tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post3921551454707293041..comments2024-03-25T09:11:17.877-07:00Comments on The Curious Wavefunction: On toxic couches and carcinogens: Chemophobia, deconstructed.Wavefunctionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14993805391653267639noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-18782397714204526522013-09-06T10:42:02.106-07:002013-09-06T10:42:02.106-07:00I understand your take on chemiphobia, but you neg...I understand your take on chemiphobia, but you neglect to mention the political and money interests behind why the chemicals are used in the couches in the first place (http://media.apps.chicagotribune.com/flames/index.html). This is not just about 'science', but rather how the public is manipulated by lobbyists and other groups. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-51941739310531187572013-04-11T11:20:56.445-07:002013-04-11T11:20:56.445-07:00No, I did not say that lifetime exposure to a chem...No, I did not say that lifetime exposure to a chemical mutagen should be neglected. As you said yourself, a chemical and even one with lifetime exposure could be one possible reason among many for the development of a disease as multifactorial as cancer. I am certainly not advocating being willingly exposed for several years to something like benzidine and I fully support doing everything we can to stop companies from doing this. All I am advocating is that we refrain from knee jerk reactions and study the evidence before we make up our own minds. You seem to be familiar with some of the evidence, but not everyone feels the need to do this.Wavefunctionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14993805391653267639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-79230253285151341002013-03-22T15:49:36.889-07:002013-03-22T15:49:36.889-07:00Hi
Its strange that here everyone is passionatel...Hi<br /><br /> Its strange that here everyone is passionately in favour of your views that lifetime exposure to a chemical mutagen is nothing to be concerned about.<br /><br />In 1977, several unknown chemists found this chemical in babies clothing from age 1 to 6 months and it was there by law.<br /><br />At this time the cot deaths were climbing from low numbers to 12 000 deaths a year, to previously healthy babies. Eventually the deaths peaked and then fell to respectably low numbers we see today.<br /><br />What else could explain this rising death rate to babies who we know were exposed to this toxic chemical found in them? And why after the removal did the numbers fall?<br /><br />Today, exposure to this chemical for children is reduced and so death is not the end result if it was in fact responsible.<br /><br />But today we have an unstoppable rise in autism where not death but lesser harm to or disorder to childrens brains occurs. The use of flame retardants is rising at the rate of 5 per cent per annum.<br /><br />Many flame retardants are in fact in the same family, that of organophosphates with known neurological and fatal outcomes.<br /><br />One of the authors to the report calling for caution also was part of the top chemists team of 1977 asked to recheck the results of the unknown chemists who said bluntly the chemical was not suitable to be included for babies exposure. The conclusion of Bruce Ames and Arlene Blum was to concur that the unknown chemists were correct in their analysis. Bruce has pulled back from his attitudes then and supports payments from industry for some charity of which I can find no mention while Arlene is the co-author who thought in 1977 the chemical rightly got banned and also objects now with her vast and long experience that the chemical still represent danger to us.<br /><br />While Bruce is top of the chemists of the modern world and ultimately collectively responsible for their good or harm to us I am less knowledgable over how successful Arlene has been with her views counter to industry, regulators and government.<br /><br />But this year sees the publication of the USA state of health today:<br /><br />Shorter Lives, Poorer Health from the NAS<br /><br />What has happened to our health from a five per cent per year rise in FRs and the return of a banned PFR?<br /><br />These chemicals are but one possible reason for this but may as you say be perfectly harmless to us depsite there ability to block off the normal use of acetyl choline as it builds up in us or the mutagenic property which we may well be able to repair as fast as the breaks in our DNA occur?<br /><br /><br />quicksilverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05119450121214867658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-90065987818675459922013-02-28T09:17:33.399-08:002013-02-28T09:17:33.399-08:00Phil, that's a good point. I was indeed debati...Phil, that's a good point. I was indeed debating whether to post it here or there. In the end I decided to post it here because the original Sci Am post was on the Guest Blog. The Guest Blog is supposed to provide an opportunity for first-time and fledgling writers to try their wings. I think it may have been a little discouraging for guest bloggers to see a guest post's premises fundamentally questioned right there on Sci Am Blogs; basically I did not want fledgling writers to shun Sci Am out of fear that their posts would be minutely scrutinized in the same forum. I did leave a comment on the original post pointing to this link and someone else on Sci Am Blogs did refer to this post. I was disappointed though that the original author did not respond.Wavefunctionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14993805391653267639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-17610811342366913002013-02-27T14:33:34.910-08:002013-02-27T14:33:34.910-08:00Ash, would Scientific American let you post your r...Ash, would Scientific American let you post your rebuttal there? This sentiment is great and well-received in the chemistry blogosphere, but the people who need to hear it aren't here.Philnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-70065651488039369022013-02-25T14:31:41.010-08:002013-02-25T14:31:41.010-08:00Great article. Thank you for fight against chemoph...Great article. Thank you for fight against chemophobia.<br /><br />Best regards from Spain!Dani Torregrosahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15924180770693367802noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-15353575266778965042013-02-15T12:04:13.721-08:002013-02-15T12:04:13.721-08:00Thanks for reading.Thanks for reading.Wavefunctionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14993805391653267639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-111132464139804202013-02-15T06:29:48.303-08:002013-02-15T06:29:48.303-08:00Great article. I'm always happy to see people ...Great article. I'm always happy to see people post well articulated arguments like this that explains the science behind these issues that are being driven primarily by emotion. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com