Read "Our Stolen Future" by Theo Colburn, Dianne Dumanoski, and John Peterson Myers. Prepublication announcements of this book equated it to a second "Silent Spring."  It is certainly true that this work has substantial parallels with the 1962 work of Rachel Carson, but there are also some considerable differences both in the content and the time period in which it is published.  After reading the book, write a 6-10 page paper (not including citations) based on reflections about this work. You may wish to consider some of the questions below or choose one topic upon which to focus.  You may also create your own topic as well.  Remember to develop your ideas to their fullest.
 

Topic #1

Historically, the United States government and many private sector organizations used cancer as the principle outcome by which to judge the potential human health impacts of chemical exposure.  Carcinogenic chemicals were to be avoided at all possible costs.  The authors state that this prior perspective is now unacceptable?  Do you agree with the authors?  Why or why not?  What does the United States government currently use to assess potential human health impacts of chemical exposure?
 

Topic #2
The issue of what constitutes chemical exposure has been debated for a long time.  Historically, most scientists would say that single, infrequent, high doses of chemicals are the only types of exposure that should concern public health.  The authors attempt to create and support an entirely different perspective.  Not only is the dose an issue, but the length of low dosage exposure may pose greater potential for harming human health that short term, high dose exposures.  Do you agree with the authors?  Why or why not?  Can you find other examples to support your position?
 

Topic #3
In Chapter 12, the authors make recommendations about how the general public can protect itself from endocrine/hormone disrupting chemicals.  Do you agree with all the authors' recommendations?  With some?  With none?  Is this simply unnecessary hype?  Articulate and defend your position on the recommendations.
 

Topic #4
You might react in many ways to this book.  Some might say, "Reading this book really freaked me out." While others would state, "The authors are only interested in creating chaos.  None of this is true."   Describe your own personal reactions to and investigations into the wealth of information, stories, and recommendations the authors made.   What information from other sources have you found to corroborate or refute what the authors presented?
 
 

Questions to stir your thoughts

• What is it about the endocrine/hormone system that makes it important to study with respect to environmental exposures to natural and synthetic chemicals?
• What roles do chemicals play in the scheme of life?  How do you use chemicals on a daily basis?  What affects might they (or do they) have on your health and well-being.
• The authors talked a fair amount about different types of chemical exposure and dosage.  What position does the EPA or Department of Health and Human Services take regarding exposure to persistent organic pollutants?
• In Chapter 6 the authors create a fictional story about a PCB-153 molecule and how it travels through the environment.  Is there a PCB-153 molecule?  How much of the story seems possible?  How much do you think is probable?  Can you find evidence to support your position?
• What other chemicals, besides estrogens, are potentially harmful to human (and animal health)?  Why?
• What is the difference between synthetic and natural chemicals from the authors' view?  Do you believe that this is a commonly held perception in the general public?  Why or Why not?  Is it an appropriate position to take?  Why or why not?
• How can the wealth of non-human data that the authors present indicate a potential (or real) human health issue?  Has there been other evidence to show that this approach is realistic?

Disclaimer