Not only till 14 - until the late 70ies there was a LOT of shit going around and even through the 80ies.
But: I remember reading some studies that there might be a link to (even subacute) blast concussion and frontal lobe dementia as well as prolonged exposure to certain stress hormones.
I am unable to find where I read it, though.
Nevertheless you might be in the clear. Or get it from our own world of toxins(PFAS,certain nanoparticles)we don’t understand fully so far. Or don’t get it.
And depending on your age there might be a drug available by then to slow progress down massively.(There are a few very good concepts in animal trials atm, if we are lucky we might have something available in 15 years).
I meant he was breathing in whatever was being pulverized into dust by the bombings in London from ages 7-14.
He was not, however, a smoker. Quite anti-smoking, in fact. Wouldn’t even smoke weed- when he came to visit me in L.A. many years later, he was happy to try edibles, but refused to smoke a joint.
And yes, it was a lot of fun to get high with my dad when he was in his 70s.
Yeah,I absolutely got that, but simply wanted to point out that whatever he might have breathed in then could not been “much worse” in the grand scheme of things back then.
And, by today’s terms everyone was a smoker back then - public smoking was so omnipresent back then (and cigarettes much more harmful - I just say asbestos filter) while todays smokers are exposed to less toxins, that even non-smokers would be considered low intensity smokers today in terms of toxins.
Crazy, I know, but on the other hand I had 3 weeks of smokers cough as a child after flying Bangkok to Zurich as a child - in the row closest to the smokers section.(Thanks Swissair)
Not only till 14 - until the late 70ies there was a LOT of shit going around and even through the 80ies.
But: I remember reading some studies that there might be a link to (even subacute) blast concussion and frontal lobe dementia as well as prolonged exposure to certain stress hormones.
I am unable to find where I read it, though.
Nevertheless you might be in the clear. Or get it from our own world of toxins(PFAS,certain nanoparticles)we don’t understand fully so far. Or don’t get it. And depending on your age there might be a drug available by then to slow progress down massively.(There are a few very good concepts in animal trials atm, if we are lucky we might have something available in 15 years).
I meant he was breathing in whatever was being pulverized into dust by the bombings in London from ages 7-14.
He was not, however, a smoker. Quite anti-smoking, in fact. Wouldn’t even smoke weed- when he came to visit me in L.A. many years later, he was happy to try edibles, but refused to smoke a joint.
And yes, it was a lot of fun to get high with my dad when he was in his 70s.
Yeah,I absolutely got that, but simply wanted to point out that whatever he might have breathed in then could not been “much worse” in the grand scheme of things back then.
And, by today’s terms everyone was a smoker back then - public smoking was so omnipresent back then (and cigarettes much more harmful - I just say asbestos filter) while todays smokers are exposed to less toxins, that even non-smokers would be considered low intensity smokers today in terms of toxins. Crazy, I know, but on the other hand I had 3 weeks of smokers cough as a child after flying Bangkok to Zurich as a child - in the row closest to the smokers section.(Thanks Swissair)