Re: Dose Doesn't Always Make the Poison

[Guest guest]

Some of the odd dose curves have been seen in textile aquatic toxicity testing

in the past. In those cases, is the material " toxic " or " food " .

Interesting if we find that an ultralow dose is just as bad as a high dose and

that low dose is lower than comes from natural sources, then what do we do?

Would we ever say, more may actually be better? or more will not make things

worse?

Dr.Henry A. Boyter Jr.

Director of CESTAB

Center for Environmentally Sustainable Textile and Apparel Businesses

1407 South Bloodworth St.

Raleigh, NC 27610

henryb@...

>

> Hormones and Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals:

>

> Low-Dose Effects and Nonmonotonic Dose Responses

>

> Endocrine Reviews, March 14, 2012 as doi:10.1210/er.2011-1050

>

> http://stream.loe.org/images/120316/er.2011-1050.full.pdf

>

>

>

> Interview with lead author Vandenberg at:

> http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=12-P13-00011

> <http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=12-P13-00011 & segmentID=1>

& segmentID=1

>

>

>

> Carl Grimes

>

> Healthy Habitats LLC

>

[Guest guest]

Henry

When we do science, or just live ordinary lives, we have made a set of assumptions about the world and how it works. Often those assumptions work for many, ordinary circumstances and we assume they will always work.

Life is always non-linear, however, once we look at the full range of what will happen in a lifetime (of anything or anyone). A straight line may approximate a curve for a small range of variables, but an exponential (a very common equation for fitting data on life) only looks linear for a small part of the curve. The same thing happens with logarithmic behaviour; using log-linear fits to data often shows good agreement over a large range of data. The log-linear also works with concentrations, which cannot have a negative concentration, under ordinary circumstances. Mind you, that fit gets bad if there is a scavenging effect working on the chemical to which we are exposed is the 'x' axis of the plot. It also has to be amended when the population reacting can consist of both 'normal' and 'sensitized' people.

Some recent work in both system science and new spirituality is throwing even such fit changes out the window; the whole concept of cause then effect is sometimes in question, if and only if (iff) the real response is sometimes still quantum-like at large scales. It will be a long time before most scientists accept the fact that many processes are usually determinant but can be random (or seem so) in some cases. We are used to getting rid of results that do not fit the curve, when most data does, but these dumped data points may be correct responses under some circumstances.

As Einstein said many decades ago (and he was, in many ways, against the concept of probability functions working at large scales) "Things are not only weirder than you imagine, they are weirder than you CAN imagine." (from memory, so this may just be an approximate fit) That was his attempt at warning us not to make assumptions and build rules that are too simple for a good fit to all of reality. This is now proving to be a good warning and evidence for the need for us to heed it is coming to light in many fields (dark energy and dark matter as one example).

Time and again we get to the point where we think that we are close to having the science that will explain everything; that is just the time when good evidence shows up to make us re-evaluate our basic assumptions. Now is one such exciting and unsettling time!

Peace to you and yours and never fear that you and/or your children will have no new and great challenges to solve!

Jim H. White SSC

(now drafting a small eBook on "The world is not as we see it"

"Always listen carefully to those who disagree with you for they can teach you much about what you do not know. Those who agree with you can only show you that they can explain what you developed better than you can."

Re: Dose Doesn't Always Make the Poison

Some of the odd dose curves have been seen in textile aquatic toxicity testing in the past. In those cases, is the material "toxic" or "food".Interesting if we find that an ultralow dose is just as bad as a high dose and that low dose is lower than comes from natural sources, then what do we do? Would we ever say, more may actually be better? or more will not make things worse?Dr.Henry A. Boyter Jr.Director of CESTABCenter for Environmentally Sustainable Textile and Apparel Businesses1407 South Bloodworth St.Raleigh, NC 27610henryb@...>> Hormones and Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals:> > Low-Dose Effects and Nonmonotonic Dose Responses> > Endocrine Reviews, March 14, 2012 as doi:10.1210/er.2011-1050> > http://stream.loe.org/images/120316/er.2011-1050.full.pdf> > > > Interview with lead author Vandenberg at:> http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=12-P13-00011> <http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=12-P13-00011 & segmentID=1> & segmentID=1> > > > Carl Grimes> > Healthy Habitats LLC>

[Guest guest]

Dr. Boyter,

Sometimes more IS better. I think that is called "hormesis" aka adaptive immunity. Its why children who go to preschool do not get as sick in kindergarten that those who did not and had no exposure to childhood diseases early on. But that is really kind of off topic from this great paper about how to study adverse health effects from low dose exposures - except that both acknowledge the lunacy of using acute, monotoxicology models by themselves to profess proof of causation or lack thereof.

Hormesis scientist agreeing w/low dose endocrine doctors about the misrepresentation of monotoxicity models.

http://freepdfhosting.com/b6fe5a07f4.pdf

WIDELY misrepresented monotoxicity model.

http://freepdfhosting.com/74478c4cad.pdf

"Nonmonotoxicity".Good term. That describes EXACTLY what has been misrepresented over the mold issue to deny causation of illness "Monotoxicity" Taking one high dose acute exposure model and professing proof of lack of causation for multiple low does exposures occurring simultaneously in WDB.

And this is really good, too, I think:

1. What is meant by low dose?In 2001, at the request of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Toxicology Program (NTP) assembled a group of scientists to perform a review of the low-dose EDC literature (1). At that time, the NTP panel defined low-dose effects as any biological changes 1) occurring in the range of typical human exposures or 2) occurring at doses lower than those typically used in standardtesting protocols, i.e. doses below those tested in traditional toxicology assessments (2). Other definitions of low dose include 3) a dose below the lowest dose at which a biological change (or damage) for a specific chemical has been measured in the past, i.e. any dose below thelowest observed effect level or lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) (3), or 4) a dose administered to an animal that produces blood concentrations of that chemical in the range of what has been measured in the general human population (i.e. not exposed occupationally, and often referred to as an environmentally relevant dose because it creates an internal dose relevant to concentrationsof the chemical measured in humans) (4, 5). This last definition takes into account differences in chemical metabolism and pharmacokinetics (i.e. absorption, distribution, and excretion of the chemical) across species and reduces the importance of route of exposure by directly comparing similar blood or other tissue concentrations across model systems and experimental paradigms.

(so much for "mold is only harmful if you eat it")

Although these different definitions may seem quite similar, using just a single well-studied chemical like bisphenol A (BPA) shows how these definitions produce different cutoffs for exposure concentrations that are considered low dose

Low-dose effects have received considerable attention from the scientific and regulatory communities, especially when examined for single well-studied chemicals like BPA (4, 27–32). The low-dose literature as a whole, however, has not been carefully examined for more than a decade.

Furthermore, this body of literature has been disregarded or considered insignificant by many (33, 34). Since the NTP’s review of the low-dose literature in 2001 (2), a very large body of data has been published including 1) additional striking examples of low-dose effects from exposuresto well-characterized EDCs as well as other chemicals, 2) an understanding of the mechanisms responsible for these low-dose effects, 3) exploration of nonmonotonicity in in vivo and in vitro systems, and 4) epidemiological support for both low-dose effects and NMDRCs

Sharon Kramer

Some of the odd dose curves have been seen in textile aquatic toxicity testing in the past. In those cases, is the material "toxic" or "food".Interesting if we find that an ultralow dose is just as bad as a high dose and that low dose is lower than comes from natural sources, then what do we do? Would we ever say, more may actually be better? or more will not make things worse?Dr.Henry A. Boyter Jr.Director of CESTABCenter for Environmentally Sustainable Textile and Apparel Businesses1407 South Bloodworth St.Raleigh, NC 27610henryb@...>> Hormones and Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals:> > Low-Dose Effects and Nonmonotonic Dose Responses> > Endocrine Reviews, March 14, 2012 as doi:10.1210/er.2011-1050> > http://stream.loe.org/images/120316/er.2011-1050.full.pdf> > > > Interview with lead author Vandenberg at:> http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=12-P13-00011> <http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=12-P13-00011 & segmentID=1> & segmentID=1> > > > Carl Grimes> > Healthy Habitats LLC>

[Guest guest]

Dr. Boyter,

An observation, noting I'm a sensitized individual and not any sort of

toxicologist:

In all cases when a larger dose has less impact on the normal person than a

smaller dose, there is a body mechanism for handling the substance being

triggered.

Where there is a body mechanism, it can malfunction or fail. Medicine today

does not acknowledge, much less have a way to measure, and even far less a way

to treat body mechanisms relevant to toxicity. I would point out that for at

least the last century the economic interests who'd rather we didn't learn more

have had far more money and power than the sensitized people.

My family was sensitized in a sick house incident 16 years ago. When we buy

clothing, sheets, towels, and the like today, (1) we cannot set foot in stores

where these are sold because the contaminants in the air make us ill, and (2)

when we buy by mail order, and then wash products enough times to use up

probably half their useful life, we find that we still must discard or give to

charity a third of what we've bought. It just won't come clean enough for us to

use.

We also find that we cannot use a washing machine or dryer in which fragranced

laundry products have ever been used, because residue of those fragranced

products in the washer (or dryer) is then deposited on our previously usable

clothes, rendering them unusable by us.

In your role, you have a personal choice to make where you will operate on the

scale of peanut farmer to tobacco scientist. That is, will you acknowledge that

there are people very sensitive to your industry's products, will you advocate

poisoning people (some to death) and suppress evidence of the poisoning, or

somewhere in between? My concern is that the position below moves the textile

industry from its historic position of banning bad-actor dyes and such, to a

position much more like the urban legends around the carpet industry denying

that harm can occur. That would be unfortunate, both for your industry and for

you.

....and in your role, I'd take a look at the dyes used by some overseas producers

these days. Suspect some things banned in the U.S. generations ago have crept

back into what's being imported from some south Asian countries. Just a

suggestion.

Good luck with your work

Steve Chalmers

stevec@...

> >

> > Hormones and Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals:

> >

> > Low-Dose Effects and Nonmonotonic Dose Responses

> >

> > Endocrine Reviews, March 14, 2012 as doi:10.1210/er.2011-1050

> >

> > http://stream.loe.org/images/120316/er.2011-1050.full.pdf

> >

> >

> >

> > Interview with lead author Vandenberg at:

> > http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=12-P13-00011

> > <http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=12-P13-00011 & segmentID=1>

& segmentID=1

> >

> >

> >

> > Carl Grimes

> >

> > Healthy Habitats LLC

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I have met many people (mostly clients) who cannot tolerate the formaldehyde emissions from the "permanent press" sizings on new clothing. They cannot even enter the stores, let alone ever think about working in them.

I would imagine there must be a good number of complaints by formaldehyde-sensitive/sensitized textile workers and retail clothiers. I have gotten a couple of calls from clothing store owners in response to employee health complaints after a new delivery of clothing had been unpacked and put out on the floor display racks and shelves.

A line of formaldehyde-free clothes might attract more health-conscious customers. Every other industry is "going green", why not market healthy textiles? Just a suggestion.

The only time more of something harmful doesn't make things worse is when it has already done its maximum damage.

Steve Temes

Re: Dose Doesn't Always Make the Poison

Dr. Boyter,

An observation, noting I'm a sensitized individual and not any sort of toxicologist:

In all cases when a larger dose has less impact on the normal person than a smaller dose, there is a body mechanism for handling the substance being triggered.

Where there is a body mechanism, it can malfunction or fail. Medicine today does not acknowledge, much less have a way to measure, and even far less a way to treat body mechanisms relevant to toxicity. I would point out that for at least the last century the economic interests who'd rather we didn't learn more have had far more money and power than the sensitized people.

My family was sensitized in a sick house incident 16 years ago. When we buy clothing, sheets, towels, and the like today, (1) we cannot set foot in stores where these are sold because the contaminants in the air make us ill, and (2) when we buy by mail order, and then wash products enough times to use up probably half their useful life, we find that we still must discard or give to charity a third of what we've bought. It just won't come clean enough for us to use.

We also find that we cannot use a washing machine or dryer in which fragranced laundry products have ever been used, because residue of those fragranced products in the washer (or dryer) is then deposited on our previously usable clothes, rendering them unusable by us.

In your role, you have a personal choice to make where you will operate on the scale of peanut farmer to tobacco scientist. That is, will you acknowledge that there are people very sensitive to your industry's products, will you advocate poisoning people (some to death) and suppress evidence of the poisoning, or somewhere in between? My concern is that the position below moves the textile industry from its historic position of banning bad-actor dyes and such, to a position much more like the urban legends around the carpet industry denying that harm can occur. That would be unfortunate, both for your industry and for you.

....and in your role, I'd take a look at the dyes used by some overseas producers these days. Suspect some things banned in the U.S. generations ago have crept back into what's being imported from some south Asian countries. Just a suggestion.

Good luck with your work

Steve Chalmers

stevec@...

> >

> > Hormones and Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals:

> >

> > Low-Dose Effects and Nonmonotonic Dose Responses

> >

> > Endocrine Reviews, March 14, 2012 as doi:10.1210/er.2011-1050

> >

> > http://stream.loe.org/images/120316/er.2011-1050.full.pdf

> >

> >

> >

> > Interview with lead author Vandenberg at:

> > http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=12-P13-00011

> > <http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=12-P13-00011 & segmentID=1> & segmentID=1

> >

> >

> >

> > Carl Grimes

> >

> > Healthy Habitats LLC

> >

>

[Guest guest]

For sure we are looking at all textile materials coming from

oversees, but only as a protection from scrutiny, little is proactive.

Just look at all the Prop65 lawsuits to see that problems are

happening. Once recent article bemoaned that

dyers in Asia were not going to be able to use banned dyes

in the future. The question is, who is allowing it now?

As to my original comment about low/high dosages,

please note my tongue was halfway in my cheek, but it

is a question that will need to be addresses in a risk

assessment if ultralow natural or unavoidable dosages

are just as harmful as high dosages.

Another interesting example I used in a talk last week was this.

We have all heard about latex allergies and there is lots

of chatter about it including using different gloves, etc..

The factoid I saw (and note I did not check) was that 50% of the people

allergic to latex are also allergic to bananas. I got to thinking

I have heard nothing about banana "alternatives".

Dr.Henry A. Boyter Jr.Director of CESTABCenter for Environmentally Sustainable Textile and Apparel Businesses1407 South Bloodworth St.Raleigh, NC 27610henryb@...

[Guest guest]

Steve, if you have some current data, I would like

see it. Data is hard to come by since it is either

negative or not for public consumption. With the

new standards being used for formaldehyde, you

should not be finding what you describe unless there

is a problem (someone cheating). We are seeing an

increase in the exposure to chemicals associated with

the replacements and alternatives for formaldehyde.

"Nonformaldehyde" PP finish is well known and most

retailers screen their products. Also, one thing that many

people do not know. You can take pure unprocessed cotton

and measure formaldehyde levels. It is naturally produced.

Dr.Henry A. Boyter Jr.Director of CESTAB