Saturday 5 March 2011

Something For The Weekend, Sir?

It seems that our economy is shrinking, our military capability is shrinking, our universities are shrinking, our politicians shrinking in stature and ability and as the sea erodes the land the whole United Kingdom is shrinking.

There are a lot of other things that do but there is one that might be less welcome, especially to our males.

A contact has posted this on a blog:


Perfumed children

Developing brains and bodies are especially vulnerable. Numerous perfume chemicals readily cross the placental barrier, so children are being exposed even before they are born. Breast milk is another source of exposure.

Women’s urine levels of phthalates, chemicals commonly used in perfume mixtures including laundry perfumes, have been linked with genital abnormalities in their infant sons. These include undersized penises and scrotums and undescended testicles (Swan et al., 2005).

It has been found that children’s exposure to polluting volatile organic compounds (VOCs) can be greater indoors than outside (Adgate et al., 2004). Common sources include household cleaners, room deodorisers, toilet bowl blocks, moth repellents and perfumes.

There is evidence that household chemicals are contributing to the increase in childhood asthma (Sherriff, 2004).

Research reported in 2003 found that infants suffered more frequent diarrhoea and earache in households where there was heavier use of air ‘fresheners’, and more frequent diarrhoea and vomiting where there was more use of aerosols (Farrow et al., 2003).

The public has been persuaded by commercial interests to fill their homes with pollutants which may be harmful as those from vehicle exhaust. Indeed, at least one of the chemicals studied for this article is also found in diesel exhaust, perhaps not surprising in light of the fact that the vast majority are made from petrochemicals.

Vast numbers of children are growing up in a toxic chemical fog, inside homes, schools and even doctors’ surgeries and hospitals places where people are supposed to be healed, not harmed.


But this is where it gets even more interesting from links supplied by the contact. Nervous males should look away now. The first link is the BBC take on the research in question and the second a link to the scientific paper.

But this is not all. The paper refers to largely adult males over a long period. But in the last handful of years the scenario has become a whole lot worse.

Nanotechnology can be a wonderful tool in many fields, medicine, engineering and others. But when consumer products companies now routinely use it in a wide range of their brands in complex synthetic chemicals to get more bang for the buck and this is largely unchecked and untested what is going to happen?

Few people are aware of the strength and impact on the body of the new formulations of the great majority of the major brands yet it is now all about us and because of the technology it is impossible to either wash away or shift.

And it gets to the parts other things do not reach.

Who needs Sweeney Todd when you have Unilever?


  1. Oh, puhleeze!

    Every single malady you describe can be laid at the feet of those smoking bastards!!!

    Until smoking bans arrived, there was asthma. There was retardation. There were embolisms. There were diseases galore!!

    Smoker bans stopped all that!

    I don't expect you to believe in linear tracking but when smokers were allowed to erm, smoke, there were three million asthmatics in the UK. Once we eradicated the filthy scum whorebag bastards, there were only 5.1 million asthma suffererererers.

    Don't be bringing your bullshit science to the table! Discrimination counts! Indoctrination counts! Biased studies count!

    VOC's is code for second hand smoke!

    Beyond those indisputable facts, I have nowt to say.


  2. The chemicals in question are about as related to old fashioned ciggies as is the latest space rocket to Stephenson's "Rocket". The post is not about tobacco. It is about something that is a lot nastier and far more dangerous. There is enough hard stuff out there about all this which is wholly unrelated to the debate about tobacco.

  3. I know, I know! Sorry. I was being sarky.

    Should have made it clearer. Now I read my comment again it looks like it was written by a madman.