Comments on: Staying Safe in a Toxic World

By: Madame Butterfly

Madame Butterfly — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 13:01:20 +0000

Sounds delicious! I just came back from mexico last year and find myself addicted to these incredible enchilada recipes now!! Must go back next year sometime, I suppose, and this time head off the beaten road a little. Looking to reading more!

By: Maria

Maria — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 20:46:16 +0000

Until you are living with multiple chemical sensitivity, from overuse of these toxic chemicals than you won’t fear them, one day you might though, and I pray that day never comes. I live toxin free and chemical free now.

By: Max

Max — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 02:17:54 +0000

Right, I cited that report above. I’m glad that the FDA is “supporting the industry’s actions to stop producing BPA-containing bottles and infant feeding cups for the U.S. market.” I’m sure this wasn’t the industry’s idea.
Maybe they’re only doing this now because people demanded “chemical policy reform” that Brian derided.

By: tmac57

tmac57 — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:31:03 +0000

No, actually it was the saber toothed tiger that locked Fred out,which ties nicely back in to your original point BTW :)

By: Jason M

Jason M — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:12:45 +0000

I don’t think there’s consensus either way, that’s why further studies are being done. The review by the National Toxicology Program that the FDA cites states there is “some concern” for the effect of Bisphenol A on babies, out of the five levels of negligible concern, minimal concern, some concern, concern, and serious concern. In the meantime the FDA is “supporting the industry’s actions to stop producing BPA-containing bottles and infant feeding cups for the U.S. market”, among other things.

But they also say that: “the FDA is not recommending that families change the use of infant formula or foods, as the benefit of a stable source of good nutrition outweighs the potential risk of BPA exposure.” I trust the FDA wouldn’t make such statements if the current scientific consensus justified more than “some concern”. What other information would you have them act on?

By: Max

Max — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:44:03 +0000

Is there a consensus that BPA is safe for babies?
If there’s no consensus, then do you just assume it’s safe?

I’d expect a PhD student who is writing a dissertation on a topic to know if there’s a scientific consensus on that topic.

By: Jason M

Jason M — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 11:28:24 +0000

The views of one public health PhD student that there is “growing scientific consensus” would seem to be a poor substitute for actual consensus among scientists. I for one would rather wait until we have the science in place before taking action.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 16:02:27 +0000

1) Money is always wasted if there is a better use for it. In this case, no one in recent town history (probably in the entire town history) had been sick from lead poising, even if the concentration of lead was over the EPA’s recommended limit.
2) Not sure, can’t remember. It seemed from the presentation (which could be wrong) that it was a good portion of the town (people were being removed from their homes so the government could strip the soil, remember).
3) Sorry, but this is just stupid budgeting. Giving a fixed amount to any government agency (and the use it or lose it budgeting philosophy) encourages government agencies to do as much as possible, even if it is a complete waste of money. If the government granted the EPA and other agencies these powers to save lives, then the money should be used to maximize life saving practices, not to boost the budgets and expenditures of individual agencies. If the greatest threat to the town was traffic accidents then the dollars should have been adjusted to meet that need.

I’m not sure you’re understanding the concept of opportunity costs yet.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 15:57:58 +0000

No, nothing like that. Not that there is anything wrong with credit default swaps – just another thing demonized by ignorant politicians looking to dupe the masses.

By: Max

Max — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 09:49:48 +0000

I’m not familiar with this story, but your post raised some red flags.
1. “wasting millions of dollars” – It’s only a waste if it was certain that the high concentration of lead could not make anyone sick or harm the environment, and did not point to other problems.
2. “The town protested” – The majority of the town protested? Or a vocal minority as usual?
3. “the money might be better spent” – A federal agency like the EPA is responsible for dealing with pollution, not fixing local roads. And frankly, if a town is going to protest getting federal money, then the money might be better spent on a different town.