Critical EPA report highlighting chemical dangers to kids is sidetracked

There is no credible scientific evidence that children are particularly vulnerable to chemicals in the environment.

“A landmark Environmental Protection Agency report concluding that children exposed to toxic substances can develop learning disabilities, asthma and other health problems has been sidetracked indefinitely amid fierce opposition from the chemical industry.” [NBC]

About these ads

5 responses to “Critical EPA report highlighting chemical dangers to kids is sidetracked

  1. I don’t believe anything the EPA says. I consider them just another terrorist group bent on bringing America to it;s knees.

  2. Well an organization that is itself engaging in illegal human experimentation is certainly an organization I trust implicitly.

  3. Don’t fret over list of cancer ‘risks’
    http://www.dispatch.com/…/…r-list-ofcancer-risks.html

    [["We are being bombarded" with messages about the dangers posed by common things in our lives, yet most exposures "are not at a level that are going to cause cancer," said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, the American Cancer Society's deputy chief medical officer.
    Linda Birnbaum agrees. She is a toxicologist who heads the government agency that just declared styrene, an ingredient in fiberglass boats and Styrofoam, a likely cancer risk.
    "Let me put your mind at ease right away about Styrofoam," she said. Levels of styrene that leach from food containers "are hundreds if not thousands of times lower than have occurred in the occupational setting," where the chemical in vapor form poses a possible risk to workers.
    Carcinogens are things that can cause cancer, but that label doesn't mean that they will or that they pose a risk to anyone exposed to them in any amount at any time.]]

    Now,Im glad to see the ACS admitting to the dose response relationship finally!

    So now we understand why the following is factual:

    [[are hundreds if not thousands of times lower than have occurred in the occupational setting," where the chemical in vapor form poses a possible risk to workers.]]

    Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, Vol. 14, No. 1. (August 1991), pp. 88-105.

    [[ETS between 10,000- and 100,000-fold less than estimated average MSS-RSP doses for active smokers]]

    http://www.citeulike.org/user/vmarthia/article/7458828

    [[OSHA the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded]]

    JUST AMAZING ISNT IT

  4. There is a serious lack of logic at EPA. Now we get regulations based on “links” to diseases. Links are correlations, not causation. Pretty soon EPA will ban bras because they’re “linked” to breast cancer.

  5. OK. But asbestos wasn’t dangerous either, was it? (P.S. – I got a job at an asbestos mine once, but Providence saved me).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s