urban Sprawl. It means we may have to give up Highway
speeds in favor of Air-powered cars that do 45mph. It means funding non-polluting energy generation with the same zeal as we went into war with. We must strive to make our homes,towns businesses 'self-suficeint' energy producers not affected by demands of the grid or the whim of the greedy. We need to stop demanding 'new','improved',and 'special recipe' goods. Mostly we have to clean up our respective acts.
The first place we need to start is in D.C. and the State Capitols, Why? They're both over-run with elephants and donkeys and the only thing you get in great abundance from these critters is shit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Jet Travel Posted by: db
» RE: The Legacy of the modern age Posted by: montana freeman
Dead Link
Posted by: elarson@olypen.com on Nov 12, 2005 9:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would love to be able to see the 40 organics. Thanks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Dead Link Posted by: ConnecttheDots
formaldehyde from 11% methanol in aspartame
Posted by: rmforall on Nov 12, 2005 9:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Any unsuspected source of methanol, which the body always quickly and
largely turns into formaldehyde and then formic acid, must be monitored,
especially for high responsibility occupations, often with night shifts,
such as pilots and nuclear reactor operators.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1237
ubiquitous potent uncontrolled co-factors in nutrition research are
formaldehyde from wood and tobacco smoke and many sources,
including from methanol in dark wines and liquors, in pectins
in fruits and vegetables, and in aspartame: Murray 2005.11.11

Formaldehyde sources are co-factors in epidemiology, research, diagnosis, and treatment in a wide variety of disorders.

Folic acid, from fruits and vegetables, plays a role by powerfully
protecting against methanol (formaldehyde) toxicity.

Many common drugs, such as aspirin, interfere with folic acid,
as do some mutations in relevant enzymes.

The majority of aspartame reactors are female.

In mutual service, Rich Murray

Rich Murray, MA Room For All rmforall@comcast.net
505-501-2298 1943 Otowi Road Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/messages
group with 146 members, 1,245 posts in a public, searchable
archive http://RoomForAll.blogspot.com
http://AspartameNM.blogspot.com

Dark wines and liquors, as well as aspartame, provide
similar levels of methanol, above 100 mg daily, for
long-term heavy users, 2 L daily, about 6 cans.

Methanol is inevitably largely turned into formaldehyde,
and thence largely into formic acid.
It is the major cause of the dreaded symptoms of "next
morning" hangover.

Fully 11% of aspartame is methanol -- 1,120 mg aspartame
in 2 L diet soda, almost six 12-oz cans, gives 123 mg
methanol (wood alcohol). If 30% of the methanol is turned
into formaldehyde, the amount of formaldehyde, 37 mg,
is 18.5 times the USA EPA limit for daily formaldehyde in
drinking water, 2.0 mg in 2 L average daily drinking water.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Anybody hear about Sterling engines?
Posted by: stoney13 on Nov 12, 2005 10:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
About a hundred years ago this guy named Sterling invented an engine that ran on hot air. If we hooked George Bush up to one we could run the world for the next hundred years!!

Seriously though. Google it. There's lots of ways to heat air. Solar, natural gas, propane, biomass, or solar- electric!!

We don't need to kill ourselves or the planet to get from A to B, or watch "Desperate Housewives"! (Personaly I think "Desperate Housewives" is a waste of resourses that we can do something about now!) The technology has been around for at least a century! Wonder what could be done by mixing in a little new technology!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Anybody hear about Sterling engines? Posted by: montana freeman
Soon we'll all need hamster wheels. . .
Posted by: monkeywrench on Nov 12, 2005 10:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To paraphrase Pogo: "We have found the lab rats – and they are us."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

People Before Profits
Posted by: david.model@senecac.on.ca on Nov 12, 2005 12:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Its the same old stupid arguments by the chemical and other companies who claim that regulations will cost jobs, the connection between the effects and the chemical substance is "tenuous" and that many substances on the market would be risky if consumed in excess.

Any analysis of this issue must begin with the premise that no human lives can be sacrificed for whatever miracles of science have been developed to render our lives easier and more convenient.

The argument about the tenuous connection turns our priorities upside down and places the onus on humans to prove that a substance is not dangerous. They have it completely backwards because any product introduced into the market must be shown, without a shadow of a doubt, to be safe for humans and the environment.

As for the argument about jobs, many environmentalists have shown that environmentally-friendly industies create more jobs than the polluting industries because they are less capital intensive.

Claiming that other substances on the market can be potentially dangerous if consumed in excess is a red herring. Products on the market are safe if they are consumed in safe amounts. As for chemicals, once it is proven that there is a safe amount, then go for it.

Author of "Lying for Empire: How to commit War Crimes with a Straight Face"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

some reading for wonk types
Posted by: jimbee on Nov 12, 2005 12:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The money politics nexus is crucial in the chemical industry. If you want to know more, Toxic Deception explains how industry pours millions of dollars into muzzling regulators and critics. Lobbyist influence is dominant and disgustingly dishonest and corrupt--especially since Bush II has come to power.

The chemical industry is very capital intensive and that puts strong incentives on them to pump out the maximum volume to earn more profits--a clear contradiction to the public interest, which would prefer the minimum possible production.

Another good book is Trust Us, We're Experts, which is a great primer on industry influence in public discourse, and Demosclerosis, which is a great read about special interest politics, out of print but used copies available very cheap.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Environmentalism is so bourgeois sometimes
Posted by: shadiahm on Nov 12, 2005 5:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Ode Magazine list is interesting but it's not particularly helpful to those of us poor people who are the most exposed to toxins as most of their suggestions are completely out of reach financially. I mean, I'd love to buy Danish furniture and Belgian mattresses, but my SSI check just doesn't quite stretch that far.

And forget buying Ecover. Get some baking soda or vinegar. Cheaper and you can get them on Food Stamps.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THEY CONTROL EVERYTHING
Posted by: dadanbetty on Nov 13, 2005 3:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am disturbed by this article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A little perspective
Posted by: Ben Furman on Nov 13, 2005 8:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I work in a chemistry lab every day, and I have to manage my exposure risks accordingly. It bothers me that the article's author doesn't distinguish between "natural chemicals," "synthetic chemicals," or just "chemicals" throughout the writing. This has the unfortunate consequence of alarming us in inappropriate ways while numbing us to the difficulty and complexity of the issue.

Unfortunately, toxicity has many shades, and there are individuals who are sensitive to certain compounds that may not have a clear effect on others. Even NaCl - common table salt - is lethal in the incorrect dose. The question, rightly addressed by the author, is how are we going to be able monitor potentially risky compounds that we aren't even informed are there.

There are many risky compounds that exist in nature. We hardly need any complicity by the chemical industry. Just take an apple or a mushroom for example. These contain several carcinogenic and otherwise dangerous compounds. Even worse, look at char grilled meat (barbeque anyone?), which contains some of the worst offenders of all - polyaromatic hydrocarbons - in significant amounts. Again the point is that there is a dose response. We monitor intake by monitoring our diets. We learn what we are eating by reading books. Some of the information should concern us greatly (e.g. the charred meat), while other information is of little consequence (e.g. carcinogens in apples) or outweighed by the positive benefits.
The amount of poisons in our goods is a direct function corporate cost minimization. Corporations do not internalize costs that they are not forced to internalize, including how to deal with waste. Driven by a consumer market, they simply provide the desired object at the lowest possible monetary price point. The worst offender is product packaging, which typically outlives the product (and the user) by hundreds of years. Most of the risky compounds are sold in the packaging. The individual chemical exposure from any single item is so insignificant that there is no way they can justify doubling the cost of the product in order to make it incrementally safer. The problem for us is that the ssheer number of items in our possession and use leads to accumulation of risky compounds in our bodies. We have to vote with our dollars in the products we buy and work hard for laws that force corporations to inform us and face up to entire life-cycle costs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A little perspective Posted by: abqjudy@gmail.com
What to do, what to do.....
Posted by: passit on Nov 13, 2005 8:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bowel, parasite, kidney and liver cleanses. I use the Blessed Herbs.com bowel cleanse to remove the mucoid plaque and follow Dr. Hulda Clark's protocol. Drclark.net for info and either Drclarkstore or Drclark.com for the herbal products.

Pitch the teflon and use high grade stainless steel for cooking. Eliminate exposure where you can.

Heavy metals are another concern. Go to craigslist and search for Cilantro Pesto recipe. Metals come from pesticides too so try to buy organic when you can afford it.

Learn proper breathing techniques. Complete Illustrated Book of Yoga has a thorough introduction. Most all asana postures are cleansing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There IS low cost alternative!!!!
Posted by: Niki on Nov 13, 2005 10:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We don't have to pollute our bodies! Let me show you how to purchase over 350 natural based products direct from the factory that are more effective than national brands, safer and less expensive! nikidesario@iglide.net

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lose fat, lose toxins?
Posted by: Parvati on Nov 14, 2005 4:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article implys that Mr. Holland lost toxins when he lost weilght. I expected the article to back this up by staying that his toxin index after weight loss showed this. The article never takes that step.
Since we all know we have been exposed to chemicals and store them in our bodies, I thought this article was going to say something new: that we could get rid of them by losing the body fat that stores them.
I suspect that it isn't that simple. That toxins like heavy metals stay stored in fat, no matter how much fat you carry. When we burn fat, we burn it as calories and don't burn PCBs.
Can anyone back up the writer's implication that burning fat reduces our toxin load?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Lose fat, lose toxins? Posted by: karyse
» RE: Lose fat, lose toxins? Posted by: mandiwrite
Paul McCollum
Posted by: paulmccollum527 on Nov 14, 2005 5:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great article. I am a fisheries biologist in Alaska but study contaminants issues closely in marine subsistence resources of native tribes I work with. Even here in Alaska most marine species are highly contaminated with a large suite of chemicals. PCBE's are a very major threat that many nations in Europe have been studying and regulating carefully for up to 20 years while over here in U.S. its been politically ignored for far too long.

Its time to develop major health clinics nationally that specialize in analysing our blood, hair, urine and fat (can be done in outpatient rooms easily) for a full contaminant load report so we can learn exactly what we are walking around with as well as the health risk associated and ways to minimize future intake and means to flush out the chemicals of most concern (excersize, oxidizing and other flushing diets). We now live in a very polluted world and need to shift quickly into responsible and proactive human health monitoring so we can make important discissions not only for our selves but our children and our global environment.
We have poisened the earth, oceans, streams and rivers so heavily in the last fifty years or so, that now most of the plants, fish and agricultural animals we eat are highly contaminated. So the cost of our greed and out of control capitalism, we have effectly begun to poison ourselves. We dont have to look very hard within our cirlcles of friends and families to see the costs from cancer to many other major sicknesses as well as many mental and physical developmental problems.
I am working with some friends and associates here to start up a model health clinic as discussed above. This model clinic will be used to develop a very holistic and proactive system to work with people to not only find out what contaminants they are loaded up with but what the potential health concerns are. The follow up steps will then be worked through for how to effectively minimize the contaminant exposures and ultimately decrease our body burdens that threaten us thereby improving our health and prolonging our lives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Paul McCollum Posted by: Loopylafae
Blackspot Shoes
Posted by: MT512 on Nov 15, 2005 11:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For friendly shoes, check out the Blackspot anti-corporation's two types of shoes.

I have a pair of V2s and they're groovy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

BIG PROBLEMS need BIG PROBLEM SOLVERS!
Posted by: gwwd on Nov 18, 2005 5:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, toxins in our bodies are a big problem brought about by big business. But don’t worry, big business had a solution figured into the equation before anybody knew toxins would be a problem … they decided to grow BIG PROBLEM SOLVERS!

Example: When I was in high school in the late 60’s, the biggest kid on the basketball team pushed 6’. Only one or two boys could grow sideburns, a few had peach-fuzzy mustaches. Yeah, there were some fat kids in school … I was called ‘tubby’ by the jocks, and I weighed 165 lbs. Nowadays, 13 year olds are 6’ plus and 250 pounds, boys in middle school are growing beards and mustaches, and 15 year-old girls have kids – two or three already!

Yeah, blame fast food, video games and welfare if you want, but I think big business has put something in our milk!

GOT BOVINE-GROWTH HORMONE?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: BIG PROBLEMS need BIG PROBLEM SOLVERS! Posted by: whereisthe logic
Trying something new
Posted by: anothername on Apr 23, 2006 5:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article covered numerous items but also had to leave out many more points of concern lest it became a thousand-page book, such as the realization that one artificial estrogen tests as acceptable, but when a few are combined in real-life, they cause problems for girls and women. Instead of trying to write out some of the other items not included, I decided to try a different tactic. Of course, my brain stopped functioning as soon as I started typing...what I wanted to try to do was to use the idea of talking points and attention spans to create a list of 10-15 single sentence concepts that could keep the issue of toxins in people's minds daily.

For example:

1. What is the tradeoff? E.g.: Nuclear power will reduce global warming (10-100 years) but will be a radiation risk and require expensive storage and security (1-10,000 years).

2. What is the accumulation danger? E.g.: Vitamin C is required daily as the body processes it out, but PBCs accumulate in the body.

3. Is the solution offered by new technology better than the problems it creates? E.g.: We can have simultaneous global fundraising concerts, but we also pollute land and water when the electronics are thrown into landfills.

4. Is the proportion one person creates/ingests problematic when combined my multiple people/multiple consumption? E.g.: Some vitamins that are essential for humans at small doses can cause severe harm when conusmed in large amounts; one person eating steak is an omnivore; millions of people eating pork is an industry that causes massive pollution.

5. What is a fair balance between the healthful parts and the bad parts of an item? E.g.: Rhubarb pie is considered delicious by many people, but the leaves of the plant are poisonous. With plants, we can compost the bad parts. How do we handle the bad parts of artificial sweetners?

These examples are not specific to the issue of toxins in this article, but I'm sure fellow readers get the idea that I'm trying to present.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Small Point about Wording
Posted by: Queth on Sep 26, 2006 7:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think people may take people like us more seriously if we used the correct wording.

You seem to use the words "toxins" and "chemicals" interchangeably.

Everything is made of chemicals. The only place you wouldn't find a chemical is in a vacuum.

"Yes, chemical substances are everywhere. In remote lakes in Finland, in the Himalayas, at the South Pole -- there's not an outpost in the world they have not reached. Including your body."

I know what you mean, and so does everyone else. But to mix up our terminology like this makes us look silly and lowers our credibility.

If I swap the words "chemicals" for "toxins" in that paragraph, it still doesn't sound very credible, because there are many naturally occuring toxins. For example, the toxins in toadstolls.

So - ofcourse there are toxins all over the world. The problem we have to address is how to avoid them - whether they be "natural" or "man-made".

Quentin.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Queth
Posted by: Queth on Sep 26, 2006 7:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I only skimmed through the previous comments before posting that one. What I have said seems to have, largely, been already posted. See A little perspective, Posted by: Ben Furman on Nov 13, 2005

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]