Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Alternative / June 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Man-made Chemicals Shown to Cause Inherited Disease

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
PeterB - 03 Jun 2005 18:02 GMT
Toxins may pass down generations

Chemicals can change the way genes work
Toxic chemicals that poisoned your great-grandparents may also damage
your health, research suggests.
A team from Washington State University has produced evidence that some
inherited diseases may be caused by poisons polluting the womb.

Research on rats suggests man-made environmental toxins may alter
genetic activity, giving rise to diseases that pass down at least four
generations.

The research is published in the journal Science.

It is a new way to think about disease

Dr Michael Skinner

The scientists exposed pregnant rats to two agricultural chemicals
during the period that the sex of their offspring was being determined.

The compounds were vinclozolin, a fungicide commonly used in vineyards,
and the pesticide methoxychlor.

Both are known as endocrine disruptors - chemicals that interfere with
the normal functioning of reproductive hormones.

Rats exposed to the compounds produced male offspring with low sperm
counts and poor fertility

They were still able to produce young, however. When these rats were
then mated with females that had not been exposed to the toxins, their
male offspring had the same problems.

The effect persisted through at least four generations, impairing the
fertility of more than 90% of male offspring in each generation.

The researchers found the damage was not caused by alterations in the
DNA code, but changes in the way the genes work.

These 'epigenetic' changes are caused by small chemicals that become
attached to the DNA, modifying its activity.

Epigenetic changes have been observed before - but were not previously
known to pass onto later generations.

Cancer clue

Lead researcher Dr Michael Skinner believes they may contribute to
diseases such as breast cancer and prostate cancer.

 We need to find out whether this trans-generational effect is
translated to much lower doses

Professor Alan Boobis

Both diseases are becoming more common, and Dr Skinner says that cannot
be down to genetic mutations alone.

The researchers believe their findings suggest exposure to
environmental toxins may play a key role in the evolutionary process.

Evolution may not be driven entirely by genetic mutations, as commonly
thought.

Dr Skinner said: "It is a new way to think about disease.

"We believe this phenomenon will be widespread and be a major factor in
understanding how disease develops."

However, Dr Skinner stressed more work was needed to corroborate the
findings.

The levels of chemicals the rats were exposed to were very high - much
higher than people normally ever encounter.

Professor Alan Boobis, a toxicologist at Imperial College London, told
the BBC News website the findings were interesting, but he said there
was no need for people to be alarmed.

"This effect is likely to be concentration dependent, and these animals
were exposed to very high levels of chemicals," he said.

"We need to find out whether this trans-generational effect is
translated to much lower doses."
Rich - 03 Jun 2005 18:13 GMT
> Toxins may pass down generations
>
[quoted text clipped - 81 lines]
> "We need to find out whether this trans-generational effect is
> translated to much lower doses."

If this has any application to human health, it's likely to be only of
interest to female agricultural workers who handle these pesticides while
pregnant. Wine drinkers would be getting doses of the chemicals so low as to
be non-detectable. The "We need to find out whether this trans-generational
effect is translated to much lower doses" does not necessesarily mean that
the researchers believe this translation will occur. It more likely means,
"I hope to get a grant for further studies."

--Rich
PeterB - 03 Jun 2005 18:26 GMT
> > Toxins may pass down generations
> >
[quoted text clipped - 91 lines]
>
> --Rich

So you think adverse health effects in pregnant women are likely to be
benign in everyone else?  That's an interesting theory.  But I don't
think disease triggers know how to be toxic and benign at the same
time.  What's *likely* is that the level of chemical exposure is a
factor in the level of risk incurred.  Doesn't that make more sense?

PeterB
Rich - 03 Jun 2005 18:54 GMT
>> > Toxins may pass down generations
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 101 lines]
> time.  What's *likely* is that the level of chemical exposure is a
> factor in the level of risk incurred.  Doesn't that make more sense?

The pesticides in question are specified to be "endocrine disruptors" which
"interfere with the normal functioning of reproductive hormones". Since
reproductive hormones are to a great extent gender specific, the
vulnerability to these chemicals may be gender specific as well. Also, MANY
chemicals are toxic to fetuses that are otherwise benign. Take Thalidomide,
for example. It was responsible for many horrible birth defects, but now is
approved for use for Hansen's disease, and is under study for treatment of
AIDS, Behchet disease, lupus, Sjogren syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis,
inflammatory bowel disease, macular degeneration, and some cancers. It is
toxic only if taken by women in the early stages of pregnancy, just the
condition of the rats in the above study. You are correct, though, in the
notion that the toxicity is probably dose dependent.

--Rich
PeterB - 03 Jun 2005 20:31 GMT
> >> > Toxins may pass down generations
> >> >
[quoted text clipped - 116 lines]
>
> --Rich

Having evidence of disease only in one population isn't evidence that
it won't surface in another one over time.  Besides, drugs are always
being recycled after no additional toxicology studies for their "new
and improved" uses.  It's not an indication of their long-term safety
in a given population.

PeterB
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2010 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.