They're not putting things into the proper context: Sure, these chemicals probably are threats to human well-being, and figuring out how to remove them from our environment is worthwhile. However, the 20th century saw an unprecedented increase in life expectancy and quality of life, two great wars and god knows how many chemicals notwithstanding. I doubt many -- even those inflicted with the abnormalities mentioned in this documentary -- would choose to live in the world before synthetic materials were available, in 1908, say.
Also, it's totally one-sided and they lose a lot of credibility with the sensationalist tone of the piece -- ominous music, tableaux of helpless children next to deadly chemicals, mentions of human extinction... Please.
I doubt many -- even those inflicted with the abnormalities mentioned in this documentary -- would choose to live in the world before synthetic materials were available, in 1908, say.
We could make everything out of straw. Including men.
This isn't a straw man. It was open speculation (I doubt...) on my part. I wasn't attempting to misrepresent their argument, but making the point that the presentation is completely unbalanced. They make vague reference to modern day synthetics being 'convenient'. It would be like denouncing medicine for its side-effects and high cost
while barely alluding to the fact that it saves lives.
Also, it's totally one-sided and they lose a lot of credibility with the sensationalist tone of the piece -- ominous music, tableaux of helpless children next to deadly chemicals, mentions of human extinction... Please.