Selfsufficientish.com

For goodness' sake!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 934070.ece

Such a terrible thing to happen to any family. The slant of this article seems more to blame the mothers for bringing it on themselves.

I wouldn't want flea killers for pets banned - OH's parents had a cat put down during the war 'cos it was 'cooty' - 'real answer I s'pose is being wary with all pesticides and avoing them altogether if poss.

I used spot on for the cats - never really read the small print til one day when I was most alarmed to read I couldn't touch the cats without decomtaminating myself for ages after application!

Well... if we all used less chemicals the world would be a much nicer place anyway.

These warnings don't help anyone...

I once cleaned up an old blanket box, it had several layers of aging paint on it. I planed, sanded, cleaned, oiled it and it looks quite nice now... but I did it on December 14 2005 (yes I remember the date, that is how much I think about it) ... I didn't worry about wearing a face mask much as it gets in the way... on boxing day I found out I was pregnant... from that day until E was really walking and talking like a 'normal' toddler I worried that I could have harmed her.

It is madness to be saying all this about what you have to avoid and then what do you tell the mother of a child who is disabled? 'Well it is your fault' ridiculous. Then where does it stop? a dyslexic child who's mother ate one extra serving of tuna one week while she was pregnant???

I don't think I've ever spoken to anybody who's used pet shampoo, let alone one with pyrethrin in it... Which makes me wonder - is it something that an awful lot of people do in the States (how else would they get a result that's in any way representative of the population)?

ina: my mum used to stealth-wash her (now) fiance's dog, as it was so smelly, but she used a herbal pet shampoo.

What annoys me most about the article is the fact that they feel the need to point out that pregnant women should avoid toxic chemicals! I mean, I'd have thought that this would be obvious.

And of course the women themselves should not be made to feel responsible for problems their babies had... if toxic chems weren't so over-marketed by irresponsible companies in the first place, it would be much easier to avoid them!

Brij wrote:ina: my mum used to stealth-wash her (now) fiance's dog, as it was so smelly, but she used a herbal pet shampoo.

What annoys me most about the article is the fact that they feel the need to point out that pregnant women should avoid toxic chemicals! I mean, I'd have thought that this would be obvious.

And of course the women themselves should not be made to feel responsible for problems their babies had... if toxic chems weren't so over-marketed by irresponsible companies in the first place, it would be much easier to avoid them!

Pyrethrins are the compounds that comprise the active part of "organic" pyrethrum insecticides, made from Chrysanthemums. Organic is not the same as harmless.

So, Jon, basically these compounds have been misleadingly labelled, because they are supposed to come from an "organic" source?

I'm confused now...

I think he was making the point that organic does not necessarily mean good. Opium is organic, as is atropine ... definitely not terribly nice substances.

MKG wrote:I think he was making the point that organic does not necessarily mean good. Opium is organic, as is atropine ... definitely not terribly nice substances.

It´s all relative....I´d gladly take opium if I´d just broken my leg!

Reading some of the responses regarding blame made me think of a campaign called "no more breast cancer" (nomorebreastcancer.org.uk), it links the rise in cases of breast cancer to the rise in use of hormone mimicking chemicals in virtually every area of our lives (see the webiste for the extensive research to which it is linked).
Now I guess it could be said that such a thing seeks to put the responsibility back on the sufferer, but one of their slogans "contaminated without consent" says it all. Articles like this are empowering, not blaming. It is the fault of the industry and government for allowing, nay promoting, the use of such things which has got us into this mess.

It is also true that pyrethrin is derived (perhaps synthesised?) from a natural source, and whilst I would never say that everything natural is necessarily good (or that good or bad are fixed characteristics), it is also worth noting that many substances in their whole natural form do not have the same side effects as isolated or synthesised counterparts. The theory is that in any given natural substance (i.e. an alcohol extract of a plant) there are other compounds that do not seem to have any direct or desired effect but which may be responsible for softening or proventing side effects, this is known as "quenching".

as they point out in the article, if yo uhave a child with a disability.. there is a tendency to look back and wonder if it was something during the pregnancy... in fact.. parents look to blame themselves.. they dont need any help!

Brij wrote:So, Jon, basically these compounds have been misleadingly labelled, because they are supposed to come from an "organic" source?

I'm confused now...

MKG has rather better explained the point I wanted to make than I did, so I thank him /her for that. It is very easy to rush in and assume synthetics are to blame for all ills (rather than just most of them
) but it isn't always simple.

Human biochemistry is wildly complicated and it is by no means clear how we interact with the substances we find around us. Hormone-mimicking compunds are rife in nature, for example, so it is not enough to lay responsibility for percieved rises in diseases that they might cause at the door of government or industry.

Pyrethrins are normally extracted from crushed seeds - it is normally far easier to extract useful substances from plants than it is attempting to sythensise them - and they are highly potent neurotoxins, so one can speculate on hown they might affect the formative nervous system of a foetus.

Clara's point of "quenching" is a good one, but to what extent this occurs is by no means clear. There's some interesting stuff being done in the field of nutrition on this, which, mostly, says don't bother with food suppliments, just eat plenty of fruit and veg.

red wrote:as they point out in the article, if yo uhave a child with a disability.. there is a tendency to look back and wonder if it was something during the pregnancy... in fact.. parents look to blame themselves.. they dont need any help!

Absolutely true! My youngest was born with a cleft lip and palate... and yet still, despite the fact that my OH was born with the same... I wonder whether it was something I did/was exposed to/blah blah blah.

I think it's a good thing the Times has decided to highlight the dangers of using everyday items which contain chemicals when pregnant: it would great if it made people feel twice about just how many chemicals they and their families are subjected to on a daily basis, be it from the use of cleaning products, toiletries, food etc. Sadly, many of the comments reflect their readership, but it's the Times after all.

Has Lindane been phased out yet? A few years back there was a strong link to breast cancer. Also Carbedazim fungicide which can damage unborn babes and is said to be one of the chemicals responsible for the world wide reduction in sp£rm counts.

Apparently you can still find traces of Lindane in non-organic chocolate and other cocoa products.