Slashdot Mirror

I was so sensitive that, if someone else were turning the Wifi on and off, I could be in a different room in the house and still tell when it was on.

That's rather hard to believe. Three different studies found people unable to make the distinction (see below).

I do believe Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity exists, though, in the sense that the complaints are real.

[1] Regel, Sabine; Sonja Negovetic, Martin Roosli, Veronica Berdinas, Jurgen Schuderer, Anke Huss, Urs Lott, Niels Kuster, and Peter Achermann (August 2006). UMTS base station-like exposure, well-being, and cognitive performance. Environ Health Perspect 114 (8): 1270–5. PMID 16882538. PMC 1552030.
[2] Rubin, James; G Hahn, BS Everitt, AJ Clear, Simon Wessely (2006). Within-participants, double-blind, randomised provocation study. British Medical Journal 332: 886–889. doi:10.1136/bmj.38765.519850.55
[3] Wilen, J; A Johansson, N Kalezic, E Lyskov, M Sandstrom (April 2006). "Psychophysiological tests and provocation of subjects with mobile phone related symptoms". Bioelectromagnetics 27 (3): 204–14. doi:10.1002/bem.20195. PMID 16304699

That could very well be true. Several years ago I heard stories about how estrogen-like chemicals could theoretically leach out of plastic bottled water containers under certain conditions.

Not any plastics, but polycarbonate is a polymer of Bisphenol A -- and Bisphenol A was investigated as a synthetic estrogen before it was used in plastics. We've know that it had serious biological effects since the 1930s, but I suppose that was just another inconvenient, profit-reducing fact.

Polycarbonate is everywhere, not just in water bottles but metal cans (to prevent the metal from contact with food contents),refrigerator shelves, baby bottles, microwave cookware, and eating utensils. And it's used industrially in a wide variety of applications. It's even used to coat children's teeth as an anti-cavity measure.

Exposure to Bisphenol A has been linked to breast cancer, insulin resistance, miscarriage, obesity, prostate enlargement, early onset of sexual maturation, hyperactivity, and increased aggressiveness, as well as increased risk of heart disease and diabetes.

The chemical industry, of course, assures use that BPA can never leach from polycarbonate in appreciable amounts. There is, however, a very interesting correlation between who funds the research and what results are found.

Here is the study.

According to the study, subjects first went through a one week "washout" period in which they were advised to avoid use of any containers using BPA (the study indicates that BPA is almost totally eliminated in the urine with 24 hours of ingestion). After the washout period, urine samples were taken to establish a baseline which, by my understanding, I would define as the typical trace amounts of BPA that you'd expect to find in the urine of a person who avoids BPA exposure. After the washout period, the subjects were then advised to drink all fluids from BPA laden containers, and the urine samples resulting from that relatively high level of exposure were compared to the baseline samples. That comparison showed a 69% increase over the baseline, from 1.2 to 2.0 "ug/g creatinine."

Personally, I don't feel threatened by trace levels of BPA (especially with its high propensity to be excreted quickly and lack of significant evidence of toxicity at trace levels). So it's hard for me to feel significantly more threatened by 1.69 times trace levels.

The linked report was less than useful, since the reporting was done in relative terms - e.g. "increased by two thirds". Okay, but two thirds over what? There are generally specific concentrations above which a chemical is identified as harmful by the government (or by a watchdog agency, if you don't trust the government). Why not say "BPA levels increase from the background level of xxxxxxx to a ppm/ppb of yyyyyy in individuals who drank from these bottles for one week"?

Good thing the linked article linked to the abstract and the abstract linked to the actual report (surprisingly you don't have to pay to see). There you can see in the results section that the concentration went from 1.2 micro g/g to 2.0 micro g/g.

Amazing stuff this linking. It's almost as if the Web was created to link scientific documents

The linked report was less than useful, since the reporting was done in relative terms - e.g. "increased by two thirds". Okay, but two thirds over what? There are generally specific concentrations above which a chemical is identified as harmful by the government (or by a watchdog agency, if you don't trust the government). Why not say "BPA levels increase from the background level of xxxxxxx to a ppm/ppb of yyyyyy in individuals who drank from these bottles for one week"?

Good thing the linked article linked to the abstract and the abstract linked to the actual report (surprisingly you don't have to pay to see). There you can see in the results section that the concentration went from 1.2 micro g/g to 2.0 micro g/g.

Amazing stuff this linking. It's almost as if the Web was created to link scientific documents

Having coal mine fires that burn 20 million tons of coal a year is a huge factor. In fact, the amount of CO2 they produce is about 2-3% of annual worldwide production from fossil fuels, or roughly equal to the CO2 emissions of all the cars and light trucks in the U.S.

Terry Collins: Persuasive Communication about Matters of Great Urgency: Endocrine Disruption: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es800079k
Shanna Swan: Decrease in Anogenital Distance among Male Infants with Prenatal Phthalate Exposure http://www.ehponline.org/members/2005/8100/8100.html

My understanding is that *endocrine disruptors* are the chemical pollutants responsible for these gender shifts. EDs cause shifts in cellular development, which is particularly important because it is a very fragile process. For example, the fundamental difference (from a molecular perspective) between testosterone and estrogen is very subtle. Therefore minor mistakes can cause drastic changes depending upon the timing and dose of exposure. You don't want things to disrupt *how* your maleness cells develop. What scientists are beginning to find is that babies (in the womb) who have exposure to EDs during development are showing significant differences in the finalized male genitals.

Today two types of endocrine disruptors: Bisphenol A and Phthalates are ubiquitous in our lives, namely in vinyl, PVC, and polycarbonate (plastics 3 and 7). Regulatory committees struggle to monitor the impact of these chemicals because of their ubiquitous application and the tiny size of what constitutes an *exposure* (something like 4 parts per trillion). Supposedly there have been lots of discussions in the scientific community about EDs since these findings started to come out in the mid 90s. However, its been a lot more talk than it has research and action.

But I can't sell everybody short. There was a big Nalgene bottle recall last year for this exact reason. The state of California has banned EDs from pesticides. Companies like BornFree make baby products without EDs. It feels like its coming, awareness just isn't there yet.

Which is why you shouldn't swallow them

The article actually says humans basically excreet all of the material resulting in extremely low (near undetectable) levels of biphenol A or its metabolite.

A curious statement, since BPA was found at detectable levels in the urine of 92.6% of the population in a CDC study.

Bisphenol a is an anti-oxidant used in ppm levels in the plastic to keep it from yellowing over time.

Bisphenol A is everywhere - it's the building block of polycarbonate. It's used in dental resins and in the lining of food cans.

You already have pulsating magnetic fields in your house. In the US, AC current is 60 hz, so you have a constant 60 hz magnetic field. That hum you hear is the oscillating magnetic field moving steel back and forth.

Electrical wiring in houses shouldn't produce very strong fields -- on the order of mG a few inches away. That hum you hear is most likely from transformers in devices you have plugged into the wall than from induction on the beams in your house unless you have a very strange house.

The magnetic field won't hurt you. My dad was an electrical lineman for forty years, often working on the 30,000 volt towers. He couldn't wear a mechanical wristwatch because it would become magnetized. He just turned 77 and he's healthier than a lot of guys my age.

If magnetic fields caused cancer, linemen would die of lukemia right and left.

Wrong type of cancer.

Epidemiological studies show that people working with magnetic fields in fact *do* have a higher rate of brain cancers than the average population. (See here , here, and here.)

That last study notes that leukemia rates aren't affected by EM exposure, and this study shows no increase in breast cancers in rats due to magnetic field exposure.

We actually have a model and theory for how AC fields promote brain cancers. You can read this full paper on an experiment to test a theory that iron-mediated free radical creation is at fault. Here's an abstract for a study testing for oxidative effects of EMF in snails.

(Also, the plural of anecdote is not evidence -- much less, "I knew a guy who did [X risky thing] and is doing just awesome, so stop worrying about it, you pansies!")

A report about Urinary Nickel Excretion.

And another on the environment

Michael Flynn points to the hysteria over electric blankets as proof that a large portion of society is too dumb to appreciate technological advance.

Good for Mr. Flynn, I wonder if he has read the following:

http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2004/6355/abstract.html

Excerpt:

This study confirms the ability of low-level magnetic fields to cause DNA damage and brain cell death in rats, and proposes a mechanism that may explain both how the damage occurs as well as why some anti-oxidants work to prevent it.

Or just let the loggers in after it's been flooded. Underwater Logging

Cite or get off the pot. Speaking of which, I would suggest this paper and this paper as a good start. There is major concern from Thimerosal toxicity in long term treatments, such as blood plasma programs, due to the introduction of more Thimerosal to the system then ethylmercury, the type of mercury that Thimerosal becomes, can be cleared. However, there seems to be more risk from dental amalgam then a single vaccination. Concern should be for long term series, such as a long term gamma globulin series, which is becoming rare.

From the NY Times article "I don't want it in my fishing grounds," said Mr. Martinson, 40, who docks his 74-foot boat, Libra, here at Yaquina Bay, about 90 miles southwest of Portland. "I don't want to be worried about driving around someone else's million-dollar buoy."

Mr Martinson, don't you realize we don't need your 74-footer named Libra. That kind has ruined the fishing grounds long since. Please read an article about that, here: http://www.ehponline.org/members/2004/112-5/focus.html

Btw, are you worried about the buoys ruining the fishing grounds or any potential damages you may make to the buoy? Where are the worst case liabilities?

I am a Public Health student currently, and I have been doing some research on this topic, was planning on writing a paper about it, but decided not to for the primary reason that there is little research data available on it and even less on implications from this data! The reason the general public is not concerned with the issue is two-fold.

One, the public becomes concerned with a public health issue when it affects them directly or more commonly when the threat of HOW the issue affects them is conveyed typically BY THE MEDIA! The Media spends very little time on this issue primarily due to its esoteric nature and its extremely low "sexiness" as an issue.

Two, its not a hot topic because there is little exposure from it to the general public. Certain industries and certain populations in these industries are exposed to it and even then, the awareness given to them about it is minimal.

Until nanomaterials are showcased on CNN in a show called Public in Peril: The Coming Nanomaterial Endemic or nanomaterials enter the average everyday workplace and an eight-hour training seminar on their safety comes to a conference room near you, this will be a non-issue as it should be.

The limited research going on is out there though, as it should be:

Ok, what am I missing? The states want different (stricter) regulations regarding the greenhouse gas producers (autos and power plants). Why does the EPA have an issue with that

To me, it's this article that comes across as blatant smear. First off, there's the picture of a stereotypical "dirty hippie playing guitar" at the top. What does it have to do with the article? Absolutely nothing except to poke fun at Greenpeace. That'd be as though I was responding to the Anti-Defamation League and started out with a cartoon of a "dirty jew". Can we for once agree to discuss an environmental group without resorting to mean-spirited playground humor?

Then they go on to wow at the statement "While it might not make as many headlines as the iPhone it doesn't mean that we are not focusing on all manufacturers." In fact, they made the whole article centered around this one sentence. Someone please explain to me what is wrong with this sentence. They say they're *going after everyone*, even if it *doesn't* make headlines. What on Earth is wrong with this? It is just the *opposite* of what they're claiming it is.

Apple or anyone else can hardly be considered guilty of anything if the laws don't tell them that what they are doing is harmful for the environment.

Yeah, tell that to the tobacco companies, the companies that hid asbestos dangers from their workers, etc.

And then, they waive off all of *their* responsibility with:

Until then, we believe Greenpeace should be clearer on their claims unless they want an industry group to easily, and successfully, cast doubts over their reports.

Yeah, you're right. Greenpeace writes a detailed report based on sound scientific methodology, an industry hit group tries to spin it (that's what they do; it's their thing), and you pick it up and try to give the industry spin as good of a run as possible. Even though it was an unfounded rebuttal, it's *Greenpeace*'s fault for not being so clear that the industry won't spin it. Great approach there.

Gizmodo has lost all respect from me.

Lest anyone forget what this is all about, BFRs are bioaccumulative persistant organic pollutants, many of which are poisonous, especially to aquatic organisms, but some also to mammals. Some are mutagenic and nephrotoxic. Most are little studied for health; however, concentrations in the environment and in humans are rapidly increasing, and this has raised a great deal of concern. While it's a whole class of chemicals, and certainly not all will ultimately prove be equally bad, they don't have a good track record so far. Here's an article on our current state of knowledge on the subject. Here's an excerpt concerning the most widely used BFR:

The majority of adverse effects of TBBPA have been found in vitro. TBBPA is toxic to primary hepatocytes, most likely by destroying mitochondria (Boecker et al. 2001). This may not be surprising because its halogenated phenolic properties would suggest that it could uncouple oxidative phosphorylation. TBBPA exposure results in membrane dysfunction in isolated liver cells and inhibits the activity of a key mixed-function oxidase, cytochrome P450 2C9 (CYP2C9) (Boecker et al. 2001). TBBPA is also highly immunotoxic in culture, which is demonstrated by its ability to specifically inhibit the expression of CD25 at concentrations as low as 3 M (Pullen et al. 2003). The expression of CD25 is essential for proliferation of activated T cells and is commonly used as a marker for T-cell activation. TBBPA's potent inhibition of this protein may have a profound effect on an organism's immunomediated defense against bacteria, viruses, and possibly cancer. This major BFR is also neurotoxic in cerebellar granule cells and rat brain synaptosomes, where it inhibits dopamine and generates free radicals (Mariussen and Fonnum 2002; Reistad et al. 2002).

Some of the most recent concerns regarding the potential for adverse effects of TBBPA focus on the possibility that TBBPA may act as an endocrine disruptor. The structural similarity of TBBPA to bisphenol A, a known weak environmental estrogen, has s

Both the complete report and the abstract are available here.

I can't help but note the report is very badly written. The writers' habit of stuffing loads of numerical data into sentences, instead of in a table, is annoying. The tables at the back use incomprehensible labels. And why do people still generate PDFs that completely lack navigation aids (hyperlinks, bookmarks)?

Oh, please. Organic farming and organic foods, while not perfect, are regulated by the US and are considered a healthier alternative to heavily processed, artificially fertilized, pesticide-coated foods large agribusiness industries push on everyone. Food production is COMMERCIAL in the US and they look for the cheapest method to get it to the store. This entails a good number of practices that are not very good for people in the long run. Take a look at these cites:

From the International Federation of Organic Agriculktural Movements: http://www.ifoam.org/organic_facts/benefits/index. html

From the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences on pesticides and kids: http://www.ehponline.org/press/childexp.html

From the Center for Disease Control and prevention, some background on the food industry: http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2007/apr/06_0097.htm

Here is the Wiki cite about Organic vs. Non-organic foods: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food

Eat whatever you want. Just be intelligent and informed about it.

BTW, organic food does not taste weaker than non-organic food. In some instances organic food tastes FAR better. Which would you eat, an organic tomato or an orange, hard, rubbery one that large farms claim is one? And if you can't make the correct choice, you need to get out more or stop being a troll.

And it dihygrogen MONoxide, moron (here's a Wiki cite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_h oax). If you're going to quote parodies, at least quote them right.

-FL

-FL

-FL

wish people would stop advancing their semi-scientific theories as fact to show how smart they are. It just shows how a little education, possibly very little, can hide ignorance in almost all areas.

Alright, smart ass. I'd love to know exactly under what criteria the peer reviewed paper of a well-published scientist is "semi-scientific." If you had a methodology critique, maybe I'd consider you to have backed up your own arrogance, but you haven't. I'll give you a chance, though:

Here is the paper by Dr. Lai that I referred to which you "have strong doubts about." The paper is a follow up published in Environment Health Perspectives in 2004 to test the iron-mediated mechanism hypothesized in an original paper published in 1997 in Bioelectromagnetics. Go ahead. Eviscerate it. Show us what you've got. Put a peer reviewed paper in one hand and shaky skepticism in the other hand, and I can easily tell you which one I'll go with.

Also...

The one you cite, if true (which I have strong doubts about) by your own description reported observing something other than cancer.

If you don't understand the connection between DNA strand breakage and cancer, please stop commenting on what you perceive to be the lack of scientific understanding of others. You're clearly out of your depth.

Male "occupational" exposure to DDT causes birth defects in their children.

http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2004/6759/abstract.h tml

http://www.birthdefects.org/archives/News_aug01.ht m

Male "occupational" exposure to DDT causes birth defects in their children.

http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2004/6759/abstract.h tml

http://www.birthdefects.org/archives/News_aug01.ht m

Actually, the number of elective abortions went through the roof during the months after Chernobyl, all across Eurpope. Even countries that weren't expected to have much fallout due to weather patterns had a dramatic increase in elective abortions.

I'd like to see that study you speak of. I never heard it before, and the percentage you gave is through the roof. Could this have been it? Effects in Finland ??? That isn't giving any numbers like you did. Interestingly enough, Finland didn't see a notable increase in induced abortions after Chernobyl, as some countries did.

I've seen estimates (with no concrete numbers to back it up) that about 100,000 elective abortions were peformed shortly after Chernobyl throughout Europe and the former Soviet Union. Wikipedia didn't have any numbers at all.

As for my numbers, here are some examples:

Numbers for Greece, a country not considered at even moderate risk: Greece figures

It's non-ionizing radiation.... people have been putting these things by their heads for hours on a daily basis... show me one potential case of burn via cell signal.

Alternating magnetic fields aren't generally considered ionizing radiation either, but rat studies have shown that they can cause an iron-mediated peroxide reaction that causes DNA strand breakage in rat neurons.

Just because radio waves cannot directly break carbon bonds like UV radiation and higher doesn't necessarily mean that they're harmless. There's an entire field of study in how microwaves catalyze and otherwise alter chemical reactions. A lack of gross physical effects like burns does not mean that radio waves cannot be disturbing cellular chemistry in signficantly more subtle ways.