Tags

Given that the science of low-level chemical exposure is in its infancy (and the science of low-level synergy is barely conceived), is it more reasonable to take the side of caution? Is it more reasonable to imagine that the human immune system doesn’t know what to do with synthetics, and so they are stored in the body, leading to increasing toxicity and disease? Or is it reasonable to assume you can put low levels of anything in there, as long as it has not been proven to cause a problem?

“Scientists do not say that low levels of chemicals in the human body are harmless. What they say is that many of them have not been proven harmless or harmful by means that satisfy them. Does that mean they are personally anxious to ingest a bunch of different chemicals into their bodies because it has not been proven harmful to do so? I doubt it. But the mind game they continue to play with the public goes like this: ‘It hasn’t been proven that ingesting (or inhaling or absorbing) low levels of a synthetic chemical is harmful to your health. So therefore you should go ahead and keep on ingesting and absorbing this stuff until science gets around to convincingly proving that it is OK.’ This is dangerous nonsense. These guys are saying trace levels of chemical X may not be causative in relation to an increase in disease. But what about trace levels of ten, twenty, fifty, or one hundred chemicals? What are the synergistic effects that cause illness and disease? Do these scientists know? Of course not! But any idiot knows that if you pollute yourself, you get sick.”

Terry Cafferty, engineering consultant to aerospace firms, quoted in The Hundred-Year Lie by Randall Fitzgerald, pg. 160-161.

Advertisements