We accept many changes have taken place in the modern environment. The study above was conducted in the US and looked at girls of Black American, Latina and White origins. Findings in other countries might introduce additional variants but the make-up and cultural stimuli within US society are broadly generic throughout the “First World, Westernised and Industrialised Societies”.
Since we are sister-societies to the US, we are entitled to express views purely on the basis of observable phenomena in our own Western Societies.
Perhaps some with deeply vested and private agendae will say that, no doubt, the cause is telephone repeater towers located near kindergartens and schools. We know where they are coming from.
The reality is that we are awash with a soup of environmental influences, ranging from noxious gasses emitted by paints and surface coatings, radon gas emitted from granite benchtops in kitchens, propellants in household aerosol cans, commercial electromagnetic, meaning radio and radar transmission, fields and the most ubiquitous of all, the non-ionizing field enmeshed in the very walls of our dwellings, which provide the Alternating Current (AC) which powers each appliance in our homes, including the lighting, heating and accessories.
The individual impact on our total susceptibility to our chemical environment is not possible to identify or measure. This is because each element contributes such an insignificant influence compared to the cumulative array of potential stimuli.
Were someone to contract cancer, for instance, it would be impossible to declare factually whether the determinant was electronic, chemical or senescence, which anyway will ensure death comes eventually to every living thing.
There are specific causes which can be identified and defined as lethal and inimical. Exposure to asbestos fibers can, when ingested and under other circumstances, lead to mesothelioma. On this basis we can seek to eliminate it from our environment as a known contaminant with a measurable and significant impact.
Other elements of our environment may not be inimical or measurably so. Further to that, their impact can be so slight that, while their presence can be measured the effects are indistinguishable from any and all of the vast array of the influences mentioned above.
Staring at close range directly into the transmitting antenna array of a telephone repeater can and will cause cataracts and worse, leading to absolute blindness. The ‘occupational risks’ of people not standing in the plane of the transmission and not deliberately exposing themselves to dangerous levels of non-ionising EM fields, while essentially measurable, can be defined as below ambient levels of natural exposure.
Each creature on the face of this planet is exposed to radiation and chemical stimuli, be that from solar radiation or from plant and mineral dusts and gasses present in the air we breath and the food we eat.
All this for hairy little girls.
There are other stimuli which seem in the article at the link to have been deliberately ignored. This is why we suggested the article itself was disingenuous in the extreme.
Perhaps the author intended that we would read the article and say, “No. It’s not that. It’s this!”
But in the politically correct world of Western Society we know, the race will become extinct before editors will publish the Truth. Why upset people who anyway are only of value in the things they consume?
What do people consume that they do not eat and breath?
Well. In fact. There is an area of life which is as vital as the air we breath and the food we eat.
The Natural and Sociological environment impacts predominantly upon sexuality and sociality among Human Beings.
Oh Wow! What’s a sociological environment?
Well. It starts with our Family and continues with what we Do.
Golly! What if we don’t have a family? What if we aren’t doing anything?
These are good questions and the answers are sociological time bombs.
Without being racist and without caring whether we tread on toes, let’s look again at the demographics in the Article and relate them first to the Family:
Would it be fair to say that, on the whole (and not thinking only of your pet and favourite neighbour who’s case is ‘different’), considering whether families are intact or broken as a matter of Fractionality, Latino households are more likely to be fractional than White in the US and that Black American households are more likely to be fractional than Latino?
We think that is likely to be the case and a study of household income levels would probably toss up a similar statistic. The influence of financial stress upon the Family has been well documented countless times and will be quite well known by the average person. We all know someone who has struggled with financial stress and suffered a family breakdown.
No room for disingenuosity here.
Because sociality is comprised of elements that are keyed together, like a raft, as individual elements become damaged the entire raft becomes less safe and less able to bear the weight or reliance, that is placed on it.
A related study, dealing with girls puberty and breasts, found that statistics indicated a girl in a household comprising her mother and a step-father figure was likely to have larger breasts than a girl living in a viable home with mother and father. We don’t know who thinks up these ‘studies’ but we accept data as relevant within its own sphere.
The point we draw, with a long or short bow, is the connection between sociality in the home and puberty or sexual development.
Home that become fractional or that were never Families in the conventional sense, meaning a husband and wife, loving each other and each child, thus have been found to foster more rapid puberty onset in girls.
So this is one side of the conundrum that we perceive. Destruction of the Family as the binding fabric of society can lead to changes in sexuality and this can be related to an early onset of puberty. All the other social ills associated with juvenile and ‘free’ sexual relationships are also fully documented, including sexually transmitted diseased, unintended pregnancy, family stress and single-parent poverty.
Say you understand nothing of the poverty associated with single parent households.
Sociologist who bother to document and publish the data freely admit the most advantageous start in life for a child is to be part of a stable and conventional Family.
That does not mean that every family is Utopia but we are talking about statistical rates of coping, adaptation and sociality as measurable norms. People are more likely to be stable, educated, good earners and capable parents if they absorbed all that in their own childhood homes.
What else can we be consuming in the home that might contribute to puberty, sexual development and sexuality?
Well for starters, we could address the fact that from the age a child can sit up and see the “Home Entertainment Center”, the TV and the Videos and Games, that child is awash in a foaming broth of sex-based incitement called the entertainment media.
There is a joke (humor alert) about the fact, countries such as England and Australia are familiar with ‘Dinky or Tonka Toys’, while in America young people are brought up on Linkin’ Toys – apologies to Lincoln Toys.
One of the principal outcomes of deluging our infants in sex oriented media is that they do become aware, at a very early age, of their Linking Parts. And knowing a little about what it is they want to see how fast it goes! VROOOM!
So we should be 100% unsurprised that our little one are coming out of the crib with breasts and pubic hair and ‘ready to roll’.
Now we know there are many factors that might influence early puberty onset and we accept some of those might also be purely medical. This does not mean to say though, in an article on the subject, that puberty onset is not likely to be environmentally driven and that it is not the hamburgers or the GE food we consume which is critical but rather the spiritual, moral and ethical garbage we feed our children which is to blame. We felt the article deliberately missed the point.
We felt the author didn’t have the guts.
We are not politically correct.
We say it as we see it.