I have written an article on the dangers of labeling children with particular regard to behavioral problems that are being referred to as mental health disorders such as ADD. The article prompted some controversy and so I am writing this article to merely present supporting data which demonstrates that WE are responsible for many of the illnesses' not just behavioural ones which our children are today suffering from.
When we diagnose a condition and apply a familiar label to it, society has a tendancy to accept it as 'one of those things' and then works towards treating the symptoms. What we need to do though is work towards eradicating the cause.
Never considering the cause removes responsibility from parents and society and allows them to deny they are harming their own children. What we need to do is be more pro-active and take steps to prevent it from happenning. This problem will get worse and not only affect your own children but your granchildren's children - if they are not all infertile by then!
We are poisoning our children via pollution, electrical exposure,chemical use and poor diet, which includes additives that are unsafe.
We did not grow up in this environment ourselves, our world was not as polluted as it is today with electricity, chemicals, toxins, gases, dietary changes etc. The huge increase in childhood ailments and allergies and even deaths can largely be related back to the fact 'we are poisoning our children'.
Will they thank us for it?
There are vast bodies of evidence that inform about these problems, a quick Google on ' are we poisoning our children?' will reveal pages and pages of data and evidence and also articles asking WHY the government is not doing anything about it, when they KNOW what they are doing.
Below for your convenience are some of these site links with important quotes taken from them:
http://www.ewire.com/display.cfm/Wire_ID/2787
"The dread we all feel about increasing numbers of cancer, asthma, learning disabilities, and birth defects has triggered a movement for proactive health measures. Because of their constantly developing physiology, children and adolescents are especially vulnerable to the damage of chemical exposures.
Aside from disrupting the immune and reproductive systems, kids can be impacted neurologically- ironically harming their ability to learn in the institution they are sent to be educated. The fact that threshold levels of pesticide exposure and health studies are currently based solely on an adult male of approximately 160 pounds underscores that children are counting on adults to protect them. So far, we are failing."
http://www.rmbarry.com/books/lets_booklet.html
"Many scientists and doctors are discovering that there is a connection between our increased use of household chemicals and the increased incidence of chronic illnesses in children like cancer, asthma, ADD, birth defects, and a host of other problems."
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/...enn/index.html
"Every year, U.S. industry releases about 24 billion pounds of toxic substances that are believed to cause developmental and neurological problems in children.
That amount could fill a string of railroad cars stretching from New York City to Albuquerque, New Mexico, and yet there are no emissions standards for these harmful chemicals.
This alarming finding is one of many in Polluting Our Future: Chemical Emissions in the U.S. that Affect Child Development and Learning, a joint report released Thursday by the National Environmental Trust, Physicians for Social Responsibility and the Learning Disabilities Association. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...12/njunk12.xml
A sinister cocktail of junk food, marketing, over-competitive schooling and electronic entertainment is poisoning childhood, a powerful lobby of academics and children's experts says today.
In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, 110 teachers, psychologists, children's authors and other experts call on the Government to act to prevent the death of childhood.
They write: "We are deeply concerned at the escalating incidence of childhood depression and children's behavioural and developmental conditions."
http://www.precaution.org/lib/06/prn...ren.060727.htm
“But if history is any guide, the permanent government is NOT moved by mere facts or mere multi-billion-dollar savings offered by pollution prevention. For some reason (which each of us can decide for himself or herself), the permanent government calculates that someone or something important is better-off when large numbers of children are poisoned each year, even at considerable cost to GDP.
If this is the case, then campaigns built around "more information" and "more effective messaging" -- without intentionally building the infrastructure to support and sustain a grass-roots movement for change -- are likely to have quite limited success, are they not?"
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/foodm...851280,00.html