Discussion in 'Parents of Children with Type 1' started by caspi, Nov 30, 2011.
Lisa, I'll say it again, LIKE LIKE LIKE. I wish you were on facebook.
I don't know all that many people who see the glass "half-hidden by a morally corrupt, corporate shill of a federal agency with a secret agenda". They sound interesting though.
More often than not, I see intelligent people who are willing to research topics beyond the pages of the corporations websites or the federal agency websites. When you do that, things become a little more cloudy.
I would say that in looking at history of other controversial topics, by the time these ideas are being talked about in the mainstream news.... it is typically late in the process of discovery. In other words, there have probably been a number of studies already done which have shown reasons to be concerned. By the time you get Dr. Oz wondering about it and talking about it... it's likely a done deal that there are issues.
I thought that was pretty clear in the FDA memo posted earlier. They saw the high results as anomalies and did further testing IIRC. You can't release data until you're sure.
I guess it's up to the reader to believe their response or not.
Firstly, I will retract that post if it is found offensive ... I was just messing around with Sue and poking fun at myself. I assume from her response she saw it that way.
Secondly, you're right, though, in that I really can't understand the culture of assertions of lies, cover-ups and corruption from our agencies that are tasked with water, food and drug safety. Sure, there have been some mistakes but I can't get my head around why some people seem to have such a jaded and cynical view of them.
Seeing how we're now way off topic I will relent to the original topic.
My problem with arsenic in juice or water isnt the acute effects that could be possible but the cumulative effects over years or decades. Arsenic is a poison and I think its impossible to figure out how much a person can safe consume over the years or decades before they will have enough built up in their fatty tissue (or wherever it builds up) to cause health problems.
Here are some links that I thought interesting:
And information on long term arsenic exposure and autoimmune disease
"We found a marginally significant (P=0.055) increase in the incidence of asthma, allergies, and parasitic infections on individuals with high arsenic levels in urine compared with individuals with arsenic levels lower than the reference value in urine (50 ?g/L)". From the piece above
"Induction of oxidative stress and interferences in signal transduction or gene expression by arsenic or by its methylated metabolites are the most possible causes to arsenic-induced diabetes mellitus through mechanisms of induction of insulin resistance and β cell dysfunction. Recent studies have shown that, in subjects with chronic arsenic exposure, oxidative stress is increased and the expression of tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα) and interleukin-6 (IL-6) is upregulated. Both of these two cytokines have been well known for their effect on the induction of insulin resistance." From the piece above
Arsenic and type 2 diabetes
That chart, the chart of the EPA and not mine, wasn't (I'm thinking) designed to educate the reader on every possible health issue for each of the contaminants. The information is just too exhaustive. I think it was mentioning the major sources of the contaminant and what some, perhaps major, health concerns were ... not all. I don't think, for a second, that anything was either accidentally, purposefully or irresponsibly left out - it just wasn't the purpose. No, I do not think they were "framing" anything. As for fluoride I think it was appropriate to list why it is added when it was noted that it was an additive. I really don't understand why anyone would read more into it. I think expecting a comprehensive list of health concerns in a chart like that is expecting way too much. Just look up MSDS on arsenic, for example, and look the the mass of information. You couldn't possibly expect that level of info on a chart for each of the contaminants ... at least I wouldn't think so.
Separate names with a comma.