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.
The fourth annual environmental health lecture series entitled, "Our Health, Our Environment: Making the Link," is planned for 2007. The series, sponsored by the Seattle Biotech Legacy Foundation and organized by the Institute for Children's Environmental Health, will include one lecture each month January through April:
All lectures will be held at Seattle Town Hall from 6:30 to 8:00 p.m. For more information and to purchase admission, please visit http://washington.chenw.org/lectures.html.
November 18, 2006 (Olympia) or November 19, 2006 (Seattle)
9:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
Olympia and Seattle, Washington
Olympia: at the Unitarian Universalist Congregation Building, 220 E. End St. NW
Seattle: the location is TBD
This is a postelection gathering to plan for the new year and discuss common ways we will benefit from fixing our broken democracy. United on this issue, we can more easily achieve our various goals as citizens and citizen-based organizations. Those attending will discuss how we can fix democracy and speed our progress on these issues: 1) corporate power over government and corruption of democracy; 2) more effective tools for change; 3) basic assumptions and focus of activism; and 4) common bonds and strengths.
Website: http://www.SoundDemocracy.org
Contact: 360-236-9684 or JacquiAfd@comcast.net
December 2, 2006
Federal Way, Washington
at the Dumas Bay Centre
The Puget Sound Partnership meets regularly in its quest to develop an aggressive 15-year plan to solve Puget Sound's most vexing problems. The Partnership is holding a series of general public forums and specific scientific forums throughout the summer and fall.
Website: http://www.pugetsoundpartnership.org/
Contact: Martha Neuman, 206-625-0230 or mneuman@sharedsalmonstrategy.org
December 13, 2006
9:30 a.m. - 12:00 noon
Seattle, Washington
at the Bertha Knight Landes Room, Seattle City Hall (5th and James)
We've all become aware that the world built around us affects our health beyond the reach of personal lifestyle choices. With land use policies, designs and plans influencing individual and community health, it is more important than ever to better integrate planning processes and public health. But how can we determine what is healthiest for the community and the people in it? Health Impact Assessments (HIA) are used around the world to promote health and prevent illness. Come and learn about the Health Impact Assessment process and how it can promote and improve healthy places for all people. Our guest speakers are co-founders of Healthy Development, Inc., which focuses on the relationship between development and human health. The speakers provide science-based planning and decision-making tools related to the health, social and economic impacts of energy, land and water development. They will address the audience on their 25 years of experience in public health research, environmental land use and community development policy work and their use of Health Impact Assessments.
The Washington State Department of Health (DOH) is searching for an energetic, self-motivated and committed public health professional for the position of Health Services Consultant 4 (HSC) within the Chronic Disease Prevention Unit of the Community Health Division. The person serves as the designated department expert/specialist for asthma and manages the state Asthma Program. He/she monitors, analyzes, and applies the latest research, best practices, federal/private guidelines and strategies used to improve the health of people at risk of or diagnosed with asthma. The Asthma Program Manager works in the Chronic Disease Prevention Unit equally positioned with the diabetes, heart disease and stroke, nutrition and physical activity programs.
The complete position announcement in MS Word format is posted at http://www.doh.wa.gov/job_ann/HSC4_CFH-CWP_Asthma_Program_DOH142.doc.
from Steven G. Gilbert, PhD, DABT
At the 13th Annual Washington State Joint Conference on Health, the Washington State Public Health Association (WSPHA at http://www.wspha.org) unanimously adopted two important resolutions that address human health and the environment. The first resolution was entitled "Endorsing the Precautionary Principle as a Public Health Tool for Preventing Harm from Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic Chemicals (PBTs)." The highlight was that a number of people spoke in favor of the resolution and its importance for preventing disease and promoting health.
While focused on PBTs, the second resolve stated that "The WSPHA endorses the precautionary principle as a vital component of our preventive approach to public health in Washington State, advancing the goal that all people have an opportunity to reach and maintain their full potential." This is a powerful statement in support of human and environmental health. The second resolution was entitled "Supporting Safer Chemicals Policies to Benefit Human and Environmental Health." This resolution addressed the need to 1) reduce exposure to PBTs; 2) encourage development and use of safer, cost-effective, alternative products, materials and processes; 3) develop 'green chemistry'; and 4) provide full information on the health effects of all chemicals placed into the marketplace. These two resolutions provide a tremendous support for human and environmental health in Washington State.
by Roni Rabin, New York Times
November 14, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/health/14men.html
In recent years, women's health has been a national priority. Pink ribbons warn of breast cancer. Pins shaped like red dresses raise awareness about heart disease. Offices of women's health have sprung up at every level of government to offer information and free screenings, and one of the largest government studies on hormones and diet in aging focused entirely on older women.
Yet statistics show that men are more likely than women to suffer an early death. Now some advocates and medical scientists are beginning to ask a question that in some circles might be considered politically incorrect: Is men's health getting short shrift? The idea, they say, is not to denigrate the importance of women's health but to focus public attention on the ways in which men may be uniquely at risk -- and on what a growing men's health movement has termed the "health disparity" between the sexes and its most glaring example, a persistent longevity gap that has narrowed but still shortchanges men of five years of life compared with women.
"We've got men dying at higher rates of just about every disease, and we don't know why," said Dr. Demetrius J. Porche, an associate dean at Louisiana State University's Health Sciences Center School of Nursing in New Orleans, and the editor of a new quarterly, American Journal of Men's Health, that will publish its first issue next March.
The Men's Health Network, a not-for-profit educational foundation based in Washington, has called for creating a federal office of men's health to mirror the office on women's health within the Health and Human Services Department, and it is backing a bill sponsored by Senator Mike Crapo, Republican of Idaho, and Representative Vito Fossella, Republican of New York, to do so. Several federal offices on women's health were recently established to compensate for years in which women were often excluded from medical research, but there is no federal office of men's health. Men's health advocates say that men are silently suffering through what may be a serious health crisis. "We keep throwing out lifestyle as an explanation for the differences in longevity, saying that men come in later for care and have unhealthy behaviors, but I'm not sure we really know the reason," Dr. Porche said. "And we haven't answered the question: Is there a biological determinant for why men die earlier than women?"
It is a question that has piqued the interest of some medical scientists, including Dr. Marianne J. Legato, founder of the Partnership for Gender-Specific Medicine at Columbia University. Five states -- Maryland, Georgia, New Hampshire, Louisiana and Oklahoma -- have either established or plan to establish offices or commissions on men's health, and the Nov. 15 issue of JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Association, is entirely devoted to studies on the topic. But the mere suggestion that men need their own health bureau or that they must advocate for their rights like a victimized minority rankles some women's health advocates, and some politicians are reluctant to take men's health on as a cause, for fear of alienating women. "Saying we need an office of men's health ignores the fact that men's health always was the main focus of medical research," said Cynthia Pearson, executive director of the National Women's Health Network in Washington, a membership organization for improving women's health. "During the first half-century of our nation's investment in medical research, the majority of resources went to studying men and the conditions that affected men disproportionately," she said. "Is their health perfect? No. But they don't need a movement."
Still, by just about any measure, men's health is abysmal. American men have an average life expectancy of 75.2 years, and even less -- 69.8 years -- for black men, compared with 80.4 years for women over all. Men die of just about every one of the leading causes of death at younger ages than women, from lung cancer to influenza and pneumonia, chronic liver disease, diabetes and AIDS. One notable exception is Alzheimer's disease: more women than men die of it. Topping the list for both sexes is heart disease.
But while the American Heart Association has been conducting an aggressive public education campaign to raise awareness about heart disease among women, called Go Red for Women and featuring pins in the shape of dresses, progress among men has been slipping, said Dr. Steven Nissen, the chairman of the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic and president of the American College of Cardiology. Yet, he added, the illness exacts a disproportionate toll on men. Although heart disease occurs in women in their 30s and 40s, he said, it is "extremely unusual," while severe heart disease in men that age is "not exceptionally rare." Heart disease in women increases as they age, he noted. "We've got to put it all in perspective," Dr. Nissen said. "Coronary heart disease has a devastating impact on men, particularly on men who are in the prime of life -- 45-year-old men with major heart attacks, who may never work another day in their life, who may have children."
Cancer also strikes men disproportionately: one in three women at some point in life; one in two men. In part, that is a result of the fact that more men than women smoke, and possibly of occupational exposures. But experts and advocates say that when it comes to government financing for the most common sex-specific reproductive cancers, breast cancer financing exceeds prostate cancer financing by more than 40 percent, with prostate cancer research receiving $394 million in 2005, and breast cancer receiving $710 million. The figures, for financing by the National Cancer Institute and Defense Department, were provided by the not-for-profit Prostate Cancer Foundation.
More women die of breast cancer than men do of prostate cancer: some 40,970 women will die of breast cancer this year, compared with 27,350 deaths of men from prostate cancer, according to the American Cancer Society. Breast cancer also strikes young people more often. But men's chances of receiving a prostate cancer diagnosis at some point in their lifetimes are high, with about 234,460 new cases expected to be diagnosed this year, compared with 212,920 new cases of breast cancer.
Nevertheless, said Dr. Peter Scardino, a prostate cancer surgeon and chairman of the department of surgery at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, "there are still more people doing research on breast cancer than on prostate cancer, there's more industry support for research on breast cancer drugs, there's been more attention to the quality of life effects of breast cancer and we have more-effective chemotherapy agents for breast cancer because more trials have been done."
Men's vulnerability appears to start quite early. More male fetuses are conceived, but they are at greater risk of stillbirth and miscarriage, scientists find. Even as infants, mortality is higher among newborn boys and premature baby boys. As children, boys are at higher risk for developmental disabilities and autism. Boys and men are more likely to be colorblind, suffer higher rates of hearing loss and are believed to have weaker immune systems than women. They may also recover more slowly from illnesses. "It's not that we 'could be' the weaker sex -- we are the weaker sex," said Dr. Robert Tan, a geriatrics specialist in Houston who is on the advisory board of the Men's Health Network. "Even when men and women have the same disease, we often find that men are more likely to die. Hip fractures stand out, for instance: women seem more likely to recover, while men are more likely to die afterward."
Behavior plays a role in some of the extra deaths and illnesses among men: they tend to be more aggressive than women and to take more risks. Men smoke at higher rates than women, drink more alcohol and are less likely to wear seat belts or use sunscreen. Men also suffer more accidental deaths and serious injuries and are more likely to die of injuries and car accidents. They are three times as likely to be victims of murder, four times as likely to commit suicide and, as teenagers, 11 times as likely to drown.
Some experts think that depression contributes to these reckless and self-destructive behaviors, but that just as heart disease was initially defined by men's experiences and therefore ignored or missed in women, depression may have been framed by women's experiences and therefore may be missed and go untreated in men. In any case, as a result, even though more baby boys are born, among people in their mid-30s, women outnumber men. Among people age 100, women outnumber men by 8 to one.
Among the questions research might explore, Dr. Legato said, are: "Why are there more miscarriages of boy fetuses? What is it about the sexing of the fetus that makes a male more vulnerable? What makes a boy less mature in terms of lung function after he's born? And what is this propensity for risk-taking?" One theory is that males are vulnerable because of their chromosomal makeup: where women have two X chromosomes, men have an X chromosome and a Y chromosome. "It is said that even before implantation in the wall of the uterus, the newly fertilized XX entity has a leg up," Dr. Legato said, "because it can use that extra X to combat mutations in the chromosome that might be lethal or detrimental. And that might be a reason why females have a more sturdy constitution."
Scientists and advocates who are concerned about men's health are encouraging men themselves to take the first steps by accepting responsibility for their health status, seeking preventive care and making changes in habits, if necessary. New drugs for erectile dysfunction have helped bring men into doctors' offices in recent years, experts say, but that is not enough. "Men need to take as good care of their bodies as they do of their cars and trucks, and they don't," said Dr. Ken Goldberg, a urologist and the author of "How Men Can Live as Long as Women," among other books. "We need men to come in" to the doctor's office, he said, adding, "A lot of men think they're bulletproof and invincible."
Research based on a 2000 survey by the Commonwealth Fund found that almost a quarter of all men had not seen a doctor during the previous year, compared with only 8 percent of women, and that one in three men had no regular doctor, compared with one in five women. More than half of men had not gone in for a routine checkup or cholesterol test during the previous year. Even if something was bothering them, the survey found, men often expressed reluctance to seek medical help. Nearly 40 percent said they would delay care for a few days, and 17 percent said they would wait at least a week.
Strangely, some insights into men's behavior in regard to their health have been gleaned from studies intended to yield information about women. A 2001 national study on ambulatory care found that women, who are in the habit of seeing doctors regularly if only because they need reproductive services, had double the number of annual exams that men had. Other studies have found that because poor women with children may qualify for Medicaid, poor men are more likely to lack health insurance.
Advocates say that research must be directed at how specific diseases develop in men, but that studies should also be done to explore the underlying reasons that men do not take better care of themselves. Many psychologists think the problems are rooted in how boys are raised. "We've socialized men from the time they are boys that 'You have to stand on your own two feet,' 'If you have a problem, handle it by yourself,' 'Be a man, take one for the team,' " said Dr. William Pollack, director of the Center for Men at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass., affiliated with Harvard Medical School. "All of which means, 'Don't complain, don't ask for help and solve the problem by yourself.'" He added: "Men think that being vulnerable is the worst thing. But to recognize there might be something wrong with you, you have to acknowledge: you're vulnerable."
by Rob Stein, Washington Post
November 14, 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/13/AR2006111300824.html
Younger women who regularly eat red meat appear to face an increased risk for a common form of breast cancer, according to a large, well-known Harvard study of women's health. The study of more than 90,000 women found that the more red meat the women consumed in their 20s, 30s and 40s, the greater their risk for developing breast cancer fueled by hormones in the next 12 years. Those who consumed the most red meat had nearly twice the risk of those who ate red meat infrequently.
The study, published yesterday in the Archives of Internal Medicine, is the first to examine the relationship between consumption of red meat and breast cancer in premenopausal women, and the first to examine the question by type of breast cancer. Although more research is needed to confirm the association and explore the possible reasons for it, researchers said the findings provide another motivation to limit consumption of red meat, which is already known to increase the risk of colon cancer. "There are already other reasons to minimize red meat intake," said Eunyoung Cho, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, who led the study. "This just may give women another good reason."
Cho added that the findings could be particularly important because the type of breast cancer the study associated with red meat consumption has been increasing. Eating less red meat may help counter that trend. Other researchers said the findings could offer women one of the few things they can do to reduce their risk for the widely feared malignancy. Breast cancer strikes nearly 213,000 U.S. women each year and kills nearly 41,000, making it the most common cancer and the second most common cause of cancer death among women.
"So many risk factors for breast cancer are things that you can't alter," said Nancy E. Davidson, a breast cancer expert at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. "This represents something women could take charge of -- something you can change to affect your risk." Why red meat might increase the risk for breast cancer remains unknown, but previous research has suggested several possible reasons: Substances produced by cooking meat may be carcinogenic, naturally occurring substances in meat may mimic the action of hormones, or growth hormones that farmers feed cows could fuel breast cancer in women who consume meat from the animals.
Researchers have long wondered whether there might be a link between red meat consumption and breast cancer risk, but few studies have addressed the question. Those that have, including one large analysis that pooled data from eight studies, did not find any association. But the earlier studies focused on older women and did not differentiate between types of breast cancer.
In the new study, Cho and her colleagues analyzed data collected from 90,659 female nurses ages 26 to 46 who are participating in the Nurses' Health Study II, a long-term project examining a host of women's health issues. As part of the study, participants provided detailed information about their diets every four years. When the researchers analyzed the data from 1991 to 2003, they found no overall link between red meat consumption and an increased risk of breast cancer. But when they examined the data from only the 512 women who developed the type of breast cancer whose growth is fueled by the hormones estrogen and progesterone, they found an association. The risk increased with the amount of red meat consumed, with those who ate more than 1 1/2 servings a day of beef, lamb or pork having nearly double the risk of hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer compared with those who ate three or fewer servings per week. A serving is roughly equivalent to a single hamburger or hot dog. "That's a pretty strong association," said Cho, who is also an associate professor of epidemiology at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston.
Other researchers praised the study for being well conducted but said more research is needed to confirm and explore the findings. "The study is well done, and I'm sure it will create some interest to try to replicate the findings," said Eugenia Calle of the American Cancer Society. "But until that happens, we can't draw conclusions about whether this is a true association or something that's just been observed in a single study."
Other experts agreed but noted that the findings are consistent with a growing body of evidence that indicates that diet early in life can affect a person's health risks later on. "This suggests that lifestyle, in this case diet, in early adulthood is important in potentially explaining your risk for premenopausal breast cancer," said Carolina Hinestrosa of the National Breast Cancer Coalition. While it may be premature to make formal dietary recommendations based on the findings, the Nurses' Health Study II is so well respected that women should take this new analysis into consideration, she said.
But noting that earlier studies reached the opposite conclusion, Randall D. Huffman, vice president for scientific affairs at the American Meat Institute, said that research into "diet and health is known for its fluid and often contradictory conclusions. This study is a perfect example of that." "The wisest course of action in the wake of one more contradictory study is to consume the balanced diet recommended by the U.S. Dietary Guidelines," he said.
from Sarah Gardner, Marketplace
November 13, 2006
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2006/11/13/PM200611135.html
KAI RYSSDAL: There's a vote scheduled in Brussels, Belgium, tomorrow that could ultimately require big changes from American companies. The European Parliament will be holding a preliminary head-count on what it calls its REACH legislation: New regulations covering the use of chemicals in business. Europe and Japan are beginning to restrict the kinds of chemicals used in everyday products, citing threats to human health. But the U.S. isn't following suit. Sarah Gardner reports from the Marketplace Sustainability Desk ... Americans often buy goods branded too toxic by other countries.
SARAH GARDNER: When Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer brought toys to work this past summer, she wasn't playing around. In fact, she was angry when she held up a set of plastic baby blocks at a Senate hearing:
BARBARA BOXER: "I don't want my grandchildren, and anyone else's grandchildren or great grandchildren or children puttin' this stuff in the mouth!" Boxer was holding up those soft plastic blocks that babies love to drool on. They're soft, though, because of controversial chemicals called phthalates. Europe banned them in baby toys but they're still legal here. Americans can also buy types of nail polish, weed killer and kitchen cabinets shunned by Europe and Japan. Yes, kitchen cabinets.
HARRY DEMOREST: "We have known for some time that formaldehyde was a chemical that more and more health agencies were saying was dangerous." Harry Demorest is CEO of Columbia Forest Products in Oregon. He says the glue commonly used in cabinet plywood gives off formaldehyde gases. According to the EPA, formaldehyde Is a probable cancer agent. It's also been linked to asthma and headaches. But the only U.S. agency that limits formaldehyde levels in plywood is HUD. Demorest says when his company hired a lab to test a dozen different plywood planks sold legally around the U.S., it compared them to the HUD standards.
DEMOREST: "All of the products we tested exceeded that standard. As a matter of fact, one piece of plywood from China exceeded that standard by a factor of 10."
Advocates of green chemistry like Michael Wilson at UC-Berkeley claim the United States risks becoming a "dumping ground" for toxic products as other nations clean up their acts. U.S. chemical laws are weak, he complains. Instead of forcing industry to prove a chemical is safe, the burden is generally on the EPA to prove it endangers people and places. And that legal standard of proof, he says, is too high.
MICHAEL WILSON: Most people seem to think that chemical consumer products, for example, that are on the shelves have been tested and somehow cleared for safety by a government agency or what have you, perhaps like pharmaceuticals. And that is just simply not the case in the U.S." Wilson thinks Europe's approach to regulating chemicals is smarter. Better safe than sorry is the general thinking on that continent. But the American chemical industry says Europe is overreaching. Europe's upcoming REACH legislation is alarmist, in their view, and risks banning chemicals that benefit not only consumers but the economy.
Mike Walls is managing director of the American Chemistry Council.
MIKE WALLS: "A chemical can be hazardous but it doesn't necessarily pose a risk either because the amounts are so low or because there's very little potential for exposure for example." Walls says just because Europe is restricting certain chemicals doesn't mean the U.S. need follow.
WALLS: "Europe has made regulatory decisions on particular chemicals that conflict in some cases with the scientific risk assessments done by them." But some companies already forced to reformulate their products for Europe and Japan are now doing the same for the American market. Not always happily.
STACEY MALKAN: "Really what it took, ultimately, was public pressure." Stacey Malkan at the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics helped convince big nail-polish makers like Sally Hansen and OPI to take a controversial chemical out of their U.S. products, something they'd already done for the European market.
MALKAN: "Newspaper advertisements, public protest, women calling the companies.... And once the companies started to hear that people were concerned about this, that's when they changed." And it's not just consumer advocates pressing for cleaner cosmetics and less-toxic toys. Now retailers cultivating a greener image are demanding changes. Recently, Wal-Mart announced it will reward its suppliers who find alternatives to three suspect chemicals the store wants off its shelves.
by Nate Birt, Columbia Missourian
November 12, 2006
http://columbiamissourian.com/news/story.php?ID=22823
With a candy-colored pad of sticky notes, Gregory Triplett explains how his nanotechnology research could start a medical revolution. He pinches the sticky pad between his fingers, and the notes bulge out to either side, creating a gap in the middle. The bulges represent two atoms, joined and pulsating. He puts a forefinger to one of the bulges, imitating a laser, and from the other side of the pad, he tears away a couple sheets of the paper, tossing them. This is the energy released by the atoms after they're hit by the laser. The MU assistant professor of electrical engineering is among those who think the nano-engineered equivalent of the laser-struck sticky notes could have huge implications in the everyday world.
Nanotechnology may be the most important scientific field you don't know about. It may also be one of the most controversial, ill-defined and potentially dangerous. Researchers are hopeful that their work holds potential for great advances in medical technologies, weapons development and computer construction, but they admit that, for now, they have more questions than answers. For most researchers, that's exciting. Science is all about investigation.
Triplett's own work could one day make the lives of diabetics a whole lot easier. His research project includes a quantum cascade laser, which produces in atoms an effect similar to that of a doctor testing a patient's reflexes: The doctor hits the patient's knee with a small hammer, and the patient kicks his or her leg out, releasing energy. When an atom is hit with a laser beam, it and other atoms nearby become excited and release energy. However, every atom releases a different amount of energy, otherwise known as an emission. When scientists determine which emission corresponds to which atomic arrangement, they could determine the amount of those arrangements in a person's body.
Triplett and his fellow researchers use a molecular beam epitaxy machine, valued at $1 million without any special add-ons, to line up chains of atoms and hit them with a laser beam. Different groups of atoms respond to the laser by releasing different amounts of energy, and cataloging those variations could enable doctors to detect specific molecules, like glucose, and measure their concentration in the blood. Diabetics could use a noninvasive technology like that to check their blood glucose levels, for a fraction of what they now pay to treat themselves, and without a needle.
Nanotechnology could do that and so much more. It could make our computers faster and much, much smaller. It could help us monitor our environment for dangerous chemicals. It could help us capture ethanol faster than ever, providing cheaper fuel. It could attack cancer in our bodies. It could help us understand where Parkinson's disease begins and how to treat it. It could save your life.
But along with that optimism, there remains concern among policy analysts and ethicists that leaving so many questions about nanotechnology unanswered -- from its possible health risks to its deadly potential in the hands of terrorists -- could leave lasting scars on humans and the environment.
A 'secret' science
Despite all the scientific hoopla, nanotechnology is only beginning to make its way into public consciousness. More Americans know about nanotechnology today than two years ago, but 42 percent still don't know what it is, according to an August phone survey of 1,014 Americans commissioned by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. The first large-scale national nanotechnology poll conducted since 2004 also found widespread uncertainty about the trade-off between risks and benefits. At its most basic level, nanotechnology refers to research and innovation at the level of atoms. Objects at that scale are measured by the nanometer, which is one billionth of a meter. Nanotechnology traditionally involves research into the behavior of atomic structures from 1 to 100 nanometers (5) in size -- objects so small, they can have different colors and stability. An atom of the element gold, for example, appears red at the nanoscale.
Fritz Allhoff, an assistant professor of philosophy at Western Michigan University and co-founder of The Nanoethics Group, said nanotechnology should be defined as the manipulation of matter on the nanoscale in ways that take advantage of the unique properties that appear there. Humans are also manipulating the word nanotechnology, he said, especially when it involves marketing. The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies lists over 200 products on the market, including items as diverse as lotion and car paint finish, whose creators claim use nanoparticles.
Some companies, however, are slapping the "nano" label on consumer goods in spite of the fact that the creation of those products, such as stain-resistant pants, don't use nanotechnology but rely instead on naturally occurring chemical reactions, Allhoff said. The iPod nano, for example, is simply a smaller iPod that has nothing to do with nanotechnology itself. "If that word becomes watered down by all these promiscuous usages, it could be rendered completely meaningless," Allhoff said.
Research at MU
Shubhra Gangopadhyay's defense-related nanotechnology research sounds like something out of a James Bond movie; part of it is done at a secret research facility somewhere in Columbia. Gangopadhyay came to Missouri three years ago from Texas Tech. She had opened a nanotechnology research center there, and she has done the same at MU. The International Center for Micro/Nano Systems Technology opened on April 7. The center's main facility is located in MU's Engineering Building West. Seventeen faculty members work in roughly 5,000 square feet of laboratories and classrooms. The center is awaiting a $10 million grant from the federal government that would be used through 2011 for nanotechnology research. Gangopadhyay can't talk freely about her research or the secret facility, she said, because many of the technologies being created are meant to keep soldiers safe. "We do not want them to be known by our enemies," Gangopadhyay said.
In general terms, the research is being broken down into three categories. One is weapons. Another is miniaturized chemical and biological sensors. The third is energy storage. Researchers want to make soldiers' weapons lighter and more precise, she said. They want to better store hydrogen using fuel cells. Researchers are also working on ways to better detect land mines using nanotechnology. The goal of the center is to create products that will be marketable in a relatively short period of time, Gangopadhyay said, and to provide students with tools they can use in the future. "We would like our faculty and students to create small businesses using this facility," she said.
Jim Coleman, vice chancellor for research at MU, said there are probably 30 to 50 researchers at MU receiving funding for their nanotechnology work. Since 2004, he estimates, the MU campus has received about $30 million in funding for nanotechnology. Much of that money is in the form of federal grants, while some is provided through private foundations. Defense and medical research are receiving the most funding at this time, Coleman said.
Suchi Guha, a physics professor and affiliate of MU's Center for Micro/Nano Systems Technology, is researching how organic polymers, such as collections of carbon and hydrogen atoms, can be used in new technologies to conduct electricity. Organic semiconducting polymers could be used to build televisions that roll up like a rug and are super easy to transport. Soldiers' camouflage could have LED, or light-emitting diode, patches printed onto them to replace clunky equipment that provides light.
Most LEDs use inorganic polymer semiconducting materials -- gallium, arsenic and other similar elements -- that can act as insulators or as electricity conductors, such as in traffic lights. But those materials require expensive growth and fabrication techniques that are inefficient. They are also much less flexible than organic polymers, Guha said. Using the alternative organic polymers for electrical purposes has several advantages, Guha said. Organic polymers are cheap to create -- simply make a solution, grow the desired polymer in it, and pour it onto a machine that spins the liquefied molecules into a thin, highly flexible, record-like disc. That disc can then be used to conduct electricity when paired with a battery.
There are, of course, problems associated with using organic polymers for technology, Guha said. They tend to have a shorter life span than their inorganic counterparts, and they're fairly susceptible to harm by exposure to the environment. Guha's research involves shooting beams of light at these newly created LED devices to test for defects. If she can understand where those lie, she can work toward creating a better product that could have application in the real world.
MU Chancellor Brady Deaton said that defense research may have received more money in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, but he expects increased funding for medical research that relies on nanotechnology. Deaton, who prefers the term nanoscience to nanotechnology, said the campus stands out because of its medical research. Kattesh Katti, director of MU's Cancer Nanotechnology Platform, and 11 other fellow researchers are working with a $3.1 million grant from the National Cancer Institute to try to understand cancer at the molecular level. MU's platform was one of 12 established around the country in September 2005 as part of a five-year research project.
Researchers are creating biocompatible gold nanoparticles designed to target specific organs. Those nanoparticles are attached to cancer-specific peptides, very small molecules attracted to the cells' receptors, and injected into the bloodstream to help detect and treat various kinds of cancer. Experimental use of the nanoparticles in pigs to deliver medicine and enhance medical imaging scans is showing some promise, Katti said. The researchers' focus is prostate cancer, Katti said, but there is potential for treating other kinds of cancer. Cancerous cells have an unusually high number of protein receptors, which greatly increases the probability that imaging and medicinal particles targeted at those cells will reach them.
Billion-dollar deals
At the federal level, the National Nanotechnology Initiative has requested more than $1 billion for nanotechnology research and development in 2007. The initiative is a network of 25 federal organizations, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Defense, that fund nanotechnology research at their own labs and at universities around the country, including MU. Former President Bill Clinton started the initiative in 2000, and it became a part of the federal budget in fiscal 2001. Back then, the federal government spent an estimated $464 million on nanotechnology -- a figure that has more than doubled to the current proposal of more than $1.2 billion next year.
Celia Merzbacher, assistant director for technology research and development at the federal Office of Science and Technology, said the increased federal spending is a recognition of opportunities that are becoming available because of advances in materials, instrumentation and computing. "All of these are coming together to make it possible to do nanoscale research and development and to come up with really practical applications that weren't possible before," Merzbacher said.
A potential poison?
The opening of the nanotechnology frontier brings with it a need for the public to be educated about the positive and negative aspects of atomic engineering. Andrew Maynard, chief science adviser for the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies in Washington, D.C., said that for more than five years, a growing number of scientists and researchers have realized the need to research the behavior of nanoparticles to identify adverse side effects. The health and environmental risks that could arise from nanotechnology have been largely unresearched, Maynard said, and that kind of work is becoming critical as more products using nanotechnology enter the marketplace. "This is a technology where the public has got to be fully engaged," he said. "We've really got to understand the potential risks."
Take carbon nanotubes. These structures perform a dual role in tennis rackets and bicycle frames by making them stronger and lighter. They're also being used in plasma TV displays, and there's the possibility they could be used to repair nerves in the body. "It's like a miracle material," Maynard said. But what if someone inhaled these submicroscopic particles? They'd get into the lungs, sure, but they might also enter the bloodstream, and inhaling enough of them could spawn disease in the body, Maynard said.
The coatings for some products, such as tennis rackets, can begin as a dusty substance that is overlaid by some sort of plastic. As a dust, Maynard said, clumps of nanoparticles could easily be wafted into the air and inhaled. Over time, the material in the tennis racket might degrade, possibly releasing clumps of nanoparticles into the air. It's unlikely that individual atomic particles would be inhaled, he said, but at this time, no one knows for sure what might happen. That could not only put consumers at risk, but also those who manufacture such goods, Maynard said.
With nanoparticles, chemistry is important, but structure is important, too, Maynard said. Engineered nanoparticles don't appear in nature, Maynard said, so if we're not careful, we might be picking -- or producing -- our own poison.
The federal government is allocating $11 million to research the potential side-effects of nanotechnology, Maynard said, but many research organizations have called for five to nine times that amount. Nanotechnology has been much hyped, Maynard said, and it's possible that the government has become so enthusiastic about potential value that the downsides have been overlooked. "I haven't seen any real progress at the top level of the federal government in the last 18 months," Maynard said. Policymakers, he said, "seem to be so reticent to grasp the bull by the horns."
That doesn't mean research on the risks of nanoparticles isn't being done, Maynard said. The Environmental Protection Agency, National Institutes of Health and other organizations are performing their own research. In reality, he said, most of the nanoparticles will probably have minimal impact, as long as people use "the rules of good occupational hygiene and common sense" when nanoparticles are being manufactured.
Regulating research
As nanotechnology institutes spring up across the country, funded through organizations like the National Science Foundation, it's reasonable to ask whether people are performing that research because they think it's important or simply because they have the funds, said Fritz Allhoff, co-founder of The Nanoethics Group. Along with colleagues at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, Allhoff received a grant in September from the National Science Foundation to examine the ethics of human enhancement -- improving vision, lengthening people's lives and innovative medicines. In the spring, scientists, science policymakers and philosophers will gather at Dartmouth to present their research on the possibilities of nanotechnology, leaving ethicists with the material they need to address the question of what kinds of research should be done.
Research under way across the country already poses interesting questions, Allhoff said. At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for example, there is a department that focuses on nanoengineered technologies for soldiers. But Allhoff wonders whether these technologies are necessarily good. The risks involved aren't yet known, he said, even though many of the results seem promising.
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization weighed in earlier this year on how to best regulate research to safeguard the environment and "help solve the most pressing needs for the greatest number of people." A United Nations report on "The Ethics and Politics of Nanotechnology" suggests using international organizations to help define when the public should have access to information about nanotechnology research, and when governments could classify research that "may be used to contribute to the creation of new and nefarious kinds of weapons by terrorists." Those organizations could also be used to ensure that publicly funded research is made available for peer review, the report says, not privatized for patenting purposes by a few wealthy people.
The report says some people worry that nanotechnological devices might one day be able to self-replicate and possibly "destroy the natural world." Others, the report says, think the ethics of nanotechnology to "enhance, repair, replace or augment human characteristics" must be dealt with in the future. But those kinds of ethical dilemmas are already a part of our lives, the report says, noting that humans are using genetic screening and performance-enhancing drugs.
Patrick Lin, director of The Nanoethics Group, said many people are also ignoring or dismissing the longer-term impacts that nanotechnology could have on privacy or human enhancement. Some scientists predict that nanotechnology could allow us to live from 200 to 1,000 years, Lin said, raising "phenomenal" implications about such things as pensions and quality of life.
Still other scientists predict that nanotechnology will result in massive advances in transportation, allowing people much greater access to space. If that happens, Lin asked, how will we decide who gets what in the solar system? Will there be a land grab? Billboards on the moon? Scientists may overlook such long-term issues, Lin said, because "it still sounds speculative, like science fiction." Some of those issues might not be a matter of if, but when. "We see many of them as real possibilities," Lin said.
[Editor's note: A lecture on February 7th at Seattle's Town Hall will further discuss this topic. Please see http://washington.chenw.org/lectures.html for more information.]
by Helen Altonn, Honolulu Star-Bulletin
November 12, 2006
http://starbulletin.com/2006/11/12/news/story06.html
A noted Hawaii cancer researcher and his team say they believe they are unraveling the mystery of why some workers heavily exposed to asbestos develop cancer, while most do not. It's not just a case of good vs. bad luck, but a combination of the mineral fibers and viruses that's responsible, said Dr. Michele Carbone, director of the Thoracic Oncology Program, Cancer Research Center of Hawaii, in an interview. Those factors work together to cause malignant mesothelioma, an aggressive cancer of membranes lining the chest and abdominal cavities, he said. The finding has general implications, he said. "It opens a new area of research, because other cancers could be caused by interaction of these things."
People who work in shipyards have high incidence of mesothelioma, meaning 5 percent of those with more than 10 years' exposure will die of cancer, Carbone said. "That's a lot, but it also tells you 95 percent of them equally loaded with asbestos do not get it. So the issue is, why? "The 'why' is not just an academic curiosity," he said, noting that identifying why some people are more susceptible might help to detect and treat asbestos-related cancer.
More than 10,000 workers have been exposed to asbestos at the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard since World War II, and many more at building and construction sites in Hawaii, according to Galiher DeRobertis Ono, the leading law firm for malignant mesothelioma cases. The Honolulu firm represented the first asbestos claimants from the Pearl Harbor shipyard in 1978, and has since represented more than 2,000 workers with asbestos-related diseases, Gary Galiher said. About 90 percent of the plaintiffs have been Pearl Harbor workers, he said.
Galiher disputes Carbone's contention that co-factors are involved in causing mesothelioma. That may be true in Turkey, where Carbone is studying an epidemic of cases that arose in some villages because of the type of stones used in houses, Galiher said. But "in human beings in the United States, asbestos is the only cause of mesothelioma," he said. "Trying to look for other causes of it is pretty bizarre." Carbone's large resources would be better spent trying to find more effective treatments, Galiher added. Galiher said his firm files probably 20 to 30 asbestos-related cases each year, and six to 15 involving mesothelioma. It could be 50 to 60 years before victims exposed to asbestos develop symptoms, he pointed out. "It's tragic."
Carbone, formerly at the Loyola University Medical Center in Chicago, came to Hawaii June 1. He brought some of his key researchers and record federal funding for malignant mesothelioma studies. Those funds -- about $15 million for five years -- support the largest research team in the world focusing on asbestos-related cancer. He's working with colleagues on the mainland and in Turkey. Dr. Carl-Wilhelm Vogel, Cancer Research Center of Hawaii director, said Carbone's appointment represents "an investment in developing a new area of leadership in the field of thoracic oncology, lung cancer and asbestos-related malignancies."
Carbone said he visited the cancer center here about a year ago and learned of plans to build a new facility next to the University of Hawaii medical school in Kakaako. "I said: 'Call me when it's ready.'" Construction hasn't started on the new cancer center, but laboratory and office space has been provided for his group in the new John A. Burns School of Medicine.
Carbone has been studying thoracic cancers, and specifically malignant mesothelioma, for more than 10 years, resulting in a series of published discoveries. In the latest paper last month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Carbone reported finding a link between asbestos fibers and a monkey virus called SV40. His group administered SV40 and asbestos to human mesothelial cells in tissue culture and to live hamsters to test the idea that the two are co-carcinogens. Low amounts of asbestos believed insufficient to cause mesothelioma will cause the disease more often among humans infected with the virus, the researchers reported. Carbone's team had previously discovered the monkey virus in some human mesotheliomas, but he said he was surprised to find that the virus and asbestos cooperate to cause human cancer.
Monkey cells were used to develop polio vaccines, and some prepared from 1954 to 1961 were contaminated with infectious SV40, but it was believed all polio vaccines after 1962 were SV40-free, Carbone said. A study he headed, however, found that vaccines produced in the former Soviet Union remained contaminated with the monkey virus until 1978. That means supposedly safe levels of asbestos exposure might not be safe for the millions of people exposed to SV40-contaminated polio vaccines, Carbone said. About 2,000 to 3,000 Americans die annually from mesothelioma, and cases have been increasing, associated with widespread asbestos use in the past century, researchers said.
The virus doesn't cause a lot of cancer in humans, most likely because their immune systems are stronger than those of animals, Carbone said. But some people are less resistant, and mesothelioma cells harbor the virus better than other cells, he explained. "In the presence of asbestos, transformation of human cells increased 10 times or more. What it shows is if you are infected with the virus and also exposed to asbestos, probably your risk to the disease is much higher." More specific drugs could be developed for mesothelioma if the mechanism were understood, Carbone said.
Mesothelioma is one of the most aggressive cancers, with about one year survival after diagnosis, he said. "By the time symptoms bring you to the doctor -- pain and trouble breathing -- the cancer is advanced. We need to be able to detect it before the patient is sick."
by Stephen Leahy, Inter Press Service
November 11, 2006
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=35452
TORONTO (Tierramérica) -- Skin cancer, eye lesions and other infections are on the rise, a reminder that the Antarctic ozone hole continues to be a serious problem, especially for southern Argentina and Chile, where ultraviolet radiation during the spring months increases 25 percent. The ozone layer covers the entire planet at an altitude of between 15 and 30 kilometres, and protects living organisms from the sun's harmful rays.
According to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the dramatic thinning of the ozone layer over the Antarctic -- an annual phenomenon -- sprawled to an average of 29.5 million square kilometres Sep. 21 to Sep. 30. "This year's Antarctic ozone 'hole' is the largest on record," said Achim Steiner, executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). "Governments need to reduce and shut down the remaining sources of ozone-depleting chemicals," Steiner said in a statement.
The rates of sunburn increase during the southern hemisphere springtime, when the Antarctic ozone hole is large enough to extend over the city of Punta Arenas at the southern tip of Chile, according to studies conducted by Chile's Universidad de Magallanes.
Diagnoses of malignant melanoma, a deadly form of skin cancer, have doubled in recent years, leading Chilean health authorities to recommend avoiding direct exposure to the sun between 11:00am and 5:00pm this time of year, and especially to protect children. "Worldwide, the increases in melanoma are alarming. It is among the fastest rising forms of cancer," says Edward De Fabo, an ultraviolet (UV) radiation and skin cancer researcher at George Washington University, in Washington, DC. "It used to be rare in young people, but we see increasing cases of melanoma in people under 25 years of age," De Fabo told Tierramérica in an interview.
Rising rates of sunburn have also been linked to higher levels of UV reaching the Earth's surface. Direct adverse effects of higher UV levels will be increases in skin cancer and increases in cataracts and lesions in the eye, said Frank de Gruijl, a research scientist at the University Hospital of Utrecht in the Netherlands. "There are good reasons to suspect increases in herpes simplex virus infections and other infectious diseases as well," de Gruijl told Tierramérica. Higher levels of ultraviolet B rays (the most harmful) have been linked to the suppression of immune systems in humans, he said.
Animals and plants are also affected by the seasonal expansion of the ozone hole. Argentine scientists have found extensive DNA damage to plants in Tierra del Fuego National Park, and Australian scientists have documented reductions of phytoplankton up to 65 percent in southern ocean waters. A bulletin on this year's ozone depletion, by the Australian Environment Department's Antarctic Division, reports that an area of the far South Atlantic known as the breadbasket of Antarctica was exposed to three to six times the normal amount of UV radiation in October.
Global UV levels have been rising for the past 25 years and it is not known how fast they will continue to increase, nor for how long, said De Fabo. "Ozone-depleting chemicals are going to be in the atmosphere for hundreds of years," he added. The ozone was "virtually gone" in the atmospheric layer 12 to 20 kilometres above the earth's surface.
Worldwide, levels of UV radiation are on average five to 10 percent higher than pre-1980 levels, and will remain that way for another decade or more. These levels vary greatly, depending on location and time of year. Countries closest to the equator have the highest UV exposure but southern Argentina and Chile experience very high levels of UV -- 25 percent higher -- during the spring, when the Antarctic ozone hole opens.
Atmospheric scientists recently announced that the ozone layer is beginning to recover and would be back to pre-1980 levels by 2050. De Fabo points out that the projected recovery, which has been pushed back several times before, is dependent on full compliance with the 1997 Montreal Protocol, which sets targets for phasing out production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances. These chemicals include halogenated hydrocarbons -- which contain chlorine or bromide -- known for their role in breaking down the three-oxygen ozone molecule.
Representatives from nearly 200 countries met Oct. 30-Nov. 3 in New Delhi to track progress on the goals of the Protocol, which "has been incredibly successful up till now, but there is much left to do," UNEP spokesman Michael Williams told Tierramérica from New Delhi.
Other issues discussed at the meeting were the illegal trade in banned chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), the continued use of methyl bromide in the United States, and the fact that replacement chemicals (like hydrochlorofluorocarbons, HCFCs, and hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs) worsens the other global atmospheric problem -- global warming -- by contributing to greenhouse gas emissions.
by Jessica Blanchard, Seattle Post-Intelligencer
November 9, 2006
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/291712_lead09.html
For the second time in a year, officials at Seattle Public Schools are scrambling to find out why traces of toxins are showing up in drinking water at some schools. Just months after turning the drinking water back on after an arsenic scare last spring, district officials on Wednesday blocked access to nearly 330 of the drinking fountains and sinks at 35 schools after water-quality tests showed elevated levels of lead.
The fixtures failed to meet the district's tough water-quality standard of 10 parts per billion of lead or less, and about 60 percent of them showed lead levels above the Environmental Protection Agency's cutoff of 20 parts per billion. Some fixtures registered at much higher levels; the highest, in a kitchen sink at Madrona K-8, tested at 963 ppb.
Lead can be found at low levels in food, air, soil and water, and can pose a health risk to humans, particularly children age 6 or younger, if they're exposed to high levels or over long periods. District administrators and public health officials said they don't believe the health of students or school staff members at the affected schools has been jeopardized.
Still, Ron English, who oversees the district's drinking-water quality program, said the affected fountains will be taped off and information signs will be placed on sinks, and bottled water will be provided at the affected schools. "It's a significant number," English said. "What we don't know is whether this was simply an anomaly ... or whether this is in fact a pattern." The district had already been scheduled to test the water quality at the 35 schools next spring, but opted to use water samples collected last May to do the tests early and save money.
The results have been puzzling, English said. They show elevated levels in fixtures at newer schools, which don't have lead pipes, fixtures or solders, or in schools that received new pipes or fixtures in the past two years. And all the fixtures met the district's lead standards when they were last tested in 2004. Affected schools that will have their fixtures retested are: Adams, Alki, Brighton, Bryant, Coe, Concord, Cooper, Dunlap, Emerson, Greenwood, Hawthorne, Highland Park, Lafayette, Lawton, Maple, Schmitz Park, Wedgwood, Whittier, Whitworth and Wing Luke elementaries; Orca at Columbia, John Stanford International School, Catherine Blaine K-8, Madrona K-8 and TOPS K-8 at Seward; Hamilton, Washington, Whitman middle schools; John Marshall, Nova and Wilson Pacific alternative schools; and Ballard, Franklin, Nathan Hale and West Seattle high schools.
The lead problem is most likely a plumbing problem in the schools, said Dave Hilmoe, director of drinking water for Seattle Public Utilities. The agency regularly tests the water system for contaminants and hasn't found any lead above safety standards, he said. English said the most likely explanation for the higher lead levels is that the district had shut off the drinking water at all schools last spring for several weeks to allow workers to test for arsenic. Officials believe the samples used in this round of tests came from water that had been sitting in pipes for weeks, and that when water is flowing normally, the lead levels would be much lower. To check their theory, they plan to retest fixtures at all 35 of the schools, beginning with the four that had the most fixtures fail: Brighton, Concord, Emerson and Madrona. Test results should be available within the next two or three weeks, English said. If higher levels still found, the district will test fixtures at all 97 schools in the district, he said.
Concerns about the district's water quality were first raised in fall 2003, when parents of some elementary school students noticed discolored water coming out of school faucets. At the time, district officials were criticized for ignoring the water contamination for years and allowing the problem to worsen, potentially affecting the health of children and school staff members. Since then, the district has adopted strict limits for lead, cadmium, copper, coliform and iron, begun testing water quality more frequently and spent more than $13 million to replace pipes and fixtures.
Ed Schwartz, an Alternative Elementary No. 2 parent and member of the district's Water Quality Oversight Committee, said the latest test results are cause for concern, but that he expects the second round of tests to show far lower levels of lead. It's still important to determine how the lead levels became elevated in the first place, he said, then take corrective measures. But the district seems to have learned from its mistakes: "They realize they can't drop this ball again. ... They can't afford to drop it again."
Hilary Karasz, a spokeswoman for Public Health -- Seattle & King County, said the district is taking the right steps by blocking the affected fountains and sinks and providing bottled water. It doesn't sound like students were exposed to lead, but if parents are concerned, Karasz suggests they talk with their pediatrician about having their children take a blood test to check their lead level.
At Madrona K-8 on Wednesday, parents had just received letters from the district about the elevated lead levels in some fixtures at their school. Some parents questioned why water quality was a problem at a recently renovated school. Others seemed to shrug off the news. "I'm glad they're doing the testing. I'm not too worried," said Ellen Eskenazi as she collected her son, Aaron. "I think the sooner they take care of it, the better."
At a glance
Water that the city of Seattle supplies to schools has little lead in it, perhaps less than 1 part per billion. So how does lead get in drinking water? In some instances, older water systems have lead in pipes, fountains and solder. The lead can leach into the drinking water.
Children are sensitive to lead, and it can affect learning and development. Lead poisoning can cause problems with attention span and cause hyperactivity, impair growth, produce headaches, harm hearing and lead to anemia. Seattle Public Schools officials say they can't say whether an individual child's health has been harmed by lead in a school's drinking water, but they believe it's unlikely.
by John Vidal, London Guardian
November 9, 2006
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1943059,00.html
This week, two scientists called for curbs on the use of 200 chemicals -- to protect very young children. They were accused of scaremongering, but anyone who dismisses worries about our toxic world, writes Sarah Boseley, should remember what happened to the Romans ...
Lead has been squarely blamed, in some scientific quarters, for the decline of the Roman Empire. Lead was the fabric of the cooking pots, the wine urns, the water pipes, and the plates in Roman times; it was used in makeup; it was even used for its sweet flavouring. It contaminated the food and drink and befuddled the brains of the wealthy ruling classes, the people who could most easily afford classy metalware and were therefore most exposed. Why was Caligula degenerate? Why was Julius Caesar apparently sub-fertile for all his sexual proclivity? (He had only one child.) Because of lead, the theory goes. However far-fetched some of that may sound, the Romans were certainly aware that lead was toxic. The slaves who mined it had a short and miserable existence. In fact, nobody has thought lead harmless for more than 2,000 years. In the 1900s, the deaths of children who had chewed on slivers of lead paint peeling from an Australian veranda were well documented. Yet through most of the past century there were few controls over the use of lead in paint, petrol, ceramic glazes and other products.
Lead is no longer permitted in paint and petrol in the UK. Children do not die from lead poisoning any more in this country, but the consequences of the lead-happy 1960s and 70s are with us still, according to two doctors who work in environmental and community medicine in Denmark and New York, and who have just published an alarming review of the potential for damage of the chemicals we use in our everyday lives. "Almost all children born in industrialised countries between 1960 and 1980 were exposed to substantial amounts of lead from petrol that could have reduced the number of children with far above-average intelligence (IQ scores above 130 points) by more than 50% and might likewise have increased the number with IQ scores below 70," they wrote in a journal this week. And this was not a minority journal for environmentalists. This was in the Lancet -- one of the four leading medical journals in the world.
Dr Philippe Grandjean, from the University of Southern Denmark, is surprised that anybody raises an eyebrow at the idea that you or I could be thicker because of petrol fumes. "The main discussion about lead is not whether there has been a drop in IQ," he says. "I think that is widely accepted. I have met a couple of industry consultants who wanted to doubt it, but I don't think any serious researcher or scientist does." No, the issue today, in his view, is not what substantial quantities of lead have done to your brain and mine, but what very small doses in the environment continue to do -- not so much to an adult, but to a foetus or a small baby, whose brain is still developing. Not just elsewhere in the world, but right here in the UK, where there are still low levels of lead in the environment (some from past pollution, "like a debt from the past", as Grandjean puts it, and some from modern electronics and new pollution).
The point that Grandjean and his co-author Philip Landrigan, from the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, want to make is that we know very little about the damage we could be doing to our babies' brains when we expose ourselves and them to modern cleaning fluids, cosmetics, pesticides, glues, plastics and other modern necessities made with potentially hazardous chemicals. And they believe that there may be already evidence of what these chemicals are doing to us. Neurodevelopmental disorders, for example, appear to be rising, they say, although they acknowledge this is controversial. Many doctors argue that we are simply better at diagnosing them. But certainly more cases of autism are being detected than before. And it is the same with attention deficit disorder, Grandjean and his colleague add. Cerebral palsy is now common.
Are chemicals really causing these things? "I think so, but we don't know," says Grandjean. "In this whole group of disorders ... the National Academy of Sciences says 3% can be explained by known chemicals, 25% is probably environmental exposures of some kind and probably a genetic predisposition. Of the rest, a lot are unknown and some are inherited. "We know with methylmercury, PCBs, arsenic and toluene that they can affect cognitive development so kids perform more poorly than they might have. Some are pushed over the edge ... but some are simply not doing so well in school. It definitely constitutes a problem for the kid and the family, but there are also consequences for economic production and social costs."
If all this sounds like scaremongering, it should be remembered that while only a handful of chemicals are now branded dangerous to neurodevelopment, a very long time was allowed to pass between people first becoming suspicious of them, and someone else imposing controls upon their use. Lead is the most stunning example of our complacency. Arsenic is another. Powdered milk contaminated with arsenic in 1955 led to more than 12,000 cases of poisoning and 131 deaths in Japan. Among survivors, there was a tenfold increase in the proportion who were mentally retarded. But regulations on the control of arsenic still do not emphasise the need for protection of the developing brain. It is the same story with the few other chemicals for which there is real evidence of harm to the growing brain, such as methylmercury (an organic mercury compound), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), solvents -- including alcohol -- and pesticides.
In this week's paper, Grandjean and Landrigan have pulled together a list of 200 chemicals in everyday use for which there is evidence of neurotoxicity although the case would not yet stand up in court. They argue that we should not wait for the final proof. It might take 20 years or 50 years to work out what the long-term consequences of exposure to some of these chemicals will be. We should act now, they argue, and put in strict controls for their use to protect babies. If it turns out that the chemicals are harmless after all, then the controls can be lifted, they say. Better safe than sorry.
The Lancet review is deliberately timed. The European Council of Ministers will next month consider new legislation, known as Reach, which could toughen controls over industrial chemicals. For the most part, the chemicals under consideration are those known to be cancer-causing, damaging to the immune system or hormone-disrupting. (Those that could possibly damage children's brains are not even up for discussion at this point.) And even though the list of hazardous chemicals on Reach is limited -- probably 1,000 out of some 30,000 currently in use -- the environmental health lobby is concerned that ministers may draw back from the main proposal -- which is that where there is a safer chemical, one with known hazards should not be used.
Colin Butfield, head of campaigns at the World Wildlife Fund, says there has been massive lobbying from the chemical industry. The official UK position at the moment, he says, is against. WWF ran its own tests on some 400 people, 300 of whom were in the UK, to find out just how polluted with everyday chemicals we all are. Many people had a cocktail of industrial chemicals in their bloodstream. "The levels were quite low -- they were in parts per billion," he says. But while that might be fine, even if it is an uncomfortable idea for adults, many -- but not all -- scientists would say it is not fine for a foetus. "There is a big scientific argument going on about it, but we are saying, why are you taking the chance?" says Butfield.
Some years back most of the medical establishment was silent about the possible hazards of chemicals in the environment because of a lack of evidence of real harm. But that is no longer the case. Today, at Unesco in Paris, a European network representing 2 million doctors, and including the British Medical Association, will demand that the Reach legislation is passed. The doctors, together with scientists and environmental lobbyists, are meeting to promote the "Paris appeal" -- 166 recommendations for improving environmental health. These include a ban on formaldehyde glue, a ban on the use of a chemical called DEHP (one of the phthalates) in medical plastics, and a ban on phthalates generally, as well as aldehydes and glycol ethers in cosmetic products.
Genon Jensen, director of the Health and Environment Alliance, which is convening the meeting, says many of the scientists speaking will, like Grandjean and Landrigan, be warning of the dangers of low doses of chemicals. 'We're not talking about the impacts you can see right now but what you may see in 20 or 30 years' time," she says. For example, "There is evidence from animal studies that shows that bisphenol A can affect genes, one of which may be implicated in obesity. Bisphenol A is used in the lining of canned food tins. "The argument is always that the levels are so low that it is not doing us any harm because we are not sick or dying, but maybe in 20 years we will have Parkinson's or maybe I'm passing it to my child who may have birth defects," she says.
Another speaker will tell the meeting how Sweden cut its use of pesticides and saw a decrease in cancers known as lymphomas. There will be a presentation on the increased rate of birth defects among women in the first trimester of pregnancy working in fields where there is high pesticide use. Several studies have pointed to this, says Jensen. "The argument is what is the appropriate political and precautionary public health response."
The impact of chemicals on our everyday lives will continue to be a hugely controversial field until there is incontrovertible evidence of harm. This week, there have been sceptical voices over the Lancet review. Alan Boobis, a professor in experimental medicine and toxicology at Imperial College London, thinks that some of the evidence lacked rigour. "This is a risk-management issue. In implementing the precautionary principle it is important to take into account all relevant information and not just the potential harm that might result from inaction. For example, what would the consequence (health, economic, societal) be if some of the compounds on the list were banned or severely restricted on the basis of the precautionary principle?"
And the chemical industry will continue to lobby as hard as the environmentalists. It has a lot to lose. Grandjean says (sounding upbeat) he has already had his first threatening letter, but will not be deterred. "I am a physician," he says. "I have to speak on behalf of human beings, not on behalf of money-making".
Safety first -- how to minimise your exposure to chemicals
Hazardous chemicals are everywhere, from the bedding and clothes we use, to the food we eat, the air we breathe and the cars we buy. It is impossible to create a totally safe haven, but you can minimise your exposure.
Cleaning Most dish-washing liquids and detergents are made from petroleum; some contain alkylphenol ethoxylates, which are suspected hormone disruptors. If in doubt, buy natural products (such as Ecover), wash your hands with plain soap, and clean your windows with vinegar or lemon juice.
Children Avoid most plastic feeding bottles, which can contain bisphenol A, a hormone-disrupting chemical. Don't use old dummies and PVC toys that may contain now-banned phthalates. If pregnant, avoid paint or using DIY products that emit fumes. Buy children's clothes and pyjamas without plastic logos or chemical treatments.
Air fresheners Aerosol propellants contain flammable and nerve-damaging ingredients as well as tiny particles that can lodge in your lungs. Fragrances of all kinds can provoke allergic and asthmatic reactions. The solution? If the room smells, open a window.
Mites Companies recommend you eradicate them with sprays, gels, powders and liquids, but most have very active chemical nasties. The solution is to ventilate rooms, air your beds, vacuum all surfaces and mattresses, and wash fabrics at high temperatures.
Living rooms Carpets and flooring materials may be treated with a wide array of chemicals that some people are allergic to. Use natural flooring such as cork tiles, or cotton rugs that can be washed at high temperatures.
DIY and gardens Avoid painting, paint stripping or using DIY products unless using eco-friendly brands. Don't occupy newly painted rooms, and avoid using pesticides indoors or in the garden. Use water-based varnishes and glues, paints, stain removers, sealants and adhesives; and buy paints made from plant oils.
Cars That "new car smell" comes from the high levels of chemicals escaping from the plastic, upholstery, carpeting and other synthetic materials. Beware!
Food Don't let food come into contact with PVC clingfilm. Buy organic fruit and vegetables. Wash and peel food.
by Bruno Giussani, Business Week
November 8, 2006
http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/nov2006/id20061108_116412.htm?chan=innovation_innovation+%2B+design_euroscan
Venice hardly counts among the most-polluted places in the world. There are no cars traveling its narrow streets, and all traffic is either by foot or by boat. So despite the crowded walkways and canals, the air in Venice is far cleaner than that of, say, Milan, Italy's economic capital, which recent figures indicate has some of the worst air quality in Europe. Even so, visitors to the Italian Pavilion of the architecture exhibition in the Venice Biennale, which will remain open until Nov. 19, will get a breath of fresh air. That's because parts of the concrete walls and grounds have been built with cement containing an active agent that, in presence of light, breaks air pollutants such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, benzene, and others through a natural chemical process called photocatalysis.
The demonstration is a reminder that smart innovation applies also to mundane products and can offer unexpected solutions even for complex problems such as air pollution. The technology, called TX Active, has been under development for almost 10 years in the labs of Italcementi, the world's fifth-biggest cement producer, and is starting to be applied commercially to buildings and streets in Italy, France, Belgium, and elsewhere.
Painting the Town
The results so far are astonishing: A street in the town of Segrate, near Milan, with an average traffic of 1,000 cars per hour, has been repaved with the compound, "and we have measured a reduction in nitric oxides of around 60%," says Italcementi's spokesperson Alberto Ghisalberti. In a test over an 8,000 square meter (or approximately 2 acres) industrial area paved with active blocks near Bergamo, Italcementi's hometown, the reduction was measured at 45%. In large cities such as Milan, with persistent pollution problems caused by car emissions, smoke from heating systems, and industrial activities, both the company and outside experts estimate that covering 15% of all visible urban surfaces (painting the walls, repaving the roads) with products containing TX Active could abate pollution by up to 50%, depending on the specific atmospheric conditions.
Of course, this approach isn't meant to replace efforts to curb pollution, but it can significantly magnify their effects. Here's how it works: The active principle -- basically a blend of titanium dioxide that acts as photocatalyzer -- can be incorporated in cement, mortar, paints, and plaster.
The Big Bite
In the presence of natural or artificial light (this applies also indoors) the photocatalyzer significantly speeds up the natural oxidation processes that cause the decomposition of pollutants, transforming them into less harmful compounds such as water, nitrates, or carbon dioxide. "These aren't necessarily 'clean', but from an environmental standpoint they're much more tolerable," says Rossano Amadelli of the Italian National Research Council (CNR), the scientists who led the laboratory testing of the TX Active materials. The patented pollution-reduction technology -- which in Italy is becoming known as "cemento mangiasmog" or "smog-eating cement" -- comes at a premium, of course, but the extra cost is limited by the fact that the active principle only needs to be used on the surface.
Keeping It Clean
"To transform the facade of a five-story building into a photocatalytic surface would add only 100 or so euros ($120) to the cost of a traditional paint or plaster," Ghisalberti estimates. Paving a street or a sidewalk is a different story, but still not extreme: Photocatalytic blocks cost about one-third more than usual paving, which is still far less than the long-term cost of doing nothing about air pollution.
It turns out that the photocatalyzing cement has another advantage, one that has great appeal to star architects such as Richard Meier. TX Active not only hastens the decomposition of organic and inorganic pollutants, it also prevents their build-up on surfaces, helping to preserve a building's pristine appearance over time. The spectacular design of Meier's Dives in Misericordia Church in Rome, includes three concrete self-bearing white sails, topping out at 26 meters. One of Meier's material requirements was that the whiteness of the sails be durable. That has been achieved through the application of the active principle, which basically "self-cleans" the surfaces. The same system has been applied to the new Air France headquarters inside the Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris, a place with high concentrations of hydrocarbons and where, needless to say, a standard white facade would not remain white for long.
by Ben Arnoldy, Christian Science Monitor
November 8, 2006
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1108/p02s02-usju.html
BOSTON -- Hotel rooms, apartment complexes, and homes aren't your typical toxic waste sites. But then, methamphetamine isn't your typical drug. The drug -- which makers often cook up in their kitchens using household chemicals and tools -- is potent enough to transform homes into hazmat zones. When law officers bust a meth lab, the drugmaking materials are carted away. But what happens next to such former sites -- numbering more than 100,000 across the country -- varies dramatically.
Some states, led by Colorado, have enacted tough regulations that require former lab sites to undergo a formal safety assessment -- and more cleanup, if needed -- before they can be reinhabited. The laws are prompted by the extreme toxicity of the chemicals used to cook meth, and suspicions about the long-term effects of chemical remnants in the air and on surfaces. Other states mandate home sellers to disclose the presence of former meth labs. The patchwork of state approaches reflects the uneven spread of the drug, the potential costs of cleanup, and concerns about setting safety standards in the absence of definitive scientific research, experts say. "Until we fully understand what the potential health effects can be, we feel that it's better that states are more proactive as opposed to reactive," says Shawn Arbuckle with the National Jewish Medical and Research Center in Denver. Better safe than sorry, he adds.
Cooking meth just once contaminates a building with traces of acids and iodine in the air, as well as large amounts of meth on surfaces ranging from sofas to ventilation ducts, according to research done at National Jewish. Hydrochloric acid is an irritant to the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract, and iodine can trigger asthmatic reactions, says Mr. Arbuckle. Business contractors have sprung up to assess and decontaminate former meth labs. Basic cleanup involves hauling away carpets, furniture, drapes, and other items that can absorb airborne particles. Then all surfaces are thoroughly cleaned, including ceilings and walls. Sometimes dry wall must be replaced.
Meth Lab Cleanup Co., based in Texas, charges about $300 to $500 for a consultation, assessment, and site sampling. Basic decontamination costs from $4,000 to $6,000 for a modest home. But expenses can quickly skyrocket when further work is required. Joseph Mazzuca, the company's operation director, says cooks sometimes disconnect stove vents to prevent neighbors from smelling suspicious fumes. Instead the vent pipe is stuffed into the insulation, creating a bigger mess. He's also had to move a home to remove topsoil contaminated by dumped chemicals. While he has yet to see a well contaminated by dumping, he has seen PVC piping melted away.
Three-quarters of his calls are to sites that never involved law enforcement, suggesting there are many labs beyond the 100,000 reported to the Drug Enforcement Agency since 1998. "Our estimate is that there are about a million and a half meth labs in America, and less than 1 percent of them have been decontaminated," he says. He's noticed other disturbing trends. He sees children's clothing or toys at most sites. And 75 percent of labs are rentals. "Typically landlords, especially on the bad side of town, don't worry about [cleanup] so much unless there's a law," he says. Increasingly, states are addressing that, particularly those that have dealt with the problem the longest, such as in the Midwest and West. Colorado has been at the forefront, forcing property owners not only to have the mess cleaned up but to adhere to a very specific set of procedures and testing requirements.
Northeastern states -- which have yet to see high numbers of home labs -- have been slower to adopt new laws. Connecticut released a new set of nonbinding guidelines following a bust last year of two labs in East Hampton. After federal authorities came and went, the landlord of one of the properties, a small ranch house on a wooded road, began his own cleanup. He then sold the home, according to a local public health official and a former resident, without notifying the health department or telling the buyer beforehand of the existence of the former lab. (The attorney involved in the sale declined to comment, and neither the current owner nor the selling landowner could be reached.) Connecticut still does not compel an owner to decontaminate except in serious cases, and property sellers still are not required to disclose former meth labs -- a requirement now in 14 states. "There is not uniformity across all of the states, and frequently people look to the federal government to step in at that point [to put] out something that can serve as a standard for all states to at least consider," says Kevin Teichman, a scientist with the Environmental Protection Agency.
The EPA aims to offer standards by 2011 tied to demonstrated health risks. Arbuckle says that determining what is a healthy level of exposure over a long period of time will require more research -- something Mr. Teichman says the agency is pushing. Federal money is also going to assessments and cleanups. The EPA has revised its definition of brownfields to include former meth labs, though grants can go only to groups such as nonprofit organizations, not homeowners. The DEA offers free training and equipment to first responders and shoulders much of the bill for a contractor to remove lab materials whenever called to a scene. "Technically the contractor has cleaned it out," says Steve Robertson, a special agent assigned to DEA headquarters. "If it was my property I would rip out the carpet, I would scrub the floors, I would repaint everything, because these ... are very hazardous chemicals."
by Anita Srikameswaran, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
November 8, 2006
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06312/736428-114.stm
Use of personal care products that contain estrogen or hormone-like compounds might help explain why young African-American women are at greater risk of developing breast cancer, local scientists say. In an upcoming issue of the journal Medical Hypotheses, researchers from the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute's center for environmental oncology point out that black women under 40 have a higher breast cancer incidence than white women of similar age, and they are more likely to die of the cancer regardless of age. "We have to ask what else is going on," said senior investigator and center director Devra Davis. "We think that these products could be playing a role."
Personal care products like hair straighteners and deodorants may contain estrogens and preservative compounds called parabens that mimic hormones. "Some of these compounds are widely used in the African-American community throughout life, starting at very young ages," Dr. Davis said. In a report from the mid-90s, black toddlers began to develop breasts and pubic hair when their parents applied hair pomades to their scalps. "When they stopped using these products, the breasts went away," Dr. Davis said. "Now anything that can make breasts grow in an infant has got to be problematic."
Manufacturers do not have to list product ingredients, so "I can't tell [people] anything about what's in them now," she said. "I do not know. Nobody does because they're not required to make it public." Dr. Davis said she would like to get manufacturers to stop using the questionable compounds. As she put it, "We don't want to just study the problem. We want to make the problem go away."
More research needs to be done to verify or refute a link between the products and breast cancer risk, said Maryann Donovan, scientific director of the environmental oncology center and leader of the study. "We don't really know yet, but we certainly can document that these chemicals are definitely causing changes ... that are biologically important," she said. In addition to conducting experiments to see how breast cells behave when mingled with the compounds, researchers must try to reconstruct exposures that might have put black breast cancer patients at greater risk, Dr. Donovan said.
Suspicious chemicals also can be found in everything from suntan lotion to milk, she noted. Puberty is occurring at lower ages, the ratio of male to female births is changing and other such shifts are raising concerns. "We need to look at these as wake-up calls and do something differently," Dr. Donovan said. "If we don't wrestle with this beast, and do something about it, it's never going to go away."
Scientists from the environmental oncology center and Pitt's Graduate School of Public Health reviewed breast cancer rates among black and white women from 1975 to 2002. Invasive breast cancer incidence declined overall, but African-American women still remained at higher risk, they said. The findings were presented this week in Boston during the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association.
from the Canadian Press, Toronto Globe and Mail
November 7, 2006
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061107.wchem1107/BNStory/Front/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20061107.wchem1107
submitted to this bulletin by Chemical Sensitivity Network
TORONTO -- Environmental exposure from hundreds of industrial chemicals could be damaging the developing brains of children worldwide, but few of the potentially toxic compounds are regulated because too little is known about their effects, researchers say. In a paper published on-line Wednesday in The Lancet, two specialists in environmental medicine (each of whom have spent decades studying the effects of lead and mercury exposure on the fetus and children) compiled a list of 201 industrial chemicals they say have the capacity to cause irreparable damage to the developing human brain.
Lead author Dr. Philippe Grandjean, chair of environmental medicine at the University of Southern Denmark, said he and co-author Dr. Philip Landrigan of New York's Mount Sinai School of Medicine both had similar experiences while studying the neurotoxicity of lead and mercury. "First, things were seen in adults and later on, the disease was seen in children born to pregnant women or children exposed in early childhood at much lower doses," Dr. Grandjean said Tuesday from Copenhagen. "Later on, it was found that these effects were more serious and they were permanent (in children)."
"And then we wondered: Is this only happening with mercury and lead?" The two researchers then undertook an extensive review of published data on chemical toxicity to create a list of those agents most likely to harm the developing brain. Their tally of 201 compounds includes everything from arsenic to benzene and phenol. About half of the chemicals are ubiquitous in industrial processes and products -- and could make their way into the environment through air, water and food. But because there is a dearth of research on the effects of these chemicals specifically on children, their use has not been regulated in the same way as mercury, lead and PCBs.
Dr. Grandjean and Dr. Landrigan argue that the lack of international regulation is putting children around the globe at potential risk, and they worry whether exposure to such chemicals could be behind such conditions as autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. (The causes of these conditions remain unknown.) Calling the potential for harm a "silent pandemic," the researchers are urging governments worldwide to begin strictly controlling these chemicals, instead of waiting for years of testing to provide definitive scientific proof that they are either harmful or benign. "What we are saying is we cannot afford to wait decades because that way we will expose another generation of children to toxic chemicals that will affect their brains permanently," Dr. Grandjean said. "We cannot afford to do that. In the knowledge society of today -- and certainly in the future -- we need all the brain power we have ... It's a crucial resource that we need to protect and we're behaving as if it's not important at all."
But Warren Foster, director of the Centre of Reproductive Care at Ontario's McMaster University, said there is no data to support the idea that chemical exposure is harming children or that diseases such as autism are caused by such pollution. While Mr. Foster has high regard for the two researchers and calls the goal of their review "lofty," he said their suggestion that industrial chemicals are causing neurotoxic effects in fetuses and young children is "a hypothesis that requires testing."
"The kids actually have to be exposed," Mr. Foster said from Hamilton. "Simply because things are in the environment does not necessarily mean that children are exposed or are exposed to the concentrations necessary to create the neurotoxicity. I don't think it helps them to create fear when we don't have evidence of a problem." Still, Mr. Foster concedes that until there is definitive evidence of their effects, people should be cautious in limiting exposure to industrial chemicals, for instance, by not heating food in margarine tubs that can produce harmful compounds.
However, he's more concerned that governments could start banning chemicals based on insufficient data, only to replace them with compounds about which nothing is known. "We still need coolants, we still need plasticizers, we still need flame retardants, we still need solvents," he said. "So if we ban these, they're going to be replaced with something else. And just because something else comes along that we know nothing about doesn't mean it's safer. So I would rather live with and regulate something that we know might have problems and minimize release into the environment and minimize human exposure by modulating our behaviour."