Dear FRONTLINE, Your program was wonderful. It is so important to show all points of view to help people make rational decisions. I feel that if chemical products are truly necessary and are not a "proven" health risk ... they should be made ... but how many are truly necessary when weighed against possible problems ... very, very few. Even "life-saving" drugs ... my experience is that most cause as many problems as they cure! What was not mentioned in the program was people who are chemically sensitive. This is not just a problem for hypochondriacs and psychotics! Many people are made physically ill by exposure to a wide range of chemicals, one of the worst being herbicides either in spray or granular 2,4-d form. All this to treat that poor little dandelion because someone said they aren't socially acceptable.
port perry, ontario, canada
Dear FRONTLINE, I just finished watching your documentary on endocrine disruption. Up until this evening I had never heard of the term endochrine disruption. What I found alarming is the apparent lack of prudence that the chemical industry is showing. If there were even the remotest possibility that some chemicals can harm the environment (and utilimately humans) why can't industry air on the side of caution (regardless of the issue of money). I know that this is a very naive view, but if my children (and I do not have any yet) were at risk - no amount of money in the world would allow me to contemplate continuing to facilitate production of any potentially damaging chemical. I believe your show will stir some consciousness in the American public, and perhaps invoke some change. Outstanding journalism - Thank you.
herndon, va
Dear FRONTLINE, Endocrine disruption is here and now. Two of my relatives by marriage, ages 35 and 46, had hysterectomies in the past 2 months due to cysts on ovaries and uterus. A fifteen year old girl, a friend, who was poisoned with Dursban at her elementary school in first through fifth grade, now has ovarian cysts. My own daughter has reached puberty at age 9. This is common now and was not 20 years ago. The science which supports the chemical industry is hailed as good science by the Federal Government, which has been bought by the industry. The Food Quality Protection Act is being 'reviewed' by the TRAC committee this summer in Washington to determine how to implement it. The meetings are well attended by industry, but thousands of those injured by pesticides may not attend because they are too ill to travel and their money is eaten up by medical costs. Many, including my own son , have been damaged by the widely used organophosphates. yet there are more in Washington to defend the precious chemicals than the many lives deemed to be 'disposable' by the chemical industry.
Connie Eash
cheshire, ct
Dear FRONTLINE, It seems your show on endocrine disrupters was right on the money. It showed the chemical and pesticide manufactures for what they really are, concerned with profit and will use whatever means available to stay in business. The Chemical Manufacturers Association's want definative proof before they take any action and if a study cannot be repeated the do not consider it good science. Living organisms man included, are biochemically different no 2 people are alike and no to animals respond the same to exposure so how do these scientist expect that we can behave like machines. They cannot conclusively prove that cigarette's cause cancer how many bodies have to pile up before industry stops what they are doing? When will they stop producing they chemicals? How much profit do they need to make on the sperm of men? Many thanks to all the hard working women and men would have couragously given thier time and lives to educate us on this important issue.
Robert Spiegel
edison, new jersey
| 
