Re: Pesticide study using children postponed--OT

[Guest guest]

This isn't something I'm familiar with. It is not that they are going

to study children that HAVE BEEN exposed to these things in their daily

lives but are GOING TO expose them?? That just sends shivers down my

spine. And then preying on the poor?

-----Original Message-----

From: Dady

The trade group said in a statement that more review is useful, but it

still supports the study ``because of the great importance of

increasing understanding of the exposures of young children to

pesticides and other chemicals they naturally encounter in their daily

lives.''

[Guest guest]

This isn't something I'm familiar with. It is not that they are going

to study children that HAVE BEEN exposed to these things in their daily

lives but are GOING TO expose them?? That just sends shivers down my

spine. And then preying on the poor?

-----Original Message-----

From: Dady

The trade group said in a statement that more review is useful, but it

still supports the study ``because of the great importance of

increasing understanding of the exposures of young children to

pesticides and other chemicals they naturally encounter in their daily

lives.''

[Guest guest]

I think from what I can gather from this article, that they are going to study

children by

exposing them???

This just came over the AP wire this morning, so not sure.

> This isn't something I'm familiar with. It is not that they are going

> to study children that HAVE BEEN exposed to these things in their daily

> lives but are GOING TO expose them?? That just sends shivers down my

> spine. And then preying on the poor?

>

>

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Dady [mailto:shawn@s...]

>

>

> The trade group said in a statement that more review is useful, but it

>

> still supports the study ``because of the great importance of

> increasing understanding of the exposures of young children to

> pesticides and other chemicals they naturally encounter in their daily

> lives.''

[Guest guest]

I think from what I can gather from this article, that they are going to study

children by

exposing them???

This just came over the AP wire this morning, so not sure.

> This isn't something I'm familiar with. It is not that they are going

> to study children that HAVE BEEN exposed to these things in their daily

> lives but are GOING TO expose them?? That just sends shivers down my

> spine. And then preying on the poor?

>

>

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Dady [mailto:shawn@s...]

>

>

> The trade group said in a statement that more review is useful, but it

>

> still supports the study ``because of the great importance of

> increasing understanding of the exposures of young children to

> pesticides and other chemicals they naturally encounter in their daily

> lives.''

[Guest guest]

,

I agree. Shivers are running up and down my spine.

>>The trade group said in a statement that more review is useful, but it

still supports the study ``because of the great importance of

increasing understanding of the exposures of young children to

pesticides and other chemicals they naturally encounter in their daily

lives.''

What pesticides and other chemicals do children naturally encounter in

their daily lives? I know what chemicals I purposely use...NONE. It is

what I don't know that scares me most! (Yet another reason to

homeschool.)

>

> This isn't something I'm familiar with. It is not that they are going

> to study children that HAVE BEEN exposed to these things in their daily

> lives but are GOING TO expose them?? That just sends shivers down my

> spine. And then preying on the poor?

>

>

>

>

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Dady

>

> The trade group said in a statement that more review is useful, but it

>

> still supports the study ``because of the great importance of

> increasing understanding of the exposures of young children to

> pesticides and other chemicals they naturally encounter in their daily

> lives.''

>

>

> PLEASE BE KIND AND TRIM YOUR POSTS WHEN REPLYING!

> Visit our Raw Dairy Files for a wealth of information!

> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RawDairy/files/

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi ;

I think most kids are exposed to quite a lot of chemicals in their

daily lives. Shampoos, soaps, lotions, diapers, diaper wipes,

mosquito repellent, microwaved plastic just to name a few items that

contain chemicals....and just think of all the

pesitcides/preservatives/chemicals kids get from food items them may

consume. If this study compares chemical levels in kids compared to

adults who live in the same enviroment it might be a wakeup call for

people to learn how much children could absorb.

Unfortunately I think a very small percentage of parents work as hard

as you seem to to reduce exposure to chemicals.

Jill

> What pesticides and other chemicals do children naturally

encounter in

> their daily lives?

[Guest guest]

Hi ;

I think most kids are exposed to quite a lot of chemicals in their

daily lives. Shampoos, soaps, lotions, diapers, diaper wipes,

mosquito repellent, microwaved plastic just to name a few items that

contain chemicals....and just think of all the

pesitcides/preservatives/chemicals kids get from food items them may

consume. If this study compares chemical levels in kids compared to

adults who live in the same enviroment it might be a wakeup call for

people to learn how much children could absorb.

Unfortunately I think a very small percentage of parents work as hard

as you seem to to reduce exposure to chemicals.

Jill

> What pesticides and other chemicals do children naturally

encounter in

> their daily lives?

[Guest guest]

This is from a scientist friend of mine over at WAPF chapter leader

chat group. Thought her answers were very interesting, and worthy of

sharing. I know she wouldn't mind...kind of presents an opposing view

and makes one think...

D.

At Stanford, we have researchers in our department that study toxic

exposure in children (in fact, he's probably on this grant...) For

example, this study is about videotaping kids playing in the yard,

and counting how many times they put their fingers in their mouths,

or what they touch. Are the children creating aerosols when they

play in the dirt, and what is the method of exposure when they touch

nasty things in the garage?

This is what the study is all about, not putting toxic material on

the children and seeing how they react, or encouraging parents to

let their kids play in the garage.

And I don't think that all chemical companies are the unethical

money-grubbing losers that they're made out to be. We have

contracts with 3M to study things like poly-fluorinated compounds

(remember Scotch Guard?) and their breakdown products. These things

are practically indestructable, but then we later learned of their

role as potential endocrine disrupters. 3M is genuinely concerned,

and they voluntarily pulled Scotch Guard off the market after

learning about these effects.

I just think it's worth it to keep an open mind on the article you

mentioed, and to consider what the researchers are trying to do in

the first place- protect kids.

And I don't think $970 is enough compensation for a person to

videotape their kids for hours. And it's even more boring to watch!

To think that compensation would encourage a mother or father to use

pesticides and to put their kids at risk... well, it assumes that

low-income families are stupid (which they are not!)

AND LATER...

Hee hee! I was so inspired, that I went and talked to this

professor in my department. He tells me that his original interest

was in assessing the risk of the migrant farm worker's children and

pesticides in the fields. This professor, Jim Leckie, and his

students developed detailed models of children's behavior, so that

these metrics could be used in other risk-assessment studies.

He also says that not having this kind of study means that the

pesticide companies can claim that, " no study suggests that children

are harmed. "

You can read this two ways- " all of the studies suggest that there

is no harm " , or " the study wasn't done. "

Some of these chemical companies would rather just not know, so they

never do the study. (And now I'm seeing this from the other side,

not defending them...) I think it's better if public and research

pressure forces them to consider these issues. Then its a matter of

scientists being ethical and not being in someone's back pocket.

(It's a hard life for a researcher in this area, because there's

very little money to be made in cleanup. We need research funds,

though!?!)

-Laurel