Embryos Soaked In Chemicals

part of the solution is to be found here<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.trans4mind.com/personal_development/Flatland/voyage_from_flatland.htm">http://www.trans4mind.com/personal_development/Flatland/voyage_from_flatland.htm</a>

This whole article is written to be as inflammatory as possible. Yes, there's a lot of poisons in our environment. But saying that embryos are "soaked in chemicals" is rather alarmist.

---
Every time you complain about the moderators, god kills a kitten.

In this day and age, with everything around us, everything we wear, clean with, eat and drink out of made with some form of chemical or another, I'd hardly say it's alarmist. What is alarming is that is normal.

---
These days, if you are not confused, you are not thinking clearly. Mrs. Irene Peters

What's wrong with being alarmist? Somebody has to ring the bell, or sound the siren. The cold, hard fact is that these chemicals are the direct consequences of our so called "wealth". The more "wealthier" we are, the sicker we become. \

Many of our present illnesses are manmade, and the direct results of so called "economic activities". There were hardly any cancers 60-70 years ago and even then, mostly in old people. The first time I've heard of leukemia was in the early '50s when the actor Red Skelton took his young son to Europe to show him something of the world before he died of that "very rare illness"...quoting the papers. Now hospitals are full of bald headed little kids on chemo therapies. I was way into my 40s in the '70s, when I first heard of breast cancer, when a young woman across the street in Vancouver came down and died from it. Now 25,000 women in Canada alone come down with it every year.

If we didn't have these illnesses years ago, but have them now, there must be a reason and the sooner and more we talk about it the better it is for everyone. The fact is that of the 200,000 chemicals in use today, only about 5-6% have been tested for damage to human health, because if people don't drop dead on the spot, they are "wealth creators" and nobody can question them, as now we can't question GM foods.
Monsanto says so and governments lay down at their feet.
Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC.

Jesse,
Ive noticed by your posts that forecasting rain for to-morror is alarmist LOL
when studies show proof of chemicals in the amniotic fluid it is reasonable to be alarmed, is it not?

Nah! just a sign of the times No big!

the above is mine too!<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.ewg.org/reports/bodyburden2/execsumm.php">http://www.ewg.org/reports/bodyburden2/execsumm.php</a> <br />
<br />
Of the 287 chemicals we detected in umbilical cord blood, we know that 180 cause cancer in humans or animals, 217 are toxic to the brain and nervous system, and 208 cause birth defects or abnormal development in animal tests. The dangers of pre- or post-natal exposure to this complex mixture of carcinogens, developmental toxins and neurotoxins have never been studied.<br />
<br />
Chemicals and pollutants detected in human umbilical cord blood<br />
<br />
Mercury (Hg) - tested for 1, found 1<br />
Pollutant from coal-fired power plants, mercury-containing products, and certain industrial processes. Accumulates in seafood. Harms brain development and function.<br />
<br />
Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) - tested for 18, found 9<br />
Pollutants from burning gasoline and garbage. Linked to cancer. Accumulates in food chain. <br />
<br />
Polybrominated dibenzodioxins and furans (PBDD/F) - tested for 12, found 7<br />
Contaminants in brominated flame retardants. Pollutants and byproducts from plastic production and incineration. Accumulate in food chain. Toxic to developing endocrine (hormone) system<br />
<br />
Perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) - tested for 12, found 9<br />
Active ingredients or breakdown products of Teflon, Scotchgard, fabric and carpet protectors, food wrap coatings. Global contaminants. Accumulate in the environment and the food chain. Linked to cancer, birth defects, and more.<br />
<br />
Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans (PBCD/F) - tested for 17, found 11<br />
Pollutants, by-products of PVC production, industrial bleaching, and incineration. Cause cancer in humans. Persist for decades in the environment. Very toxic to developing endocrine (hormone) system.<br />
<br />
Organochlorine pesticides (OCs) - tested for 28, found 21<br />
DDT, chlordane and other pesticides. Largely banned in the U.S. Persist for decades in the environment. Accumulate up the food chain, to man. Cause cancer and numerous reproductive effects.<br />
<br />
Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) - tested for 46, found 32<br />
Flame retardant in furniture foam, computers, and televisions. Accumulates in the food chain and human tissues. Adversely affects brain development and the thyroid.<br />
<br />
Polychlorinated Naphthalenes (PCNs) - tested for 70, found 50<br />
Wood preservatives, varnishes, machine lubricating oils, waste incineration. Common PCB contaminant. Contaminate the food chain. Cause liver and kidney damage.<br />
<br />
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) - tested for 209, found 147<br />
Industrial insulators and lubricants. Banned in the U.S. in 1976. Persist for decades in the environment. Accumulate up the food chain, to man. Cause cancer and nervous system problems.<br />
<br />
Source: Chemical analyses of 10 umbilical cord blood samples were conducted by AXYS Analytical Services (Sydney, BC) and Flett Research Ltd. (Winnipeg, MB).<br />
<br />
<br />
Chemical exposures in the womb or during infancy can be dramatically more harmful than exposures later in life. Substantial scientific evidence demonstrates that children face amplified risks from their body burden of pollution; the findings are particularly strong for many of the chemicals found in this study, including mercury, PCBs and dioxins. Children's vulnerability derives from both rapid development and incomplete defense systems:<br />
• A developing child's chemical exposures are greater pound-for-pound than those of adults. <br />
• An immature, porous blood-brain barrier allows greater chemical exposures to the developing brain. <br />
• Children have lower levels of some chemical-binding proteins, allowing more of a chemical to reach "target organs." <br />
• A baby's organs and systems are rapidly developing, and thus are often more vulnerable to damage from chemical exposure. <br />
• Systems that detoxify and excrete industrial chemicals are not fully developed. <br />
• The longer future life span of a child compared to an adult allows more time for adverse effects to arise. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Jesse Kindly excplain EXACTLY how you see“Inflammatory“ in the article <p>---<br><br />
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boy. <br />
-Parliament of Whores

Humans used to live with the smoke from fires for cooking and warmth up until recently. Homes were often damp, probably mouldy, and certainly there were more bugs and rodents. Most people had parasites of one sort or another, skin lesions and bad teeth were normal. And they didn't live very long.

It's too bad that umbilical cords from three centuries ago can't be subjected to the same rigorous testing because the results likely wouldn't be too pretty either.

Of course we should eliminate pollutants as much as possible, but this kind of article that says the sky is falling is a sure way to get people to marginalize the issue as simply another scare story and ignore it.

Exactly! There is a *huge* difference between saying "our environment is full of chemicals and we should fix that" versus "OMG what about the poor BABIES?!". I object to how it is being said, not *what* is being said. The fact is that we have managed to survive fires, predators, lead pipes, asbestos, radon, and the like, eliminating things as reasonable instead of panicking at the fact that there is extra sodium in the water. There's no reason to go putting sensationalist headlines on everything.

---
Every time you complain about the moderators, god kills a kitten.

I agree and disagree at the same time. I agree it is alarmist, but I also agree that we should be alarmed, because we have become desensitized to what is going on in the world. We don't get upset anymore when one person is killed, we hardly react when 20 or 200 or 2000 are killed. I remember 20 years ago hearing about someone being murdered in my city, it was freaky, very rare and shocking, not anymore. I remember when a company was dumping toxins into a river and everyone was outraged, not anymore. I remember when a pharmaceutical company made a huge mistake, called Thalidimide, it was rare, it was shocking and people were outraged, not anymore!

So maybe sometimes writers deliberately attempt to alarm us out of our apathy??

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

It is sensational, but it's competeing with equally charged messages. TV ads with people so afraid of odor or germs in their homes they will spray anything, even disinfectant on baby's toys and highchair tray. I guess that the method of the message might be forgiven, as long as the message does get out. Maybe it has some value to offer in different target audiences.

After he read my Efficiency Principle in 1992, a prominent Swedish doctor sent me a German study containing a list of 2 1/2 pages of "volatile substances found in mother's milk".

There's a tremendous difference between pollution in the "old times" and the tens of thousands of manmade chemicals we're exposed to every day. Would our friends, who consider such studies "alarmist" and "sensational", please explain where our present worldwide cancer epidemic comes from? I'm 78. In the first 20, or so, years of my life I've heard of 2 or 3 people who had cancers. As I mentioned earlier, never heard of children having any cancers and the first breast cancer I've heard of was in the '70s. There may, or must have been some, but so few and far between that only people in the immediate proximity have heard of them. How about now? I live in a small community of about 300 people. We're losing people to cancers every year. Why and why not 50 or 60 years ago ?

So, where do our present cancers come from, if not from manmade chemicals forced on humanity ? Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC.

I agree Mr. Deak. However, to be fair, in the past people often didn't live as long, so we don't know if all of these things are caused by pesticides. Likely some are, but it is also true that pesticides are relatively new, and humans take a long time to adapt......

---
The midget, Bush, and that Rumsfield deserve only to be beaten with shoes by freedom loving people everywhere.

- Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, The Iraqi Informat

Ed, I agree with you about the pollution in old times and contrasted with todays saturation with manmade chemicals. I don't think studies like these are irrelevant even though they might be coached in sensational language. We been tapdancing around the truth that cancer is a product of a polluted environment long after we have sufficient facts to know better. Corporate interests will ensure that the connection will remain hazy for a while yet. When a friend of mine got breast cancer they asked about all the places she had lived and worked and what she ate. I also know of a couple living on PEI trying to have a baby who were told by their physician after two miscarriages that they wouldn't probbably have a full term baby if they continued living on the Island. These quietly known, yet relatively unpublicised truths about how manmade toxins are affecting our health are well guarded by the corporate agenda. In Halifax when the hospitals, schools, universities and other public spaces became "scent free", representatives of the cosmetic and fragrance industry wrote letters to the editor in the newspaper and flew to Halifax to lobby against the implementation of these policies. It was the same with the implementation of the Pesticide ban in Halifax Municipality, with opposition from lawn care companies and manufacturers of herbicides and pesticides came to town gunning for their vested interests, spreading misinformation about how their products were safe.

Oops above is me DL.