Julian, having seen your previous contribution to OLO on global warming, I am inclined not to take anything you say seriously.

To assist me assess this effort, would you let us know whether you have varied your research sources, or still rely on the usual: WWF, Greenpeace, The Lancet and Wikipedia

"Testing shows that almost every individual is now a walking contaminated site."

We're done like a dog's dinner. No doubt about that. No where is safe from systems thinking. If x, then also a,b,c,d and e. Or if x then A squared, B squared, C squared, etc. Bollocks.

Chemical poisoning is a new one. I'll add it it rising sea levels, over population, starvation, polar bear deaths, extermination by asteroid, plague and scorpions rising up out of the earth.

Even so, a very well written piece of propaganda. Nice internal consistency.

Very important empowering information, we all need to know; and far too important to be used as a "simplistic" platform to push a patently political wheelbarrow!
And no its not simple ateday.
As EJ asks, what do you propose doing about "too many" people?
Come on, don't be shy, you must have some practical suggestions?
Ethnic cleansing, interment camps and gas ovens perhaps? Yawol?
Or should we just stop all food aid and let all those starving millions just die?
Well, even if we could find within us that extreme level of extraordinary calloused indifference!?
The starving will not simply disappear meekly into the night, but before they go, will forage for/rip out absolutely everything that can be eaten or burnt, grub, seed, root or twig!
[Boiled grass anyone, generously sprinkled with a scrumptious serving of ground dried grasshopper and peppery flies?] "?" [ Well, they came with the grass.]
Leaving behind lunar landscapes, that can only ever add to the growing lists of planet earth's permanent deserts!
Or are you yet another of those hollow, empty, echoing vessels that make the most sound, with no useful, practical or pragmatic ideas to actually contribute?
This is one of those conundrums we will have no other choice but to apply trade sanctions to resolve, so that we are singing from the same song sheet!
Like we did when we got the Chinese to take the poisonous lead products out of our children's' toys!
Nor can we continue to allow our waste, replete with a whole host of chemicals and hormones, to be continue to be flushed into our oceans, at the start of the food chain; and or, into the very lungs of the planet!
Rhrosty

When this article is read in conjunction with the one by Nick Rose about Eisenstein's book, it shows clearly what a mess we humans have made of our world all in the name of greed and profit.

Is there an outcry? Of course not. The pigs are at the trough and nothing will deter them from gutsing down their share and that of someone else if they can.

Some of the comments on this thread show clearly that many humans also have a death wish and really don't care what is being done to them in the name of profit.

The sooner humans become extinct, the better!

And again the key is to adapt.
"Silent Spring" was probably where I first became aware of the global reach of chemical pollution. It was a long time ago, but didn't that book talk about DDT being found in the polar regions and in the animals living there.
The law of unintended consequences - DDT was a major boon in the early attempts to eradicate malaria. And then it went everywhere. But, and there's no getting around this, we're still here, walking toxic chemical repositories as may be.
We do adapt. Perhaps now it's time to adapt our thinking, to find a way out of our dependence on hydrocarbon-generated power and its offshoot, the petrochemical industry, and take another look at thorium.

The article mentions a couple of chemicals by name, nitrogen and phosphorus.
Nitrogen is nearly 80% of the atmosphere we breath and phosphorus is reasonably common being found in iron ore for example. It is also a principal ingredient in super-phosphate fertilizer where the source is the bird crap of past eras accumulated in remote areas. I wonder where the birds obtained their diet supplies.

Even the carbon in coal has been accumulated by the vegetation of an era some 300 million years ago from the atmosphere of that era. My complaint is that we are using it at a rate that will see none left for the essential needs of our grand children's great grand children.
Peter Lang makes sense about nuclear power. It is far safer for everyone than the coal fired industry particularly if based on Thorium. A coal fired power station (such as Bayswater or Eraring in NSW, each 2660MW) releases about 6 tonnes of Uranium into the atmosphere each year. That would scare most people but remember the bulk (over 99.7%)of that is U238 with a half life of a 4.468 billion years so it decays far slower than some of the carbon in your body.

One recent technical talk on the subject suggested that 100MW Thorium based power plants could be mass produced at about the same rate as the Boeing production line produces aircraft and every backward area in the world could have the necessary number. Waste from these plants is not the problem common with the Uranium route.

Enough Thorium is available for at least 2000 generations. I am expecting a DVD on the subject shortly.