Children are NOT more sensitive /vulnerable to chemicals in the environment

Let’s review the nonsense in today’s New York Times op-ed by notorious junk scientist goofballs Phil Landrigan (Mt. Sinai) and Lynn Goldman (George Washington University).

Mt. Sinai’s Phil Landrigan, a health scare dinosaur who admitted long ago that legally applied pesticides hurt no one.
GWU’s Lynn Goldman, who leaped to embrace the infamous 1996 Tulane University endocrine disrupter study that was eventually retracted as science fraud.

The NYTimes op-ed is here.

Let’s take the most egregious BS, paragraph by paragraph:

1. Kids more sensitive to chemicals?

Landrigan/Goldman write:

First, let’s address the stolen valor. The ‘National Academy of Sciences’ and its prestigious members made no such report. The report was issued by a panel of second- and third-rate scientists put together by the NAS’ for-hire consulting arm called the National Research Council.

Second, yes, children are not little adults — but they are not more or “uniquely sensitive” to chemical exposures. For a dose of reality, check out this observation from the American Cancer Society:

So children can take higher doses of highly toxic chemotherapy drugs precisely because they are more resilient than adults.

Third, when the so-called “National Academy of Sciences” report was issued in 1993, panel chairman Landrigan told the media that there was no evidence that legally applied pesticides had ever hurt anyone. I believe his exact quote may be found in what was at the time called the “BNA Daily Environment Report.”

2. Low-level exposures are harmful?

Landrigan/Goldman write:

As to “air pollution,” U.S. air is clean and safe. No one is harmed in any way by it. As reported by JunkScience, EPA experimented on children by spraying diesel exhaust up the noses of children as young as 10 years with no reported harm. If anyone thought air pollution was really harmful, such experimentation would be patently illegal.

As to lead, except for children who eat lead paint chips or swallow lead trinkets or have some otehr acute exposure to lead, no child is harmed by low levels of lead in the environment, water or their blood.

While today, people pee in their pants over any lead detected in children’s blood, the reality is that children have historically relatively high blood lead levels with no apparent adverse effect. Consider the following chart from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:

Be assured that typical child blood lead levels were higher before the 1970s due to waste incineration and leaded gasoline. No harm was observed or reported.

3. Lions and tigers and chemcials, oh my!

Landrigan/Goldman write rave:

Some reality:

SUMMARY: There is not a scintilla of credible evidence that children have been harmed by chemicals in the environment or that they are more vulnerable to such harm.


October 3, 2018 at 09:09AM

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: