I was irked to have my position on perchlorate contamination
interpreted as
”
a billion is a big number… there’s nothing to worry about.
”
(Lisa Pampuch, March 25) Then I thought, perhaps I am being too
trusting of the EPA and the NAS. Perhaps they did pull the 24.5 ppb
level out of thin air.
I was irked to have my position on perchlorate contamination interpreted as “a billion is a big number… there’s nothing to worry about.” (Lisa Pampuch, March 25) Then I thought, perhaps I am being too trusting of the EPA and the NAS. Perhaps they did pull the 24.5 ppb level out of thin air.
So I read the summary of NAS’s “Health Implications of Perchlorate Ingestion.” Thankfully, it seems they based their conclusion on science, not air.
They reviewed all available scientific studies, including studies of people, including pregnant women, who were given perchlorate medicinally, 400 to 2,000 mg per day.
They reviewed numerous ecologic studies, and found that the available epidemiological evidence shows no increase in congenital hypothyroidism, no change in thyroid function in newborns whose mothers consumed 120 ppb during pregnancy, no adverse neurological developmental outcomes in newborns, and no hypothyroidism or thyroid cancer in adults.
They then picked a safe level and then applied an uncertainty factor of 10, i.e., they picked a safe number and divided it by 10, and adopted that as their standard. They also suggested more research, and iodide supplements added to prenatal vitamins, and stated that they will adjust the standard as further research dictates.
So, to clarify, though with no hope that I will not be further mischaracterized: I believe that Olin spilled perchlorate accidentally, that they are being responsible in cleaning it up, that the EPA and NAS are competent to decide what a safe level is, and have in fact done so to the best of our current knowledge.
I could be wrong, but that is what I believe, based on my current research.
On a surprisingly well-related topic, I believe that Mr. Dennis Taylor is in earnest when he says he is not attempting to use Jesus as a stick with which to beat up Christians, particularly me.
However, I am irked when my synopsis “God created the earth; He cares for each sparrow, but says that human beings are more important than many sparrows, and human souls are more important than human bodies,” is rendered by Mr. Taylor as: “sparrows be damned… the human body is worthless… an ideology that pits us against the lower forms of life.”
Let me try an analogy, Mr. Taylor. I love my husband more than I do my dog, and my dog more than the milkweed I have planted against the back fence. Understand, I cherish that milkweed, and hope to raise many monarch caterpillars on it. But my husband is of more value than many milkweeds.
Next point: I am relieved that Mr. Taylor considers it “worse” to be dubbed a nonbeliever. But let us define our terms.
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, and of all things visible and invisible, who for our sins and salvation, came down to Earth and was made man. He was crucified, died, and was buried.
But on the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into Heaven. From thence He shall come in glory to judge the quick and the dead.
The earliest people who ascribed to this set of beliefs were called followers of the way. Later they were called Christians. For some reason beyond my comprehension, there are people who don’t believe that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God, yet who object to being called non-Christians. So I call people who do believe in the Creed believers.
Your writings to date, Mr. Taylor, would suggest that you are, per that definition, a non-believer. Non-believer is intended as a descriptive term, not an insult.
It is to your credit that you admire Jesus and hope to “agree about the spirit of Christ.” However, the moment you dismiss “the Bible [as] … a collection of human interpretations of the song of the wind,” you have only your own imagination to draw upon in your search for God.
Thus, you think that Jesus is nice; you think the environment is nice, therefore you “believe Christ nurtured a symbiotic relationship” with nature. Instead of following Jesus, you are recreating Him in your own image. I prefer to research to most original sources available.
