In article ,
James Egan wrote:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 23:21:58 -0700, Billy wrote:
- Billy
"For the first time in the history of the world, every human being
is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the
moment of conception until death." - Rachel Carson
Wow, that seems like an awful lot of work! I also saw your quote from
Rachel Carson, to which I would respond, that regardless of the chemicals,
life expectancy has skyrocketed to the ripe old age of 75, and will
increase even more, probably more than we can imagine, thanks to
technology.
And who has benefited the most? Those who are subjected to pollutants
(industrial areas, w/ or w/out smokestacks), the poor (who may eat
tainted food, or nutritionally impoverished foods comprised of fats and
carbohydrates), farm workers (subjected to herbicides and pesticides)?
You will find these populations don't benefit from their exposure to
toxic chemicals or nutrient impoverished foods.
We live longer not because we are healthier but because of earlier
diagnosis and medical intervention. How much longer would we live,
without our body's burden of toxic chemicals that we carry around inside
of ourselves?
http://www.ewg.org/node/15952
What Chemicals Are Lurking Inside Your Body?
Chemicals, toxins, and other dangerous substances exist throughout our
environments -- and you may be surprised by how many end up inside your
body.
WebMD, Dulce
Published February 17, 2004
Charlotte Brody feels violated and angry. After years of buying organic
products and rejecting artificial chemicals in her gardening, she
discovers the presence of the pesticide Dursban in her body.
The chemical, used to treat lawns and turfs and to kills termites and
mosquitoes, is linked to neurological problems.
"I have longed for Dursban at times," says Brody, describing the pains
she has taken to remove weeds by hand. "To find out I really couldn't
stay away from Dursban really troubled me."
Brody learned of her exposure to the now-banned pesticide after
participating in a study in which researchers at two major laboratories
found an average of 91 industrial compounds, pollutants, and other
chemicals in the blood and urine of nine volunteers.
The volunteers did not work with chemicals in their jobs and did not
live near an industrial facility.
The list includes compounds found in insecticides, cosmetic and
personal-care products, cleaning solutions, paint, fuel, and industrial
pollutants such as PCBs and dioxin. Many have been linked to cancer in
animals or humans, and about half are toxins or cause birth defects.
Some of the subjects were surprised to hear they had stuff like lead,
arsenic, and flame-retardants in their system, what some experts refer
to as a person's "body burden."
Debates Aplenty
Although the technology to check for one's body burden -- called
biomonitoring -- is nothing new, its use appears to both give
revelations about the connection between people and the environment, and
fuel debate about where that connection begins and ends.
In the study in which Brody participated, watchdog agencies the
Environmental Working Group (EWG) and Commonweal commissioned the
biomonitoring test to document the "pollution in people," according to
Jane Houlihan, EWG's vice president of research.
The study, Houlihan says, reveals individuals may be even more
vulnerable to toxicants than previously thought. "It's even likely that
there's an even higher burden of disease from our exposures to different
chemicals because we are exposed to so many simultaneously," she says.
Yet the link between the presence of chemicals in human blood and
evidence of disease is not always solid. And if a link exists, there is
often heated discussion over what level of exposure crosses the line
into danger.
While the jury is still out, many health professionals suggest ways
people can reduce their contact with contaminants, but even that topic
inspirespassionate dialogue.
"What can I do to protect my health?" ponders Brody. "Going through this
biomonitoring made me feel like for this question, there are very few
'I' answers. There are only 'we' answers."
For that matter, answers seem to coexist with questions when it comes to
discussions about body burden, disease, and preventing contamination.
The overriding question here may, indeed, be, "What isn't in question?"
Chemical Exposure = Danger?
If we all remember our periodic table of the elements from high school
science, chemical compounds are everywhere in the environment, and some
of it can be found within ourselves -- for instance, oxygen.
What could make a chemical harmful is the amount of it that gets inside
the body. "If there's a chemical out in the environment that's stuck to
a piece of clay, but it never leaves that piece of clay, and it never
gets inside your body, it never can hurt you," explains James Pirkle,
MD, PhD, deputy director for science at the CDC's environmental health
lab.
Some elements have been proved to be health hazards, says Pirkle,
pointing to the established connection between lead and neurological
disease, and cigarette smoke and cancer.
Yet there are many more mysterious compounds, says Shelley Hearne, DrPh,
executive director of Trust for America's Health (TFAH), a nonprofit
organization advocating for disease prevention.
"The majority of chemicals that we routinely use in this country have
not been adequately tested for their effects on humans," says Hearne,
calling for the government to do standard toxicological testing on
substances in the market.
The CDC routinely evaluates compounds it suspects may cause health
hazards.
In fact, the agency is currently evaluating a set of manmade chemical
called phthalates, which are often used in some food packaging, toys,
automobile plastics, and cosmetic products such as soap, shampoo, nail
products, deodorants, and lotions.
Animal studies show very high levels of some phthalates can cause birth
defects in the male reproductive system, including undescended
testicles, absent testicles, and a physical defect of the penis.
Researchers are still trying to figure out the effects of phthalates on
humans and what levels of it are safe.
Hearne argues that synthetic chemicals don't belong inside the human
body and it is only common sense to conclude that they're not good for
people.
She says, "If I find out that I've got levels of a substance -- while
we're not sure what level is bad for you -- but we do have indications
that, one, this isn't naturally occurring, and, two, that at higher
levels, it's a known toxin, I don't want it there."
Vern L. Schramm, PhD, chairman of the biochemistry section of the
American Chemical Society, says it's important to keep things in
perspective. "There are more toxins in the human body that are naturally
occurring than those that are manmade," he says, citing the following
examples: Most of the mercury in the fish we eat comes from rock
sediments in the ocean, much of the arsenic in water leaks from rocks in
aquifers, and dioxin is simply a byproduct of flame and cooking.
Even with all the natural and artificial chemicals in the environment,
Schramm says the human body is usually well equipped to deal with a
small amount of toxins.
Additionally, he says there is value to some manmade compounds. Babies
who come in contact with fire-resistant clothes, for example, may have
some flame retardant compounds in their system, but such garments save
lives, says Schramm. Fewer kids reportedly die of burns because of
flame-resistant wear.
Reducing Exposure
Regardless of reassurances from experts that most everyday chemicals are
safe, there are people who might worry that they may be wrong. For those
individuals, Houlihan offers the following advice:
€ Choose organic products.
€ Eat fewer fatty and processed foods.
€ Use soap and water instead of more chemically intensive household
cleaners.
€ Forgo optional treatments on carpet, furniture, and car upholstery.
Brody also encourages people to get involved in advocating for less
pollution. "What can we do to change policies so that we're protected?"
she asks.
Groups like EWG and TFAH ask those same questions and press the
government for more research on the effects of compounds on health.
The EWG, in particular, urges authorities to look into the cumulative
effects of coexisting substances, as opposed to just the impact of one
chemical.
Houlihan says there's growing evidence that otherwise safe doses of
chemicals, when put together, can cause harm.
The CDC regularly assesses the chemical exposure level of the U.S.
population through biomonitoring tests and comes out with its findings
every two years. In the last report, scientists checked for 116
different environmental chemicals in the blood and urine of some 2,500
people.
------
The bad guys are Archer Daniels Midland, ConAgra, Cargill, American
Cyanamid, Ciba-Geigy, Monsanto, Syngenta, Exxon Mobil) and foundations
that have benefited from petroleum (e.g. Koch Family Foundations and
Scaife Foundations), and The Hudson Institute, among others. They and
their products should be boycotted.
--
- Billy
"For the first time in the history of the world, every human being
is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the
moment of conception until death." - Rachel Carson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WI29wVQN8Go
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072040.html