Please check the CHE-WA website to stay abreast of the latest postings, news and events: http://washington.chenw.org.
To join the Collaborative on Health and the Environment (CHE) and CHE-Washington, please complete the form at http://www.healthandenvironment.org/roles/register?&phase=registerform. Be sure to mark that you want to join the Washington State Regional Group at the bottom of the application.
October 19, 2006
9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Tacoma, Washington
This meeting is hosted by the Washington Department of Ecology, and People For Puget Sound is helping with logistics. This event will be free and open to all. The featured speakers will be Steve Weisberg from Southern California Coastal Water Research Project Authority (SCCWRP) and Jay Davis from San Francisco Estuary Institute. Steve and Jay will describe their regional monitoring programs, with a focus on lessons learned. These presentations will be followed by a group discussion about regional monitoring opportunities/challenges for WA.
Website: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/
October 19, 2006
2:00 - 3:00 p.m. EDT
This is the third of a series of four webcasts. Schools use and manage a range of hazardous and toxic chemicals and products. Classrooms, science laboratories, art studios, vocational shops, athletic fields, maintenance facilities, boiler rooms, and storage closets are just a few examples of where hazardous chemicals and products may be found. Often, existing stocks of outdated, unknown, excessive, or unnecessarily hazardous chemicals are present in schools. These chemicals can pose safety and health risks to students and staff, and a number of widely reported incidents involving such chemicals have resulted in school closures and costly clean-ups. A Schools Chemical Cleanout and Prevention program insures that excess, legacy, unused, and improperly stored chemicals are removed, and puts mechanisms in place through which chemicals are purchased wisely, stored safely, handled by trained personnel, used responsibly, and disposed of properly. In addition, pesticide use can cause possible health hazards for school occupants and contribute to environmental pollution. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a safer, usually less costly option for effective pest management in the school community. A school IPM program employs commonsense strategies to reduce sources of food, water, and shelter for pests in school buildings and grounds. This webcast will share two chemical management success stories -- a schools chemical cleanout campaign with the Poarch Band of Creek Indians in Alabama, and the Monroe County, Indiana IPM Program. To sign up for one of the Children's Health Month webcasts, send an email (with the date of the webcast in which you would like to participate) to ICF International at the address below.
Contact: ICF International, chm@icfi.com
October 20, 2006
2:00 p.m.- 4:00 p.m.
Seattle, Washington
at the Renaissance Seattle Hotel
The public is invited to attend a forum hosted by the newly created Governor's Interagency Council on Health Disparities. This will be an opportunity to introduce members of the council and explain what has been done to get the council up and running. The council will ask participants for suggestions about how it should go about developing a statewide plan for eliminating health disparities in Washington. The forum will be facilitated by Frankie T. Manning, MN, RN, Associate Director of Nursing Service, Department of Veterans Affairs, Puget Sound Health Care System. This is being held in conjunction with the Fifth National Conference on Quality Health Care for Culturally Diverse Populations but it is open to the public. You do not have to part of the conference to attend.
Website: http://www.diversityrx.org/CCCONF/06/TOURS_06.htm
Contact: rcchc@aol.com
October 24, 2006
Renton, Washington
6:00 - 8:00 p.m.
at the Carco Theatre, 1717 Maple Valley Highway
The Puget Sound Partnership meets regularly in its quest to develop an aggressive 15-year plan to solve Puget Sound’s most vexing problems.
Website: http://www.pugetsoundpartnership.org/psi_meetings.htm#oct16
Contact: Martha Neuman, 206-625-0230 or mneuman@sharedsalmonstrategy.org
October 26, 2006
1:30 - 3:00 p.m. EDT
This is the last of a series of four webcasts. EPA has developed a unique software tool to help school districts evaluate and manage their school facilities for key environmental, safety and health issues. The new Healthy School Environments Assessment Tool (HealthySEAT) is designed to be customized and used by district-level staff to conduct completely voluntary self-assessments of their school (and other) facilities and to track and manage information on environmental conditions school by school. This webcast will help acquaint states, school districts, and others with the capabilities and features of HealthySEAT. To sign up for one of the Children's Health Month webcasts, send an email (with the date of the webcast in which you would like to participate) to ICF International at the address below.
Contact: ICF International, chm@icfi.com
October 27, 2006
8:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
Seattle, Washington
at Seattle University
Modern biotechnology is science-driven enterprise dedicated to help people fight serious illness, or in some cases to fight serious problems such as world hunger. However, if used unwisely, it has a potentially discriminatory and oppressive impact on indigenous peoples. How do we promote modern biotechnology's positive impact while insuring that the treatment of indigenous peoples and their environments is ethical, responsible and respectful? This day-long conference examines the impact of biotechnology on the world's indigenous peoples by bringing together life-sciences leaders, attorneys and indigenous leaders to engage in a constructive dialogue about how the biotechnology industry can seek input from and protect the interests of key stakeholders and the environment as it makes important decisions regarding research and product development.
Website: http://www.seattleu.edu/pathofthespirit/conference.html
Contact: ipc@seattleu.edu
November 1, 2006
6:30 - 8:30 p.m.
seattle, Washington
at Miller Community Center, 330 19th East
The evening features presentations on the Pollution in People body burden study, discussion and a fun dinner gathering, with Patricia Dawson, MD, study subject, breast cancer surgeon; and and WPSR Board of Sponsors member Erika Schreder, Washington Toxics Coalition staff scientist and report author. Presented by Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility. Please RSVP to the contact person below.
Contact: 206-354-2170 or nancyd@wpsr.org
Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) seeks an experienced and visionary professional for the position of Executive Director to provide leadership and oversee all program and administrative aspects of the organization. The Executive Director will report to the Board of Directors and lead the organization's accomplished staff of scientists; campaigners; and communications, development and administrative staff as the organization implements its new strategic plan. She or he will have an exemplary track record in U.S. fundraising, campaigning and/or advocacy experience, proven program and coalition development skills and strong personnel and financial management experience. Also required is experience with some aspects of PANNA's core issues which include pesticides impacts and policy; sustainable agriculture and pest management; public and/or environmental health; farm worker advocacy; international development and related social, economic and environmental justice issues.
Salary and benefits are competitive. Application Process Preferred start is by end of the year 2006 or as soon thereafter as possible. First interviews are likely to begin in early fall. The position will remain open until we find the best possible candidate. To Apply, please email cover letter and resume or CV to
Patrick Shields, President Global Recruitment Specialists
501 Westport Avenue, Suite 285
Norwalk, CT 06851 USA
Tel / Fax: 203-899-0499
E-mail: Shields@GlobalRecruitment.net
http://www.globalrecruitment.net
Wilburforce Foundation has a current opening for a Program Officer position for the combined areas of Alaska and British Columbia. It is necessary for this position to be based in our main office in Seattle, Washington, USA. Wilburforce Foundation protects wildlife and targeted wildlands in Western North America by actively supporting organizations and leaders advancing conservation solutions. The foundation uses conservation science to identify specific priority regions in which we fund. These regions correspond with our focus on habitat security, focal species and wildlife linkages. Program officers are expected to work closely with other staff and with outside consultants to effectively and efficiently carry out the foundation's Strategic Framework. The program officer's work falls into three broad categories: 1) developing, implementing, and revising the foundation's conservation strategies for priority regions; 2) leading and/or participating in processes that further the foundation's understanding of relevant conservation issues, including such activities as convening or attending meetings, working with consultants, and undertaking specific research; and 3) preparing and delivering reports or other presentations on timely issues to the foundation board and staff and to external audiences. More information can be found on the foundation's website: http://www.wilburforce.org./whats_new.html.
The Foundation offers a strong benefits package and competitive salary that is commensurate with experience. Applications must be received by postal mail or e-mail in Wilburforce's office no later than 12:00 noon Monday, November 20, 2006. Applications submitted by email should be sent as attachments in RTF, PDF or Microsoft Word formats. Please do not submit applications by fax, and please do not send applications by both postal mail and e-mail -- one of the two will suffice. Send a cover letter and resume to
Tim Greyhavens, Executive Director
Wilburforce Foundation
3601 Fremont Ave N #304
Seattle, WA 98103
Email: tim@wilburforce.org
from Steven G. Gilbert, PhD, DABT, Institute of Neurotoxicology & Neurological Disorders
Toxipedia is the free new toxicology encyclopedia and resource center that anyone can edit. It includes a quality control system to ensure accuracy of the information. With the goal of advancing human and environmental health, toxipedia provides comprehensive, accurate, and scientifically based information on the hazards and risks of chemical and physical agents.
Through research and experience we have gained a tremendous amount of knowledge about the health effects of chemicals. Inevitably, this growth in knowledge has brought specialization and individuals with specific areas of expertise. Toxipedia provides a way to tap into this knowledge for the benefit of all. Knowledge-powered and people-driven, toxipedia, with your input, can help create a community resource for advancing human and environmental health for future generations.
Find out how you can contribute your knowledge -- join us in connecting science and people. Visit http://www.toxipedia.org.
by Darshak M. Sanghavi, New York Times
October 17, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/science/17puberty.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
Parents often think their children grow up too quickly, but few are prepared for the problem that Dr. Michael Dedekian and his colleagues at the University of Massachusetts Medical School reported recently. At the annual Pediatric Academic Society meeting in May in San Francisco, they presented a report that described how a preschool-age girl, and then her kindergarten-age brother, mysteriously began growing pubic hair. These cases were not isolated; in 2004, pediatric endocrinologists from San Diego reported a similar cluster of five children. It turns out that there have been clusters of cases in which children have prematurely developed signs of puberty, outbreaks similar to epidemics of influenza or environmental poisonings. In 1979, the medical journal The Lancet described an outbreak of breast enlargement among hundreds of Italian schoolchildren, probably caused by estrogen contamination of beef and poultry. Similar epidemics in Puerto Rico and Haiti were tracked by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the 1980's.
Increasingly -- though the science is still far from definitive and the precise number of such cases is highly speculative -- some physicians worry that children are at higher risk of early puberty as a result of the increasing prevalence of certain drugs, cosmetics and environmental contaminants, called "endocrine disruptors," that can cause breast growth, pubic hair development and other symptoms of puberty. Most commonly, outbreaks of puberty in children are traced to accidental drug exposures from products that are used incorrectly.
Dr. Dedekian's first patient was evaluated for possible genetic endocrine problems and a rare brain tumor before the cause of her puberty was discovered. It turned out that her testosterone level was almost 100 times normal, in the range of an adult man. The same problem affected her brother. The doctors realized that the girl's father was using a concentrated testosterone skin cream bought from an Internet compounding pharmacy for cosmetic and sexual performance purposes. From normal skin contact with their father, the children absorbed the testosterone, which caused pubic hair growth and genital enlargement. The boy, in particular, also developed some aggressive behavior problems.
Sex hormones are potent because they are easily absorbed through the skin and resist degradation better than many other hormones. Unlike protein-based hormones like insulin, sex hormones like testosterone and estrogen are technically steroids, meaning they are derived from cholesterol. Primarily made by the liver, cholesterol begins with tiny pieces of sugar that are joined, twisted and oxidized in a dizzying series to make an end product that resembles the interlinked rings of the Olympic emblem. Dr. Joseph L. Goldstein, Nobel Laureate and a biochemist in Texas, once called it "the most highly decorated small molecule in biology," because 13 Nobel Prizes have been awarded for its study. Through further processing, primarily in the gonads and adrenal glands, cholesterol is converted into sex hormones like estrogen and testosterone. Kenneth Lee Jones, the former chief of pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, noted pediatric cases similar to those described by Dr. Dedekian in a 2004 report in the journal Pediatrics.
At that time, unregulated "prohormones" like Andro, famously used by Mark McGwire, the former St. Louis Cardinals power hitter, and banned by federal law in 2005, were available as topical sprays used to enhance libido. Dr. Jones said the sprays used by adults in some households permeated the children's bedsheets, and the early puberty stopped only when the adults stopped using the sprays and also discarded old sheets.
Testosterone-containing products are not the only trigger of disordered puberty in children. In a 1998 paper in the journal Clinical Pediatrics, Dr. Chandra Tiwary, the former chief of pediatric endocrinology at Brook Army Medical Center in Texas, reported an outbreak of early breast development in four young African-American girls who used shampoos that contained estrogen and placental extract. The early puberty reversed once the shampoo was stopped.
In the tradition of previous physicians who deliberately exposed themselves to possible pathogens, Dr. Tiwary tried the shampoos on himself. He carefully measured his own levels of various male and female sex hormones to establish his baseline, used the shampoos for a few days, then repeated the tests. While Dr. Tiwary is quick to admit that his unpublished findings must be interpreted with great caution, some of his sex hormone levels changed by almost 40 percent after he used the shampoos. In some cases, substances other than sex steroids may also disrupt normal sexual development. In Boston at the annual Endocrine Society meeting in June, Clifford Bloch of the University of Colorado School of Medicine presented several cases of young men who had developed marked breast enlargement from using shampoos containing lavender and tea tree oils, which are widely used essential oil additives that present no problem for adults. (Unlike Dr. Dedekian's cases, these cases were not a result of passive transfer from parents. The boys themselves used the shampoos.) Dr. Bloch collaborated with scientists at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in North Carolina to test the oils on human breast cells grown in test tubes. Lavender and tea tree oil had the same effect on the cells as estrogen. Dr. Bloch speculates that the findings, which he is submitting for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, may explain the boys' breast growth. He noted, however, that cells in a test tube are a far cry from humans, so the relationship of the essential oil to breast growth remains hypothetical.
While pediatric endocrinologists have implicated pharmaceutical or personal care products for causing pubertal problems in children, some environmental scientists also claim that some widespread industrial and pharmaceutical pollutants harm the normal sexual development of fish and animals. By extension, they may also contribute to earlier or disrupted puberty in children, these scientists contend. Robert Havelock, a senior reproductive toxicologist at the Environmental Protection Agency, said these concerns "caused a shift in worry from cancer to noncancer" effects of environmental pollution over the past decade.
In 1994, scientists found that estrogen-like chemicals from plastics manufacturing plants that had contaminated sewers in England caused genetically male fish to develop into females. In the early 1980's, major spills of the DDT-like pesticide dicofol in Florida led to the "feminization" of the reproductive tracts of male alligators. Robert Cooper, the chief of endocrinology at the reproductive toxicology division of the Environmental Protection Agency, says various sources of endocrine disruptors, like manufacturing chemicals, may be leaching into the environment. While their relation to pubertal problems in children remains highly speculative, he believes further study is needed.
Past epidemiological evidence, however, does worry Dr. Cooper, because some chemical exposures have been associated with early puberty. In 1973, thousands of Michigan residents ate food contaminated by a flame retardant, PBB, which was later correlated with earlier menstruation in girls. In Puerto Rico, which has some of the world's highest rates of early puberty, the condition was linked to higher levels of a plasticizer called phthalate in affected children.
Governmental efforts to create a systematic method to assess possible endocrine disruptors from environmental sources have stalled. In 1996, Congress directed the E.P.A. to develop a comprehensive screening program for possible endocrine disruptors within three years. Dr. Cooper says no such program has begun operation, a failure he attributed largely to stonewalling by chemical industry representatives who serve on an advisory committee for the program. Now the proposed rollout is December 2007, but Dr. Cooper said, "They may be dreaming." Critics cite the program's high potential costs and lack of reliable laboratory tests.
Protecting children from endocrine disrupters in cosmetics and prescription drugs may also be difficult in the near future. In 1989, the Food and Drug Administration proposed allowing up to 10,000 units of estrogen per ounce of cosmetic, the approximate oral daily dose of hormone replacement therapy for postmenopausal women. Dr. Tiwary said that in the early 1990's he filed an adverse drug report with the agency about hormone-containing shampoos but that to his knowledge, it never came to anything. Reached by e-mail, a spokeswoman for the F.D.A. said that the agency was "aware of some reports describing premature sexual development" with shampoos but that it had concluded that "there is no reason for consumers to be concerned." At this time, "placental materials are neither prohibited by cosmetic regulations nor restricted" by the F.D.A., she wrote.
Dr. Dedekian said that while prohormones like Andro are no longer commercially available, lax regulation of so-called compounding pharmacies allows the manufacture and sale of concentrated testosterone creams, like the one affecting his patient, without government oversight. Topical lotions and creams containing testosterone may become more common. In 2000, Solvay Pharmaceuticals secured F.D.A. approval for Androgel, a lotion to treat a syndrome the company calls low T, referring to low testosterone. According to the company's Web site, the condition affects 13 million men over 45. From 2000 to 2004, the number of testosterone prescriptions doubled to over 2.4 million a year.
Solvay Pharmaceuticals referred questions on Androgel's possible risks to Natan Bar-Chama, an associate professor of urology at Mount Sinai School of Medicine. Dr. Bar-Chama acknowledged the theoretical risks of transfer of the hormone through skin contact with children, but he said he had never seen a case among the hundreds of men he has treated. He added, however, that it was prudent to take precautions when using the product, including hand-washing after handling the gel and wearing clothing to avoid skin-to-skin contact with others. In 2003, an Institute of Medicine report stated, "There has been increasing concern about the increase in the number of men using testosterone and the lack of scientific data on the benefits and risks of this therapy."
Dr. Dan Blazer, a psychiatrist at Duke who was chairman of the committee, said, "In no way did we find a condition that we defined as low T." The major clinical trial of Androgel's effectiveness for low T, published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism in 2000, included neither a placebo group (patients who received an inactive dummy lotion) nor a control group (patients who did not have low T) for comparison. Dr. Ronald Swerdloff, the chief of endocrinology at Harbor-U.C.L.A. Medical Center in Torrance, Calif., and a consultant for Solvay, who ran the study, said the trial was limited in scope since it examined "a new route of administration for an already established drug."
from Reuters
October 16, 2006
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=healthNews&storyID=2006-10-16T220545Z_01_N16413740_RTRUKOC_0_US-AUTISM.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C3-healthNews-3
WASHINGTON -- U.S. researchers said on Monday they had identified a genetic mutation that raises the risk of autism and could also explain some of the other symptoms seen in children with autism. Although autism and similar disorders can clearly run in families, theirs is the first study to find a definitive genetic link to the disorder, which affects as many as 1 in 175 U.S. children.
Dr. Pat Levitt and colleagues at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, studied 743 families in which 1,200 family members were affected by autism spectrum disorders, which range from fully disabling autism to Asperger's syndrome. They found a single mutation in a gene called MET, which is known to be involved in brain development, regulation of the immune system and repair of the gastrointestinal system. All of these systems can be affected in children with autism. "This is a vulnerability gene," Levitt said in a telephone interview. "There are not genes that actually cause autism. It raises the risk."
People with two copies of the mutated gene have 2 to 2.5 times the normal risk of autism and people with one mutated copy have 1.7 times the risk, he said. The findings, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, offer a way to start looking for the actual causes of autism, Levitt said.
Autism can cause a range of symptoms, from fairly mild social dysfunction to severe and disabling learning and social impairments. Researchers knew it could run in families, but the cause has been unknown. Children are usually diagnosed as toddlers, with parents often describing a sudden regression in abilities and behavior. There is no known cure. Levitt said the mutation does not change the function of the gene, but changes gene expression -- how active the gene is. Levitt says his team will now try to make a rat or a mouse with the same genetic mutation and use it to study what in the environment might cause autism in people with the mutation. "It may be more than one thing," Levitt said. "Let's say it is exposure to some chemical. It is a long list of everything from food additives to mercury to fertilizers. This will help."
Questions about vaccines
Levitt said his study may help answer questions about links between vaccines and autism. Experts virtually all agree that vaccines do not cause autism but some parents remain mistrustful. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has launched a series of studies into the potential causes of autism.
In a second study, a team at Cornell University and Indiana University-Purdue University found that television viewing may be a factor among American children. Michael Waldman of Cornell University and colleagues found that children from rainy U.S. counties watch more television and autism rates corresponded with this pattern. "The analysis shows that early childhood television viewing could be an environmental trigger for the onset of autism and strongly points to the need for more research by experts in the field of autism," said Waldman, who will present his findings on Friday to a conference of the National Bureau of Economic Research.
A third team of researchers found that the brain regions of adults with autism may not communicate with each other as efficiently as they do in other people. Michael Murias and colleagues at the University of Washington used high-resolution electroencephalography or EEG to find patterns of abnormal connectivity between brain regions in 36 people with autism.
by Rebecca Morelle, BBC News
October 16, 2006
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6040146.stm
They said they are deliberately and unfairly scaring the public. In particular, they criticised a WWF campaign that has highlighted the presence of chemicals in blood, food and in babies' umbilical cords. The scientists said the minute levels detected did not warrant the group's focus on health dangers, but WWF has denied it was scare-mongering. The tests have formed part of WWF's campaign to strengthen proposed EU legislation, called REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals), on the testing and phasing out of chemicals. They argue the presence of chemicals, such as musks (found in perfumes), brominated flame retardants, and dioxins (a by-product of heating processes), in the environment pose a danger to health in humans and wildlife, and more stringent protective measures are needed. But while many scientists believe monitoring levels of chemicals and the phasing out of dangerous ones are vital, as is REACH, they say WWF and other green groups have been playing on the public's fears to highlight their campaigns.
Dose-response
Alistair Hay, professor of environmental toxicology from the University of Leeds, said: "The presence of these things is a warning that we are exposed to chemicals in the environment and we have to try and understand what this means -- but it is wrong to frighten people." While David Coggon, professor of occupational and environmental health from Southampton University, added: "The message they are putting across is misleading, and deliberately so."
According to Dr Andrew Smith, of the Medical Research Council Toxicology Unit, University of Leicester, it is the amount of a chemical present that is key when considering toxicity. And the researchers said the levels of the chemicals found in some of the tests were extremely low -- measured in parts per billion or parts per trillion. Although some of the chemicals were dangerous at high doses, they said, one could not go on to assume that because a trace amount was detected it posed a danger. Dr Smith said: "Any toxicologist will tell you that dose -- the amount -- is the important thing. "I would rather we didn't find these chemicals present, but trying to ascribe toxicity to them is a different matter." Professor Coggon agreed: "One of the most important things in toxicology is to look at how a person is exposed and how much of a substance they are exposed to. "The fact that you can detect something at all does not imply a material risk to health."
The researchers said the chemicals were being found in trace amounts because of advances in detection techniques that could uncover substances at ever smaller concentrations. The researchers admitted there was uncertainty surrounding the effects of some of the chemicals, but said just because it couldn't be confirmed something was 100% safe this did not mean it was 100% dangerous. Professor Richard Sharpe, an expert in endocrine disrupters from the Medical Research Council Human Reproductive Sciences Unit, in Edinburgh, said: "By and large, I think people shouldn't be worried. Most chemicals will not do any great harm at these very low levels. You have to put this into perspective."
Chemiphobia
Dr John Emsley, a visiting professor at Manchester University, said the word "chemical" had become a synonym for "toxic", and that the public was growing increasingly fearful of contamination, something he called "chemiphobia". "I think the public are afraid because it is all about the unseen danger -- it is presented as something malevolent lurking below the surface. You don't know what it is and you don't know what it does. It is a risk they do not feel in control of."
Elizabeth Salter Green, director of the WWF's toxic campaign, said: "I think WWF's raison d'etre is to protect biodiversity. We feel that there are certain drivers such as chemicals undermining future generations' viability. We are keen that the core aim of REACH is maintained -- to protect future generations of humans and wildlife while not undermining the competitiveness of the chemicals industry." She said she was concerned with possible health risks associated the lifestyle exposure to different combinations of low-level chemicals, and pointed to studies which revealed the chemicals were working together. "We are weighing up the difference between alarm and ignorance -- we are not looking to scare-monger -- we are looking to highlight an issue such that the UK population are aware of exposures and to call for better regulation."
by Julia O'Malley, Anchorage Daily News
October 16, 2006
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/university/story/8311141p-8207375c.html
Perchlorate, a rocket-fuel chemical that disrupts thyroid function in adults and may damage babies' brains, has turned up in soil, drinking water, lettuce and even breast milk across the Lower 48. At the University of Alaska Anchorage, researchers recently discovered that the contaminant may make fish overly masculine, causing female fish to become hermaphrodites and males to have abnormally large testes. The finding could mean perchlorate may affect humans' sexual development. "We know from contaminants that mimic estrogen that they are linked to both male and female cancers," said Frank von Hippel, the UAA professor who supervised the work. "It's quite possible (contamination) could cause an array of health problems among humans."
There hasn't been a lot of testing for perchlorate contamination in Alaska, but odds are it's here, von Hippel said. "We discovered the first evidence that perchlorate masculinizes both male and female organisms," said Richard Bernhardt, a UAA doctoral candidate who conducted the research. "This will open up a whole new realm of study."
Bernhardt's study, published recently in the journal Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, found that baby sticklebacks from contaminated parents, hatched in contaminated water, did not grow up to engage in normal mating behaviors. What scientists first thought were male fish began to swell with eggs and turned out to be genetically female, but they also contained sperm. Male fish looked dull compared with uncontaminated fish and had enlarged gonads. The scientists need to do more research to determine how the fish became super-masculine and what that means for people, Bernhardt said. The changes could have been caused by the chemical acting as a male hormone, disruption of hormonal processes or changes in the genes of the fish. Sticklebacks and humans share about 70 percent of their genes.
There is no indication the chemical is in drinking water, von Hippel said. It's more likely it could have contaminated soil and water near weapon storage, weapon testing and rocket-launch facilities, he said. The chemical is most often found in states like California, where there is military munitions storage, production and testing. There are many defense sites in Alaska that have not yet been cleaned up, von Hippel said. "For communities near those sites, perchlorate is one of suite of contaminants potentially there."
Marti Early, with the state Department of Environmental Conservation's contaminated sites program, said the agency has tested a handful of munitions sites in Alaska it suspects might be contaminated with perchlorate. "They have not found any contaminant at levels of concern," she said. The Department of Defense has also done some recent testing at Fort Richardson and Fort Wainwright, and no perchlorate was found, according to the department's perchlorate-monitoring Web site.
A July report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry recommended that Elmendorf Air Force Base add perchlorate to the chemicals it tests for in drinking water. James Weise, manager of the state's drinking water program, said he wasn't aware of any specific testing for perchlorate at Elmendorf. The state isn't required to test for the chemical. "There has been very limited munitions testing (in Alaska) and not near any sources of drinking water," he said.
Perchlorate has been found in the public drinking water supplies of more than 11 million people in 26 states, according to a National Academy of Sciences report last year. A study released last week by the CDC found that even small amounts of perchlorate, which is a chemical salt, inhibit the thyroid's ability to absorb iodine, slowing metabolism and resulting in weight gain, fatigue and depression. Fetuses are at a higher risk because of their small size and developing brains.
Even if it isn't in Alaska's water or soil, it could be in milk and produce, including organic varieties, shipped in from Outside, Bernhardt said. "It's really widespread. It really hasn't been searched for thoroughly," he said.
by Gillian Flaccus, Associated Press, San Louis Obispo Tribune
October 15, 2006
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/news/15767289.htm
EL MONTE, Calif. -- Maria Valdez didn't consider herself an environmentalist when she pressed this city east of Los Angeles to buy land ringed with factories and railroad tracks for a new neighborhood park. The trash lot is now on its way to becoming a green oasis with a butterfly sanctuary and community garden -- and Valdez is undergoing a transformation of her own. Next month she will be sworn in as president of the El Monte chapter of Mujeres de la Tierra, a two-year-old environmental group that caters to Hispanic immigrants and translates as "Women of the Earth."
"When you get involved and you know that you could make it happen, it feels good," said Valdez, a stay-at-home mother of six. "I'm interested in the water, the air -- for our kids." Spurred by high rates of asthma and lead poisoning among their children, Hispanic immigrants such as Valdez, a U.S. citizen who left Mexico as a child, are embracing green values like never before -- on their own terms. Hispanic activists and politicians talk openly about building a unique green movement that distances itself from mainstream environmental groups, even as those organizations hope to tap into newfound Hispanic political clout.
Those involved in the nascent movement cite a gap between the priorities of traditional environmentalists, who may focus on saving endangered species and preserving roadless areas, and the practical concerns of many Hispanic immigrants, who confront thick smog and lead-laced water every day in inner-city neighborhoods. Many also are wary of groups like the Sierra Club, which has debated whether to make U.S. immigration control part of its platform. "If you ask a Latino, 'Are you an environmentalist?' they'll say 'No' because it boxes you in," said Irma Munoz, founder of Mujeres de la Tierra. "Environmentalists blame Latinos for all the problems."
The newly defined movement is strongest in Southern California. Last month, more than 1,200 Hispanic community leaders, activists and politicians gathered in Los Angeles for the first meeting of its kind in decades. Participants in the National Latino Congreso drafted resolutions on issues ranging from emissions reductions to mercury pollution, hoping Hispanic voters will use those as a litmus test for candidates in the 2008 presidential campaign.
Some high-profile Hispanic politicians also are intent on being green. Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles, co-sponsored a groundbreaking law that makes California the first state to put a cap on greenhouse gas emissions, including those from industrial plants. He said his interest grew partly out of his concern for the effect that poor air quality has on Hispanic children. "For a long time, the image of an environmentalist in California was a stereotypical, brie-eating, chardonnay-sipping, Volvo-driving Marin County-ite," Nunez said at a speech at the Los Angeles gathering. "But there were other issues that affected people who wouldn't commonly be known as environmentalists."
In the heavily Hispanic cities of Maywood and Bell Gardens, also just outside Los Angeles, local politicians got elected last year by focusing on industrial pollution, lingering Superfund sites and water contamination. A 2004 study by the Natural Resources Defense Council found that nearly 70 percent of Hispanics live in areas that violate federal air quality standards and Hispanic children are twice as likely as non-Hispanic white children to have lead in their blood.
Traditional environmental groups have catered to the Hispanic green movement by hiring Spanish-speaking outreach coordinators, starting Spanish-language Web sites and running ads on Spanish TV and radio. Some, such as the Earth Day Network and Sierra Club, helped sponsor the National Latino Congreso and work with activists on local projects. Oliver Bernstein, deputy press secretary for Sierra Club's diversity programs, said his organization has been doing environmental justice work with grassroots Hispanic groups since 1992. At the Latino Congreso, Bernstein said many Hispanic leaders were "pleased that Sierra Club was working hand in hand with them."
Some Hispanic environmentalists say they want to do it their way. For Hispanic immigrants, environmentalism can mean building a park, getting rid of a smoke-belching factory or persuading railroads to run freight trains less often -- not protecting an endangered species hundreds of miles from their homes. "We're not the tree-huggers," said Laura Rodriguez, a spokeswoman for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund. "We have to deal with high numbers of asthma patients and Superfund sites and how it affects communities."
Mainstream environmental groups recognize that they are shadowed by past mistakes -- but say they are ready to move forward. Adrianna Quintero, the director of Latino advocacy and outreach at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the organization created her position to reach out to local activists. The group's work with Hispanic environmentalists on Nunez's emissions cap bill was a watershed moment for both sides, Quintero said. "From now on, going forward, we hope that everything will be like that," she said. "The reality of it is that we have so much in common. Our goals are the same, which is to make a better planet for everyone."
by Lisa Stiffler, Seattle Post-Intelligencer
October 16, 2006
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/288829_justice16.html
A federal program to safeguard poor and racially diverse communities from pollution and other environmental harm is at risk of being dissolved, activists say. The Environmental Protection Agency's Northwest regional office has proposed reassigning members of its environmental-justice program to new divisions and eliminating its director's position, according to government officials. That could affect Northwest environmental-justice issues, including the exposure of minority and low-income communities to polluting businesses and toxic cleanup sites in South Seattle, the higher use of pesticides by minority and migrant workers in agricultural areas, and Native American exposure to pollution created by mining activities and former military sites.
The local environmental-justice office works with community groups to inform them about available grants and to help in their implementation. They join with other government agencies to improve their understanding of environmental justice issues. Even before any cuts, some environmental groups have thought more is needed from the office. "We're not doing our job with environmental justice," said BJ Cummings, coordinator for the Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition, a watchdog group. "You don't do a better job by cutting resources and scattering people to the wind."
Officials with the EPA's Seattle-based Region 10 office, which serves Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Alaska, say the proposed reorganization is essential to addressing budget cuts. They say that environmental-justice needs will be met. "We're not proposing to cut the program," said Michelle Pirzadeh, acting deputy regional administrator. She vowed that a comparable amount of manpower would be dedicated to the program. The changes, she said, are simply "realigning the resources."
At least three of the four people working full and part time on environmental-justice issues would be split into different departments under the proposal. It's unclear where the director, Melanie Wood, will wind up. Friday, Pirzadeh said a goal of the reorganization would be to cut a supervisory position. The changes could diminish the program's stature and effectiveness, critics of the proposed changes say.
Nationally, the environmental-justice program has been slammed repeatedly by the EPA's own investigative office for failing to make sure it's living up to its mandate of protecting vulnerable populations from environmental threats. In 2004, the Office of Inspector General issued a report highlighting numerous failings in the program, including the lack of a clear vision or focused objectives.
Activists here say the local program has made improvements in working more closely with community groups and better supporting their needs. They fear that could change with the reorganization. "It will further weaken the program that was just now being revived," said Yalonda Sinde, executive director of the Seattle-based Community Coalition for Environmental Justice. Wood agreed that in recent years, relationships between the EPA and community groups and other environmental agencies have strengthened. She said that work would continue, despite the fact that "our budget is shrinking, and we are not in the areas that are getting funding." She encouraged people to look at the EPA's budget and voice their concerns. Wood did not comment specifically on her potential position change.
The reorganization -- which could be made final in the next week or two -- also would put environmental-justice work in a program better aligned to its focus, a program called Ecosystem and Community Health, Pirzadeh said. Now it's paired with civil rights issues. A review of employee comments would be completed before the decision is made, Pirzadeh said. Last month, the EPA's Office of Inspector General chastised the program nationally for failing to instruct regional offices to perform reviews to evaluate their effectiveness. Local officials said they're waiting for instructions as to how to implement the report's recommendations.
by Michael Mayfield, Poughkeepsie Journal
October 15, 2006
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061015/NEWS04/610150313
Twenty-one thousand. That's how many people will succumb to the effects of radon. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, radon will kill more than drunken driving. It is the second leading cause of lung cancer in America, and most are exposed -- needlessly -- in their homes. As a colorless, odorless, tasteless gas, radon seeps from soils and rocks. The radioactive gas occurs naturally as part of the uranium chain of decay. Uranium breaks down into other, different elements, one of them being radon.
As radon escapes from the ground, it creeps into homes through cracks or holes in the foundation. It is usually confined to lower areas because it is a relatively heavy gas. Dissipating when in contact with air for long, these tiny particles can stick to other airborne particles like dust. Then, the radioactive radon particles are easily inhaled into the lungs. When they lodge in the lungs, they release bursts of energy that disfigure and destroy cells. This cell destruction and disfigurement can lead to cancer.
Problem first recognized in 1984
It was 22 years ago when radon was first noticed to be a problem. In 1984, a nuclear power plant worker in Pennsylvania set off the radiation alarm upon entering work one morning. The machine was designed to measure radiation workers picked up while at work. The ensuing investigation found the elevated levels of radon in the man's house were the cause of his radioactivity. Since then, a deeper investigation of radon has been ongoing, in an effort to reduce exposure and save lives. It can be found all across the United States in any home, anywhere. Dutchess and Ulster counties are not exceptions. Levels exceeding the EPA's recommended safe level of 4 picoCuries per liter of air are common.
In a 2006 survey by the New York State Department of Health, about 2,800 Dutchess County homes were tested for radon. Of those, nearly half of the homes had levels that were unsafe, and more than 5 percent had readings of 20 pCi/L or higher. The same survey in Ulster County showed that 25 percent of about 1,200 homes had potentially unsafe levels of radon. Levels vary greatly from town to town, and house to house. Almost half of the homes tested in Poughkeepsie had levels that were 4 pCi/L or more. Of the homes sampled in Hyde Park, more than half exceeded the safe level, and in Wappinger more than 36 percent did.
Cutting levels possible
There are ways to combat high levels of radon. A homeowner is not powerless. The EPA has "A Homeowner's Guide to Radon" that includes an easy-to-understand description of radon, its effects and how one might go about reducing radon levels. When a home is purchased, the buyer typically has the air tested, but older homes may go years without tests. "Radon testing is a part of every inspection we do," said Chuck Sweed, of Above Grade Home Inspections in Wallkill. "And it's always at the homeowner's request."
Reliable radon tests can be purchased -- for less than $10 in most cases -- from local hardware stores, via the National Radon Hotline, and from the New York State Department of Health Web site. The state Department of Health lists contractors certified to install radon mitigation systems. A system can cost between $900 and $1,500 per installation, according to Dave Barber of Acceptable Environment in Newburgh. "These systems are not uncommon," he said.
One method involves placing an impermeable barrier of plastic under the foundation, to block the gas from rising into the home. A vent pipe extends from the gravel layer through the house and up into the roof where it escapes into the atmosphere. An electric venting fan can be installed to facilitate the process of radon gas extraction from the ground. Radon is indeed dangerous, but living with it is not impossible. Radon reduction practices are commonplace and testing is not an overwhelming burden. It is simply a matter of doing it.
by Sandra McCulloch, CanWest News Service, Vancouver Sun
October 14, 2006
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=5e77ed4a-0881-4715-8963-72663b5bd13a&k=89059
VICTORIA -- Whether you're washing your hands or the kitchen countertops, it's best for your family's health and the environment to pass up antibacterial products in favour of plain soap and water, a University of Victoria researcher has found. UVic molecular biologist Caren Helbing found while triclosan -- common in soaps, clothing, toys and other items having antibacterial properties -- isn't lethal in small quantities, it can potentially affect the human thyroid gland. The thyroid plays a role in development, body temperature and metabolism. "For most things, regular soap is just fine. In terms of children's products, they shouldn't have triclosan in them at all," Helbing said in an interview.
Helbing's research, published last week in the online journal Aquatic Toxicology, found triclosan to be harmful in the development of frogs and potentially humans. At the molecular level, the chemical compound is similar to vertibrates' thyroid hormone. Helbing found triclosan at levels found in the environment disrupted a tadpole's transition into a frog. "Frogs serve as a very sensitive sentinel species for chemicals that can actually disrupt thyroid hormone action," said Helbing. "Triclosan at levels measured in our waterways can actually affect how thyroid hormones works in frogs."
The chemical compound is man-made for the purpose of killing bacteria and is showing up in more consumer products. Easy-clean items marketed as containing "Microban" contain triclosan, said Helbing. But Helbing said triclosan is not necessary to clean up most household spills, and other scientists agree. "When you ask a qualified microbiologist, they'll tell you that it's being overdone and there's probably a greater chance of creating bacterial resistance than preventing problems," said Joe Schwarcz, director of McGill University's Office for Science and Society. "Washing with soap and water is enough, except in a hospital environment ... You don't want to use a jackhammer to kill an ant when stepping on it will do. "The reason why the triclosan story is interesting is it's so pervasive -- it's in so many products. Even (though) the risk (of ill effects) is small, the exposure is too large."
Helbing agrees the prevalence of triclosan in the environment can make the fight against antibiotic-resistant illnesses more difficult. It can also affect normal human development: "There are a lot of different processes in the body that can be affected." In March, the Canadian Paediatric Society called for parents to stop buying antibacterial products, and instead use soap and water to wash toys, hands or household items.
by Alina Tugend, New York Times
October 14, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/14/business/14shortcuts.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
HANGING from the pot rack in our kitchen are a variety of skillets and pans, some with nonstick coatings and some the kind you really have to scrub to get clean. Every once in a while when I reach up to grab a frying pan and my hand touches the nonstick one, I hesitate. Is Teflon coating bad? Should I not use it? These thoughts go through my mind, and then I usually just take down the pan that is closest to the size I need.
Concerns about Teflon -- Teflon is a patented product of DuPont, but most people use the term generically to refer to nonstick pans -- have been floating around for years. The coating was discovered in 1938 and approved by the Food and Drug Administration for cookware in 1960. It "stirred a minirevolution in the American kitchen," according to a 1990 article in F.D.A. Consumer magazine. Nonstick pans allow cooking with less or no fat and make cleanup easier and faster.
The article asked the question in its headline, "Is That Newfangled Cookware Safe?" The answer, the author decided, was yes. But that did not put the matter to rest -- far from it. Concerns about the safety of Teflon-coated pots and pans popped up repeatedly over the next decade and a half. Just last year, lawyers for consumers in numerous states, including New York, filed separate class-action lawsuits based on state consumer laws on behalf of millions of Teflon cookware users. The lawsuits have been consolidated into one class action, which is now pending in Federal District Court in Des Moines.
All of this is weighing on consumers like Penny Resnick, a dentist from New Rochelle, N.Y., who was examining cookware at a local Home Goods store recently. She said she threw away her Teflon frying pans a few years ago, after hearing about the possible dangers on a talk radio show. "I still use it for baking," she said, holding a square pan with a nonstick coating. "Maybe I shouldn't. Maybe you could say, why am I using one and not the other?" It was the flaking on the frying pans that bothered her, she said. "I cook a lot," she said. "I found the coating peeled even with expensive pans." She said another plus was that she found that food cooks better in the no-Teflon skillets.
One issue that can be confusing is the potential environmental and health dangers posed by chemicals used in manufacturing versus the risk possibly created when Teflon cookware is heated and fumes might be emitted. Of particular concern is perfluorooctanoic acid, PFOA, also known as C-8, which is a crucial ingredient in the making of Teflon. In 2004, DuPont agreed to pay more than $100 million to settle another class-action lawsuit brought by Ohio and West Virginia residents who contended that releases of PFOA from a plant in West Virginia contaminated supplies of drinking water. A similar lawsuit was filed this year on behalf of additional West Virginia residents who were not included in the original lawsuit, but whose drinking water was later found to be contaminated. This year, DuPont, seven other manufacturers and the Environmental Protection Agency announced a voluntary program to virtually eliminate the release of PFOA into the environment by 2015.
The class-action lawsuit filed last year focused not on the manufacturing process but on the cookware itself; the lawsuit does not claim personal injuries, but said that for decades DuPont failed to warn consumers of hazards from using its nonstick cookware. The suit contended that the pots and pans, when heated to very high temperatures, release toxic particles, including PFOA. The goal is to have DuPont stop making and selling Teflon cookware. In a news release, DuPont said the allegations were without merit, noting that the Food and Drug Administration had said the cookware was acceptable for conventional kitchen use.
And that goes back to my internal monologue: Should I toss the Teflon pans or keep using them? What kind of risk am I exposing myself and my family to, aside from my own cooking? Some say none; some say the jury is still out. DuPont argues on its Web site (http://www2.dupont.com) that the PFOA is burned off in the manufacturing process of the Teflon coating and not present in the finished cookware. DuPont and the Cookware Manufacturers Association, a trade organization, maintain that Teflon is completely safe and actually helps people by lowering the amount of oil needed for cooking and reducing the risk of fire because there is less fat that might burst into flames.
The Environmental Protection Agency says on its Web site (http://www.epa.gov/oppt/pfoa/) that "routine use" of nonstick cookware does not pose a concern and there is no reason for consumers to stop using it. That means do not leave a Teflon pan burning empty over high heat -- a pretty sensible instruction for a number of reasons.
But the nonprofit Environmental Working Group (http://www.ewg.org) says research has shown that Teflon cookware can harm birds and cause flu-like symptoms in humans by emitting toxic fumes when heated at high temperatures. "Unfortunately, there is more that we don't know than we do," said Lauren Sucher, a spokeswoman for the environmental group.
PFOA is found at a very low level in the blood of most Americans, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, and studies have shown it can cause health problems in laboratory animals. But the agency does not know exactly how people are being exposed to the chemical, nor how dangerous it is in the human body. Ms. Sucher said her organization recommended avoiding nonstick cookware. After all, she said, the old-fashioned kind "was good enough for our grandmothers." The group, she said, is more concerned about other ways material containing PFOA is used and released into the environment: to make clothes and carpets stain-resistant, for example, or to ensure that food packaging like fast-food bags or the lining of some microwave popcorn bags is grease-resistant. For those who still want the convenience, or the option to cook with less fat, she and others suggest never heating an empty pan. In general, she said, cook on low to medium temperatures rather than high settings.
Robert L. Wolke, a professor emeritus of chemistry at the University of Pittsburgh and author of "What Einstein Told His Cook: Kitchen Science Explained" (W. W. Norton & Company, 2002), said he did not believe that nonstick coating posed a hazard, but recommended that in general, it was a good idea to use a ventilation hood to disperse fumes. Also, do not use sharp utensils with Teflon coating, and throw out the pan if it is peeling. Flaking of the nonstick coating used to be a problem in the early days of Teflon, said Hugh J. Rushing, executive vice president of the Cookware Manufacturers Association, but that is now rare. "Nonstick used to be a temporary coating, and if you got a year out of it, you felt like you were doing good," Mr. Rushing said. Improvements in the way the coating is manufactured and applied improved markedly about 15 years ago, he said, adding years to the life of a Teflon pan.
And keep pet birds out of the kitchen. This may sound strange. But a new round of Teflon concerns rocketed around the country last year when "Bob in Atlanta" wrote to the Dear Abby column that he lost his beloved Amazon parrot of 26 years when the bird inhaled fumes from an empty Teflon pan left burning on the stove. Birds do have sensitive respiratory systems (hence, the canary in the mine), said Professor Wolke, and it makes sense to keep them out of a cooking area in general.
The Teflon worries have apparently not hurt sales of aluminum cookware, 90 percent of which is nonstick. Sales of both stainless steel cookware, which is more expensive, and aluminum cookware dropped in 2004 from the previous year, but rebounded in 2005. Sales are up in the first eight months of 2006, according to the Cookware Manufacturers Association. "It meets people's wants and needs, despite all the negative publicity," Mr. Rushing said.
My decision? After weighing the risks, I'll keep using both my Teflon and my old-fashioned pans. But I will keep a close eye as new information comes out. And on any nearby birds.
from swissinfo
October 14, 2006
http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/detail/Asbestos_impasse_tragic_for_public_health.html?siteSect=105&sid=7162943&cKey=1160815001000
Chrysotile asbestos will remain off a global "watch list" of toxic substances for at least two years after countries led by Canada blocked consensus in Geneva. A Swiss official told swissinfo he was disappointed but said it was not the end of the process. The International Ban Asbestos Secretariat disagreed and called the failure to act "truly tragic". Chrysotile asbestos is a known human carcinogen which represents 94 per cent of world asbestos consumption.
Parties to the Rotterdam Convention, an international treaty governing trade in toxic substances, failed on Friday to agree to add chrysotile asbestos to a list of 39 chemicals and pesticides that exporting countries must inform importers about before shipping. "It's not positive that we don't have a decision concerning chrysotile asbestos here in Geneva, but on the other side, it always takes a long time in a multilateral process before you achieve anything," Thomas Kolly, head of international affairs at the Federal Environment Office, told swissinfo. "I wouldn't say it is the end of the Rotterdam Convention, certainly not."
But Laurie Kazan-Allen, from the International Ban Asbestos Secretariat, said she had "no doubts" that this was the end of the treaty. "Everyone knows that the [asbestos] issue is pivotal," she told swissinfo.
Opposition
Once used widely as an insulating and fireproofing agent in buildings, ships and consumer products, asbestos has been shown to cause cancers of the lung and other organs as well as breathing disorders. The World Health Organization estimates at least 90,000 people die every year from asbestos-related diseases. Canada, whose French-speaking Quebec province is a major asbestos producer and exporter, led opposition to the addition of chrysotile asbestos to the list, according to environmentalists tracking the talks.
Several developing countries including Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine and India also spoke against the addition of asbestos, largely due to concerns that tighter trade rules would lead to pressure for stricter domestic regulations. Countries will revisit the asbestos issue at a 2008 meeting of the Rotterdam Convention signatories, where they will also consider the addition of tributyl tin, used in paints for ship hulls, and the insecticide endosulfan.
"Murder"
"At least 200,000 workers will be killed by asbestos disease before the proposal to list asbestos can be tabled again," said Kazan-Allen. "If someone has HIV/Aids and they have unprotected sex, in a lot of jurisdictions that's considered attempted murder. Why is this different? The Rotterdam Convention is supposed to ensure that importing countries have informed consent. "What the Canadians are trying to do -- what they're all trying to do -- is delay this as long as they can so they can make as much money as they can."
Kazan-Allen said that for every worker in the Canadian asbestos industry, two people die every year. "For public health worldwide this is truly tragic. It's also very sad that a multilateral environmental agreement which had so much promise has been brought to its knees by people who are more interested in the pennies in their pockets than the number of people dying."
from Living on Earth
October 13, 2006
http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=06-P13-00041&segmentID=2
There is a growing body of scientific evidence linking men's exposure to environmental toxins, such as cigarette smoke or herbicides, to reproductive health problems, and the health of their children. But society and the scientific world alike have been hesitant to accept the evidence, argues Cynthia Daniels in her book, "Exposing Men: The Science and Politics of Male Reproduction." Daniels is an associate professor of Political Science at Rutgers University and speaks with host Steve Curwood.
CURWOOD: While much of the research on environmental hazards and reproductive health focuses on women, more and more research shows that men also run special risks. Perhaps the most attention has been paid to men who were exposed to the defoliant Agent Orange while they were soldiers in Vietnam. Back home many of them fathered children with birth defects such as cerebral palsy and Spina Bifida. But as scientists have uncovered more evidence of the havoc toxic exposure can wreak on male reproductive health, little has been said about it. Cynthia Daniels hopes to change that. She has written a new book entitled "Exposing Men, the Science and Politics of Male Reproduction." Professor Daniels teaches Political Science at Rutgers University, hello.
DANIELS: Hello, thanks for having me.
CURWOOD: So, you're a political scientist. What got you on to the subject of male reproductive health?
DANIELS: Well, in my previous work I had examined female reproductive health and female reproductive politics. Looking primarily at the criminal prosecution of women who had used drugs or alcohol during their pregnancy and then were criminally prosecuted for child abuse or delivering drugs to the fetus through the umbilical cord. In the course of doing that work I came across quite a substantial body of scientific research that indicated that men's use of drugs and alcohol or men's exposure to toxic substances could also produce harm in the children that they fathered. Increased rates of birth defects, increased rates of miscarriage. And so I was a little stunned by the fact that there was no public attention to this growing body of scientific evidence.
CURWOOD: Now you say historically the singular focus of reproductive medicine on the female reproductive system was paralleled by concurrent neglect of the male system, I'm quoting from your book here. Why do you think that women get so much more attention when it comes to reproductive health?
DANIELS: Well, women have historically been the property of men. So, I think we are looking at the historical vestige of the idea that we have a greater right to regulate and control the female reproductive body than the male reproductive body. And I think we still operate with this reproductive sexual division of labor where we see women as primary, it's a cultural assumption that women have the primary responsibility for producing healthy children and caring for healthy children. And that men are really much more distant. So I think that has to do with what I see as outdated cultural assumptions about men and women's different and disproportionate relationship to human reproduction.
CURWOOD: Perhaps as many as maybe about 15 years ago there was a lot of publicity about some research in Denmark showing that male sperm counts had dropped to, oh, maybe half of their previous levels from samples that had been taken I guess, back in the 1930's. What was the public response to those findings and that publicity?
DANIELS: Oh, there were hundreds of newspaper stories and magazine stories about the sperm count drop. Many of them with pretty sensationalist titles like, "Sperm under Siege" and "Sperm Wars." Many of them predicting, you know, doom and the end of the earth. It became a metaphor for what many saw as a crisis of masculinity.
CURWOOD: When these results come out the group in Denmark led by I believe it was Nils Skakkebaek and others came under tremendous attack. Why was this research group so questioned by the scientific and industrial community?
DANIELS: Well if you believe the evidence then you have to also believe that men are vulnerable to toxic harm, that men are no longer seen as the protectors of women and children, but perhaps they may even be more vulnerable to harm than women. So it undermines certain basic cultural ideals of masculinity, which I think very many people find threatening. And that, as a result, there is a great deal of both denial and panic in the public response to the evidence. I have to tell you that almost every researcher I have interviewed in relation to this book had themselves come under heavy attack every time they find positive associations between for instance male exposures to cigarette smoking for instance and increased birth defects. The response they get both from the scientific community as well as from the public at large is just, it's just not believable. And there is still this level of denial that scientists are met with when they engage in this sort of research.
CURWOOD: So as a political scientist, where do you think we need to make changes in this society to deal with what you identify as a really serious crisis in male reproduction?
DANIELS: You know, we need to start asking the right questions. We need to start asking questions about men's relationship to conception, to pregnancy, to childcare, child bearing. For instance the study that you had on air the other day about the association of ADHD with cigarette smoking and lead exposure. You know, I looked at that study and there were no questions asked about paternal cigarette smoking. Now how hard would it be in a study like that to ask the women not just about their own use of cigarettes but about paternal cigarette smoking. We're not even asking the questions. Also that study indicated that there are higher rates of ADHD for baby boys, for boy children. Why then are we not asking questions about whether the male body is somehow more vulnerable to harm from lead than the female body? We seem to not even want to ask those questions.
CURWOOD: Cynthia Daniels is an associate professor of political science at Rutgers University. Her new book is called, "Exposing Men; the Science and Politics of Male Reproduction." Thank you.
DANIELS: Thanks for having me.
from the Environmental Protection Agency
October 13, 2006
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-RESEARCH/2006/October/Day-13/r16911.htm
EPA is announcing the availability of a final report titled, "A Framework for Assessing Health Risks of Environmental Exposures to Children", prepared by the National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) within EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD). The purpose of this report is to provide an overarching framework for a complete and transparent assessment of exposure of environmental agents to children and resulting potential health risks within the U.S. EPA's risk assessment paradigm. This framework builds on the agency's past experience in evaluating risk to children. This framework lays out a life stage-specific risk assessment process, points to existing published sources for more detailed information on life stage-specific considerations, and includes web links to specific online publications and relevant agency science policy papers, guidelines and guidance. This framework emphasizes the need for risk assessments to take into account potential exposures to environmental agents during preconception and all stages of development. This framework is not intended to present an agency guideline, but rather describes the overall structure of and the components considered important for children's health risk assessment. The report describes an approach that includes problem formulation, analysis, and risk characterization steps, and also builds on agency experience assessing risk to susceptible populations.
It is important to note that within this framework, life stage-specific data gaps are not meant to convey an obligatory change in how uncertainty factor(s) associated with EPA's health risk assessment methods should be judged in a given risk assessment, but rather to consider how life stage-specific data can better characterize the risk to susceptible groups within the population. The peer review panel report, the public comments, and the response to peer review and public comments are available with the report at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=158363.
by Nic Fleming, London Daily Telegraph
October 12, 2006
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/12/nfish12.xml
Eating large quantities of fish could increase the risk of women giving birth prematurely, scientists say. Health advisers have previously warned women to avoid certain types of fish during pregnancy because they contain high levels of mercury, which has been linked to problems with the nervous system in newborns. New research found that among a group of more than 1,000 pregnant women, eating more fish was associated with high mercury levels. Participants in the study who gave birth prematurely were three times more likely to have double the average mercury level in hair samples.
Fei Xue, of Harvard University in Boston, Massachusetts, said women may be left confused by the research because other research has shown oily fish such as sardines and pilchards can boost birth weight and cognitive abilities because of their high concentrations of omega-3 fatty acids. She said: "There was strong evidence that mercury levels in maternal hair were higher when fish consumption levels were higher." She added that until the picture becomes clearer, women would be wise to take fish oil supplements instead of eating fish.
The researchers, whose work was published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives and highlighted in this week's New Scientist magazine, asked 1,024 pregnant women in Michigan about their fish and shellfish consumption and took hair samples to assess mercury levels. The average mercury level was 0.29 parts per million. Women who ate the most fish were most likely to be among the 20 per cent of the group with mercury levels exceeding 0.38 parts per million.
Women who gave birth before 35 weeks were three times more likely to have a maternal mercury hair level of at least 0.55 parts per million than those who carried their baby to term. The authors stressed that only 44 of the women in their study gave birth prematurely and said further investigations were needed.
Mercury occurs naturally in the environment, but is also released into the air through industrial pollution which is taken to the sea by rain. Larger predator species of fish such as shark, tuna, marlin and swordfish are more likely to contain higher concentrations of mercury because they feed on smaller fish. Concerns were raised after a study in the Faroe Islands in 1997 concluded that children exposed in the womb to mercury had difficulties with learning, memory and attention.
by Martin Mittelstaedt, Toronto Globe and Mail
October 12, 2006
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061011.wxcancer12/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home
A team of researchers who studied the occupations of nearly all the Windsor, Ont., women who developed breast cancer in a period from 2000 to 2002 found they were about three times more likely to have worked on farms than women who didn't have the disease. What's more, those who farmed and then later worked in the automotive industry were four times more likely to have the disease, according to a paper about the research being published Thursday in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.
The new study is one of the most detailed investigations undertaken in Canada into the occupations of women who developed breast cancer, and it indicates that something about farming increases the risk of the disease, the most common cancer to afflict females in the country. Although the researchers didn't determine what these risks were, they speculated about pesticides, many of which are able to mimic or block the normal functioning of estrogen and other hormones. "If you were going to hypothesize about the No. 1 most likely cause of this elevated risk, I think you'd have to look at the whole chemical exposure that exists on farms," said Jim Brophy, head of the Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers in Sarnia, and lead author of the paper.
A staggering 99 per cent of all those treated for the disease at Windsor's cancer centre during the period of the research agreed to participate. Dr. Brophy said there was an enormous desire among women, who typically are not asked about the role their jobs may have played in their illness, to be part of a study that might help explain their cancer. That desire has a resonance with Tricia Pletsch, who worked on her parent's farm near Chatham as a teenager and developed breast cancer two years ago, at 39. Her family doesn't have a history of the cancer, but she worries about the heavy chemical use on the farm while growing up. "Pesticides were really popular in the seventies," she said. Like most women with breast cancer, her doctors never asked about her occupation when trying to explain her illness and were at a total loss to explain why she was afflicted. "No one asked me what I did, and when I asked them why I got it, no one had a clue," she said.
Scientists around the world are struggling to explain the recent epidemic of breast cancer in industrialized countries because fewer than 10 per cent of those with the disease have a known genetic predisposition for it. Rates for the cancer in Canada are among the highest in the world, with the lifetime risk of about one in nine. During the past 30 years, there has been a largely unexplained 25-per-cent increase in the country's age-adjusted incidence rate.
Previous research has found an association between breast cancer and a woman's socioeconomic status, diet, age of first pregnancy, and several other factors, but the majority of cases have no known risk factor. It is also not known why women with higher socioeconomic status are more at risk, but Dr. Brophy says occupation should be investigated more closely because it might provide clues on cancer-causing substances and new prevention strategies. "If you would capture the lifetime [work] histories of people with cancer, it might be very revealing in terms of risk factors that we're not currently addressing. That could have an enormous preventative effect," Dr. Brophy said. He said there has to be a major risk in farming to cause the research results. "It's very dramatic, in the most common cancer among women where 50 per cent of the cases are unexplained, to have a three-fold excess," Dr. Brophy said.
In Canada, none of the provincial registries track cancers by occupation. About 22,000 women in Canada will develop breast cancer this year and an estimated 5,300 will die from it. Up until now, little research on occupation and breast-cancer risk has been done in Canada, although researchers at the British Columbia Cancer Agency looked at work histories and the disease in 2000. They also found an association with agriculture, although they looked at far fewer women farmers than the current study, whose results were considered statistically significant.
An official with Canada's largest cancer registry says he thinks it would be a good idea to study the occupations of those with the disease, although he said this effort would require millions in funding and a political will to implement. "I certainly don't dispute that it's a neglected area, particularly with women coming into the work force and the nature of work changing," said Eric Holowaty, an epidemiologist at Cancer Care Ontario.
In Windsor, the researchers compared the work histories of 564 woman treated for breast cancer over a 21/2-year period ending in 2002 against a similarly sized random control group of women who didn't have the cancer. Those with the disease were 2.8 times more likely to have worked on farms. This rate jumped to four times more likely if the women worked in agriculture and then the automotive industry and fell to 2.3 times if they worked on farms and then in health care. There was no extra risk of breast cancer for women who never worked on farms and then went into the auto industry or into health care, suggesting that agriculture somehow primes women to get the disease.
The Windsor area has large numbers of women employed in agriculture because it is one of the most intensively farmed regions in Canada, with major fruit and vegetable crops. The area also has one of the largest car-making sectors in the country. About 300 women in the study worked in agriculture. The researchers found little difference between the women who got breast cancer and the control group with respect to hormone replacement therapy, breast-feeding history, smoking, oral contraceptive use, having a mother with the cancer and previous pregnancies.
by Liz Szabo, USA TODAY
October 12, 2006
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-10-11-cancer-children_x.htm
For kids with cancer, surviving the disease is only half the battle. As the first generation of patients to survive pediatric cancer nears middle-age, a new study find that more than 73% of patients cured of pediatric cancer will develop a chronic illness within 30 years of diagnosis. About 42% will develop a severe, disabling, life-threatening or fatal condition, according to a New England Journal of Medicine study out today. Their health problems -- which include heart disease, lung scarring, strokes and second cancers -- can be caused both by their original tumors, as well as the harsh treatments used to cure them, says lead author Kevin Oeffinger director of the program for adult survivors of pediatric cancer at of New York's Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.
Health problems appear to increase over time, with no sign of tapering off, according to the study, which was funded by the National Cancer Institute and other agencies. Patients in the study had an average age of 26, with an average of 17.5 years since their diagnosis. Even by their 20s, 62% of 10,000 survivors had at least one chronic ailment, compared to 37% of their siblings of about the same age, according to the study. Oeffinger presented an earlier version of the study at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting in 2005.
Philip Rosoff, an associate professor of pediatric hematology and oncology at Duke University Medical Center, says the study sheds light on an issue that has mostly occupied a small group of specialists. While pediatric cancer is rare -- affecting less than 1% of the 1.4 million cases of cancer diagnosed each year -- survivors of childhood tumors now number 270,000. "This is almost approaching a public health issue," says Rosoff, who wrote an accompanying editorial but was not involved in Oeffinger's paper.
The new paper draws on a "landmark" trial, called the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, which began in 1994, Rosoff says. It tracks 13,000 patients diagnosed between 1970 and 1986 and compares their health with that of 3,000 of their siblings. That's a critical period in pediatric cancer, says Rosoff. Before the 1970s, most children with cancer died. "No one has ever seen a childhood cancer survivor who is 70 years old," says Rosoff. "They don't exist." Today, nearly 80% are cured, partly because youngsters are healthy and resilient enough to weather treatments that older patients cannot endure. But because children are still developing, they are more vulnerable than adults to the toxic effects of chemotherapy and radiation, which tend to kill growing cells.
Chemotherapy, for example, can lead to osteoporosis two ways -- by preventing normal bone growth and by causing early menopause, which can hit girls even in their teens, Oeffinger says. "I see patients with bones that are more osteoporotic in their 20s than many people are in their 70s," says Oeffinger, who says doctors now try to catch patients before they develop major bone loss. Rosoff calls Oeffinger's article a "clarion call" to increase awareness of these patients' needs, especially because most of them are seen by general practitioners who may not be familiar with their health risks. Medical education programs should consider incorporating this new field of study into the training of not just cancer specialists, but internal medicine, pediatrics and family medicine, he says.
Oeffinger notes that this field is relatively new. Fewer than 20% of pediatric cancer survivors receive follow-up care at a cancer center or with an oncologist, according to the study. Although about 100 hospitals offer long-term cancer follow-up, fewer than half a dozen follow adult survivors of childhood cancer into their 30s and 40s, Oeffinger says. Medicine has recently seen the birth of several new specialties related to the care of once-fatal childhood illnesses, from cystic fibrosis to sickle-cell anemia and congenital heart disease, Rosoff says. Like pediatric cancer survivors, cystic fibrosis patients -- who used to die as children or teens -- are now living into their 40s, with unique health needs.
Rosoff notes that the study doesn't include survivors treated after 1986. Treatments have changed significantly since then, Oeffinger says. Doctors are working to make some treatments gentler, hoping to avoid some of these complications. But Oeffinger notes that more children are also undergoing some of the most grueling therapies, such as bone-marrow transplants.
Justin Ferrelli, 29, is familiar with the progress and limitations of treating pediatric cancers. The Brooklyn, N.Y., resident was diagnosed at 16 with a malignant brain tumor. His doctors treated him with chemotherapy, hoping to avoid exposing his skull to radiation, for fear of causing learning problems. When the tumor returned a year later, however, Ferrelli underwent intensive chemo and radiation. Although cancer-free today, Ferrelli says he suffered damage to his thyroid, adrenal glands and motor skills. Doctors don't know if these problems were caused by his tumor or its treatment. Yet Ferrelli says that he is also lucky. As he sees it, "late effects are a luxury that only long-term survivors get to deal with."
from the National Children's Study
http://nationalchildrensstudy.gov/news/e-updates/e_update_102006.cfm#feature1
Eating well and exercising regularly are basic practices for good health. But before the Framingham Heart Study, launched in 1948, no one knew the extensive role these behaviors played in preventing cardiovascular disease. Longitudinal studies like Framingham not only have contributed to our understanding of the causes of serious health conditions, but also have revolutionized how physicians practice medicine and how people care for themselves.
The National Children's Study will be the largest longitudinal child health study ever conducted in the United States. By following 100,000 children from before birth to 21 years of age, Study researchers hope to understand how a variety of factors in one's genes and one's environment influence health. Several landmark studies have helped pave the way for this research effort, by advancing the science of good health and by providing lessons about good planning and design.
Early Child Health Studies
Three of the earliest U.S. cohort studies of child health and development began during the 1920s and 1930s. The Berkeley Growth Study (1928), Berkeley Guidance Study (1928), and Oakland Growth Study (1932) followed the mental, motor, and physical development of three cohorts of children in Oakland, California. These three studies helped to establish the field of developmental psychology, and affect how we conduct child cohort studies today. During the Berkeley Growth Study, Field Director Nancy Bayley pioneered the Bayley Scales of Infant Development, a tool that National Children's Study researchers will now use in its updated form to measure the mental health and motor development and test the behaviors of children from 1 to 42 months of age.
After World War II, British investigators began a series of longitudinal cohort studies that have contributed to our current understanding of important factors that affect neurological and behavioral development in childhood. Approximately 16,500 women and children participated in the British National Survey of Health and Development (NSHD) beginning in 1946. Considered one of the longest-running studies of human development in the world, the NSHD has influenced British health policy for the last 50 years.
In 1959, U.S. scientists began to look at prenatal and other factors that influence a child's growth and development in response to pressing public health problems such as high rates of infant mortality and premature birth. Led by the National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Blindness (now the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke), the Collaborative Perinatal Project (CPP) tracked more than 40,000 women and children to examine relationships between pregnancy, labor, and delivery with birth outcomes, especially cerebral palsy. "The CPP taught us that the major causes of cerebral palsy occur earlier in pregnancy than the time of birth and that inflammation of the placenta is a major cause of preterm birth," said Dr. Mark Klebanoff, MD, Director, Division of Epidemiology, Statistics, and Prevention Research, NICHD. "We still use the data decades later. Recent studies using the CPP are looking at whether conception delay is related to low birth weight and how pollutants may impact child development."
National Children's Study researchers have looked to several studies in addition to the CPP to help inform the development of the Study. Lessons learned from the Bogalusa Heart Study in Bogalusa, Louisiana -- one of the longest and most detailed multi-ethnic studies of children in the world -- have helped Study planners gain key insights into ways to enroll and retain the participation of youth over many years. National Children's Study planners have also looked to the Study of Health Behavior in School-Aged Children, a cross-sectional national research survey conducted in collaboration with the World Health Organization, for insights into structure and organization of large multicenter studies.
The Role of a National Children's Study
Despite the contributions of these studies, none has examined specifically how a wide range of environmental exposures and one's genetic makeup impact child development over time, nor has any studied a very large nationally representative sample of children from the different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds of the U.S. population. Like the Framingham Heart Study, the National Children's Study will fill a knowledge gap, and it will do so at a time when rates of obesity, asthma, autism, and other childhood diseases and disorders are on the rise.
from the National Children's Study
http://nationalchildrensstudy.gov/news/e-updates/e_update_102006.cfm#update1
The National Children's Study receives funding from Congress on a yearly basis. In fiscal year 2006, Congressional Appropriations Committee report language included strong support for the Study and its entry into the field, which would include recruitment and full-scale community outreach for fiscal year 2007. However, within his proposed budget for fiscal year 2007, the President did not include funding for the Study and instructed the Study to cease activities as of September 30, 2006.
As in past years, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees have strongly indicated that funding for the Study should continue in fiscal year 2007. Specifically, the House Appropriations bill directs that Study funds should come directly from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD, the Study's home institute). The Senate Appropriations bill proposes that Study funds could be provided through funds from the NIH Office of the Director. Final indication of Congress' intent for the future of the Study is expected to come from the Appropriations Conference Committee this fall, likely after the November elections. Following final approval of the budget and the President's signature, if funds are provided and adequate, the seven operating Vanguard Centers will prepare for recruitment in early 2008 and other Study implementation activities will commence, including awarding of contracts for the remaining 98 sites across the U.S. over the next few years.
While action on the fiscal year 2007 appropriation is in process, Study planners will continue to work toward completion of the protocol, and will work with the Vanguard Centers to establish infrastructure to support the Study, such as developing the information management system and ethics guidelines, and plans for recruitment and retention. Study planners will also continue to update federal and non-federal supporters on the Study's scientific progress. If additional funds are provided in the fiscal year 2007 federal budget, the NICHD will award contracts to more institutions and organizations having the ability to serve as Study Centers.