A long but very shallow article. - interviewed authors of paper that used the phrase, "silent pandemic" when claiming widespread behavioural and cognitive problems as a result of 12 compounds. Evidence presented in the article itself? "Rates of diagnosis of [autism] and ADHD are increasing..." [diagnosis is not necessarily preponderance], an increase in "subclinical decrements in brain function" [as measured how?] , and "genetic factors account for no more than 30-40% of brain development disorders" [based on what exactly?] From this thin stuff the authors then get plenty of column space to expound on their opinions. Re: the IQ experiments. If Bellinger's own lead-IQ model is correct [from the linked Environ Health Perspect. Jul 2005; 113(7): 894–89] , a decrease in blood lead concentration from >10 ug/kg [1970's] to 1.8 ug/kg [2009] should have resulted in 3 point increase in IQ scores. Where's any discussion of this? - FMRI reveals effects of methyl mercury in 3 [?] adolescents. How can you possibly determine loss of IQ points due to methyl mercury exposure on this set while controlling for other factors? Talk about small sample size. -The article asks, "Impressive as all this research investment is, the larger question remains: Why are we looking at these hazards now—instead of before we introduced these chemicals into the world?" 80k chemicals mentioned as being on "the market" although what this means isn't specified. "It would cost $5 million and 5 years per chemical to run the full battery of tests" according to quoted researcher. 400 billion dollars if done on the full set. 1) Who pays? 2) Why would any chemical company have a research presence in the USA if their product had a several year lead time for rollout due to testing requirements?