Article inadequate in current form
I would suggest that this page is rather inadequate at the moment, particularly in terms of a lack of examples. I will attempt to add some relevant content over the coming weeks.Jimjamjak (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Toxins All around Us; Exposure to the chemicals in everyday objects poses a hidden health threat by Patricia Hunt Scientific American September 30, 2011
This isn’t just a lab experiment: we have lived it. Many of us born in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s were exposed in utero to diethylstilbestrol, or DES, a synthetic estrogen prescribed to pregnant women in a mistaken attempt to prevent miscarriage. An article in the June issue of the New England Journal of Medicine called the lessons learned about the effects of fetal human exposures to DES on adult disease “powerful.”
In the U.S., two federal agencies, the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, are responsible for banning dangerous chemicals and making sure that chemicals in our food and drugs have been thoroughly tested. Scientists and clinicians across diverse disciplines are concerned that the efforts of the EPA and the FDA are insufficient in the face of the complex cocktail of chemicals in our environment. Updating a proposal from last year, Senator Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey introduced legislation this year to create the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011. If enacted, chemical companies would be required to demonstrate the safety of their products before marketing them. This is perfectly logical, but it calls for a suitable screening-and-testing program for endocrine-disrupting chemicals. The need for such tests has been recognized for more than a decade, but no one has yet devised a sound testing protocol.
- I fail to see the point that is being made by posting this excerpt here. Can you expand on what this has to do with the article. It is clear that environmental epidemiology has a role to play in risk assessment of chemical exposures, but it also has many other roles to play (as described in the somewhat brief article as it stands). Please note that Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum and are not for discussing around a general subject.Jimjamjak (talk) 09:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
The article currently describes exposures considered in environmental epidemiology as "involuntary and thus generally exclude occupational exposures and voluntary exposures such as active smoking, medications, and diet." I would argue that this is not true by any means - a brief review of the structures of several important enviromental epidemiology departments in universities around the world demonstrates that environmental epidemiology may take into account both "voluntary" and "involuntary" exposures, and I would also suggest that this definition is somewhat blurred and, potentially, irrelevant. In many core texts on epidemiology, for example, an environmental exposure is generally considered to be any non-genetic exposure.Jimjamjak (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)