posted
11/17/09 03:07 AM
|
updated
11/19/09 10:12 AM
Views:
4604
|
Comments :
23
|
Seattle
Infuriated mom: Why can't I protect my body? Study pinpoints chemicals in moms-to-be
By
Sally Deneen
PostGlobe reporter
Recommend this story
(1 votes)
Save and Share this article
Tags:
toxics,
study,
pregnant,
Bisphenol,
A,
phthalates,
Washington Toxics Coalition,
Seattle,
men,
sexual,
function
+ add tags
savecancel
|
Mercury exposure
|
|
|
People worried about mercury ingestion from fish can estimate exposure by entering their weight, fish choice and serving size into the new mercury calculator at www.gotmercury.org. You can also use the mobile mercury calculator for cell phone browsers at www.gotmercury.mobi. The calculator is based on current U.S. EPA and FDA mercury guidelines, weak as they are. Learn more about mercury-laden fish and how to protect yourself and your family at www.gotmercury.org or www.diagnosismercury.org |
|
|
Comment by
got mercury
2 months ago
|
(
0
votes)
(
report abuse
)
(
reply
)
|
|
Safe Skincare, Haircare & Aroma's
|
|
| You should try Intelligent Nutrients www.intelligentnutrients.com All food and seed based USDA Certified Organic. Founder of IN is the master mind behind Aveda as well. Safe enough to eat them!! | |
|
Comment by
Kelly
2 months ago
|
(
0
votes)
(
report abuse
)
(
reply
)
|
|
Don't be furious, be free
|
|
|
As a country we ought to set aside a couple of states for those of us who demand absolutes: be it environmental or personal safety. Inside this sanctuary - shall we call it New Eden? - there shall be no plastic, no fossil fuels, no cell phone, internet or other conveniences (that destroy the earth, dontca know?), no modern medicine (what with it's radiomedicine and high-tech pharmaceuticals), no... (fill in the blank). The New Eden will be a place where idealogues can go and live the pristine life they apparently desire. One catch: once you move into New Eden, you stay. You accept the 40 year life expectacy of your farefathers (and foremothers!) and you work hard - everyday - to provide your meager succor and shelter. Sounds kind of depressing, but - on the bright side - you will no longer be "furious". You'll be way too busy trying to survive. |
|
|
Comment by
Blue Light
2 months ago
|
(
0
votes)
(
report abuse
)
(
reply
)
|
|
RE: Don't be furious, be free
|
|
| This is beyond ignorant and cruel. | |
|
Comment by
CentralAreaGuy
2 months ago
|
(
0
votes)
(
report abuse
)
|
|
RE: Don't be furious, be free
|
|
| You are ignorant. You obviously did not even read the article. Educate yourself before you express your "ideas". | |
|
Comment by
Kpaw
2 months ago
|
(
0
votes)
(
report abuse
)
|
|
RE: Don't be furious, be free
|
|
|
Bluelight, your dropping the "40 yo life expectancy of your forefathers" as a rationalization of us being exposed to industrial and commercial chemical pollutants is facetious at best. To start with, it shows a complete misunderstanding of what life expectancy is. This did not mean that everyone live to be in their 40s and then died. It is an average, so many people lived well into their senior years, but there were enough people who did not that the average was in the 40's. And most people who died did so for four primary reasons - famine, war, dangerous working conditions (especially in agriculture) and the difficulties associated with childbirth. Of these factors, famine and childbirth were especially hard on the life expectancy average, since it only takes a few children under the age of five to bring the average of a dozen septegenarians down to the mid 40's. When you can come up with a stronger argument to support the idea that industry should be free to dump toxic substances as they please, feel free to try again. |
|
|
Comment by
Dad Fourkids
2 months ago
|
(
0
votes)
(
report abuse
)
|
|
RE: Don't be furious, be free
|
|
|
how insensitive. At the very least, all ingredients should be on the labels at purchase so people know what they are exposing themselves to. I believe in individual choice, but you can only make the choices right for you if you have all the information. I really hope you aren't raising children. |
|
|
Comment by
Charles
2 months ago
|
(
0
votes)
(
report abuse
)
|
|
Furious is right
|
|
|
Blue Light: Nice one lambasting a story about a concerned pregnant woman! Your whole post is a straw man here: A straw man is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. We can take steps to help limit exposure of hormone disrupting chemicals to fetus blood and still enjoy the luxury's of modern society. It called regulation. Do you care if your showering water is contaminated? You should. We have regulations for that type of thing in many cities and municipalities to ensure the least amount of damage occurs to people & babies, should some health threat to the community happen to occur. Also, check out the EU's toxic and dangerous chemical use standards. The EU is a market in which some US products are already not competitive because of our (the U.S.) refusal to regulate any chemicals in products, even known hazardous substances. Have a great day |
|
|
Comment by
Chemistry
2 months ago
|
(
0
votes)
(
report abuse
)
(
reply
)
|
|
PFCs, not PFOS
|
|
| Not to nit-pick, but this is a pet peeve of mine I see too often in stories on environmental health. PFOS is not the correct acronym for "perfluorinated chemicals" (PFCs). PFOS is a particular type of PFC that at one time was used in Scotchguard but was banned in 2003. The PFC you're referring to, "Teflon chemicals," is PFOA. Other than that, I'm glad they're doing this testing, and finally working on reforming chemical regulation at the federal level. We shouldn't be guinea pigs for the chemical industry! | |
|
Comment by
Enviro reporter
2 months ago
|
(
0
votes)
(
report abuse
)
(
reply
)
|
|
RE: PFCs, not PFOS
|
|
|
Hi Enviro Reporter -- Oh, I think the report addressed your point. Let's see: "Though PFOS is no longer manufactured, PFOA is still used to create Teflon products and both chemicals are formed when other PFCs break down, contributing to the ongoing contamination of people, wildlife and the environment. Because these chemicals cross the placenta to reach the fetus, researchers also found them in more than 99% of 293 Maryland newborns tested in 2004 and 2005. These researchers also found that children born with higher levels of PFOA and PFOS had lower birth weight, potentially increasing their risk of diabetes and obesity in adulthood. A larger study published at the same time found that babies whose mothers had higher levels of PFOA during pregnancy were born smaller." I have a gobbledy-gook-filled longer version of this reply farther below in this comment stream, but, egads, I see in retrospect that it's so full of jargon. I hope I've pared it down to the salient point here. |
|
|
Comment by
Sally Deneen
2 months ago
|
(
0
votes)
(
report abuse
)
|
|
Fear is all we have
|
|
| It should be noted that Kim Radtke has not suffered any adverse effects from the toxins she's found in her body -- except that she feels a great deal of fear. Will she suffer in the future? We don't know. She doesn't know. All we are left with is fear. | |
|
Comment by
workingdog
2 months ago
|
(
0
votes)
(
report abuse
)
(
reply
)
|
|
well done, Sally!
|
|
| Great article, Sally. Thanks for including resources at the end. And I love the quotation at the end from Molly Gray: “The answer I received from this study is that the fight is too big for just one person.” | |
|
Comment by
Orna Izakson, ND
2 months ago
|
(
0
votes)
(
report abuse
)
(
reply
)
|
|
"Why can't I protect my body?" (PFCs vs. PFOS)
|
|
|
Hi Enviro Reporter (and other readers--thanks to everyone for your points): Oh, I think the report addressed the matter of PFCs vs. PFOS, stating that the mothers of the nine West Coast babies in this study tested positive for four different perfluorinated compounds (PFCs), including PFOA, PFOS, PFNA and PFHxS -- all testing below the CDC threshold. Here's how the report put it: "PFCs form a large family of chemicals, many of them breaking down to form PFOA and PFOS, two indestructible chemicals found in each of the women in our study. For the likely cancer-causing PFOA, levels were fairly consistent among participants, ranging from 1.49 ppb to 3.36 ppb in this study. Levels of PFOS, once the key ingredient of Scotchgard, ranged more widely, with a low of 1.12 ppb and a high level of 11 ppb. Interestingly, the trend in our group matched that of a much larger study of the U.S. population, in which older individuals had higher levels than younger people.... "Though PFOS is no longer manufactured, PFOA is still used to create Teflon products and both chemicals are formed when other PFCs break down, contributing to the ongoing contamination of people, wildlife and the environment. Because these chemicals cross the placenta to reach the fetus, researchers also found them in more than 99% of 293 Maryland newborns tested in 2004 and 2005. These researchers also found that children born with higher levels of PFOA and PFOS had lower birth weight, potentially increasing their risk of diabetes and obesity in adulthood. A larger study published at the same time found that babies whose mothers had higher levels of PFOA during pregnancy were born smaller." |
|
|
Comment by
Sally Deneen
2 months ago
|
(
0
votes)
(
report abuse
)
(
reply
)
|
|
Serious erroneous information
|
|
|
This article contains seriously erroneous information on PFOA and nonstick cookware, and therefore may well cause unnecessary worry and concern among those who read it. Studies by several authoritative sources including EPA have indicated that nonstick cookware is not a source of exposure to PFOA. EPA states on its PFOA website, “The information that EPA has available does not indicate that the routine use of consumer products poses a concern. At present, there are no steps that EPA recommends that consumers take to reduce exposures to PFOA.” Nonstick coatings have been, and continue to be, approved for use by the US Food and Drug Administration, the European Food Safety Authority and other regulatory agencies worldwide. Nonstick cookware is recommended by the American Heart Association and National Stroke Association because it allows for cooking with little or no oil. Please see the AHA website for further information on nonstick cookware and healthy eating. We urge you to correct this article. Hugh Rushing Executive Vice President Cookware Manufacturers Association |
|
|
Comment by
Hugh J. Rushing
2 months ago
|
(
0
votes)
(
report abuse
)
(
reply
)
|
|
RE: Serious erroneous information
|
|
| I'll hold this with the same regard as I do Oil, coal and health industry lobbyists. The idea that the spike in cancer and illness since indutrialism and modernization is unrelated to the chemicals and poisons that now fill our food, water and air is a bit disingenuous. | |
|
Comment by
CentralAreaGuy
2 months ago
|
(
0
votes)
(
report abuse
)
|
|
RE: Serious erroneous information
|
|
|
Dear Mr. Rushing, Thank you for your input. It’s important that you point out what you feel may be inaccuracies in our report. It’s also important to me to address any factual shortcomings in my story. However, I remain unclear about what you find erroneous about the article. The article accurately describes the report on which the story is based. That report identifies perfluorinated compounds as a class of chemicals found in the pregnant women studied. The article also says that perfluorinated compounds are "used to make Teflon pans, clothing, furniture, and food packaging such as pizza boxes and fast-food containers," as the report describes. Are you saying this is inaccurate? Please provide specifics. Your citation from the EPA web page also is accurate. Please note that on the same web page, the EPA says the science about the risk of at least one of the perfluorinated compounds in question, PFOA, is unsettled: “EPA has not yet made a determination as to whether PFOA poses an unreasonable risk to the public.” If you still believe the article was erroneous, please let me know more specifically how. Thanks again for getting in touch. Sally Deneen |
|
|
Comment by
Sally Deneen
2 months ago
|
(
0
votes)
(
report abuse
)
|
|
RE: Serious erroneous information
|
|
|
Mr Rushing, you are saying that teflon cookware is safe? Then why does it give off fumes that can kill Canarys? Are you working for the teflon industry perhaps? |
|
|
Comment by
OhZone
2 months ago
|
(
0
votes)
(
report abuse
)
|
|
quantity
|
|
|
Some questions I have: From among the checimcals found to be in the study's participant's blood, in what quantity were these chemicals found? Is there any peer reviewed scientific evidence that indicates these levels are dangerous? If so, can you source them? Also, have any comparisons be made between the blood of some people in (relatively) industrialized places and different, (relatively) non-undistrialized places (e.g., Seattle area vs. a rural portion of Paupa New Guinea)? If so, what do these comparisons look like? If not, I'd like to see such comparisons! Lastly, some of the language in this article is vague implying a lot but clearly stating very little: "These chemicals can cause reproductive problems and cancer, disrupt hormonal systems such as the thyroid, and can impair brain development." Should I understand this sentence to mean that: "the chemicals WILL cause...." or "The chemicals (in massive quantities) may cause..." or "The chemicals are linked with causing..." or "The chemicals are correleated with..." We all must remember that "links", "associations", and "correlations" are not causes. Tim |
|
|
Comment by
Tim Christie
2 months ago
|
(
0
votes)
(
report abuse
)
(
reply
)
|
|
RE: quantity
|
|
|
Hi Tim, Good questions--thanks. There are 80-plus footnotes to the study, including many titles to peer-reviewed articles. You can find those references in the back of the report via the link found above (below the photo) or go here: http://bit.ly/26J2G7 I referred your specific questions to Erika Shreder, the lead author of the study, too. She particularly referred to 2 peer-reviewed studies: Swan S. 2008. "Environmental phthalate exposure in relation to reproductive outcomes and other health endpoints in humans." Environmental Research 108:177- 184. Vandenberg L, R Hauser, M Marcus, N Olea, and WV Welshons. 2007. Human exposure to bisphenol A (BPA). Reproductive Toxicology 24:139-177. She also referred to EPA's web site. Looking at the back of her report, I see a few references there: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Mercury: Health Effects. http://www. epa.gov/mercury/effects.htm. Accessed on: September 11, 2009. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. America’s Children and the Environment. http://www.epa.gov/economics/children/ body_burdens/b4-graph.htm. Accessed on: October 26, 2009. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. What You Need to Know About Mercury in Fish and Shellfish. http://www.epa.gov/ fishadvisories/advice/. Accessed on: October 8, 2009. She goes on to write: "In terms of the levels, they are referenced in a couple of places [in the report] and I can expand on that for you. The first place in the report is with phthalates, in which in a number of cases the levels in our study exceeded those of women whose sons had altered genital development. This is referenced in the report where I discuss the Shanna Swan study. "The other place is with mercury. While none of the women had levels exceeding what EPA considers a dangerous level, EPA's website (see reference in the report) also says that research has found no safe level of mercury exposure within the range of study, which goes down to 1 ppb. Five of our participants had levels exceeding 1 ppb. "The other example I would give you is with bisphenol A. We can't compare the levels in our study with those in laboratory studies because we measured it in urine rather than blood. However, the median level in people today is greater than levels found in laboratory animals in the low dose studies that have found effects. This is discussed in the Vandenberg article (reference 49 in back of the report). Also, in the consensus statement issued by 38 scientists in 2007, they conclude "BPA levels in the fetal mouse exposed to BPA by maternal delivery of 25 micrograms/kg, a dose that has produced adverse effects in multiple experiments, are well within the range of unconjugated BPA levels observed in human fetal blood." In other words, the levels tested in human fetuses are in the same range as the levels expected in the fetuses of laboratory animals where the mothers were exposed to a low dose and adverse effects were seen. +++++ "As for the other questions, yes, in some cases these comparisons have been made. How they turn out depends on the chemical and the location. For example, levels of some chemicals found in consumer products have been found to be lower in some less-industrialized areas. On the other hand, PCB and mercury levels are higher in polar regions due to long-range transport. So people who live in those areas, and are many times dependent on fish consumption, can have higher levels. "As for how to phrase the strength of the evidence, here’s a try: There is evidence from laboratory studies as well as human studies that these chemicals cause the health problems described. Because we don’t generally conduct controlled experiments with people, it is difficult to generate definitive proof. However, laboratory studies have proven that these effects occur, in many cases at low doses, including doses resulting in exposures actually lower than what humans are currently experiencing." I hope that helps explain things better. Again, thanks, Tim. |
|
|
Comment by
Sally Deneen
2 months ago
|
(
0
votes)
(
report abuse
)
|
|
blue light special
|
|
| i thought blue light's comment was funny. gosh, compared to reader comments on other news site, it's downright supportive. this must be the site where sensitive people go for their news. | |
|
Comment by
coda
2 months ago
|
(
0
votes)
(
report abuse
)
(
reply
)
|
|
RE: blue light special
|
|
| not sensitive - just educated | |
|
Comment by
CentralAreaGuy
2 months ago
|
(
0
votes)
(
report abuse
)
|
|
Federal Agencies Controlled by Special Interest Groups/Industries
|
|
| We have truly lost control of our country. The Food and Drug Administration's allowance of chemicals and toxic substances to be used that affect peoples' health is a perfect example of this. We no longer have a safe air, food or water supply. The banks, credit card companies and insurance companies have declared economic war on the American people and have taken almost half of peoples' assets away from them. And agencies like the FDA continue to put public health perpetually on the back burner. | |
|
Comment by
Pamela K
2 months ago
|
(
0
votes)
(
report abuse
)
(
reply
)
|
|
Chemical Exposure and Induced Stress--Who is the real culprit?
|
|
|
The PostGlobe today received this rebuttal of the article from Elmer Rauckman, Phd DABT: As a professional toxicologist who has worked in Academia (Duke University Medical Center), Federal Government (Staff of the National Toxicology Program), and large Industry (Hoechst-Celanese) and as an Independent Consultant and Expert Witness in several cases of human exposure and alleged adverse effects, I am appalled by the amount of disinformation that appears in the press concerning chemical exposures. It creates hysteria where informed assessment is the most appropriate and beneficial response. In my opinion, emotional stress of expectant mothers probably accounts for more adverse outcomes of pregnancy than any “chemical” exposure in the United States. I put the word chemical in quotes for a reason. Most people do not realize just what a chemical is or is not. My academic training (PhD and post-doctoral training) was in organic chemistry, biochemistry and pharmacology. From my perspective, I see that there is nothing on this planet that is not a chemical or an element. Humans included! Your body is a lot of chemicals combined in an incredibly complex and balanced manner. It requires constant replenishment of thousands of chemical substances that it cannot make. Yes, some chemicals can cause cancer – Cobalt for example is a powerful animal carcinogen but it is also a dietary requirement. Oxygen is highly toxic unless diluted with inert gases, but you can’t live without it. There are numerous other examples that show balance is the key concept. Strangely, this observation fits with the basic precept of toxicology “The DOSE makes the poison”. Who does not know that drinking too much water can kill you? Hopefully that lesson has been learned by example. Is water a chemical? An appropriate systematic for water is “dihydrogen monoxide CAS Registry Number 7789-20-0. Now that sounds more like a chemical, doesn’t it? There are numerous cases where drinking excess dihydrogen monoxide has resulted in death. In January 2007, a 28-year-old woman and mother of three, was found dead in her home hours after trying to win a prize in California radio station sponsored water drinking contest. You require water to live so please don’t stop drinking water just because it is toxic. Some chemicals have no known requirement or beneficial effects on the human body – lead, mercury and “Teflon and Scotch-guard chemicals” are examples of these that are very difficult to purge from your body and accumulate with time– these are a serious concern if the accumulated dose is too high. Exposure and dose is much more difficult to control for materials that do not break down in the environment and accumulate in your body. In my opinion, these are the ugly chemicals when there is human exposure. It is hard to get too excited about phthalates, a group of chemicals I was responsible for in my tenure at the National Toxicology Program. They break down in the environment, your body metabolizes them and excretes part and uses part as a nutrient. No, I don’t consider them as nutritious but it shows how flexible and adaptive the human body can be. Phthalates are high-dose reproductive and developmental toxins in laboratory animals and we have known that since the 1970’s. High-dose means that it takes a lot of the chemical to cause adverse effects – for rats, dose levels in the range of 1 gram per kilogram body weight daily dosing will cause effects. Simple extrapolation to a 60 kg human translates to eating about four pounds of phthalates a month. We are fairly sure a human consuming that much would have clear adverse effects on reproduction – not to mention a serious case of indigestion. Could low doses cause adverse effects? Yes, but we don’t really know the dose-response relationship for a human. The animal models are good qualitatively but can’t unequivocally inform the question of exactly what level is dangerous for a human. Indeed, it is prudent to reduce your exposure as much as possible to a substance that can cause specific toxicity - but stressing out over it and making major changes in diet (chemicals you eat for nutrition) will probably produce more adverse effects than the chemical exposure would ever. I have seen families lose their homes and all their belongings to toxic hysteria and seen families break up due to unfounded fears. The saddest part is we know better. It is time we stop listening to the hyperbole of the lunatic fringe and empower ourselves with evidence-based facts. If someone tells you that eating food from cans will make you infertile – ask them to put their money where their mouth is and show you the evidence. How low can you go? Modern analytical techniques can identify infinitesimally small quantities of materials, is that meaningful? For example, Mercury is a naturally occurring element that is somewhat volatile and it comes with the planet. The U.S. Geological Survey has a keen interest in mercury contamination of water ways and has studied the issues. The USGS states that natural sources include volcanoes, natural mercury deposits, and volatilization from the ocean. The primary human-related sources include: coal combustion, chlorine alkali processing, waste incineration, and metal processing. Best estimates to date suggest that human activities have about doubled or tripled the amount of mercury in the atmosphere. Unlike easily metabolized and excreted materials such as the phthalates, mercury is accumulated by the body because it is excreted very slowly. The all natural contribution to mercury in air amounts to about one nanogram per cubic meter, which is 150 million (150,000,000) atoms of mercury per half liter breath. Granite counter tops typically contain 200 ppb (part per billion) mercury, some of which is released into the air and can migrate into foods placed directly on the countertop, but don’t let that scare you the amounts are trivial. We have been living with mercury on this chemical planet for over a million years, our bodies can deal very well with little bits. Only when air, water or food levels cross a certain threshold do we experience toxic effects. Since this is a chemical world we live in there are many highly toxic substances we come in contact with daily. Even organic vegetables have small amounts of highly toxic substances and your body deals well with them. Similarly the environmental estrogen issue scare needs to be kept in perspective. Yes, Bis-phenol A and many phthalates are weak estrogens. Polyphenols, an important class of nutrients and antioxidant in food also have estrogenic activity. The “natural” human diet of fruits, nuts and vegetables has plenty of estrogenic polyphenols that are missing from most processed foods. Just maybe, humans are at their best with a little more estrogenic activity in their bodies. Your body cannot tell a synthetic chemical from a natural one, it deals with all substances individually. You could say we have equal-opportunity bodies. Don’t misunderstand me, I am not advocating increasing your intake of BPA and phthalates. Keep in mind that we know a lot about these chemicals and throwing them out in favor of a new untested chemical is an adventure into the unknown The PostGlobe article is hopefully intended to provide information and not entertainment; however, it fails in providing accurate and useful information. Contrary to the information in the article, not all chemicals pass the placenta to reach the conceptus and not all chemicals are excreted in breast milk. As an example, the Teflon-Scotchgard chemicals have been examined in humans and it was found that PFOA and PFOSA do not cross the placenta and for PFOS the placenta provides a partial barrier such that fetal levels are about one third (or less) of maternal levels. This information is readily available without cost by means of a Google search ( http://www.thefreelibrary.com). Data concerning breast milk concentrations of these materials are also easy to find with Google and a little time on the internet. I thought responsible journalism included researching “facts” before publication. The mere presence of a chemical does not mean it is causing effects. It really is the dose that makes the poison. Some of the most important chemicals in your body are the ones that make up your brain – use them wisely. |
|
|
Comment by
Sally Deneen
2 months ago
|
(
0
votes)
(
report abuse
)
(
reply
)
|
advertisement
Most Viewed Stories
- Safety meeting Thursday to address manhunt, area violence
- Marijuana should be legalized and taxed, says Mayor-Elect McGinn
- "Film Review: "Avatar" Doesn't Live Up To The Hype
- New seven-inch from Northwest songwriter J. Tillman
- Copenhagen backstory: Ethiopia PM accused of genocide is top African negotiator
Not a Member?
Sign Up
Latest Headlines
- Hard Rock Cafe opens in Seattle with local artifacts; rock, roll and remember...
- Seattle planning purchase of failed 'rowhome' project lot for new Capitol Hill park
- Consumers really can affect global warming — particularly if they live in the US
- A good night’s sleep, family dinners and limited TV may help fight obesity in preschoolers
- Concert review: Alice in Chains makes a stand at the Paramount