kimmsr, "studies indicate".
I dread the phase.
Just this morning, I was hearing on the radio about the relationship between doctors and drug marketers through 'studies'.
Money and speaking engagements are among the benefits doctors get if the conclusions of their 'studies' favor the use of the particular drug.
Earlier I was listening to the TV and there was a pitch for a drug against diabetes.
It seemed that the time spent on warning about side effects was about 4 times that spent on the benefits.
Long ago and far away I was involved with laying out field experiments to decide the benefits of this fertilizer or that weedkiller. The conditions were rigorous from design to statistical analysis.
And all of it was to exclude human bias or chance.
Skepticism in this regard has served me well in that I have discarded a lot of reading matter that would be quite side-tracking.
"There is no safe chemical; only safe ways of using chemicals."
"All chemicals have side effects."
Two maxims I learned early; and which I have tried to follow assiduouly.

well thank God .. back in the 50's and 60's .. they sprayed entire cities with those new fangled aeroplanes... lol .. we never used to complain about sqeeters ... but sometimes that 6th toe tripped us playing baseball in the sand lot ...

ken

I would think that just hearing that exposure to pesticides could reduce a childs IQ would be enough to cause a serious look instead of a tote of skepticism, That sounds too much the manufacturers of lead back in the early 1900's when studies indicated that lead was responsible for lowering the IQs of children.

Kimmsr, do not be put off your further research on this topic. I, too, have seen various articles and choose to use pesticides with extreme caution.

I began looking into this issue in 1981 and attended many a conference, including some intended for healthcare professionals on recognizing and managing pesticide poisoning. It was truly eye-opening.

The effects of a chemical (organic or synthetic) may be very different in an adult organism than in a developing one, and the effects of exposure to multiple substances is subject to so many variables as to be nearly impossible to ascertain.

If you haven't already done so, read up on the history, classes and mode of action of chemical pesticides; most are nerve agents. Some are more persistent than others.

Thank you for picking up on the article and sharing; we all need to be more aware.

And it's not just the pesticides. We need to be aware of the hazardous chemicals in a myriad of common household products. When one considers the chemical assaults all of us face 24/7, I'm not surprised at the enormous increases of certain conditions.

These chemicals, found in pesticides, detergents, soaps and shampoos, fragrances, carpeting and other flooring, new furniture and mattresses, paint, etc., continually bombard our nervous and endochrin systems, plus our skin, lungs, liver, kidneys, and other organs.

For many years I have seen research from the
University of Florida and the University of California that showed that the children of migrant farm workers had many health problems that were connected to their exposure to pesticides, but no one cared because they were migrants. Now studies indicate low income and minority children are being affected, just as they were with lead paint particles, and it again appears that no one really cares because these are low income and minority children.
Where are children under the age of 5 going to be most likely exposed to pesticides? In the homes they live in.

Here is a link that might be useful: pesticides and IQ