It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
One can argue that, though there is no conclusive evidence presently to show that some chemicals cause health problems, it’s better to be safe than sorry and so restrict the chemical before health problems emerge. Yet while this idea is tempting, it ignores a basic truth: risk exists in nearly everything. Walking outside (we could get mugged), travelling in cars and planes (we could crash), eating food (we could ingest plant oestrogens or the organic pesticide copper sulphate) or drinking water (parts of the US and Bangladesh have high levels of naturally occurring fluoride and arsenic, respectively). We therefore need to understand probability: is the chemical exposure high enough for a high probability of adverse effects?
Is it probable that pumping mercury into an infant's bloodstream will have adverse effects..???
"Natural" chemicals can be just as harmful as "artificial" chemicals, and vice versa.
Do you disagree with that point?
...a graph which could be interpreted to show a causative correlation between the per capita consumption of margarine in Maine, to that town's divorce rate.
Correction: this article originally claimed that toxins produced by plants cause cancer at the same rate as synthetic chemicals. This claim was not supported by current research and has been corrected.
originally posted by: GBP/JPY
Penicillin and the fungus it comes from have the same start date as Autism....a year apart anyway. I saw some video where the speaker said that fungus origination messes with the vaccine, depending on the fungus level already in the patients system....idk
His dates were 1946 for penicillin and 1947 for Autism.....idk