Stem Cell Research Breakthrough
Stem Cell Research Breakthrough
Aspartame Feed Back | Chemist Disputes Safety of Common Chemicals
Here at the health-report website we try to give a balanced view of the toxic effects of chemicals. Of course there are many people who actually believe rubbing chemicals into their skin and exposing their bodies to them in various ways and ingesting them is actually good for them and won't do any harm.
One such person is Mark Selby who has written to me and challenged me to publish his story. You see Mark is a chemist and has asked me
"Will you help campaign for the eradication of stinging nettles? It would be a better use of your time than scaring not-terribly-bright consumers with made up stories of nice harmless chemicals made in clinically clean factories causing adverse effects."
So in fairness to Mark I have published his complete email here for you to be able to get a balanced view from a chemists point of view and my response to him. Lets be fair about this chemical issue and lets hear all the good stories from someone in the industry. I would welcome any other chemist or scientist who can also contribute to this discussion. My reply to Mark is below
Marks letter.
From: Mr Mark Selby
Country: United Kingdom
StateCounty: W Yorks
Email: mark.selby@denehurst.co.uk
HealthProblems: Skin blisters
Dear Support,
Here is my story.
I am not sure you will want to publish my story. It relates to a frightening number of toxic chemicals that are being synthesised under uncontrolled conditions at a number of locations through out the UK. Both myself and my family have suffered as a result of contact at various sites, often in seemingly hazard-free environments.
As a chemist, I am aware that the specific chemical agents are a mixture of alkyloids that have a short-term effect on the central nervous system as well as causing local pain. These chemicals are not being openly supplied on the market and are certainly not being labelled as dangerous according to the UK and EU Chemical supply laws.
Will you help campaign for the erradication of stinging nettles? It would be a better use of your time than scaring not-terribly-bright consumers with made up stories of nice harmless chemicals made in clinically clean factories causing adverse effects.
I agree we should be aware of potential hazards and risks of all chemicals, but just because something is natural, does not make it safer. Just think of those carcinogens in a decent curry. And put an onion in your eye and you soon know about it.
Use the internet to spread the truth and not to scare people.
Dear MarkYes certainly I will publish what you write.I am sure people would love to hear how safe these chemicals are from a chemists viewpoint. There are a lot of people out there that believe chemicals applied to the skin and eaten in food is somehow actually good for them and input from you would certainly be well received by these people.I am happy to give a completely balanced and truthful account of ALL points of view on the health-report website. So if you would like me to publish your story about how safe the chemicals are and you have plenty of interesting stories from people who will tell you how the chemicals have helped them with skin conditions eczema psoriasis asthmas etc then of course I will publish it.Having been severely debilitated by chemical exposure I am very interested in what chemists and scientists have to say on the subject and will most certainly publish what you write.I am only concerned with getting the truth out to people. So please by all means send the information on to me and lets get the "ill and not-terribly-bright consumers" (your words) something balanced from the chemists point of view.Perhaps you would like to comment on the safety and the the benefits of formaldehyde or parabens in the human body. Or perhaps an in depth report from you explaining the benefit of phthalates in the human body would be appropriate so we could refute the EWG report. Perhaps a report refuting the long term toxic effects of DDT would be appropriate or the use of organophosphates and the effects they have had on hundreds of farmers in Britain. Perhaps these are all made up stories and you can show conclusive proof that your "nice harmless chemicals made in clinically clean factories" are really harmless after all.It's interesting that scientists don't rub onions into the eyes of test animals or inject it into the skin or force them to eat it until they die. I wonder why this is, if it is a toxic substance?So the truth with references to the articles please would be very warmly welcomed from you and published I can assure you. I like to give balanced information as much as I can. I respect your right to believe what you do but you also need to respect my right to inform the public of the risks associated with exposure to a plethora of chemicals that our grandparents had no contact with at all.Thanks for contacting me and I will look forward to hearing from you.Kind regardsGeoff Goldie
In keeping with my promise to provide balanced information here is the response received today March 17 2004 from Mark SelbyI may appear to be your antithesis, but I bet we meet in the middle and agree on many common issues.
I make a living preparing chemical risk assessments for industry and government agencies and, where we appear to have common ground, I will write only what I believe is correct. This is why I am an independent consultant and by not being employed by any one company, I will work for what I sincerely believe is best for man and the environment.
What I preach against is the single-mindedness of individuals on both sides of the chemicals debate who are uncomfortable with the common ground.
My absolute pet hates are slimming foods (millions spent in research to let the wealthy eat without putting on weight when half the World is starving) and organic food. The latter 'hate' is the marketing and scaring of people into paying more for food that takes twice the area of land to produce, when with the correct use (I stress correct) of chemicals and GM research, we can feed the World with ease. A second caveat is that I agree that most GM research is for profit and is not justifiable.
DDT, for example, breaks down in high temperatures and strong sunlight and the risk / benefit in hot malaria areas suggests it is one of the best options to help human health. Ideally, more research is required into finding other equally effective and less persistent chemicals and where we probably do agree, is that there should be more centralised research for the good of all of us and not just a few companies.
In terms of animal testing, another favourite area of mine for discussion, I write extensively on the subject, drawing on my experience at a test lab. There, I like to think I saved more animals than those shouting obscenities outside the gate and I still successfully present scientific arguments to government agencies around the world to agree to waive testing. And who pays for me? Industry and the labs themselves. Industry do not like testing animals and labs make more money out of chemistry and consulting work. There is still a fallacy that industry enjoy putting bleach into animals eyes.
'It's interesting that scientists don't rub onions into the eyes of test animals or inject it into the skin or force them to eat it until they die. I wonder why this is if it is a toxic substance?'
Your comment above is disappointingly the weakest in your arguments and perhaps you are under the same illusion about animal testing that many are. We know onions are dangerous, therefore it is illegal to test on animals in Europe. And if it was legal, why spend thousands on testing something known. 'Scientists' do not derive pleasure in animal testing - I have seen technicians in tears when a dog died during testing. This was a study on a potential cancer cure (dogs are not permitted to be used for testing other than in final stages of pharmaceutical research)I have attached part of an article I wrote on the issues of animal testing, soon to be published. It is subject to copyright by the training organisation that commissioned it, so for my sake, I would prefer it was not openly distributed (until published in May). Behind the corporate facade of industry, virtually every 'scientist' worthy of the profession will be working in pursuit of the truth - we are quite nice really.Directly answering your comments on parabens and formaldehyde, the official risk assessments balance the benefit to our way of life (cheap products that do not decay) and the health risk from the chemicals. In these cases, I feel that are many good alternative chemicals and the consumer must be prepared to pay more for their products using less hazardous components - and to know they are less hazardous, we will need extensive and expensive animal testing. Or be prepared to accept products with a shorter shelf-life.Formaldehyde (I have researched it well) kills microbes by causing cellular damage. In certain laboratory studies, this cell damage looks exactly like the damage seen by mutagens and potential carcinogens and at very high dose levels, it can show effects in live animals. At the levels found in cosmetics, the human body can, in theory, metabolise to water and carbon dioxide - however, there is perhaps a risk that not everyone can metabolise in the same way and we need to be aware of certain individuals reacting in different ways. A sensitising response is our immune system kicking in, showing that it has not been quickly metabolised and the body sees it as a foreign object. Personally, I would like to see other preservatives used, even if it cost more.I wish you good luck in your work spreading the truth and as indicated above, we may be closer in our outlook than we think. However, get your animal testing facts right (nothing upsets and polarises industrial chemists more than anti-vivs) and I hope you will agree that the majority (but not all) of pure chemicals synthesised in factories to tight specifications are safe and a large number of poorly understood natural products are probably bad. Neither natural or synthetic chemicals can be bracketed as good or bad.Perhaps we are both working for a sustainable future when the planet can feed everyone, using only natural or synthetic products that are safe - and the majority of the human race, being basically a lazy species, can enjoy a colourful and affluent lifestyle supported by the chemical industry.Best regards,