Talk:Philip J. Landrigan

2 pesticides banned?

This was in our article:

Two major pesticides were subsequently banned from the residential market.

References

The first source has does have the strange text: "The report called for making pesticide standards ten times more stringent than they had been previously, and two major pesticides were banned from the residential market.". The 2nd source from the NY Times doesn't support this at all. This is an extraordinary claim and it needs stronger sourcing. A source naming the two pesticides and linking their banning to the "Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children" report would be good enough. I looked a bit this morning and didn't find anything. I did find [http://www.ewg.org/research/introduction/national-academy-sciences-found-legal-exposure-pesticides-no-guarantee-safety this], which said that 2 years after the report came out no changes had been made based on the report.... Jytdog (talk) 11:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

2014 Report

@Jytdog undid my entry within ten minutes of my posting it claiming it was coat racking. I suggest he's acting like a watchdog who is ardently trying to disappear scientific and historical fact in order to substantiate his POV:

My Fluoride Entry: Together with Philippe Grandjean, Landrigan co-authored a 2014 paper published in the Lancet on the neurotoxicity of industrial chemicals that includes fluoride as potentially neurotoxic to the developing brains of fetuses, infants and young children. Similarly, the authors identify perfluorinated compounds as highly persistent in the environment and in the human body and likely to impede neurobehavioural development. Both authors urge the creation of an international panel to create a strategy based on mandatory and transparent assessment of evidence for neurotoxicity.

I suggest my fluoride entry is consistent with other sections article citing Landrigan's activism in scientific controversy concerning neurotoxicity, such as:

Under Pesticides: In 1993, the Landrigan Committee released a report, Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children, that was the first to prove that children are uniquely susceptible to adverse effects of pesticides. The report called for standards ten times more stringent than those in effect at publication

Under Asbesto: Landrigan disagreed with the EPA that tiny asbestos particles were too small to be considered dangerous, saying, "It's been substantiated by 30 or 40 years of research that the smaller fibers are the ones that can penetrate most deeply into the lungs."

Edit it a bit, if you want. But Landrigan does oppose ingestion of fluoridation chemicals during brain development as potentially neurotoxic. Consequently, something should be in his bio on that. Seabreezes1 (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

References

My edit had nothing to do with pesticides. Please do read WP:COATRACK. That reference has been discussed endlessly at the main article on fluoride - see here for example. For the actual health claims to be discussed, this needs secondary sources - please see WP:MEDRS. To the extent the information is purely biographical, then popular media could be used to the extent it spurred some fame or the like - but we need to be very careful describing the findings of the lancet paper itself. Jytdog (talk) 03:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Two things: First, the content in the article about Grandjean wasn't making medical claims, just describing what Grandjean and his colleagues were saying/finding in their papers. In particular, the stuff about the 2014 Lancet paper in Grandjean's article was, in my opinion, pretty neutrally worded (although I wrote it, so I'm not a very fair judge of that). Second, in addition to removing stuff about the 2014 Lancet paper ("Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity"), Jytdog also removed a shit-ton of information pertaining to lots of other topics Grandjean has researched, making his edit a textbook example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. [1] Everymorning (talk) 03:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

this is a "shit-ton'? Yes the Lancet paper PMID 24556010 PMC 4418502 discussed a lot of compounds but the actual edit (like almost every edit that cites this paper here in WP - it must be on some fluoride scare site out there - focused solely on the fluoride. Look at the actual edit that was made which I will copy here:

Together with Philippe Grandjean, Landrigan co-authored a 2014 paper published in the Lancet on the neurotoxicity of industrial chemicals that includes fluoride as potentially neurotoxic to the developing brains of fetuses, infants and young children. Similarly, the authors identify perfluorinated compounds as highly persistent in the environment and in the human body and likely to impede neurobehavioural development. Both authors urge the creation of an international panel to create a strategy based on mandatory and transparent assessment of evidence for neurotoxicity.

References

You really want to say that there are not actual claims about reality there? What would be great would be some third party source that discussed the importance of this paper, as i mentioned above. Jytdog (talk) 03:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm talking about the content you removed from Philippe Grandjean (professor), not from this article. I realize it was confusing for me to do so here, but I commented here because your edit removing content from Grandjean's page mentioned this discussion in the edit summary. Everymorning (talk) 03:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah!! Sorry that I missed that. OK, you mean this dif. Let me look again... I self=reverted and then condensed. OK? Jytdog (talk) 04:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

too much like resume (or CV)

• besides the issue[2] discussed above.....have deleted some text which is too much like a CV, (would delete a bit more however will leave that up to others)...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)