Posted on 07/15/2005 2:06:25 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
Don't forget the high concentration of dihydrogen monoxide, a potentially deadly chemical compound, in amniotic fluid.
"Blood tests did not show how the chemicals got into the mothers' bodies."
The control group of women hermetically sealed in lucite and who were given neither food nor water showed markedly lower levels of these chemicals. A substantially shorter lifespan was also noted.
Apparently, you were wrong. We ARE all gonna die!!!
These liberals are in an endless search for new ways that the government can take away all of our cares , all of our worries and all of our rights and leave them in the hands of people like Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton.
Hey, it killed the wicked witch.
Aw geez!
This guy Bush is at it again! When will he stop doing damage to the environment? Pretty soon they're going to find ANWR swamp moss in fetal blood!
It's all Bush's fault!
This reads like one of those cheap tabloids. I think the title is a sure grabber. NOthing else in the article is.
Would they be called "unborn babies" if the article topic was abortion?
My question also. Sounds like more scare tactics to me.
ping
A biochemist friend warned me many years ago that our ability to detect chemical substances was improving by an order of magnitude every three years. The environmental movement has long since turned this increasingly sensitive testing into a weapon of war. The cheat is, they don't tell you that the amounts discovered are infinitesimal.
------
Which is the reason they are finding these things. Before they were undetectable. The real question is what is the tolerance level and how long are they there?
When a mother smokes, takes drugs, or drinks there is a much greater concentration of problematic chemicals than those in the article.
This is Reuters, not the AP. Their agenda is much less pronounced. By European standards they are extremely neutral. Moreover, these are probably samples of babies that were brought to term. I think you and the others who are reading an abortion agenda into this story are off-base. This is an environmental story through and through.
More alarmist bleating from a rigged experiment. Note that nowhere are the CONCENTRATIONS of the chemicals given. Given the extremely high sensitivity of today's analytical techniques, one can find any chemical or element that they wish in almost anything "environmental". The fact that these species are present at the part-per-trillion level and below is just sort of "ignored".
I'm surprised the abortion proponents haven't said yet "see, we need more abortions!"
Interesting that they actually use the word babies regarding this issue. I'll bet NARAL and NOW start screaming in protest soon.
Hmmmmmm. Maybe the folks pushing this very small sample of data have an agenda, like fetal tissue stem cell research, or maybe nice, clean human cloning.
Cord blood has shown great promise, but they don't get to kill anything.
Stupid article. No measure of how much of what chemicals were found. Nor was a benchmark mentioned for comparison. These chemicals are probably in such infinitesimal amounts as to be considered less than neglidgable. We are what is and you are what you eat. Ashes to ashes and all that.
"Unborn U.S. babies are soaking in a stew of chemicals, including mercury, gasoline byproducts and pesticides, according to a report to be released Thursday."
What a piece of garbage. Every hack involved with this kind of journalism ought to be canned. Oops! I forgot that IS the standard and state of journalism today. My bad. I'll be quiet now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.