11–20 of 57 posts
[deleted]
Even the "good" ones tend to be hit or miss, or not call out BS when it is so obvious. The Economist seems to be one of few publications that I can consistently read without getting frustrated by emotional journalism or poor logic.
> There are several types of proof. Nick Ashford and I observed the same patterns of inexplicable new-onset intolerances across very different toxic exposures in over a dozen countries. Sheep dippers using organophosphate pesticides in rural areas of Europe, radiology workers inhaling chemicals while developing films in New Zealand, Gulf War veterans, EPA workers in a remodeled and poorly ventilated office building i…
I see similar complaints about risk to health and personal safety from emergency services personnel, but their life expectancies suggest otherwise. What I would really like to see is an estimation of the life-expectancy of the workers in these industries. Is it actually lower than average, or does it appear that the exposure has a minimal effect on health? Do the benefits of working in the industry out-weigh the risk…
Farm workers are traditionally poor so that might be a confounding factor.
What makes me sick is this fear-mongering. Go back to the industrialization in England if you want to see real pollution. We have made astonishing advances when it comes to increasing air quality. Catalysts in cars, all kinds of regulations about emissions. We are constantly trying to remove harmful substances from our lives - but that requires evidence, we can't just randomly blame 'chemicals'. It's far from perfect…
"The researchers, led by scientists from Harvard University and the U.S. Geological Survey, found that the ocean’s mercury levels have already risen about 30% over the last 20 years. Combined, the findings mean the Pacific Ocean will be twice as contaminated with mercury in 2050 as it was in 1995 if the emission rates continue."
I run a hospital lab, and I see requests for testing for all sorts of bizarre things, largely by naturopaths, deriving from the "philosophy" expressed here. We refer to people who believe this stuff as being on the "Quest for Purity", a quixotic drive to remove all "toxins" from their bodies. Regardless of whether or not there are substantiated examples of low doses of chemicals causing effects, the worry about this…
It would be interesting: Can you list a bunch?
I run a hospital lab, and I see requests for testing for all sorts of bizarre things, largely by naturopaths, deriving from the "philosophy" expressed here. We refer to people who believe this stuff as being on the "Quest for Purity", a quixotic drive to remove all "toxins" from their bodies. Regardless of whether or not there are substantiated examples of low doses of chemicals causing effects, the worry about this…
But then my wife got sick. Spent 5 years with myriads of specialists, who all did their testings, and threw their hands up in the air.
So guess where we eventually land, when traditional medicine gets us no where? Within months of removing these effect-less "toxins" from her diet, I have a wife back.
So believe what you want -- I'd do the same if it hadn't radically effected my own life.
I run a hospital lab, and I see requests for testing for all sorts of bizarre things, largely by naturopaths, deriving from the "philosophy" expressed here. We refer to people who believe this stuff as being on the "Quest for Purity", a quixotic drive to remove all "toxins" from their bodies. Regardless of whether or not there are substantiated examples of low doses of chemicals causing effects, the worry about this…
Yep, this was pretty much my opinion. But then my wife got sick. Spent 5 years with myriads of specialists, who all did their testings, and threw their hands up in the air. So guess where we eventually land, when traditional medicine gets us no where? Within months of removing these effect-less "toxins" from her diet, I have a wife back. So believe what you want -- I'd do the same if it hadn't radically effected my o…
I run a hospital lab, and I see requests for testing for all sorts of bizarre things, largely by naturopaths, deriving from the "philosophy" expressed here. We refer to people who believe this stuff as being on the "Quest for Purity", a quixotic drive to remove all "toxins" from their bodies. Regardless of whether or not there are substantiated examples of low doses of chemicals causing effects, the worry about this…
Yep, this was pretty much my opinion. But then my wife got sick. Spent 5 years with myriads of specialists, who all did their testings, and threw their hands up in the air. So guess where we eventually land, when traditional medicine gets us no where? Within months of removing these effect-less "toxins" from her diet, I have a wife back. So believe what you want -- I'd do the same if it hadn't radically effected my o…
What kind of sick was your wife? What was her recovery like? What were the toxins you removed?
> There are several types of proof. Nick Ashford and I observed the same patterns of inexplicable new-onset intolerances across very different toxic exposures in over a dozen countries. Sheep dippers using organophosphate pesticides in rural areas of Europe, radiology workers inhaling chemicals while developing films in New Zealand, Gulf War veterans, EPA workers in a remodeled and poorly ventilated office building i…
Chemicals that had no noticeable effect previously, suddenly have immediate consequences, like rashes or illness.
The preservatives, anti-caking agents, food colorings and other profit-enhancing additives are basically used with an "innocent until proven guilty" mindset.
As usual, you need only follow the money; who profits from adding these things to our food? Pretty much everyone.
There's much less profit motivation for pure food, so it simply won't happen until there's conclusive proof that the additives are bad.
And who's going to pay for that proof -- enough that those profiting from them can't squash it?