Do Environmental Hormone Mimics Pose a Potentially Serious Health Threat? Essay

Chemicals affecting kind-hearted health guard been a problem for the past years and have still been a growing problem for our society. Issue 10 is concerned ab turn out this problem. It is pointing out the major harms and the reasons for this problem. low, it is talking about the short letter that is against these chemicals. After this, an parametric quantity that says these particular proposition chemicals do not necessarily have an affect in humankind health is discussed. What I re aloney find distrusting is the numbers and the facts given in each argument were different.First argument gives examples and facts from experiments. The exponential growth in the industrial use and marketing of synthetic chemicals (xenobiotics) have been affecting human health greatly. Their do were seen far from their introduction sites and their harm was great (Pg184, foremost paragraph). Scientists also have postulated a relationship between these chemicals (endocrine disassembleors) and abno rmalities and diseases in piece ( knave 186, 1st paragraph). Even though their argument seems ground on commonsense (chemicals interrupt human systems), they do not seem to rely on scientific data very much they seem to gather data based on their conclusion whereas they should draw a conclusion based on their data. For example they are giving examples of animals such as mice, mollusks, river fish, alligators, and any(prenominal) bird species and talk about how some chemicals affect their natural systems.However, humanity and animals are not exactly the same and they are still shot about the chemicals effects (pg190). Sheldon Krimsky is even accepting the fact about dubiety A single chemical can have multiple effects on an organism that act through several mechanisms, not all of which involve hormone receptors(pg189, 3rd paragraph). Complexity is another factor making this argument weak. Three reasons are given to support that it is hard to construct a link between breast can cer and these chemicals in page 191, 5th paragraph. The argument also talks about policies and programs regarding these chemicals. Even though they have drawbacks the argument seems to fully support the new regulatory approach. exploitation the drawbacks of the first argument, irresolution and complexity, the twinkling argument proposes a powerful argument. First the argument gives four reasons why we cannot directly relate chemicals and human abnormalities. opposite then these specific reasons, the second argument talks about uncertainty and complexity of the procedures of detecting the effects, and using this as a strong weapon. The drumhead par they provide is an effective tool that we have not seen in any issue before and helps the reader to gather all the reading and sub-arguments into a single argument. Nevertheless, the second argument accepts the fact that some of the chemicals disrupt the human systems however, it is too hard to get rod of them since they are an centr al part of our lives (pg199, 2nd paragraph).All in all, I found the second argument more powerful. However, if prepared correctly and more efficiently, the first argument would have been much more persuasive. Lastly, I believe the second argument would be perfect if it provided a solution to the case instead of proverb it is too hard to deal with.