Putting the Next Generation of Brains In Danger

An anonymous reader sends this news from CNN: "The number of chemicals known to be toxic to children's developing brains has doubled over the last seven years, researchers said. Dr. Philip Landrigan at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York and Dr. Philippe Grandjean from Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, authors of the review published Friday in The Lancet Neurology journal say the news is so troubling they are calling for a worldwide overhaul of the regulatory process in order to protect children's brains. 'We know from clinical information on poisoned adult patients that these chemicals can enter the brain through the blood brain barrier and cause neurological symptoms,' said Grandjean. 'When this happens in children or during pregnancy, those chemicals are extremely toxic, because we now know that the developing brain is a uniquely vulnerable organ. Also, the effects are permanent.'"

Comments

Prepare the industry stonewalling.

[Anonymous Coward]

The impact is not limited to loss of IQ points.

"Beyond IQ, we're talking about behavior problems -- shortening of attention span, increased risk of ADHD," Landrigan said.

Things that make it harder for people to do well in school and later on the job. And in extreme cases, contributes to being a poor and on the dole.

Remember that folks when you or you hear someone bitch about the EPA and environmental regulations. We pay for it one way or another.

Of course, industry will have their own scientists - like the cigarette industry - that will show this is "junk science" or some other critique to prevent or at the very least, slow down any sort of regulation.

Profit and money is all that seems to matter to some people in our society.

Re:Prepare the industry stonewalling.

[nbauman]

Pregnant women can take care of tobacco, alcohol, and cocaine themselves.

(The numbers of women in that age group who smoke has gone down dramatically in the last generation, the women I know quit alcohol during pregnancy, and cocaine among pregnant women turned out to be exaggerated.)

How can a pregnant woman protect herself against lead, if auto exhaust from leaded gasoline fills the air with it? Only government can do that job.

Similarly, General Electric dumped hundreds of tons of PCBs into the Hudson River, where it's impossible to remove. Is that supposed to be the woman's responsibility and not GE's responsibility?

Do you believe that every pregnant woman should get a degree in analytical chemistry and a home lab?

Some things are individual responsibilities, and some things are government responsibilities. Actually, some things are corporate responsibilities, but the U.S. corporations don't accept those responsibilities so the government has to clean up after them.

Re:Number of _known_ dangers

[mcgrew]

Indeed. The worst of them have/had been in use for a century or more. Paint and gasoline used to have lead. I remember reading about a mushroom hunter who had gotten sick after eating some wild mushrooms she'd found on the side of the road. They weren't a toxic species; she'd gotten lead poisoning from gasoline fumes the fungi had absorbed. Kids were rendered mentally retarded from eating paint chips. Thermometers contained mercury, and when one broke us kids would play with the amazing metal. Yet at one point in school my IQ was measured at 150 (I'm sure I'm a lot dumber now, I've been exposed to toxins all my life).

The biggest danger to children's brains is women drinking while pregnant. I've seen it all too many times in my six decades, it's incredibly sad. Other, more dangerous dangers are blows to the head, and mental and physical abuse.

Rather than the sky falling, it's continually improving; most of the substances listed have already either been banned, or their use curtailed voluntarily. From TFA:

The American Chemistry Council, meanwhile, called the review a "rehash" of the authors' first review.

"This iteration is as highly flawed as the first, as once again the authors ignore the fundamental scientific principles of exposure and potency," said council spokesman Scott Jensen.

"What is most concerning is that the authors focus largely on chemicals and heavy metals that are well understood to be inappropriate for children's exposure, are highly regulated and/or are restricted or being phased out. They then extrapolate that similar conclusions should be applied to chemicals that are more widely used in consumer products without evidence to support their claims. Such assertions do nothing to advance true scientific understanding and only create confusion and alarm."