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."
Drink more Water.
And they told me I'd have to have a private lab do it for me - and pay dearly for it! Why the hell won't they test my drinking water without my having to pay for it? Isn't delivering water that's reasonably free of contaminants part of their responsibility?
Wow are we in the wrong business.
What kind of scam is that for blood and possibly urine workups?
report that bodies are taking up to 10% longer to decompose than they used to from all the BHA and BHT added to preserve freshness.
Live fast, eat a lot of antioxidant ladden potato chips, leave a durable, good looking (if somewhat corpulent) corpse.
Gives you more time for a clean dehydration as well, so you can make that trip to Orion in all your leathery splendor.
KFG
Milloy noted that despite all the chemicals, the overall U.S. population is living longer and healthier.
I do not know about the U.S., but things are different in Germany.
[QUOTE]
Overweight & Diabetes in Germany Due to overweight, obesity and inactive lifestyles, the number of people with diabetes is set to double from five million to 10 million in Germany in the next 10 years, doctors warned at a meeting of the German Society for Internal Medicine in Wiesbaden this week. Most worrying is the number of young people who are developing type 2 diabetes because of obesity. Unlike type 1 diabetes - an autoimmune disease that usually develops in children or young adults - type 2 diabetes is linked to obesity and lifestyle, and has traditionally been seen in mainly middle-aged and older adults.
[UNQUOTE] ( c.f. here )
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
A recent article in Science News (a journal) described how one class of flame retardants called PBDEs are more common in the US than in Europe and how blood levels in Americans are on average 10 times higher. It also says there may be a link to ADD, which is also more common in the US. Maybe your next futon should be an organic one?
Measuring pollution in humans? Bad idea. I mean, imagine the confusion, "so bob, how's the weather today?"
"Well, it's not good. Three, maybe four humans and there's no wind to blow them out to sea."
"You sick, sick man...."
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.
To reduce pesticides in fruits that you eat the rind (like apples), wash them with water and *soap*. Just water won't work because pesticides are oily (not soluble in water), to avoid being washed by the rain.
After that, wash well just with water (and leave them for a while in water before that if you wan't) to remove all the soap. Soap can also harm your health.
When you say 'county', I'm assuming you were refering to your county's health department, or equivalent. If so, then to answer your question, no it is not. The only way they will step in is if there is major contamination.
Concerns involving the purity of drinking water should be addressed to your water department. But even then, the standards they have to meet are not very strict, and they will probably tell you the same thing.
As for me, I am a firm believer that no tap water is safe for human consumption, so I've decided to purify drinking water at home. Food tastes much better when cooked in clean water.
Unfortunately, it is rather difficult to say what will happen in the long term.
With such chemicals like DDT, which continues to remain at high levels in the surrounding environment despite having been banned in 1970. I wrote a couple papers on the role of DDT in the decline of the Californian Condor, and it is really a scary chemical.
Some scientists are even beginning to look at a link between DDT levels and breast cancer, as DDT and several other pesticides, which are absorbed and stored long-term in fat, also are capable of causing hormonal changes by acting much like estrogen. The unnatural changes caused by the continuing presence and buildup of DDT in mammary tissue could understandably be a large factor in the rising occurence of breast cancer. It could also have some particularly negative affect in men as well, as it acts as a blocker to the normal male hormones.
And that is just one of the chemicals commonly found in the body, as described in the article...
As far as a solution - how to clean yourself up?? It may be too late for that; water is contaminated, air is contaminated, food is contaminated --- time to set up that vacuum-pod in some sort of earth orbit....
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
I am a chemist, and I am certain that there is no content of value in this article. We have analytical techniques that can detect chemicals at parts per trillion or less. Pointing out that we can find traces of the breakdown products of nicotine, flame retardents, DDT, etc is meaningless unless you actually say:
1: How much
2: How toxic it is
The truth is, you are a thousand times more likely to die driving to the store to buy your fruits and veges than you are to die from the trace amounts of pesticides on the food. Everything you eat contains hundreds of toxic chemicals in some amount. Every drop of sea water contains 50 BILLION gold atoms, for perspective. Do people farm the ocean for gold?
Do not let chemical scare-stories alarm you. 99% of them are full of it.
Don't tell the terrorists that there might tbe uranium in their body...They might try to blow themselves up...ohh wait they do that anyways...
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!
Washing up liquid! Why do folk insist on leaving these chemicals on food utensils? Do we really have to beat sense into them or serve them food with large doses of added "lemon fresh -squeaky clean" before it penetrates their thick skulls?
a sh liqu.htm
http://www.nielsenchemicals.com/datashts/dshy_w
11. TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION:
MEDICAL SYMPTOMS:
EYES AND MUCOUS MEMBRANES. Irritation of eyes and mucous membranes. DIGESTIVE SYSTEM. Gastrointestinal symptoms, including upset stomach. MOUTH AND THROAT. Irritation of mouth and throat.
4. FIRST AID MEASURES:
INHALATION:
Not relevant.
INGESTION:
Rinse mouth thoroughly. DO NOT INDUCE VOMITING! Get medical attention.
SKIN:
Wash off with water.
EYES:
Promptly wash eyes with plenty of water while lifting the eye lids. Continue to rinse for at least 15 minutes. Get medical attention if any discomfort continues.
Besides, have you ever been given a mug of tea by someone who assumed that they need not rinse the mug of any detergent? It's undrinkable! Yuk!
Stay safe: Keep window lickers out of the kitchen!
My hyperlinks aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
Don't know why they didn't mentioned that but the water you drink (except bottle water) contains chlorine. Chlorine is a chemmical that was even used as poison on WW I.
To avoid chlorine on your drinking (and cooking) water, use a chlorine filter like this
Just you wait, as these tests become cheaper and easier, a whole new round of law suits will ensue.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Don't you hate it when people writing articles make up their own units? Whoever heard of measuring pollution in "humans"? This is pure bunk. Most useful units are standardized and published by ISO, and "humans" sure aren't listed anywhere I can see. And anyway, what's the symbol going to be, "hm"?
Standardized units are essential when doing studies which claim repeatability. Anything less is simply not science. I shudder to think what useless arguments this will produce, when a swedish team checks their pollution readings in scandinavian humans, while an italian teams does the same in latin humans. At sufficiently high readings, the difference could be several percent! Then there are issues of hair colour and hair style, which could even change the results of the experiment years after the fact! And don't get me started on the problems every time bell bottoms get back into fashion.
If you ask me, shoddy science begins with the wrong units. And humans are definitely the wrong unit to use in this case.
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
Alar on apples. Bogus
Silicon Breast Implants Bogus
DDT Mostly Bogus
Somewhere along the way we lost our ability to actually use science and facts to evaluate things and have fallen back on a faith based consensus pseudo-science.
Remember, None of us are getting out of here alive. Life - A sexually transmitted terminal disease. Always fatal.
"Everyone's exposed to substances and there's no evidence that the low levels people are exposed to are harming anybody," said Steven Milloy, author of "Junk Science Judo: Self Defense Against Health Scares and Scams." "It's a waste of time and money that only serves to scare people."
Why do I get the feeling similar quotes were heard just before the Roman Empire fell?
Most likely it was something like, 'The lead in our drinking cups don't have any harmful side effects that we can see.'
"Everything is in everything else".
The sensitivity of today's measurement techniques is stunning. But even decades ago, it was common knowledge among chemists that if you started looking at trace contaminants the results were like cleaning out your garage -- "what's THAT doing there?!".
What's interesting is whether the odds and ends are in significant quantities. When you define "significant", remember that your body is a huge detoxification machine designed to survive consuming carrion, plants full of natural insecticides, and even unchlorinated water.
It happens in marathons: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A9158-200 3Oct23?language=printer.
Fatigue or some pain-killers like ibrofprofen can distort the sense of thirst.
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.
Blood and urine tests are often not reliable indicators of total body burden of a substance. Blood or urine levels can be low while significant (possibly toxic) amounts may be stored in various organs and visa versa.
Also, due to health and genes, different people can tolerate vastly different amounts of a toxic substance before showing symptoms or being disadvantaged.
Remember that the risks of cigarette smoking and factors contributing to heart disease have been researched for decades and are still not fully understood. To just as accurately assess the risks of all of these chemicals, or even just the chemicals that should be assessed is a massive undertaking that our society is not willing to take on. Pronouncements of levels of safety and risk are just guesses.
The bottom line is, we are all guinea pigs. Some of us will get sick and die early from some pollutants, and the rest of us won't notice.
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.
But it's OK, says the skeptical environmentalists: after all, we do not have definitive proof that all those substances are bad for you.
Never mind that cancer is on the rise (could just be demographics, right?) and that dozens of species other than humans show hormonal abnormalities correlated with the presence of manufacured chemicals (could just be parasitic infections). Why be prudent and conservative if we can increase the GNP by 0.1%?
In fact, it's probably impossible to prove at all that they are bad for you because no single substance may harm you--they may only harm you synergistically. And since you are exposed to all of them constantly, it is impossible to assign responsibility to individual chemicals. But without definitive proof that an individual chemical is harmful by itself, we wouldn't want to limit the freedom of corporations to pollute, would we?
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 contaminents would you like to see monitored more closely/have a lower MCL (maximum contaminent level). You do realize that a large percentage of our (USA) water supplies are filtered (not all ground water needs filtration). ALL public water supplies are disinfected and monitored closely. I monitor no less than 15 key parameters daily (holidays included). We perform routine bacteriological sampling monthly (analyzed by a third party lab and reported to the STATE BY THEM - to keep me honest). Every public water supply must also perform a slew of addition testing - SOC's, VOC's, radionuclides, TTHM's, lead and copper sampling, etc, etc.
Indecision is the key to flexibility.
Unfortunately, there will probably be women who don't breastfeed because of news like this. The benefits of breastfeeding are far better than most people realize - as one recent example, our 2-month-old daughter beat a cold within 2 days that the rest of us had for a week. There will never be a formula that provides the mix of nutrition, fat and antibodies that breastmilk does.
The real message of a study like this should be that pregnant or nursing mothers need to improve the quality of food they eat, along with avoiding tobacco and alcohol. Organic food is best, but just eating pasture-raised meat is a great start.
People blow this stuff off, but the health impact is significant, not to mention the other amazing things about nursing; the bond with the child, the reduction of allergies, better brain development, leaner children, etc. etc.
"These chemicals prevent thousands of deaths each year, but we must ban them because they might be causing tens of deaths each year."
And, no, "my kind" are the people who say that you must compare the benefits with the risks before making a decision. "My kind" are the kind of people who actually know chemistry, for example.
Oh, and some cites that cancer rates are really increasing (as opposed to the cancer detection rate) might be nice.
Clear, Dark Skies
For example; I know people who refuse to fly, for fear of airplane crashes, but are willing to drive hours every day. Many people, in a similar vein, stopped flying after September 11, even though the probability of being a casualty of terrorism is still extremely low (lower than many other activities they would willingly engage in).
The point is not passing the buck (though I think maybe ou meant to say something else here, since he wasn't trying to say anyone else was responsible for the pollution instead of polluters), but rather that we are perhaps overly concerned about unknown risk, though it is likely smaller than many known risks we willingly accept.
"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 Purification program which consists of a regime of heavy vitamins, niacin and long sauna sweatouts can actually purge the body of toxins. Anyone who has ever been poisoned (heavy drug users), exposed to radiation or has lived in a toxic environment (LA) could greatly benefit.
I did it five years ago and the results were amazing. Incredibly, my eyesight improved.
read more here .
And this is the book, Clear Body, Clear Mind.
My brother has autism. Once we found out about it, we started researching and there has been a huge increase in children born with autism in recent years. Wired magazine even published an article trying to suggest that autism was on the rise in California relating autism to being smart. All hubris asside, there is something happening and we need to find out what it is.
... well himself now, but trapped by autism. Hard to explain, but scary as hell now that I'm having kids of my own.
One theory suggests that Thirmosal used in childhood inoculations may trigger autism in some children because it contains Mercury which is a known toxin being injected into most children. There is even a provision in the Homeland Security bill which prevents companies such as Eli Lilly from being sued by parents if thirmosal is found to be the cause of autism.
Even if it is not mercury in innoculations, autism is on the rise and for those of us with kids or planning on having them, this is a scary thing. I watched my brother revert from a normal 3 year old to
The study mentioned in the article only included 9 people. Obviously not statistically relavant, but the findings found enough chemicals in the body that more studies analysis must be done to determine the effects on the body, and especially the developing young ones.
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.