US experts say chemicals may cause silent brains epidemic in young

Leading experts are calling for a radical overhaul of regulations for chemicals to protect children from every-day toxins that may be causing a global ''silent epidemic'' of brain development disorders such as autism, dyslexia and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.

In a review published in The Lancet Neurology on Saturday, Dr Philippe Grandjean from Harvard School of Public Health in Boston and Dr Philip Landrigan from Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York said regulations were inadequate to safeguard foetuses and children from potentially hazardous chemicals found in the environment and everyday items such as clothing, furniture and toys.

US experts say chemicals may cause silent brains epidemic in young

The pair said that in the past seven years the number of recognised chemical causes of neurodevelopmental disorders doubled from six to 12. These include lead, arsenic, pesticides such as DDT, solvents, methylmercury, found in some fish, flame retardants, often added to plastics and textiles, and manganese, a commonly mined metal that can get into drinking water.

I am pleased to see that experts are weighing in on the debate and calling for more stringent safeguards when it comes to chemicals and their affects on humans. I agree that the system needs a pretty significant re-haul in modern society, and not only for the USA.

Interestingly, the experts had called out Fluoride as a dangerous chemical:

The list also controversially includes fluoride, a mineral found in water, plants and toothpaste. Many health authorities, including the World Health Organisation and Australian governments, say low levels of fluoride in drinking water are safe and protect teeth against decay.
Advertisement

However, Dr Grandjean and Dr Landrigan said a meta-analysis of 27 studies, mainly from China, had found children in areas with high levels of fluoride in water had significantly lower IQ scores than those living in low-level fluoride areas.

I do hope that these calls are taken seriously by the governments of the world...But in saying this, i ultimately doubt that they will.

Whats a silent brain?

I cant believe that is the actual source title, good job msm

Indigent
Whats a silent brain?

a prerequisite of taking public office.

reply to post by daaskapital


I think calling ADHD a disorder is out of place. Similar to PTSD, it is not a disorder, but instead a condition. I would be hard pressed to say this for autism, but dyslexia...maybe also just a condition.
ADHD and PTSD are just conditions, and those conditions have a wide variety of benefits.

I think people are too quick to call anything that is out of the ordinary a "disorder." You would be hard pressed to find someone who does not have any "disorders."

bigfatfurrytexan

Indigent
Whats a silent brain?

a prerequisite of taking public office.

LOL ain't it the truth!

Actually, I think much of the ADHD diagnoses (at least the US) are just plain wrong. Most ADHD diagnoses seem to be boys, who are just plain being boys but teachers and parents cant or don't want to be bothered with them, so the kid winds up drugged and much easier to control. Wonder how being drugged during your childhood will affect your adulthood?

I have personally known a couple of boys that were diagnosed ADHD that seemed to be perfectly normal, active, inquisitive kids, to me.

In order to ingest fluoride in drinking water you need to first ingest drinking water - and most kids aren't - they're drinking sodas and energy drinks and flavored juices. So instead of fluoride, you should really be concerned about chemicals like Bisphenol A (BPA), used in a plastic bottle and canning industry. Of course, there's only about 10,000 other chemical additives to worry about as well...

FreeWillAnomaly
reply to post by daaskapital

 

I think calling ADHD a disorder is out of place. Similar to PTSD, it is not a disorder, but instead a condition. I would be hard pressed to say this for autism, but dyslexia...maybe also just a condition.
ADHD and PTSD are just conditions, and those conditions have a wide variety of benefits.

I think people are too quick to call anything that is out of the ordinary a "disorder." You would be hard pressed to find someone who does not have any "disorders."

edit on 15-2-2014 by FreeWillAnomaly because: (no reason given)

If you look at the Psychiatric list and definition of disorders they pretty much cover all the range of normal emotional conditions. Technically, to me, it appears that most adults suffer disorders at various points in time each day or week.

Since Psychiatrists are primarily concerned with treating "disorders" with drugs does that make Psychiatrists nothing more than modern day legal drug pushers? Kinda seems like the lazy way of treating a psychological problem: "Here, take this drug 3 times a day for the rest of your life....you will feel much better.

A Xanax a day will keep the doctor away......????

No doubt, I agree that too many chemicals in our environment and particularly in processed foods can negatively impact children. This is why I grew an organic garden back in the day when my kids were young. I wanted to provide them with veggies that didn't have pesticides, chemical fertilizers or preservatives in them.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Given that all of those drinks contain fluoride, I would say fluoride is the most predominate chemical in our bodies, and at the top of the list as to eliminating from everyone's life.

reply to post by bbracken677


Some kids just can not stand being there to the point that they will skip every day. Happened with me.. I had no problem learning the information. It was the rest of the BS that I could not deal with. I would show up for tests and that is how I graduated for the first 3 years of high school. With today's truancy policies, IDK how these kids are graduating. I would have dropped out. I hated being at school and the fake social structure that is implemented and reinforced in school by adults. It is akin to brainwashing. I also hated doing hours and hours of pointless work that served no real educational purpose. I could feel the brainwashing, but I did not know that was what was really happening because they create a false perspective in you. I just thought people were stupid and naturally like that. Little did I know, in my adult life I would find out that it really WAS brainwashing and that that was what I was actually resisting without even knowing it. If not for the girls, I probably wouldn't have even shown up for the tests

reply to post by bbracken677


So true. My sister is a first grade teacher, and a very good one. She's told me that, in over 10 years of teaching, she has seen a handful of kids that actually needed to be on medications. The others just needed more activity than sitting at a desk 6 hours a day.

reply to post by daaskapital


I do not subscribe to one condition they list, Autism.

I am starting to lean more to the it's a genetic mutation that has been starting to occur for years, there's a lot of European research to support that so far, and it seems to fit the general profile of parents of Autistic children (myself included in this)

However, I'm all for limiting the amount of these chemicals kids are exposed to..

reply to post by vkey08


would you link to a primer for me? You got my attention and I am interested.

reply to post by vkey08


Makes me think of a sci fi short story I read many years ago. There were so many people on the planet that all the souls in heaven were depleted and children were being born without souls.

Not saying that is the case, just reminded me of the story.

I too am interested in reading more about that...

psychcentral.com...

One such interesting article...

reply to post by FreeWillAnomaly


I think you're getting hung up on terminology. If PTSD is not a disorder, then what does the D stand for?!

It's interesting that you're willing to classify autism as a disorder, yet not ADHD & PTSD. Personally I think there are far more 'benefits' associated with autism (eg processing large amounts of information quickly) than with ADHD or PTSD. What on earth could be a positive outcome of PTSD?

I think you're also reacting to the nature of the term. Sure, 'disorder' implies that the people struggling with these things are somehow 'less than' people whose brains are 'ordered'. I think most psychiatrists would agree that every single person in the world has some sort of psychological 'disorder', even if it is so minor as to not negatively impact their lives.

'Disorder' is just a label, and not a negative one at that - even though it can be interpreted that way.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


bbracken got to it before I could get back to my machine BFT I'll dig out my linklist in the morning, I'm exhausted right now, one of the articles I read was on Medscape recently and it really threw me for a loop as it was almost perfectly describing both my (now dead) husband and myself, and the kids to a T..

reply to post by TheStev


dis·or·der
disˈôrdər/Submit
noun
1.
a state of confusion.
"tiresome days of mess and disorder"
synonyms: untidiness, disorderliness, mess, disarray, chaos, confusion; More
antonyms: tidiness
the disruption of peaceful and law-abiding behavior.
"recurrent food crises led to periodic outbreaks of disorder"
synonyms: unrest, disturbance, disruption, upheaval, turmoil, mayhem, pandemonium; More
antonyms: order, peace
MEDICINE
a disruption of normal physical or mental functions; a disease or abnormal condition.
plural noun: disorders
"eating disorders"
synonyms: disease, infection, complaint, condition, affliction, malady, sickness, illness, ailment, infirmity, irregularity More
verb
verb: disorder; 3rd person present: disorders; past tense: disordered; past participle: disordered; gerund or present participle: disordering
1.
disrupt the systematic functioning or neat arrangement of.
"she went to comb her disordered hair"
synonyms: untidy, unkempt, messy, in a mess, mussed (up), mussy; More


Disorder implies it is either a disruption of mental functions, a disease, or an abnormal condition.

At what point do you draw the line between disorder and just - type of person? Condition of that person. All people have a condition.


PTSD and ADHD both have marked and consistent benefits (along with dyslexia) and are not abnormal conditions.

Autism, when it does have benefits, has really cool benefits - but that is not always the case. Having known some autistic people, I can see why it would be classified as a disorder (although I would not be against removing that classification, I can't help but feel bad for autistic children. Of course, later in life, it may be proven that my feeling bad was unjustified and they should pity me in reality. But, as children their lives are made difficult. I am not even sure if they are difficult by default, but instead maybe it is the need to conform that is imposed upon them that makes their lives difficult?). I have known a lot of ADHD/PTSD people as well.

What benefits does PTSD have? I am unsure why you would even have to ask. The depression and anxiety that come along with it are really annoying, but PTSD itself is not a bad thing. It increases people's sensitivity to potentially harmful circumstances, increases the protective nature of those with it (you are safer around people with PTSD), and has been linked to other beneficial things but I will stick to what is proven for now.

ADHD is just a different way of thinking. ADHD people think in a way that allows them to understand things that others can not understand as readily. I never really understood why it was called a disorder in the first place. "You are not like the rest - take this speed and focus on being a normal person." Define normal? Under control - of others. Everyone is abnormal. It is about control.

I think people with all brain-types should be allowed to embrace their way of thought instead of trying to conform it to what is considered "normalcy" which is really just a fictitious idea of what the rulers of society have decided is what people should conform to.

In fact, instead of disorder, I think "brain-type" is a much more fitting term for all of the conditions in question in this thread.

reply to post by FreeWillAnomaly


It just seems a little odd to me. You mention that autism 'doesn't always have benefits', thereby suggesting that PTSD and ADHD do always have benefits. I assure you that is not the case. I haven't been officially diagnosed with PTSD, but I do suffer severe depression and anxiety and I guarantee you that they are far beyond 'annoying'. They are, in many cases, debilitating. When the results of a condition lead to debilitation, it's safe to say that it is without benefit.

Some extreme PTSD can even lead to flashbacks and problems with anger. I'm not sure I'd feel safer around someone who has anger issues and is experiencing flashbacks. I'm not saying this is the case with all people experiencing PTSD - but certainly it cannot be excluded from the discussion entirely.

The DSM also says that "The symptoms reported must lead to "clinically significant distress or impairment" of major domains of life activity, such as social relations, occupational activities, or other "important areas of functioning"". Psychiatrists are generally very quick to diagnose these days, but the fact of the matter is this: if you know people who claim to have PTSD, but their lives are not significantly impaired by their symptoms then they don't really, technically speaking, have PTSD. I'm not saying they didn't experience trauma, I'm not saying they don't have issues they are working with. But by definition if the condition doesn't impair 'major domains of life activity' then it is not PTSD.

The same applies to any psychiatric 'disorder'. If it doesn't impair your life in a significant way, then psychiatrists won't call it a disorder. They might suggest that you are experiencing symptoms of PTSD, but if those symptoms are not negatively impacting on major areas of your life - then you do not have a disorder. So if your friends with ADHD and PTSD are getting along fine and are not experiencing any life difficulties as a result - then they would not fit the diagnostic criteria for a disorder.

reply to post by TheStev


From the perspective of society and psychology at large, who's perspective is generally based on illusory perceptions, and who's precepts are dictated by the corrupt world we live in, yes they are experiencing major debilitation. I would say that it is society and the psychologists who are truly debilitated, but that would be a sign of mental illness so I best not say that.


"My friend wants some advice about a girl. He thinks he likes her but he doesn't know what to say to her."

"Is your friend you?"

"No. But still, what should he say?"


BTW, who is "everyone else" as is defined by psychiatric evaluation? Is it subjective as in to the patient's life, objective as in to the world, or objective as in to the entirety of existence?

Do you exist because you think?

reply to post by daaskapital


I actually found this the most terrifying part of the article:

Dr Oliver Jones, a lecturer in analytical chemistry in the School of Applied Sciences at RMIT University, said many of the chemicals listed in the review were already strictly controlled or banned in Australia and that where they were used, it is not ''for fun, or with malice, but to save lives''.

To me it comes across as 'If we use hazardous chemicals, it's only for your own good - so just trust us'. As if anyone would ever consider that these chemicals are being used 'for fun'. It's almost a straw-man argument.

From the perspective of society and psychology at large, who's perspective is generally based on illusory perceptions, and who's precepts are dictated by the corrupt world we live in, yes they are experiencing major debilitation. I would say that it is society and the psychologists who are truly debilitated, but that would be a sign of mental illness so I best not say that.

Look, I have major issues with psychiatrists (psychologists I actually have more faith in, because they haven't been ground down by the dogma of medical science) and frankly I don't hesitate to tell them that. But I think your definition of 'impairment of major life domains' is a little off.

This impairment is almost never defined by the psychiatrist/psychologist (in my experience) but by the patient. They don't say 'you should be more social, because you're not being more social your life is therefore impaired'. They say 'how social are you now? do you wish you were more social? are psychological factors limiting your ability to do so?'

So while I do get where you're coming from, and I have a major distrust of psychiatry - I think the definition of 'impairment' in this sense is a bit more sound and objective than what you're suggesting here. In my experience 'impairment' is defined as an inability to fulfil your own desires for your life - not the desires that society tells you should be fulfilled.

reply to post by TheStev


outstanding point.

'socialization" seems to be a litmus test in psychology. Of course, a primary goal is to be able to release a patient into society without having them be a danger to the individuals within society. The overall aim is good. but the focus is a bit narrow.