Can we escape their lust for a buck?

Location
yes
How Chemicals Affect Us
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF Published: May 2, 2012 NYT



Scientists are observing with increasing alarm that some very common hormone-mimicking chemicals can have grotesque effects.


(Canada Declares BPA, a Chemical in Plastics, to Be Toxic (October 14, 2010))

A widely used herbicide acts as a female hormone and feminizes male animals in the wild. Thus male frogs can have female organs, and some male fish actually produce eggs. In a Florida lake contaminated by these chemicals, male alligators have tiny penises.

These days there is also growing evidence linking this class of chemicals to problems in humans. These include breast cancer, infertility, low sperm counts, genital deformities, early menstruation and even diabetes and obesity.

Philip Landrigan, a professor of pediatrics at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, says that a congenital defect called hypospadias — a misplacement of the urethra — is now twice as common among newborn boys as it used to be. He suspects endocrine disruptors, so called because they can wreak havoc with the endocrine system that governs hormones.

Endocrine disruptors are everywhere. They’re in thermal receipts that come out of gas pumps and A.T.M.’s. They’re in canned foods, cosmetics, plastics and food packaging. Test your blood or urine, and you’ll surely find them there, as well as in human breast milk and in cord blood of newborn babies.

In this campaign year, we are bound to hear endless complaints about excessive government regulation. But here’s an area where scientists are increasingly critical of our government for its failure to tackle Big Chem and regulate endocrine disruptors adequately.

Last month, the Endocrine Society, the leading association of hormone experts, scolded the Food and Drug Administration for its failure to ban bisphenol-A, a common endocrine disruptor known as BPA, from food packaging. Last year, eight medical organizations representing genetics, gynecology, urology and other fields made a joint call in Science magazine for tighter regulation of endocrine disruptors.


Shouldn’t our government be as vigilant about threats in our grocery stores as in the mountains of Afghanistan?

Researchers warn that endocrine disruptors can trigger hormonal changes in the body that may not show up for decades. One called DES, a synthetic form of estrogen, was once routinely given to pregnant women to prevent miscarriage or morning sickness, and it did little harm to the women themselves. But it turned out to cause vaginal cancer and breast cancer decades later in their daughters, so it is now banned.

Scientists have long known the tiniest variations in hormone levels influence fetal development. For example, a female twin is very slightly masculinized if the other twin is a male, because she is exposed to some of his hormones. Studies have found that these female twins, on average, end up slightly more aggressive and sensation-seeking as adults but have lower rates of eating disorders.

Now experts worry that endocrine disruptors have similar effects, acting as hormones and swamping the delicate balance for fetuses in particular. The latest initiative by scholars is a landmark 78-page analysis to be published next month in Endocrine Reviews, the leading publication in the field.


“Fundamental changes in chemical testing and safety determination are needed to protect human health,” the analysis declares. Linda S. Birnbaum, the nation’s chief environmental scientist and toxicologist, endorsed the findings.

The article was written by a 12-member panel that spent three years reviewing the evidence. It concluded that the nation’s safety system for endocrine disruptors is broken.

“For several well-studied endocrine disruptors, I think it is fair to say that we have enough data to conclude that these chemicals are not safe for human populations,” said Laura Vandenberg, a Tufts University developmental biologist who was the lead writer for the panel.

Worrying new research on the long-term effects of these chemicals is constantly being published. One study found that pregnant women who have higher levels of a common endocrine disruptor, PFOA, are three times as likely to have daughters who grow up to be overweight. Yet PFOA is unavoidable. It is in everything from microwave popcorn bags to carpet-cleaning solutions.


Big Chem says all this is sensationalist science. So far, it has blocked strict regulation in the United States, even as Europe and Canada have adopted tighter controls on endocrine disruptors.

Yes, there are uncertainties. But the scientists who know endocrine disruptors best overwhelmingly are already taking steps to protect their families. John Peterson Myers, chief scientist at Environmental Health Sciences and a co-author of the new analysis, said that his family had stopped buying canned food.

“We don’t microwave in plastic,” he added. “We don’t use pesticides in our house. I refuse receipts whenever I can. My default request at the A.T.M., known to my bank, is ‘no receipt.’ I never ask for a receipt from a gas station.”

I’m taking my cue from the experts, and I wish the Obama administration would as well.

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

I'll be very interested in how the readership responds. Here's another little factoid piece: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/magazine/puberty-before-age-10-a-new-normal.html?pagewanted=all



bob w
 
What does this have to do with trees?

"Shouldn’t our government be as vigilant about threats in our grocery stores as in the mountains of Afghanistan?"

No. From those mountains came an attack that killed 3000. From the grocery stores come minute quantities of contaminants, IF we buy them. This purchase is voluntary.

I won't defend Cheney's/Halliburton's/Bush's other war, far from it. The threat from those mountains may be geographically remote, but 9/11 showed that it was very real. the threat from the grocery store is remote in its odds and verifiability.

I agree with much of what you quoted, and avoid using a lot of that stuff. But do I want a govt that regulates it all, no thank you.
 
I need my receipts for taxes!

I've wondered about BPA for awhile now...how long was the fight against the tobacco companies.

I'm guessing there is just as much money in producing the plastics and chemicals that contain BPA as in the tobacco industry. Has that war been won yet?


There should atleast be warning labels. Such as on cigarettes. Intelligent consumers can make the right choice.


Do these endocrine disruptors harm trees or change there growth?


Maybe this was meant to be in the Tree free zone...
 
<font color="blue">I responded to your post before Guy's because of your last line:</font>

[ QUOTE ]
I need my receipts for taxes!

<font color="blue">Have you noticed how long our receipts stay around? Isn't that convenient (for them) ? Not having a legible receipt generally means a dead end for us. And why don't many receipts stay legible, because they evaporate. Those are the intended processes. (Check your ATM receipts.) </font>

I've wondered about BPA for awhile now...how long was the fight against the tobacco companies.

<font color="blue">"This month marks the 50th anniversary of the release of the report Smoking and Health by the Royal College of Physicians of London. This report was a call to arms for governments and people around the world, documenting the death and disease caused by tobacco."</font>


I'm guessing there is just as much money in producing the plastics and chemicals that contain BPA as in the tobacco industry. Has that war been won yet?


<font color="blue">The present expectations about the tobacco settlements included the cost of state health care and reducing smoking. The States seem to have spent a lot of money on other things. Likely the only people to be taken care of will be the parasite lawyers and administrators--so what else is new?</font>

<font color="blue">http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/04/business/state-bonds-backed-by-tobacco-payments-in-jeopardy-of-default.html</font>


There should at least be warning labels. Such as on cigarettes. Intelligent consumers can make the right choice.

<font color="blue">]How do we, if indeed we are intelligent, know what the choices are? </font>By Guy's expectable evasion, From the grocery stores come minute quantities of contaminants, IF we buy them. This purchase is voluntary.

<font color="blue">Oh yeah, I forgot, free will and the correction of markets.</font>

Do these endocrine disruptors harm trees or change there growth?

Maybe this was meant to be in the Tree free zone...

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="blue">This why I wrote this first, you got sucked up right against Guy's obscure glass tricks--divide and sucker. This isn't about trees--it's about people; you know, those little ambulatory creatures and their miniatures...and the worlds they live in.


What can I say?</font>


Wulkowicz
 
After doing a bit of research on endocrine disruptors it seems that pregnant women (developing fetus) are mostly at risk. What are the risks to an adult?
 
tree free politics, begone!

expectable evasion, obscure glass tricks, divide and sucker. ?? It was hard enough to make sense of this thread's intent--the only clear thing was,it was tree-free. The title should have been clue enough. Politics belongs elsewhere.
 
I wasn't sucked in by anyones tricks I was just making an observation. No disrepect was intended.

I agree with you that this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed.

The reference to the tobacco industry was intended to show how nobody really wins when a big conglomerate such as Phillip Morris or RJ Reynolds have millions wrapped up in lawyers and lobbying.

I was just wondering why you posted in the general discussion and not the Tree free zone? I wasn't being a smarta$$ either when I asked about endocine disruptors affecting trees. I was being sincere.

I was wondering if they actually affect plants as well? Or if animals are the only known victims from these? The only thing I know about this subject is the little bit I've researched myself and what I've seen on Dateline! My knowledge in biology of both plants and animals is a bit rusty. You seem well informed on the subject.

I have always enjoyed reading your posts. I believe they are intelligently written and I always walk away feeling informed and enlightened. You always give references or an article to view. Which is appreciated.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't sucked in by anyones tricks I was just making an observation. No disrepect was intended.

<font color="blue">I apologize. I was all caught up in my little color-coded experiment of having 2 people personally identified with color. It worked too well; no disrespect was taken and I tripped on my own words.</font>


I agree with you that this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed.

The reference to the tobacco industry was intended to show how nobody really wins when a big conglomerate such as Phillip Morris or RJ Reynolds have millions wrapped up in lawyers and lobbying.

I was just wondering why you posted in the general discussion and not the Tree free zone? I wasn't being a smarta$$ either when I asked about endocine disruptors affecting trees. I was being sincere.


<font color="blue">I understand that you were sincere, and I'm not quite sure how I can give you comfortable connections since most all definitions have been homogenized and opaqued.</font>


I was wondering if they actually affect plants as well? Or if animals are the only known victims from these? The only thing I know about this subject is the little bit I've researched myself and what I've seen on Dateline! My knowledge in biology of both plants and animals is a bit rusty. You seem well informed on the subject.


<font color="blue">We known of hormones in trees, auxin, etc.; those have been well-established. We know of hormones in animals--also known and well-established. They are all used by the machinery of genomes. All genomes have piggybacks from "wrong" places. Some sequences seem inconsequential; others deadly serious. Life appears to need genomes and their products--and they do it all with four thingamajigs: A, T, C and G.

If anyone is in a hurry to get to a nunnery, take along a copy of </font>

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090323122437.htm

<font color="blue">where scientists have invented a twelve letter genome. Right now it just lies there, waiting to be fed, but investment bankers will soon be finding out how to earn the wee genomes keep.</font>


I have always enjoyed reading your posts. I believe they are intelligently written and I always walk away feeling informed and enlightened. You always give references or an article to view. Which is appreciated.


<font color="blue"> Thank you for reading me. Authors and readers are two peas in a poduh. (Soon there won't be anyone who remembers Laurel and Hardy.)</font>


Wulknostalgia
 
Having experienced first hand the battles and losses regarding phenoxy herbicides (Agent Orange) and the known (falsification of data can only defend the chemical industry for so long) correlations between exposure and disease, I've learned two things: cancer isn't such a bad thing considering it's treatment options are so rewarding to health-care economies and two, that it's a free-for-all now to take any and all needed to prosper, eliminate any and all regulatory obstacles - even those mitigated by democratic principles - and dominate life as per Scripture suggests.

I find personal comfort though, knowing the boardrooms of industry and architects of commerce are just as susceptible to and contaminated by the same chromosomal mutations from exposure to economic toxins as the rest of us little consumer units - preferences of which God one chooses won't matter one little bit, but options of doctors do - the wealthier ones generally have cheated their way to a degree, the poorer ones much more learned and successful.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Having experienced first hand the battles and losses regarding phenoxy herbicides (Agent Orange) and the known (falsification of data can only defend the chemical industry for so long) correlations between exposure and disease, I've learned two things: cancer isn't such a bad thing considering it's treatment options are so rewarding to health-care economies and two, that it's a free-for-all now to take any and all needed to prosper, eliminate any and all regulatory obstacles - even those mitigated by democratic principles - and dominate life as per Scripture suggests.[/quote

<font color="blue">Here's another piece I found in a a rather nearby wander. Catch my sense of things? In case you missed them, I emphasized the points in bold:</font>



Higher levels of flame retardants found in minority children - chicagotribune.com

Black and Latino toddlers may have significantly higher levels of toxic flame retardants in their bodies than white children, according to a new study that challenges one of industry's chief arguments for expanding use of the chemicals.

The peer-reviewed study, to be published Wednesday in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, found flame retardants known as polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or PBDEs, in the blood of all 83 children tested. But black and Latino toddlers had levels nearly twice as high on average as white children did.

Led by Duke University chemist Heather Stapleton, the researchers also found that levels were higher in children whose fathers didn't have a college education, an indicator of lower economic status. The children, ages 1 to 3, were tested from May 2009 to November 2010 in North Carolina.

The findings could help shape a broader debate about flame retardants. When lawmakers in states across the nation have sought to ban certain chemicals over health concerns, an industry front group has ominously warned that doing so would result in more deaths among poor and minority children.

Before lawmakers in Washington state blocked legislation this spring that would have banned two toxic flame retardants, the Citizens for Fire Safety Institute, funded by the three leading manufacturers of flame retardants, told community groups that the bill would "negatively affect minorities in particular."

"We cannot stand by and let (environmentalists) drown out the voices of those most at risk for fire danger: minorities, the elderly, the infirm and ironically, children," a representative for Citizens for Fire Safety wrote to one advocate in a January email headlined "Minority Fire Safety at Risk."


In New York, the president of the state NAACP condemned another proposed flame retardant ban, telling the sponsor in a January letter that his bill "caters to a few vocal environmentalists at the expense of the safety of the entire African-American community."

Fire death rates in poor, minority communities are higher than the national average. But the Consumer Product Safety Commission now believes the best way to prevent furniture fires is to require upholstery to resist smoldering cigarettes. If the fabric stops a fire from starting, a top official recently told the Tribune, there is no reason to keep adding flame retardants to the foam underneath.

The study published Wednesday also detected PBDEs in all dust samples collected from the children's homes, even though industry voluntarily took two of those chemicals off the market years ago.

Manufacturers stopped making penta, a PBDE added to furniture cushions, in 2004 after researchers revealed the chemicals were building up in the blood of babies and in breast milk around the world. The chemical has been linked to developmental and neurological problems in children.

Another PBDE called deca has been added for years to the hard plastic casings of televisions and other electronics. Chemical makers agreed to voluntarily stop making it by the end of 2013 after studies linked it to health problems and documented how it breaks down into penta in people's bodies.

The chemicals remain in many older household products. Stapleton's best advice to reduce exposure is to wash hands often.

The American Chemistry Council, the industry's chief trade group, said it has not seen the study and declined to comment.


[ QUOTE ]
I find personal comfort though, knowing the boardrooms of industry and architects of commerce are just as susceptible to and contaminated by the same chromosomal mutations from exposure to economic toxins as the rest of us little consumer units - preferences of which God one chooses won't matter one little bit, but options of doctors do - the wealthier ones generally have cheated their way to a degree, the poorer ones much more learned and successful.

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="blue"> Were psychopaths as corporations too strong as words in a previous thread? Poison a kid; make a buck? I guess it depends on what color are your kids...


wulkowicz</font>
 
I'm noting the growing culture of corporate desire that includes now - legal status as individual citizens and the Constitutional protections that such status brings....but wonder when some upstart litigator will use the laws of this nation to prosecute and punish said corporate entities and that the death penalty will be the punishment - much like we have to risk - when they knowingly engineer a premeditation that results in murder(s).

If Dow or Monsanto has the same liberties guaranteed as John Q. Deathrow who's expired his appeals options for a conviction from raping and murdering an 88-yr old grandma, and thus shares his same compus mentus evaluation for sanity to understand guilt, then should they not - as an "individual", suffer the same fate?

Romney for freedom for Dow means more jobs making more poisons for people too poor to know what they're making, eating, or thinking.

If dying in Afghanistan is winning freedom at home, who was it for? Us or these Charles Manson's who find joy in quarterly returns and portfolios that guarantee profit and more so - if it can't be regulated by health, safety or anti-monopoly laws?

Next time a terror group decides to inflict harm where it could possibly be constructive, I hope it's a board room instead of civilian congestion.
 
rrh, your sabbatical has not diminished your ardor, but it has made it harsher. Hope you still get to touch trees, and find some peace now and then.

Terrorists are cowards, driven by blind hate and ignorance. That's why they blow up bazaars instead of boardrooms.

but the tree connection here seems pretty remote...
 
You're right - my bad.

I'm by choice now, reclusive and happier...still commune with the oaks, although bigger and healthier than back in Texas. Things have changed as well for our culture, for the world.

I might believe, as you stated Guy, that "blind hate and ignorance" differ not so much from unbridled greed because the end results are one in the same - and it takes one to allow un-checked expansion of the other.

Peace comes from a dip in the stream here, or bug squashing out in the broccoli rows, or the dog asking me to pick a tick off his behind...much better than NASCAR or American Idol or the Star Spangled Banner.
 
Not your bad--the whole thread is a political rant, but that's not such a bad thing--beats religion, anyway.

Totslly agree with your second paragraph, and very pleased to hear the first and third.
 

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom