A toxic life - We're polluted from head to toe - `Babies aren't supposed to be born pre-polluted.'

[Guest guest]

The reporter conveys a politically correct stance by headlining " no one

knows the long-term health effects " . In contrast, recently posted were

articles linking PCBs with cognitive and behavioral problems, with

endometriosis, with breast cancer, and with type-2 diabetes - one toxin,

a neighborhood of traits. Of course, long realized and increasingly

well documented is the ability of families owning major corporations to

hire people to " muddy the waters " , to " manufacture confusion " about

scientific findings of adverse effects, ie, findings that would

jeapordize profits derived from toxic molecules. Also, enforcement of

the Risk Management rationale whereby profitable toxins are allowed into

the environment at " safe " levels that aren't safe for everyone

contributes to the increase in toxin-related diseases and, not

coincidentally, to the enhancement of profits for pharmaceutical company

stockholders. These various financial incentives create ongoing

encouragement for the continuation of policies that allow profitable but

injurious intoxination, we might even refer to HyperToxinosis, ie, a

syndrome of traits induced by various combinations of toxins within the

bodies of humans. Furthermore, the more " background " toxins in a fetus,

infant, toddler, etc, the more that his or her detoxification nutrients

are likely to be diminished, thereby impairing detoxification and

immunity, thereby further increasingly the likelihood developing of a

toxin-related illness. Add thimerosal and/or the MMR or the MMRV to a

hypertoxinated infant or toddler, and neurological damage is more

likely. These considerations aside, the article provides an excellent

summary of why Toxins'R Us.

* * * *

*A toxic life

*We're polluted from head to toe and though scientists can now measure

minute amounts of chemicals in our bodies, no one knows the long-term

health effects

Apr. 21, 2006

NANCY J. WHITE

LIFE WRITER

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/

Article_Type1 & c=Article & cid=1145569812202 & call_pageid=968332188492

Winterton is many things: a 45-year-old mother of three teenagers,

a Toronto resident, a program director -- and a toxic chemical dump.

Blood and urine samples show that her body is home to 16 respiratory and

38 reproductive toxins, 19 chemicals that disrupt hormones and 27

carcinogens. Stored in her body are traces of heavy metals, such as

lead, arsenic and uranium, and chemicals used in pesticides, flame

retardants and stain repellents. DDE and DDT, DMTP, HCB, PBDE 47 and 99,

PCBs and PFOS -- this is just a taste of the alphabet soup swishing

through her.

She wonders about the air she breathes, the tinned food she buys, the

chemically protected mattress she sleeps on. " There are likely thousands

more chemicals in me, " she says. " It's not a great picture to have of

yourself. "

But it's as common as a snapshot.

Studies of volunteers in Europe, the U.S. and Canada show the same

results. Coursing through our bodies is a complex chemical cocktail, the

by-product of a modern life of industrial emissions, treated food and

endless consumer products -- microwave bags, fast food wrappers, nail

polish, computer casings -- laced with synthetic substances.

" We are the guinea pigs in the largest uncontrolled science experiment

in history, " says Rick , executive director of Environmental Defence.

The Toronto-based watchdog group sampled 11 volunteers across Canada --

including Winterton, its program director, and Vancouver Island artist

Bateman -- for 88 harmful chemicals and detected 44 on average in

each person. The results of the testing, done at special labs in Quebec

and Texas for $1,500 per person, is described in the report Toxic

Nation, released last fall.

For years scientists have measured levels of toxic chemicals in wildlife

and done specific studies on breast milk, childhood lead exposure or

occupational hazards. But now this technique of sampling human tissues

and fluids, known as biomonitoring, is being used by environmental

groups and governments to get a broader sense of our body burden, or the

chemicals carried within us. Next year Health Canada will conduct its

first widespread biomonitoring testing on about 5,000 people. The

Centers for Disease Control in the U.S. has been doing it since 2001.

Biomonitoring is turning pollution into a much more personal matter and

helping to revitalize the political debate internationally. Many

man-made chemicals on the market have never been thoroughly tested for

human safety. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act is scheduled for

review this year, and many advocates want to see the law beefed up,

similar to proposed legislation in the European Union.

" Canada is increasingly falling behind, " says .

While scientists can now measure increasingly minute amounts of more

substances in humans, they're still studying what it all means. A

manufactured chemical in a person's blood or urine doesn't imply

disease. Or even risk of a disease. Only exposure.

" Just because it's there doesn't mean it's going to hurt you, " says

Bruce Caswell, senior manager of environmental health and safety with

the Canadian Chemical Producers Association.

But it doesn't mean it's not hurting you either. We experience a

constant barrage of synthetic stuff, even in the womb. Doses differ as

do genetic and physiological vulnerabilities.

" None of this belongs in our bodies. Period, " says Riina Bray, a family

physician at Women's College Hospital's Environmental Health Clinic.

`None of this belongs in our bodies. Period.'

Family physician Riina Bray

Researchers suspect these toxic chemicals have links to a number of

cancers, including breast, testicular and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, not to

mention reproductive disorders and learning disabilities. But little is

proven. Scientific consensus moves slowly and environmental health

research is tricky. It's about as clear as an oil slick.

" I don't think there is cause for alarm, like with a pandemic flu, but

there is cause for concern, " says medical epidemiologist Don Wigle, an

affiliate scientist at the University of Ottawa's McLaughlin Centre for

Population Health Risk Assessment. " We need a precautionary approach to

reduce exposures. No one wants to wait for all the answers. "

There are no roads where Masty lives. No industrial smokestacks.

No manufacturing emissions. Yet this chief of Whapmagoostui First Nation

on the shores of Hudson Bay, one of the Toxic Nation volunteers, had 51

of 88 chemicals in his body, including a high level of mercury.

" It doesn't matter where you are, " says Masty, 60. " The pollution is

transported through the air and from the products we use in our homes. "

There's the scented lotion absorbed into your skin. The coloured polish

you spread on your nails. The soft vinyl toy your child enjoys. These

may be made with phthalates, chemicals widely used to soften plastics

and carry fragrances. In laboratory animals some phthalates cause organ

damage, disrupt hormones and cause reproductive harm. Some phthalates

have been banned in children's products in Europe, and Canadian

manufacturers have agreed to remove some from soft, chewable toys here.

The soup you eat from a tin can? Bisphenol A, a hormone disruptor in

rodents, can leach from the can. Your non-stick cookware? A

perfluorinated chemical that causes cancer in rats. (See story below).

Upholstered furniture, mattresses, carpets, even the plastic casings

around the computer and television may contain brominated flame

retardants. The good news is that they slow the spread of fire. The bad

news is they likely contain polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs). In

rat studies, they interfered with thyroid function, affected behaviour

and caused liver tumours. PBDEs have been found in house dust and human

breast milk.

Absorbed by a woman, many chemicals can be passed on to her children

through breast milk and through the placenta.

A U.S. study of umbilical cord blood from 10 newborns found pesticides,

chemicals used in consumer products, and by-products from gasoline,

garbage and the burning of coal. The newborns averaged 200 contaminants,

many of them carcinogens, developmental toxins and neurotoxins.

" It's a big red flag, " says Jane Houlihan, vice president of research at

the Environmental Working Group in Washington, D.C., which spearheaded

the study. " Babies aren't supposed to be born pre-polluted. "

While most experts agree there's no safe exposure level to carcinogens,

it's generally believed that other chemicals have threshold doses. Below

that amount, harmful effects are unlikely. But above it, usually in

large doses, exposure may be risky.

At least that's the conventional wisdom. Medical epidemiologist Wigle

wonders if perhaps our tests are not yet sophisticated enough to pick up

subtle effects.

But even with a safe threshold, there's not a simple formula. Some

chemicals are quickly excreted, while others persist and accumulate.

There's the individual factor. " Everyone has different susceptibilities,

driven by their genetics, " says Houlihan. And the timing of exposure

counts. Humans are more vulnerable in the womb and during early

childhood and puberty.

And there's the great unknown variable: the synergy of the soup. Could

the sum of all the synthetic chemicals in our bodies be more toxic than

the parts? " That's extremely important and largely unresolved, " says Wigle.

Researchers eager to know the health effects of this body burden look at

illnesses that are on the upswing. The worldwide prevalence of asthma is

rising by 50 per cent, on average, every decade. From the early 1970s to

2002, according to the Public Health Agency of Canada, the

age-standardized incidence of testicular cancer was up 54 per cent,

breast cancer 19 per cent, thyroid cancer 221 per cent, and

non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (a cancer of the lymphatic system) 83 per cent.

" We know our genetics haven't changed, " says Houlihan. " With rapid

changes in health, scientists suspect environmental exposures play a role. "

`Babies aren't supposed to be born pre-polluted.'

Environmental researcher Jane Houlihan

At the University of Ottawa, assistant health sciences professor

is part of a group examining chemicals known as hormone

disruptors or endocrine toxins, which interfere with hormone pathways.

Human health effects may include fertility problems, reproductive

cancers and birth defects, especially abnormal formation of the male

urogenitals.

While some of these diseases and disorders have shown up in animal

studies, says , it's been at very high doses, more than the

average person would experience. The reproductive physiologist says the

incidence of diseases associated with hormone disruptors could be

explained in humans by other factors, such as improved screening

techniques and rising rates of obesity.

She did, however, point to Denmark, where young men have experienced an

increase in testicular cancer, lower sperm counts and birth defects such

as cryptorchidism, or undescended testicles, and hypospadias, where the

penis opening is located somewhere other than the tip.

" There could be an environmental factor at play, " she speculates, but

adds that more evidence is needed.

The government will start collecting some next year. As part of the

Canadian Health Measures Survey of 5,000 volunteers, biomonitoring tests

will be conducted for about 60 chemicals and heavy metals. It's Canada's

first large scale national testing for environmental contaminants, says

Rene Langlois, chief survey developer. It will provide a baseline look

at Canadians' body burden and enable researchers to track trends over time.

But environmentalists want more from Ottawa, and the Canadian

Environmental Protection Act is up for review. from Environmental

Defence would like to see timelines for the elimination of the most

harmful chemicals and more attention paid to the Great Lakes basin, a

pollution hotspot.

He and other advocates believe that chemical manufacturers are not held

to a high enough safety testing standard. They point to the European

Union's REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of CHemicals)

proposal, which could be signed early next year. REACH would shift the

burden of proof for safety from government to industry and include

strong incentives to replace toxic chemicals with safe substitutes.

" It's a paradigm shift in the way chemicals are managed and controlled, "

says Beverly Thorpe, director of Clean Production Action in Montreal, a

non-profit group that promotes " green " chemistry.

Allan Godfrey, manager of the toxic substances management division at

Health Canada, does not agree that this country is lagging behind.

Canada has temporarily banned four fluorinated polymers that are

precursors to the controversial perfluorinated carboxylic acids, or

PFCAs, for example.

Since 1987, new substances have undergone a government-led risk

assessment before being used. There's about 600 to 800 new substances

each year, says Godfrey.

The government is currently categorizing some 23,000 older, unassessed

chemicals to single out ones requiring further investigation. The

report, due this September, is likely to list about 5,000 substances

needing more action.

" Our categorizing (of these chemicals) is world leading, " he says. " I

don't know another country that's done it. "

Some people, impatient with government and science, are taking action

themselves. Toxic Nation volunteer Sexton from St. 's was

shocked when she saw her results: She had 49 out of 88 chemicals. She

tested positive for 31 suspected carcinogens. " It was an awakening for

me, " says the 43-year-old television producer.

She now avidly reads ingredient labels, drinks only bottled water, keeps

her house cleaner, uses biodegradable cleansers and detergents and

diligently gets her breast exams and Pap smears. Already a vegetarian,

she's bumped up her diet to 70 per cent organic. She's given up her

daily six cups of coffee -- worried about contaminants -- and thrown out

her non-stick frying pan.

She has no idea how much any of these changes will help. She does, after

all, live in a toxic world.

" If you're a walking, breathing Canadian, " says Sexton, " you're polluted. "

*

The material in this post is distributed without

profit to those who have expressed a prior interest

in receiving the included information for research

and educational purposes. For more information go to:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

http://oregon.uoregon.edu/~csundt/documents.htm

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this email

for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain

permission from the copyright owner.