15 comments on “PBDEs Proven Dangerous But Activists Focus Only On GMOs. Why?

  1. Julie, absolutely. BPDEs are a plausible cause of many problems. When Smith, O’Brien, and all of the others fall into the post-hoc/propter hoc fallacy they completely forget that this environmental agent is a much better correlate.

    The amount of PBDEs emitted from flat-screen televisions is huge- computers too. Couple the increase in consumer electronics in the home, tied to increasing air conditioning and use of it because of warmer summers, and maybe this is a formula for human effects.

    Again, just looking at a correlation. The difference between this and GMO is that there are demonstrated effects on PBDEs (cats seem especially susceptible) and proven mechanisms of how they integrate with human physiology and development.

    Here is a smoking gun. But it’s not made by Monsanto, so nobody cares.

    • I was astounded at the amount of data on this. Study after study after study. No cherry picking required. No data-mining. No renegade researchers having to keep their test designs secret. It’s all just there… in droves. And no one seems to care. Not political enough I guess.

  2. Is there a blood test we can do to determine the amount, if any (sounds unlikely), of these PBDEs in our system? Do you know how to determine what products we have in our home that have these chemicals in them? Do you know if there is a way to ‘detox’ our body of these chemicals?

    • All good questions John. My understanding so far is that the PBDEs accumulate in our fat cells. Our fat cells store a lot of other toxins as well.

      Obviously, more needs to be looked at here and I will do it! I’ve just scratched the surface of this topic. I’m not trying to scare people either… in this post I was trying to compare how the public feels about GMOs vs. PBDEs.

      A proven unsafe toxin is flying under our radar while we wave signs about something that most of science claims is safe. It makes no sense.

  3. It does make you wonder what we can use to retard flammability. Is there an overall net saving of life from the prevention of some home fires? I’m not sure either way. This may have been a more urgent issue when smoking was more prevalent. However, aren’t their regulations on the books in many states requiring mattresses and cushion to withstand a certain amount of flame before catching fire?

  4. Yes there are regs. There are other materials that can be used as flame retardants that are less toxic. Like I said in an earlier comment, I’m just getting started with this issue. It has my attention!

  5. At risk of inflaming (excuse pun) opinion we had a very good flame retardant in asbestos which was ripped out of homes, industry and cars and replaced by organic materials of less than zero use.

    Certain kinds of asbestos were totally harmless and did not emit vapours.

    Some of todays flame retardants actually increase the temperature of a fire to the level where iron loses all its strength (twin towers).

    Further the fumes/vapours are extremely toxic (again twin towers).

    France does not use or insist on ANY flame retardants in home materials.

    Further modern homes have an extraction system working at two levels but illegal to switch off.

    In the past (until 1977) some of the first flame retardants were specifically reserved for babies clothing (not enough to go round for everyone) until someone realised they were potentially unhealthy for babies.

    Today the chemicals used have changed but the toxicity seems to continue whatever the next flame retardant material we choose.

    Open fires are almost a thing of the past and the ideas used in France might reduce long term health effects of which several may have killed people I knew who got heart attacks (flame retardants of the organophosphorus type) and explain the increas in cancers (NHL).

    And people do complain but as always nobody much listens while regulators, industry and government tell us variously all is just OK or worse they have top international scientists working on the issues.

    Another problem is that every flame detector uses dangerous radioactive material (americium) while completely safe types are almost not available (photo electric ones) at any price.

    In short ignorance, incompetence and unavailability drives us to yet another health catastrophe; each one more dangerous, more deadly and more stupid than the last debacle.

  6. Pingback: My Inbox is an interesting place regarding GMOs | SLEUTH 4 HEALTH

  7. Pingback: What Is Wrong With Our Kids? | SLEUTH 4 HEALTH

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s