Now that you have read an overview of the work of Dr. Landrigan and his community health research we will discuss how this pressing and important information is introduced into the public imagination, the role of expertise and lay participants, and introduce you to the politics of knowledge.

The tenor of Landrigan's presentation is reasoned, non partisan and unemotional even as he describes the very disturbing idea that we are collectively poisining our children. When I presented some of the same evidence, was I quite so believable? Stylistic analysis--just like you did in looking at the various robot movies--can be applied to science. So what make Landrigans paper so believable? What are the effective persuasive strategies?

Although Landrigan is a senior figure in this area, he is not alone. Below are some of the readings to further motivate your work to adapt the dogs. I pose the following question as you read through these reports: what sort of society poisons the breast milk of it's mothers? and doses its children with known carcinogens, and with chemicals, pollutants and pesticides with unknown effects?

Last year the second body burden report was released. Most vicerally subtitled "the pollution in newborns". Start at this link: http://www.ewg.org/reports/bodyburden2/part7.php so that you can see the number and type of studies that informs this report.

You do not need to read all of the full detailed report--read some of it, pick a chemical of condition that you have some connection to, and read that. Also read and comment on the following summary sections.
News Release
1: Executive summary
2: Babies are vulnerable to chemical harm
3: Human health problems on the rise
4: Recommendations

comment on the difference in the language between the summative and the more scholarly publication? Do the claims or concerns expressed seem unreasonable. Given that this effects more of us than the war on terror(i.e. all of us have these chemicals in our bodies), the DowJones Industrial or Nasdaq--why didn't you know about this 2nd body burden report, or the one before it? (please correct me if any of you have been exposed to this material, and how)

Are polluted newborn babes not newsworthy? Is the concept that you have over 700 contaminants in your body not interesting to you? What makes the news and how does it get there? What is driving the economy of attention ecconomy? What makes it to your attention and how does it get there? You knew about robotic dog toys didnt you?

http://www.chemicalbodyburden.org/whatisbb.htm
has answers to the following questions:
• What is a body burden?
• Do all humans carry this chemical body burden?
• How did this happen? How have I been exposed?
• What is the evidence for body burden? How long have we known about this problem?
• What are the health effects of this body burden?
• Are there special health effects for children?
• Can the links between body burden and illness be proven?
• How do I find out about my own body burden?
• What does a body burden test tell me about my own health?
• How can I get these chemicals out of my body?
 • Don't government regulations protect my family and me?

Some further questions for you. Do you believe the CDC? Even though it is a govenerment funded organization? Do you trust these studies? What of the 3M published reports? Do you believe them a little less, even though they seem scientific? Why are all the members of the Coming Clean network affiliated with dotorgs (http://www.chemicalbodyburden.org/aboutus.htm )? Would you prefer to ask questions of these people rather than employees of 3M, corporate lobbyists, or journalists? Please explain why.

Now read the recent posting by Jurrasic Park author and E.R. writer, Michael Chrichton http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1521.htm Does he cite similar studies? Does he cite any studies? How does his style differ from D Landrigan's.

In summary, please explain what you would define as standards of evidence? are there high standards, low standards? how do you, can we distinguish between the two?