Re: Re:UCLA study ~ tiny levels of carbon monoxide damage fetal b...

[Guest guest]

Here is the Open Access Full paper Link from Biomed Central:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2202-10-53.pdf

Thank you Asish. So guys, is it thumbs up or down on this regarding CO emissions and brain damage?

Sharon It's raining cats and dogs -- Come to PawNation, a place where pets rule!

[Guest guest]

If I may offer my point of view...From a public health perspective, (i) what would be relevant to explore is the cumulative exposure to air contaminants and their overall contribution in terms of oxidative stress and human health effects. Yang and Omaye (2009) paper (see below) has addressed this issue from a public health perspective. I hope this will generate some broad discussions in this group.(ii) In terms of chronic low level exposure to air contaminants, current discussions on computational toxicology and toxicogenomics approaches and establishing relevant mode of action to understand key intermidiate processes that leads to a health effect endpoint or a particular disease would certainly help us

towards effective public health intervention for susceptible population groups. Sincerely,Asish 1: Mutat Res. 2009 Mar 31;674(1-2):45-54. Epub 2008 Nov 1.

Air pollutants, oxidative stress and human health.

Yang W, Omaye ST.

School of Community Health Sciences and Environmental Sciences Graduate Program,

University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557, United States.

Air pollutants have, and continue to be, major contributing factors to chronic

diseases and mortality, subsequently impacting public health. Chronic diseases

include: chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD), cardiovascular diseases

(CVD), asthma, and cancer. Byproducts of oxidative stress found in air pollutants

are common initiators or promoters of the damage produced in such chronic

diseases. Such air pollutants include: ozone, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide,

nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter. Interaction between oxidative stress

byproducts and certain genes within our population may modulate the expression of

specific chronic diseases. In this brief review we attempt to provide some

insight into what we currently know about the health problems associated with

various air pollutants and their relationship in promoting chronic diseases

through changes in oxidative stress and modulation of gene expression. Such

insight eventually may direct the means for effective public health prevention

and treatment of diseases associated with air pollution and treatment of diseases

associated with air pollution.To: iequality Sent: Saturday, July 4, 2009 11:31:48 AMSubject: Re: Re:UCLA study ~ tiny levels of carbon monoxide damage fetal b...

Jim,

I skimmed thru the paper. If I was going to try and understand this in detail given my ground zero starting point over the issue, I would have read each sentence and then read each reference for each sentence to really feel like I might even have a chance of intelligently commenting on this.

This is what I get from the paper: As long as they are reporting their findings to be what they are and not attempting to portray their findings prove one way or the other that CO exposures at very low levels cause brain damage in children, then I think it could be one valid piece to be used in a much bigger puzzle.

Sharon

In a message dated 7/4/2009 8:48:21 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, systemscxplornet (DOT) com writes:

Sharon

Overall the paper is not too bad but the problem of exposure vs. concentration is definitely there; since many doctors never take a single course in physics and few in higher math this is to be expected. I have sent a note to the author but have not heard back.

One paper does not proof make but they do seem to have found some significant effects at quite low CO levels. Now several others have to get similar results.

Jim H. White SSC

Re: Re:UCLA study ~ tiny levels of carbon monoxide damage fetal b...

In a message dated 7/3/2009 9:50:32 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, asishkyahoo (DOT) com writes:

Here is the Open Access Full paper Link from Biomed Central:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2202-10-53.pdf

Thank you Asish. So guys, is it thumbs up or down on this regarding CO emissions and brain damage?

Sharon

Sharon Noonan Kramer It's raining cats and dogs -- Come to PawNation, a place where pets rule!

[Guest guest]

Sharon,

The actual paper bears little resemblance to the press release –

that’s good. However, there are still significant issues with the paper.

Below are a few comments I noted while reading the paper:

It would be better had the authors avoided the use of subjective

descriptors such as “very mild” when describing exposure levels (i.e.

25 ppm CO for 10 to 14 hours). Terminology such as this seems to indicate a

bias.

Interesting that residual or delayed effects were observed 20

days after exposure, but no follow up/further mention on this in the paper.

Also just a one-line mention regarding chronic CO exposure and

damage to developing auditory system of rats. Other studies have found this,

too, and linked to hearing loss in people with chronic occupational exposure (e.g.,

cab drivers, police, fire fighters).

Gas was administered continuously for 10–18

hours during the day and the gas supply- system and chambers removed at night

(approximately

10 hrs). Interesting math if 10 + 10 and 18 + 10 equal 24 hours.

Or just a really lax approximation?

At 10 ppm the estimated COHb in blood is 2%,

and at 70 ppm it is 10% [1]. No mention of the exposure

duration fundamental to dose. 9 to 10 ppm average for 8 hrs. is calculated to

result in 2% COHb among non-smokers – the NAAQS standard as well as a WHO

recommended limit. 70 ppm exposure for 60 to 240 minutes is calculated to

result in 10% COHb – a target alarm value in residential CO alarms that

is not intended to be fully protective.

The gas delivered to the COchamber contains

a combination of 25 ppm CO in 22% oxygen with the balance of the gas as

nitrogen and carbon dioxide at appropriate levels.

Why over-oxygenated air (22% vs. 20.9% O2) given to the rats?

We propose that CO is not a toxin at low

concentrations (0.0025% in air). Rather, a chronic environment of exogenously available

CO can act as an aberrant neuromodulator in-vivo, subverting the

signal activities of naturally produced CO and NO and related processes.

Elementary

misuse of the word “toxin”. Exogenous can be CO toxic in sufficient

doses, but it is not a toxin.

A review

of available information by U.S. EPA, WHO, and others have concluded that

exposure to an average of 9 ppm for 8 hours or 35 ppm for 1 hour (estimated

COHb of 2%) can be harmful to sensitive populations. Considerably below the 25

ppm (0.0025%) CO in air for 10 to 18 hours the study authors used.

Aberrant

neuromodulator sure sounds “toxic”…

no standards for CO exposure have been

agreed upon for indoor air and the EPA indicates that average CO levels in

homes without gas stoves vary from 0.5 to 5 ppm, (5 ppm is 0.0005% CO in air).

Levels near properly adjusted gas stoves are often 5 to 15 ppm

and those near poorly adjusted stoves may

be 30 ppm or higher. There has not been a political will to regulate indoor air (with

environmental tobacco smoke being a principal part of the problem) in homes –

far different than saying no standards have been agreed upon. Again, no

regard for duration of exposure which is critical to dose and effect. Quoting

data without an understanding of what the data represents…

My conclusion – this seems

like a graduate research project/paper that wasn’t thoroughly reviewed

before being published. Doesn’t mean it was all bad work, but the

questionable parts lead to an overall unfavorable overall impression to me. Thumbs

down on the paper. Thumbs up on the conclusion that chronic CO exposure to 25

ppm CO among sensitive populations can result in adverse health effects

including damage to the central nervous system – plenty of other studies

have documented that.

Curtis

From:

iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of snk1955@...

Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 4:20 PM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Re:UCLA study ~ tiny levels of carbon monoxide

damage fetal b...

In a message dated 7/3/2009 9:50:32 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

asishk@... writes:

Here is the Open

Access Full paper Link from Biomed Central:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2202-10-53.pdf

Thank you Asish. So guys, is it thumbs up or down on this

regarding CO emissions and brain damage?

Sharon

It's raining cats and dogs -- Come to PawNation, a place

where pets rule!

[Guest guest]

Hi Curtis,

I THINK I kind of grasp what you are saying. Okay study. Some spin. Not the end all be all. Right?

This is the part of the matter that I understand the best: They have been fighting to get CO emissions reduced in California for a long time. Looks like they are getting some good traction.

http://www.lasmogtown.com/

Sharon Summer concert season is here! Find your favorite artists on tour at TourTracker.com.

[Guest guest]

Sharon,

The primary message is: Be cautious about believing what you

read in a press release.

The secondary message is: If the parts of a report that you

understand are questionable, then the you’ve got reason to suspect the

parts that were too technical to understand, also.

Curtis

From:

iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of snk1955@...

Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 8:17 AM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Re:UCLA study ~ tiny levels of carbon monoxide

damage fetal b...

Hi Curtis,

I THINK I kind of grasp what you are saying. Okay

study. Some spin. Not the end all be all. Right?

This is the part of the matter that I understand the best:

They have been fighting to get CO emissions reduced in California for a long

time. Looks like they are getting some good traction.

http://www.lasmogtown.com/

Sharon

Summer concert season is here! Find your favorite

artists on tour at TourTracker.com.

[Guest guest]

Hello:

A Pulic Health Perspective and couple of points to consider!

(i) what would be relevant to explore is the cumulative exposure to air contaminants and their overall contribution in terms of oxidative stress and human health effects. Yang and Omaye (2009) paper (see below) has addressed this issue from a public health perspective. It may generate some broad discussions in this group.

(ii) In terms of chronic low level exposure to air contaminants, current discussions on computational toxicology and toxicogenomics approaches and establishing relevant mode of action to understand key intermidiate processes that leads to a health effect endpoint or a particular disease would certainly help us towards effective public health intervention for susceptible population groups.

any comments, suggestions and ideas on Indoor Air Mixture Contaminant exposure?

Sincerely,

Asish

----------------------------

Mutat Res. 2009 Mar 31;674(1-2):45-54. Epub 2008 Nov 1.Air pollutants, oxidative stress and human health.Yang W, Omaye ST.School of Community Health Sciences and Environmental Sciences Graduate Program, University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557, United States.Air pollutants have, and continue to be, major contributing factors to chronicdiseases and mortality, subsequently impacting public health. Chronic diseasesinclude: chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD), cardiovascular diseases(CVD), asthma, and cancer. Byproducts of oxidative stress found in air pollutantsare common initiators or promoters of the damage produced in such chronicdiseases. Such air pollutants include: ozone, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide,nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter. Interaction between oxidative stressbyproducts and certain genes within our population may modulate the expression ofspecific chronic diseases. In this brief review we attempt to provide someinsight into what we currently know about the health problems associated withvarious air pollutants and their relationship in promoting chronic diseasesthrough changes in oxidative stress and modulation of gene

expression. Suchinsight eventually may direct the means for effective public health preventionand treatment of diseases associated with air pollution and treatment of diseasesassociated with air pollution.

To: iequality Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2009 3:31:28 PMSubject: RE: Re:UCLA study ~ tiny levels of carbon monoxide damage fetal b...

Sharon,

The primary message is: Be cautious about believing what you read in a press release.

The secondary message is: If the parts of a report that you understand are questionable, then the you’ve got reason to suspect the parts that were too technical to understand, also.

Curtis

From: iequality@yahoogrou ps.com [mailto:iequality@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of snk1955aol (DOT) comSent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 8:17 AMTo: iequality@yahoogrou ps.comSubject: Re: Re:UCLA study ~ tiny levels of carbon monoxide damage fetal b...

Hi Curtis,

I THINK I kind of grasp what you are saying. Okay study. Some spin. Not the end all be all. Right?

This is the part of the matter that I understand the best: They have been fighting to get CO emissions reduced in California for a long time. Looks like they are getting some good traction.

http://www.lasmogtown.com/

Sharon

Summer concert season is here! Find your favorite artists on tour at TourTracker. com.

[Guest guest]

Curtis,

YES! That is EXACTLY the message. If walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it may or may not be a duck when someone has put a spin on it.

Do you guys remember that horrible hit piece LAWeekly did on me last year? Well check out what the Los Angeles Times wrote about the editor, Jiil , of that piece of...ummmm...journalism.

http://theenvelope.latimes.com/la-et-onthemedia19-2009jun19,0,778202.column

LA Weekly's aggressive slant erodes quality - The Envelope - LA Times

The point of this goes back to what you say, Curtis. And it is an area of concern that seems to be getting worse, not better. Truth in journalism.

As more and more people get their news from the internet and average people can publish their thoughts, a lot of people who went to school to be journalists are having a tough time finding jobs - even more so than just the economic tough times, the field of journalism is hurting worse. As a result there appears to be more bought and paid for spin that's made to look like official.

Just when we are finally making progress to strengthen integrity in science, the next weak link in the chain (how information moves) seems to be getting weaker.

Ya gotta be careful out there these days and not take ALOT of stuff at face value, it seems to me.

Sharon

Sharon,

The primary message is: Be cautious about believing what you read in a press release.

The secondary message is: If the parts of a report that you understand are questionable, then the you’ve got reason to suspect the parts that were too technical to understand, also.

Curtis

Sharon Noonan Kramer Summer concert season is here! Find your favorite artists on tour at TourTracker.com.

[Guest guest]



The spiritual teacher Hawkins notes that there has been a tremendous drop in truth in the media over that last several decades; almost none of the media are integrous. They display little honesty and have espoused the relativistic attitude that there is no truth; just popular opinion. Most university professors in the US now calibrate below the level of integrity because they believe and teach relativism.

There are tides in the flow of all things; hopefully we will see the swing back to believing that there is such a thing as truth and then strive to understand what that may be in the things that we do. Not all people believe that the truth is the way to go or that it sells (world-wide the percentage is 15%).

Jim H. White SSC

Re: Re:UCLA study ~ tiny levels of carbon monoxide damage fetal b...

Curtis,

YES! That is EXACTLY the message. If walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it may or may not be a duck when someone has put a spin on it.

Do you guys remember that horrible hit piece LAWeekly did on me last year? Well check out what the Los Angeles Times wrote about the editor, Jiil , of that piece of...ummmm...journalism.

http://theenvelope.latimes.com/la-et-onthemedia19-2009jun19,0,778202.column

LA Weekly's aggressive slant erodes quality - The Envelope - LA Times

The point of this goes back to what you say, Curtis. And it is an area of concern that seems to be getting worse, not better. Truth in journalism.

As more and more people get their news from the internet and average people can publish their thoughts, a lot of people who went to school to be journalists are having a tough time finding jobs - even more so than just the economic tough times, the field of journalism is hurting worse. As a result there appears to be more bought and paid for spin that's made to look like official.

Just when we are finally making progress to strengthen integrity in science, the next weak link in the chain (how information moves) seems to be getting weaker.

Ya gotta be careful out there these days and not take ALOT of stuff at face value, it seems to me.

Sharon

In a message dated 7/7/2009 2:34:39 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, credingtonwichita (DOT) gov writes:

Sharon,

The primary message is: Be cautious about believing what you read in a press release.

The secondary message is: If the parts of a report that you understand are questionable, then the you’ve got reason to suspect the parts that were too technical to understand, also.

Curtis

Sharon Noonan Kramer

Summer concert season is here! Find your favorite artists on tour at TourTracker.com.