Slashdot Mirror
Measuring Pollution In Humans
CHaN_316 writes "Scientists have begun measuring pollutants in our body and the results sound like a chemical clean-up site. They've found things such as flame retardants, chemicals derived from DDTs, mercury, uranium, cotinine, and many more. The concern is a lot of this stuff is ending up in mother's milk. But hey, at least in the event of spontaneous combustion, I'll be partially protected."
What your asking for is oversight, and audit... and frankly I agree with them. If you want to audit the quality of their work, you should pay for it. Also, I would think you'd want an independent 3rd party doing the work anyway. I do disagree with them about it costing dearly, I have a friend who works in a lab that does 'walk up' business on water, food and so forth and I wanna say, depending on the subject matter, its less then $100. If that is too steep (reasonable to me if trusting my water was important) I'm sure you could google your way to a reasonable home kit online.
Otherwise, I recommend buying bottled water in bulk or getting one of those 5 gallon dispensers.
Make sure any program/treatment promising detoxification isn't just a come-on or quackery or worse like Scientology in drag peddling Elronics to firefighters. (Nothing wrong with a little bit of sauna, but all that Niacin can cause liver damage.)
Make sure that the wonderful treatment to rid your body of harmful dangerous chemicals isn't even more dangerous.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Type 2 diabetes is becoming a great concern in the U.S. as well, especially in children - an abundance of very fatty foods and a decrease in physical activity are among the causes.
I think Milloy's point, however, is that life expectancy has increased tremendously over the past hundred years, although medical advances probably greatly outweigh any negatives caused by pollutants.
The concern over mother's milk is not completely without merit. There is no guarantee that the child will be exposed until he is older. There are lots of substances out there which are mostly harmless to adults, but harmful to children and babies. To take the first one off the top of my head, alcohol in moderation is fine for adults, but give it to a baby and you probably end up with developmental problems. Even chemicals which cause health problems in adults may be worse for the baby; slightly increased risk of cancer versus undeveloped brain, for example.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
I am a firm believer that no tap water is safe for human consumption
I mostly believe the opposite. Remember that before the invention of tap water, people drank out of rivers and streams that ran over lead and mercury deposits and had animals (and people) shitting in them. We can tolerate a good deal of crud in the stuff we consume.
That's not to say that pure water isn't preferred, but I wouldn't go as far as to say that tap water is unfit for human consumption altogether.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
Testing 116 different chemicals is hard work, for a start not all the chemicals can be tested on one instrument, for instance they looked a uranium and other heavy metals, a inductively coupled Mass spectrometer isn't cheap 250,0000 and the mercury well that is tested on a special instrument to check for low levels. The organic molecules need to be tested on tandem LC mass spctrometers and also head space GC-MS. An enviromental lab could well be kitted out wil up to $2-5 million US dollars worth of the latest equipment, not to mention staff and other support resources.
A good measure to go by for water consumption is your weight * .6 ounces of water per day....so a 200lb person should be drinking about (200*.6) = 120 ounces of water per day...this was told to me by a physical trainer, so i don't know how accurate it is. It works for me, but as always ymmv
of course you could avoid the pesticides
entirely and settle for all sorts of
wonderful parasitic organisms coming on
board to declare party time in your GI tract
(as is common in some parts of the world).
Or you can say to hell with it and let the
fruit rot on the tree.
Better yet you can be a real mean green bastard
and not let anyone get at the fruit because you
don't like the way it was genetically modified/
sprayed/picked etc.
If you feel bad about it you can always flip
a few coins to some starving kid in Africa.
IAAAC (I am an analytical chemist) who worked directly with testing water samples from municipal water treatment facilities, schools, and private clients. The Clean Water Drinking Act of 1976 mandates standards for community water suppliers, including standards for lead, iron, biologicals, copper, manganese, aluminum, nitrates, organics, chlorine, turbidity, etc. Your public water company has to have its water tested at a certified lab monthly, and if any of the parameters are out of whack, the EPA will hear about it faster than you can say "boo".
/. analytical chemist, I *highly* reccomend you get at least the lead, aluminum, and E coli numbers on your well water.
Saying your county won't pay for your water to be analyzed is a little untrue/misleading. Ask your water comany to send you results of the tests they have done. On the other hand, if you get your water from a private well, then the onus of testing IS on you. And as your
pax,
fred
Futhermore if you receive your water from a public water supply, every year you are supplied a summary of all the testing done. It's called a Consumer Confidence Report.
Indecision is the key to flexibility.
Just from basic physics and chemistry, we know that if a chemical is anywhere around, it will be present in the environment and the human body at some concentration, so all this means is that modern analytical techniques have finally developed enough sensitivity to demonstrate what everybody with any sense knew already. The hard part is figuring out what the biological consequences of these tiny concentrations are--in most cases, the answer is likely to be somewhere between negligible and none.
"Michigan counties specifically state they are not responsible for homeowners water quality *at all*."
If you are refering to a public water supply, they are responsible. I doubt they would say otherwise. If it is a private water supply (home well). How can they assure your safety? Are you willing to allow them to control your property? Do you want them to?
"I am convinced that local governments are forcing the adoption of public water (and sewer) sources."
Yes, there is a LOT of money to be made.
"Public water systems simply stick a pipe into, say, lake michigan, sucking up old debris and all, and dump chlorine in."
Not true. Not even close. If they tried this the public would be all over them as the water would be completely impalatable and aesthetically appalling (algae and turbidity). The EPA would have a fit and require it to be corrected. If it wasn't, they would impose fines of up to $25K a day per violation.
"In Chicagoland, a 24" pipe was installed into the suburbs directly from lake michigan."
Read the EPA regs - http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mcl.html There is no way in hell they are distributing untreated surface water. Bear in mind that Michigan probably imposes even stricter regs than the EPA.
Many people believe that public water sources are unsafe but they cannot say why. Is there something specific that concerns you?
Indecision is the key to flexibility.
It's interesting that [the rate of cancer] started to decline in 1991. I wonder what happened then???
...", when the proper interpretation was "EDB is so dangerous that ...".
A number of things. One of the more interesting here in the US was the ban on EDB (ethylene dibromide) back in 1983. This was a bit of a political fuss at the time, with farmers and commentators using the argument that "scientists hadn't been able to measure the danger" of this compound.
This has turned into a useful textbook example of "spin". I heard an article from NPR (National Public Radio) in which they talked about being curious about the claim, so they tracked down some of the scientists who had attempted to do such measurements. It turned out that they had done the usual tests to measure the concentration that killed 50% of their test animals. They failed. At one part per trillion, the lowest level that they could reliably produce, they lost nearly 100% of the animals. Autopsies showed that the critters died of multiple cancers. They commented that EDB was possibly the most powerful carcinogen yet discovered.
This wasn't exactly new news in 1983. Information on the biological efects of EDB date back to the early 1950's. There's a report online from 1974 that was obviously a preliminary study, of only 93 rats and 94 mice, some treated for only 12 days. The death rate of around 80% in this tiny study was a red flag that triggered further studies. It took another decade before a ban went into effect.
The farmers (or at least the farm-supply companies) really wanted to continue using EDB. Their PR depended on the fact that people would hear "scientists have been unable to measure the danger level" as meaning "EDB is so safe that
Decreasing this one compound in our food supply could well explain the slight decrease in overall cancer rate in the past decade. EDB is rather persistent in the environment, and underground water in a lot of farming areas was contaminated with it. But by the 90's, the concentration was starting to drop, and it's believed to be much lower now.
This story seems to be known in medical and statistical circles. It's generally unknown to the public. I never heard any hint of this part of the story from the mass media, where the story was generally presented as "controversial". The right-wing talk-radio types really publicised this as an example of heavy-handed government over-regulation of The Market. I've wondered occasionally whether the growing rabidity of their opposition to NPR had anything to do with stories like this.
Anyway, if you want a good example of how you can phrase things so that people make exactly the wrong inference, you might remember "scientists have been unable to measure the danger level".
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
The iron in breastmilk is far better absorbed in the baby's system than the iron in infant formulas. So breastmilk doesn't need to have more iron.
Yours is the first time I've heard of a breastfed baby being jaundiced for longer than the first couple weeks (I'm assuming, you didn't say). It can't be that common.
Infant formula has its own laundry list of issues that crop up. Namely, recalls (contaminants getting into the final product) and digestive problems. Babies that have trouble digesting ANYTHING even after their first year of life, I've seen it several times with friends who formula feed but have never seen it with friends who breastfeed. I've also read that it is fairly common in formula fed babies to have the digestive problems.
The Environmental Working Group
These are some seriously dedicated guys who do environmental research and advocacy. They also maintain several interesting projects, including:
Bill Moyers - Trade Secrets
Bill Moyers did a great film about the problem.
A Google Search For Philip Landrigan
Dr. Philip Landrigan has done extensive work on body burdens in children and has written a number of books.
Actually, drinking water is regulated by the EPA, not the FDA as you stated. And indeed, bottled water companies are required to submit to FDA regulations.
:)
Of course, what do you expect from an Anonymous Coward?
FYI: Bottled Water Regulation and the FDA
You've got to take into account that we've been adding stuff to the water like chlorine and flouride, which are pretty toxic substances even in small quantities and which cause thousands of cases of cancer each year. Fluoride has been rejected by the majority of europe yet us americans still drink it. It's been known to screw around with enzymes in the brain even in low quantities, not to mention how it gets concentrated in other products like sodapop and other products at the store or in fruit that's been farmed with tap water (which some places do). Chlorine is worse imo as it's linked to a lot of different diseases.
I don't drink unfiltered tap water unless I have to. I usually drink distilled, and I shower and wash with tap. Some people have bad reactions to the stuff that's in water and that's them, personally I think everyone should drink distilled ideally but some people can't afford it, plus it takes a lot of energy to make distilled water. At least filter your water for the chemicals in it to reduce the amount that's in the water.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
"What I'm saying is that the standards that water departments actually work towards, across the USA, whether internally imposed, state imposed, or federally imposed, must vary enormously."
There are some key parameters imposed ny the EPA that are universal. Most of us (public water supplies) try to exceed our state requirements which tend to be slightly more restrictive than the federal regulations. You are correct in saying that water quality from town to town does vary signifigantly but it is important to note that they all must meet the federal guidelines at a minimum. The differences in quality are usually aesthetic (discoloration, taste, odors)which is still very important as it is the most noticable. The water systems that people are pleased with have capital to build, improve and maintain. Those that don't have capital must get by with just "meeting the regulations". Good operators make all the difference in the world. Sometimes a problem that would require a significant expenditure on the part of the PWS (money they don't have in many cases) can be alleviated or at least lessened to a tolerable level by employees that care and are knowledgable.
Indecision is the key to flexibility.
The National Center for Health Statistics doesn't quite agree with you.
Life expectancy by age, race, and sex, 1900-2000 U.S. Life Tables, 2000, table 11
Summary: A person that reached 20 years of age between 1900-1902 could expect to live until they were 62.79 years of age. A person that reached 20 years of age in the year 2000 could expect to live until they were 77.8 years of age.
15 extra years sounds tremendous to me.
I don't know about Morticians, but there's a team of Forensic Anthropologists in Knoxville, Tennessee, who run a 'body farm' with about 20 decomposing donated cadavers left out for around 4 years each to measure the processes of decomposition.
The centre has data on about 200 cadavers over the last 30 years - if anyone has evidence of this trend, they might be the ones.
Neither does he...
We know you can survive on much less that this, and we know you can drink much more without ill effect. But we really have no idea what an optimal level would be.
In short, if you're one of the people who drinks much less than this, don't sweat it...
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
another reason to be concerned is that biological effects often manifest at *very* low doses.
take for example endocrine disruptors (substances that mimic hormones in your body). read this excerpt from the Chemical Messengers [That Work in Parts per Trillion] chapter in the book Our Stolen Future:
"What is astonishing about vom Saal's wombmate studies is how little it takes to dramatically change the tune. Hormones are exceptionally potent chemicals that operate at concentrations so low that they can be measured only by the most sensitive analytical methods. When considering hormones such as estradiol, the most potent estrogen, forget parts per million or parts per billion. The concentrations are typically parts per trillion, one thousand times lower than parts per billion. One can begin to imagine a quantity so infinitesimally small by thinking of a drop of gin in a train of tank cars full of tonic. One drop in 660 tank cars would be one part in a trillion; such a train would be six miles long.
The striking lifelong differences between a pretty sister and ugly sister stem from no more than a thirty-five parts per trillion difference in their exposure to estradiol and a one part per billion difference in testosterone. Using the gin and tonic analogy, the pretty sister's cocktail had 135 drops of gin in one thousand tank cars of tonic and the ugly sister's 100 drops-a difference that might not be detectable in a glass much less in a tank car flotilla.
This is a degree of sensitivity that approaches the unfathomable, a sensitivity, vom Saal says, "beyond people's wildest imagination." If such exquisite sensitivity provides rich opportunities for varied offspring from the same genetic stock, this same characteristic also makes the system vulnerable to serious disruption if something interferes with normal hormone levels-a frightening possibility that first dawned on vom Saal when Theo Colborn called him to talk about synthetic chemicals that could act like hormones."
some studies have even shown that as the dose is lowered toxicity increases and as the dose is increased toxicity approaches zero! this turns our traditional understanding of toxicity on it's head.
read these two issues of Rachel's Environment & Health News for an intro to toxicity:
#754 - Paracelsus Revisited, October 17, 2002
#755 - Paracelsus Revisited -- Part 2, October 31, 2002
low dose endocrine disruptors are only beginning to be investigated but compelling evidence already exists that indicates they may have significant health impacts.
makes me also wonder about the myriad undiscovered toxic effects of chemicals that we brush off today as nothing to be concerned about.