http://scienceprogress.org/2009/07/evidence-mounting-that-chemicals-in-the-environment-are-damaging-reproductive-health/ Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:59:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://scienceprogress.org/2009/07/evidence-mounting-that-chemicals-in-the-environment-are-damaging-reproductive-health/comment-page-1/#comment-5752 Theodore Brown Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:22:21 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/?p=4032#comment-5752 This interesting article raises two issues that must be considered in an evaluation of the data: (1) the perennial question of whether correlation can be taken as causation. We know that many lifestyle factors come into play in determining fetal development. We also know that diet, exercise, and so on affect development early in life. (2) In comparing the present with the past, we must keep in mind that chemical analyses today have become much more sensitive in detecting trace levels of substances. Thus we can now detect the presences of toxins or potential toxins at much lower levels than previously. I raise these points not to make the argument that there are not serious social issues relating to the effects of trace chemicals on people. The article touches on only a few specifics, but it properly focuses on the most critical aspects, prenatal and early life exposures to substances that can affect brain development. Questions of what to do about such pollutants take us into the realm of public education. Before we ever get much action in greatly reducing such pollutants in the environment we need to educate people about how to reduce exposures. Given the low level of scientific understanding in society generally, and among low income segments especially, this is a tough challenge. This interesting article raises two issues that must be considered in an evaluation of the data: (1) the perennial question of whether correlation can be taken as causation. We know that many lifestyle factors come into play in determining fetal development. We also know that diet, exercise, and so on affect development early in life. (2) In comparing the present with the past, we must keep in mind that chemical analyses today have become much more sensitive in detecting trace levels of substances. Thus we can now detect the presences of toxins or potential toxins at much lower levels than previously.
I raise these points not to make the argument that there are not serious social issues relating to the effects of trace chemicals on people. The article touches on only a few specifics, but it properly focuses on the most critical aspects, prenatal and early life exposures to substances that can affect brain development. Questions of what to do about such pollutants take us into the realm of public education. Before we ever get much action in greatly reducing such pollutants in the environment we need to educate people about how to reduce exposures. Given the low level of scientific understanding in society generally, and among low income segments especially, this is a tough challenge.

]]>