The production and use of chemicals continues to grow worldwide, particularly in developing countries. This is likely to result in greater negative effect on health if sound chemicals management is not ensured. Multisectoral action is urgently needed to protect human health from the harmful effects of improperly managed chemicals. WHO provides scientific evidence and risk management recommendations for 10 chemicals or groups of chemicals of major public health concern.
Forty-one million IQ points. That’s what Dr. David Bellinger determined Americans have collectively forfeited as a result of exposure to lead, mercury, and organophosphate pesticides. In a 2012 paper published by the National Institutes of Health, Bellinger, a professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, compared intelligence quotients among children whose mothers had been exposed to these neurotoxins while pregnant to those who had not. Bellinger calculates a total loss of 16.9 million IQ points due to exposure to organophosphates, the most common pesticides used in agriculture.
Last month, more research brought concerns about chemical exposure and brain health to a heightened pitch. Philippe Grandjean, Bellinger’s Harvard colleague, and Philip Landrigan, dean for global health at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in Manhattan, announced to some controversy in the pages of a prestigious medical journal that a “silent pandemic” of toxins has been damaging the brains of unborn children. The experts named 12 chemicals—substances found in both the environment and everyday items like furniture and clothing—that they believed to be causing not just lower IQs but ADHD and autism spectrum disorder. Pesticides were among the toxins they identified.
This post needs to recognize that all materials can be treated as chemicals. Chemistry is the fundamental materials science.
The popular notion that all chemicals are toxic or dangerous is absurd. We are all chemicals.
Yes, some are hazardous and need to be handled carefully. Yes, some hazardous chemicals like sulfuric acid are necessary in industry. Few would suggest they should be banned.
Pesticides are well regulated by EPA. Chemicals are regulated under TSCA.
Materials are routinely tested for hazards before they are approved for sale. Toxic effects of low level exposure continues to reveal previously unknown effects.
But I think many of these studies exaggerate risks. If lead is as dangerous as people say humans would not have survived. Our natural defenses are far more capable than some seem to think. Poorly written laws make exaggeration possible!!
Develop a desire to buy natural fiber clothing even though it’s more expensive than synthetics, has fewer high-tech abilities and also harder to take care of. (Cotton is slow to dry, linen wrinkles like crazy and has to be ironed, wool has to be dry-cleaned.)
Figure out a way to dispose of countless synthetic garments that are still wearable without adding them to the environment.
Yes it is part of our system to outlaw a lot of things.
The excuse that someone needs to have control outside of the government over capitalism is mean and rotten to the core.
No one on earth for a buck has the right to implant a spoon full of plastic in everyone’s brain. Polymer fibers are the main culprit. Of course they need to be outlawed.
Your profit stops at everyone else’s being poisoned. Your profit is evil at that point. This is not hard except for the Americans who were raised with garbage about capitalism.
Polyester has nasty history, and should be easily “given up!!”
Pick high quality textiles, do not carelessly dirty them, wash them minimally, and presto. I have thirty year old t-shirts, and a 110 year old tuxedo.
As someone who routinely has to manage worker exposure to toxic chemicals, I find your post ridonculous.
Is this a popular notion? I don’t think so. I think the popular notion is that there are many chemicals that people work with and consume and we’re not entirely sure about their toxicity. Take vapes as an example. They’re legal, not fully understood, and causing measurable harm.
Do you think there are ANY toxic chemicals that should be banned? I do. Often, there are substitute chemicals that can be used that are less toxic. Industry often chooses the lowest cost product that is allowed, no matter the toxicity.
Lead is dangerous. If the only recognized measure of toxicity is limited to whether it is immediately dangerous to life and health (IDLH), we’re doomed to accept chemicals that mutate our genes, lead to chronic conditions, and poison our environment.
There go the scientists and doctors exaggerating risks again…it’s a good thing we have people like you looking out for the wellbeing of others!
I say yes the law requires it. If manpower is not available to review applications and data submitted, introduction of the new product is delayed.
So expect companies involved to lobby hard for adequate resources. And expect opponents to continue to press for tougher rules for those new materials (as well as more testing of existing materials).
Are you a toxicologist? If so, please continue! If not, let’s leave it to the professionals.
Here’s the sticky wicket - the 1/1000th number is put in place because often, there’s limited data and research to accurately determine reliable toxicity levels. We can just spitball a number, say 1/100th. That is irresponsible.
Sure, except there’s a big difference. Before, when workers were exposed to toxic chemicals, often the health impacts were not understood. Now they are. Suggesting that we ignore health impacts and willfully expose people and the environment to toxic chemicals is outrageous. Grow a moral spine bro.
