Thursday, July 14, 2005

 

Babies Born Polluted

The news today says here
Unborn U.S. babies are soaking in a stew of chemicals, including mercury, gasoline byproducts and pesticides, according to a report released on Thursday.

Although the effects on the babies are not clear, the survey prompted several members of Congress to press for legislation that would strengthen controls on chemicals in the environment.

The report by the Environmental Working Group is based on tests of 10 samples of umbilical-cord blood taken by the American Red Cross. They found an average of 287 contaminants in the blood, including mercury, fire retardants, pesticides and the Teflon chemical PFOA.

"These 10 newborn babies ... were born polluted," said New York Rep. Louise Slaughter, who spoke a news conference about the findings on Thursday.
This is not news to people who have read Living Downstream by Sandra Steingraber (1997). An Amazon reader review of Living Downstream says,
Steingraber uses her own story as an example. "Cancer runs in my family," she says. "I have an aunt who died of the same kind of bladder cancer I had, my mother had metastatic breast cancer, I have many uncles who had colon cancer." She pauses. "But I'm adopted. So cancer runs in my family, it doesn't run in my genes. That leads us to ask, what else do families have in common? We drink the same water, we breathe the same air, we have the same dietary habits, we often work in the same places."
Just another story we can't see on CNN . . .

Technorati Tags:


Comments:
Lemme ask you a question. If a tobacco company stepped forward and said, "We did tests on ten umbilical-cord samples, and that's all the proof we need that cigarettes are completely harmless to unborn babies," might not you be a little bit skeptical?

I'm guessing yes. Ten samples is, of course, scientifically worthless. Even when the organization doing the research is telling you something you want to hear.


Eric
http://www.ericberlin.com
 
I wonder what Eric would infer if he flipped a coin ten times and got ten heads. Would this be a "scientifically worthless" outcome?
 
Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?