The Greening of Autism
June 14, 2008 by Kristina Chew, PhD
Filed under Health
Speculation is rife about the environment, pollution, chemicals, etc., etc., etc., and the risk of autism—but could it all just be the effect of too much green noise (greening even the vaccines)?
A mindless trend is a mindless trend, even if the intention is good. Especially if it’s good…because then it’s easy, a sort of knee-jerk response. We should try to exhaust “greening” by taking it as far as it can possibly go. I’m not sure what that would look like. Greening the environment? Envorinmentalizing individual atoms? Enviro-greenifying the space/time continuum?
Strangely enough, I just blogged an aspect of this a couple of days ago, how my will to live “green” sometimes conflicts with what I know is best for my children, now, not later. I realize they have to deal with the later, too, but they’re never going to be 2 or 5 or 7 years old again. I can’t live in a hut in a sustainable-living commune and do what’s best for my children at the same time. We do what we can, but big changes have to come from the people who do the big things: make the cars, resource the water, engineer energy sources, build structures.
I just read a PR news wire release with the following headlie:
Russ Allen Reports Link Found Between Electrical Pollution and Autism in Children
O. M. G.
THAT was hilarious.
Well, a month ago, another Russ Allen PR release:
“…Could the performance of the Green Bay Packers in the 2008 Super Bowl be linked to health issues caused by stray electrical pollution?
That question is on the mind of Russ Allen, a Wisconsin native and author of the new book Electrocution of America: Is Your Utility Company Out to Kill You? …”
(From what I can tell, that question is ALWAYS on the mind of Mr. Allen.)
Perhaps he might consider the effect of packed meat products on the Packers’ performance?
Wi-fi, cell phones, iPods, TV, you name it—–though if it weren’t for some of those, many would never have heard about those theories and “links” to autism.
The unfortunate thing is that because of where/how I was brought up (that whole Age of Aquarius thing), and my professional interests, I actually appreciate the idea of recycle/reduce/reuse, preservation of the watershed, small carbon footprint, etc.
But this “green” thing on occasion strikes me as a little disingenuous and faddish, partially because there seem to be alot of things marketed in order to “be green”, and to really do it top down/bottom up, there might need to be a substantial alteration of how we do things in a society that likes “stuff”. Simplifying is not as simple as it sounds; a classic irony is the fat monthly magazine Real Simple.
(I’ve also known folks who start out with good intentions and lapse into a kind of competitive self-righteousness that if carried out too far turns into kind of a paranoia. That could be one reason for anti-green backlash.)
Spent the day in Berkeley so my green-radar is quite finely honed…….
There’s a lot in this world that requires ‘greening’ (might I even suggest particularly in the US?) but vaccines isn’t one of them. Indeed, I have no idea what could be ‘greened’ in a vaccine.
More public transportation here in the US would be one thing and fewer overly large SUVs.
Amen, Kristina. Whenever they talk about addressing gridlock around here, it seems as though the words “public transportation” never enter anyone’s pretty little heads.
Just something in the news today that might be signalling “green” fatigue. Somehow it seemed on-point.
“…Lake Superior State University’s annual List of Words to Be Banished from the Queen’s English for Mis-use, Over-use and General Uselessness. The 34th version of the list was released Tuesday…
the most entries came from the environmental category — for “green” or “going green.”
“If I see one more corporation declare itself ‘green,’ I’m going to start burning tires in my backyard,” wrote Ed Hardiman of Bristow, Va., in his submission…
@Regan, what would Kermit say!