MIT’s Undark magazine describes itself as a publication that “will explore science … as a frequently wondrous, sometimes contentious, and occasionally troubling byproduct of human culture.” Its name refers to a “radium-based industrial and consumer product … that was both awe-inspiring and, as scientists would only later prove, toxic and deadly.” In a recent article for the magazine, Michael Schulson offers a tendentious account of what is known about exposure to toxic substances in the environment, and then places his review in the context of the Trump administration’s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) agenda.

Last July, Schulson contacted me and asked for my perspective on “the growing public attention to some parts of the environmental epidemiology and toxicology research fields—visible in the claims of the MAHA movement, as well as efforts like a new children’s health initiative led by Philip Landrigan, Linda Birnbaum, and others.” In a series of emails, I provided some thoughts on important issues to consider when reading about this topic. I mentioned “endocrine disruption” as a good example of the challenges associated with assessing low-level environmental exposures. And I pointed him to a chapter in my book Getting Risk Right: Understanding the Science of Elusive Health Risks that gives a detailed treatment of this question. I also offered to suggest further articles that might address the issues that interested him.

Here is an excerpt from an email I sent...

Read Full Story: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMitAJBVV95cUxOYUJyalBKOUlwSmdTYi0xS1Yx...