>> > Toxins may pass down generations
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 101 lines]
> time. What's *likely* is that the level of chemical exposure is a
> factor in the level of risk incurred. Doesn't that make more sense?
The pesticides in question are specified to be "endocrine disruptors" which
"interfere with the normal functioning of reproductive hormones". Since
reproductive hormones are to a great extent gender specific, the
vulnerability to these chemicals may be gender specific as well. Also, MANY
chemicals are toxic to fetuses that are otherwise benign. Take Thalidomide,
for example. It was responsible for many horrible birth defects, but now is
approved for use for Hansen's disease, and is under study for treatment of
AIDS, Behchet disease, lupus, Sjogren syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis,
inflammatory bowel disease, macular degeneration, and some cancers. It is
toxic only if taken by women in the early stages of pregnancy, just the
condition of the rats in the above study. You are correct, though, in the
notion that the toxicity is probably dose dependent.
--Rich
PeterB - 03 Jun 2005 20:31 GMT
> >> > Toxins may pass down generations
> >> >
[quoted text clipped - 116 lines]
>
> --Rich
Having evidence of disease only in one population isn't evidence that
it won't surface in another one over time. Besides, drugs are always
being recycled after no additional toxicology studies for their "new
and improved" uses. It's not an indication of their long-term safety
in a given population.
PeterB