While I agree with many of the points espoused by the subject of this article, it's a little misleading in ways.

It's unrealistic, when approving a food, medicine or product to set the bar as producing absolutely no harm, ever, because you really cannot prove anything is 100% safe. After all, in overdose or immersion water can kill you.

In discussing extrapolation of rodent studies, I would think that the first consideration is how similar the test dose is to the usual human dose. Sometimes the harmful dose is huge compared with the human dose (accounting for size, of course).

When looking at human populations in epidemiological studies, one has to bear in mind that certain factors cluster together. For instance, people who drink diet soda may also smoke or drink more as a population, which could explain some of the increases in cancer...if such increases are actually borne out. Therefore, it is misleading to say that so-and-so causes cancer, etc when in fact it is really associated with cancer. Don't believe me? Media coverage of epidemiological studies (not the studies themselves) of "ecstacy" use ignore the fact that few people confine their drug use to ecstacy and that it is difficult to impossible to blame every problem found in ecstacy users on that particular drug. Epidemiologial studies are notoriously difficult to interpret for this reason, especially when the effects are small.

The statistics from the cellphone study weren't statistically significant but were still important? If you are going to ignore statistical significance, what is your measure of effect going to be?

There is a lot of "a study showed" but not a lot of specific citations.

Finally, it is very easy to demonize a food, drug, chemical or product by assuming that it only poses the risks you attribute to it, ignoring any advantage it might confer. It's fair to ask what the supply and prices of vegetables and fruits would be without any pesticide use at all, and if those items would be available to those with very limited incomes. Vaccines do cause terrible reactions in a very very small number of children, but far more children benefit from vaccines than are harmed.

Just demonizing every product that might potentially cause some harm is alarmist and encourages consumers to ignore valid warnings. It's useful to remember that children born 100 years ago when most of these products were far away from market had a life expectancy of approximately 47 years (per the CDC), while children born today have a life expectancy of approximately 78 years. Surely that change didn't come about by denying approval of all products until they were shown to be 100% safe.

Find an industrial-organizational psychologist that does "freelance" work. This is the kind of situation that I/O psychologists are experienced with, and having an outsider's view can bring a new perspective. I suspect he or she will tell you something like: identify a goal or goals that will require everyone working together, make everyone's contribution identifiable, don't ask opinions unless you're going to use them, that sort of thing. I'm not an I/O psychologist myself, but find the field interesting.

The LW indicated that the fiance's parents were rich, but it was not clear that he himself was rich. Perhaps he is living life in a normal way because he is financially normal? He may not be living on the family dole or (wisely) counting on inheriting all that $$, so maybe he really isn't that different from the LW.

Not nearly to the degree with which he is obsessed with himself.

Also, who thinks that all kids are fun?

Kids in general are fun for most of us who've chosen to have them. I'm sure there are some outliers. I was told by a friend who had a child years before I did that half the work in parenting is keeping a straight face when you're supposed to be stern with them. So far that's true.

I realize feminists of the 60's convinced women they could not possibly be happy and fulfilled being mere "domestic slaves and mothers". They went so far as to shame them and make them feel guilty for wanting to be "housewives", (which still goes on today).

This reminds me of a myth favored in certain Southern circles (I'm a native Southerner so I know) that goes like this: black people were super happy being subservient to the white people because the white people were so nice to them, until "outside Northern agitators" got 'em all riled up; now the black people are secretly sorry they bought into it.

Times change but the myths apparently don't.

The argument goes on and on: the child-free complaining they are sick of covering for mothers attending a bevy of childcare crises, working mothers defending themselves for raising the next generation of humankind, child-free workers suggesting breeders are ruining the planet with their adorable environmental disasters, mothers shooting back that come retirement age, child haters will all be dependent on the next generation

You had to go to the Telegraph to read those arguments? I seem to remember plenty of them right here on Broadsheet.

I don't want to see a shit/piss factory horking onto your ugly tit and fat body

You do know what BBW stands for, right?