Medical Forum / General / Alternative / August 2005
Dozens of Chemicals Found in Most Americans' Bodies
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Ilena Rose - 22 Jul 2005 19:15 GMT Dozens of Chemicals Found in Most Americans' Bodies
The concentration is especially high in children, a national study says. But experts aren't sure what the health effects are.
http://www.latimes.com/features/health/kids/la-na-chemicals22jul22,1,3669125.sto ry?coll=la-health-kids&ctrack=1&cset=true
By Marla Cone, Times Staff Writer
In the largest study of chemical exposure ever conducted on human beings, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported Thursday that most American children and adults were carrying in their bodies dozens of pesticides and toxic compounds used in consumer products, many of them linked to potential health threats.
The report documented bigger doses in children than in adults of many chemicals, including some pyrethroids, which are in virtually every household pesticide, and phthalates, which are found in nail polish and other beauty products as well as in soft plastics.
The CDC's director, Dr. Julie L. Gerberding, called the national exposure report the third in an assessment that is released biennially a breakthrough that would help public health officials home in on the most important compounds to which Americans are routinely exposed.
The latest installment, which looked for 148 toxic compounds in the urine and blood of about 2,400 people age 6 and older in 2000 and 2001, is "the largest and most comprehensive report of its kind ever released anywhere by anyone," Gerberding said. Findings were broken down by age group and race.
At Thursday's news conference, CDC officials emphasized the good news: Steep declines were found in children's exposure to lead and secondhand cigarette smoke.
Lead levels in children have dropped significantly over several years, which Gerberding called an "astonishing public health achievement" attributable largely to its removal from gasoline and paint.
About 1.6% of young children tested from 1999 to 2002 had elevated levels of lead, which could lower their intelligence and damage their brains, compared with 88.2% in the late 1970s and 4.4% in the early 1990s.
But the discovery of more than 100 other substances in humans, particularly children, distressed environmental health experts.
"The report in general shows that people kids and adults are exposed to things that aren't intended to be in their body," said Dr. Jerome A. Paulson, an associate professor of pediatrics at the George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences who specializes in children's environmental health. "In and of itself, that is a concern. Whether it's harmful or not we can't tell from this particular study."
The new data in the 475-page report reveal how "we have fouled our own nest," Paulson said. "We contaminated the environment sufficiently that there are measurable amounts of potentially toxic substances in people kids and adults."
The CDC did not try to gauge the health threat the chemicals might pose. A measurable amount of a compound in a person's body does not mean it causes disease or other damage, the agency noted.
For many compounds in the report, experts have little information on what amounts may be harmful or what they may do in combination.
"We are really at the beginning of a very complicated journey to understand the thousands of substances we are exposed to," said Thomas Burke, associate professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
The discovery of pyrethroids in most people is especially important, as no one had looked for them in the human body before. Pyrethroids are synthetic versions of natural compounds found in flowers, and they have been considered safer than older pesticides, such as DDT and chlordane, that build up in the environment and have been banned in the United States.
But in high doses, pyrethroids are toxic to the nervous system. They are the second most common class of pesticides that result in poisoning. At low doses, they might alter hormones. The compounds are used in large volumes in farm and household pesticides and are sprayed by public agencies to kill mosquitoes.
Pyrethroids "were a step forward [from DDT and other banned pesticides], but now we're beginning to understand that while they don't persist in the environment, many of us are exposed," Burke said. "We don't quite know what those levels mean."
Eleven of 12 phthalates tested were higher in children than adults. All of the phthalates but one are used in fragrances. In animal tests, and in one recent study of human babies, some of the compounds have been shown to alter male reproductive organs or to feminize hormones.
Representatives of the chemical and pesticide industries praised the study, saying that human biomonitoring is the best available tool to measure exposure. They echoed the CDC in saying that discovery of the chemicals in the human body did not automatically mean they posed a threat.
The report demonstrates "that exposure to these man-made and natural substances is extremely low," said American Chemistry Council spokesman Chris VandenHeuvel.
The CDC's Gerberding said that "for the vast majority" of the 148 chemicals in the report, "we have no evidence of health effects."
Many toxicologists and environmental scientists disagree.
Studies of animals, and in some cases people, suggest that most of the compounds can affect the brain, hormones, reproductive system or the immune system, or that they are linked to cancer. "These are some bad actors," Burke said.
Many of the compounds have not been studied sufficiently to know what happens with chronic exposure to low doses. "No evidence of health effects does not imply that they are not harmful," Paulson said. "It just means we don't know one way or another."
Environmental groups have called for U.S. law to require chemical companies to test industrial compounds more comprehensively, a proposal similar to one that the European Parliament is to debate in the fall.
The evidence that many contaminants amass in children more than in adults could mean that they are exposed to larger amounts perhaps from crawling, breathing more rapidly or putting items in their mouths or that their bodies are less able to cope with or metabolize them.
In the womb and in the first two years after birth, children undergo extraordinary cell growth, from brain neurons to immune cells, so there are more opportunities for toxic compounds to disrupt the cells, Paulson said. Animal tests show that fetuses and newborns are the most susceptible to harm from many chemicals.
In the CDC study, one of every 18 women of childbearing age, or 5.7%, had mercury that exceeded the level that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency deemed safe to a developing fetus.
Tests on schoolchildren show that mercury exposure in the womb can lower IQs, with memory and vocabulary particularly impaired.
The CDC plans to expand the national chemical report to more than 300 compounds in two years and about 500 in four years. An estimated 80,000 chemicals are in commercial use today.
~~~~~~~~~~
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org
Mr-Natural-Health - 24 Jul 2005 15:09 GMT > Dozens of Chemicals Found in Most Americans' Bodies Gee, I thought that there would be at least a thousand different chemicals.
Outside of chemicals, Dear, what might one find inside a human body?
Perhaps, if you actually tried to articulate your points better?
Just my opinion, but I am right as usual. :)
Mr-Natural-Health - 24 Jul 2005 15:09 GMT > Dozens of Chemicals Found in Most Americans' Bodies Gee, I thought that there would be at least a thousand different chemicals.
Outside of chemicals, Dear, what might one find inside a human body?
Perhaps, if you actually tried to articulate your points better?
Just my opinion, but I am right as usual. :)
cathyb - 24 Jul 2005 15:14 GMT > > Dozens of Chemicals Found in Most Americans' Bodies > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Just my opinion, but I am right as usual. :) It would certainly be a tad worrying to find an American with no chemicals in their body. A bit like the Cheshire Cat...
Cathy:)
wc - 24 Jul 2005 17:16 GMT Cathy wrote:
>>It would certainly be a tad worrying to find an American with no chemicals in their body. A bit like the Cheshire Cat... <<
And, wouldn't it be nice to find a nice Australian Lady named Cathy who did not cross-post sh.t to the Nurses Newsgroup?
(this Yank already knows that good sentence structure does not begin with a conjunction, so nevermind, Cathy).
Will, CRNA
Mr-Natural-Health - 24 Jul 2005 21:45 GMT > Cathy wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And, wouldn't it be nice to find a nice Australian Lady named Cathy who > did not cross-post sh.t to the Nurses Newsgroup? And, wouldn't it be nice if over paid nurses were able figure out the correct person to complain to?
Ha, ...Hah, Ha!
How about trying the person who started this dumb THREAD to begin with?
Just my opinion, but I am right as usual. :)
kyernurse - 24 Jul 2005 23:40 GMT Overpaid? Hardly. And as for your opinion, opinions are like a.sholes, everyone has one and the mass majority of them stink, your opinion at the top of the list. Cross-post all you like, you've just been killfiled.
"Mr-Natural-Health" <johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote in ...
And, wouldn't it be nice if over paid nurses were able figure out the correct person to complain to?
Just my opinion, but I am right as usual. :)
Mr-Natural-Health - 25 Jul 2005 08:25 GMT > Cross-post all you like, you've just been killfiled. > > "Mr-Natural-Health" <johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote in ... > > And, wouldn't it be nice if over paid nurses were able figure out the > correct person to complain to? Hello Ass-Hole Nurse,
You are so stupid! I simply replied to a post from your favorite Mental Female. And, you have been too stupid to drop nursing from the list of ngs on this THREAD.
Boy are you stupid, Girl!
Like I said before, try complaining to your favorite mental female who started this THREAD. I simply am participating on this THREAD, stupid! What school did you go to? Boy are you mental. You should not be allowed near any patient, Girl.
Just my opinion, but I am right as usual. :)
Mr-Natural-Health - 25 Jul 2005 16:59 GMT > Cross-post all you like, you've just been killfiled. One more major point, for all you idiot nurses out there.
I was actually replying from sci.med.nursing. I am doing so now, too. So, I did NOT cross-post anything. This post like the other ones is coming directly from sci.med.nursing.
Ilena Rose is the Troll who added all the cross-posting from a post posted by somebody else in misc.health.alternative.
I wouldn't trust my health to any nurse who is too stupid to figure these simple facts out. You mental nurses should have your licenses to practice nursing removed permanently.
Just my opnion, but all you nurse are just money grubbing slime. :)
cathyb - 25 Jul 2005 09:43 GMT > Cathy wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And, wouldn't it be nice to find a nice Australian Lady named Cathy who > did not cross-post sh.t to the Nurses Newsgroup? Actually, I have never deliberately cross-posted anything; I simply hit reply. If others feel the need to spread the discussion around, take it up with them.
BTW, I used the word American because it was in the title of the thread and was what the article was about. I'm not sure why you appear to be offended, since neither the point that someone with no chemicals in their body wouldn't exist, nor the reference to Lewis Carroll's "Alice in Wonderland" would be changed by using 'person' or any other nationality in its place.
> (this Yank already knows that good sentence structure does not begin > with a conjunction, so nevermind, Cathy). I have no idea where you're going with this, or indeed why, but since you bring it up, perhaps you should look to your spelling rather than your grammar.
> Will, CRNA Cathy
cathyb - 25 Jul 2005 09:58 GMT > Cathy wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And, wouldn't it be nice to find a nice Australian Lady named Cathy who > did not cross-post sh.t to the Nurses Newsgroup? Actually, I have never deliberately cross-posted anything; I simply hit
reply. If others feel the need to spread the discussion around, take it
up with them. I read and post to only one group, mha.
BTW, I used the word American because it was in the title of the thread
and was what the article was about. I'm not sure why you appear to be offended, since neither the point that someone with no chemicals in their body wouldn't exist, nor the reference to Lewis Carroll's "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" would be changed by using "person" or any other nationality in its place
> (this Yank already knows that good sentence structure does not begin > with a conjunction, so nevermind, Cathy). I have no idea where you're going with this, or indeed why, but since you bring it up, perhaps you should look to your spelling rather than your grammar.
> Will, CRNA Cathy
cathyb - 25 Jul 2005 11:50 GMT Since I have never posted to any of the groups mentioned below, other than as a result of someone else's cross-posting, I have no idea why this person would have personally e-mailed me this:
Here's your damnable list. Do you feel good now that you've heaped more trash on the nurses newsgroup? Most of us, now including myself, have simply killfiled your nasty name.
Will, crna
>>misc.health.alternative, alt.support.breast-implant, misc.kids.health, sci.med.nursing<<
above is Cathyb's crosspost list for each of her posts. Killfile her!
Please do.
But nonetheless, I'd appreciate it if this moron didn't e-mail me again.
Cathy
Vashti - 25 Jul 2005 12:22 GMT [Followup-To: set to misc.health.alternative.]
> Since I have never posted to any of the groups mentioned below, > other than as a result of someone else's cross-posting, I have no > idea why this person would have personally e-mailed me this: Hey Cathy,
The problem is that sci.med.nursing has been the target of a *lot* of crossposted trolling and nastiness over the years, so much so that it has at times(and might now also) be hard to find the posts of the members of the group or the on-topic threads.
This happens in a lot of groups and because of the replies from different groups it's hard to make a kill-file list that'll work. Some newsreaders will allow blocking of posts which have been crossposted to certain newsgroups(can't recall which) or complete threads started by a particular poster.
I think the best thing to do if replying to such crossposted threads started by a known trouble maker is to remove the irrelevant groups from the list of newsgroups, in this case that would be sci.med.nursing and misc.kids.health I think. I know I haven't done it in this post and have forgotten to do so quite often but I will try harder to remember... it's just not fair that serious groups get inundated with posts that aren't relevant to them.
When in doubt just reply to the group you're a member of.
Vashti
cathyb - 25 Jul 2005 12:31 GMT > [Followup-To: set to misc.health.alternative.] > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Vashti To be honest, I don't even check. Since I only read mha, it's never really occurred to me.
But surely, if I take your advice, Lollipop will be telling as many people on usenet as she can that I'm not me and I'm a liar, without being rebutted?
Then again, should I care? Oh, it's all too hard...
BTW, do you suppose David Wright has finished Harry Potter yet? Because I have some interesting theories...
Cheers,
Cathy
Vashti - 25 Jul 2005 12:59 GMT > To be honest, I don't even check. Since I only read mha, it's > never really occurred to me. I think most people don't... I didn't realise myself until a newsreader I used to use(Xnews) would pop up a window asking me which group I wanted to set the followups to. *That* newsreader also allowed me to automatically block anything posted to more than three groups which weeded out most of the trolls on some groups.
> But surely, if I take your advice, Lollipop will be telling as > many people on usenet as she can that I'm not me and I'm a liar, > without being rebutted? Jan usually only crossposts in reply to crossposts so unless you or someone else on her *gang* list reply to a crosspost she's unlikely to crosspost her insinuations to other groups. A lot of stuff posted here *is* crossposted, those articles intended to inform etc.
> Then again, should I care? Nope :)
> Oh, it's all too hard... Welll... upon rereading my above paragraph on crossposting it seems you may be right there.
> BTW, do you suppose David Wright has finished Harry Potter yet? > Because I have some interesting theories... Hmm... three solutions: post to the harry potter group, start a new thread and ask him or just post your theories but put in spoiler space something like this:
[Harry Potter spoiler space]
I think 20 lines ought to do it but I'm not sure: I haven't seen proper spoiler space since I read the Terry Pratchett group years ago. The point is that no one will accidentally see something they'd rather not without a bit of warning first.
Oh, the Vashti in the Potter group *isn't* me... we come in six packs. ;)
Vashti
cathyb - 25 Jul 2005 13:38 GMT > > To be honest, I don't even check. Since I only read mha, it's > > never really occurred to me. [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Vashti Sorry Vashti,
I was just a little overexcited because someone I knew nothing about sent me an unpleasant e-mail. I see (I actually checked) you removed crossposting here.
I'm not desperate enough to bother with spoiler spaces, or to post to a Potter newsgroup; I think I shall just wait 'til David lets us know he finished.
The idea of six Vashtis; interesting. Are you all ADHD? Because that sounds quite scary!
Worse than my house on the last day of a school term:)
Cheers,
Cathy
Vashti - 25 Jul 2005 14:16 GMT > I was just a little overexcited because someone I knew nothing > about sent me an unpleasant e-mail. That's only interesting the first few times... I've had few nasty emails, thankfully more people appear to like me than dislike me. Most of course are merely indifferent so they don't email me.<g>
> I see (I actually checked) you removed crossposting here. I didn't! I set my crossposted message to indicate to newsreaders that replies should be directed to MHA instead of all the groups in the newsgroups list... it looks like you can do the same via Google, there's a check box under the newsgroups list marked "followups" or something like it... check the box and fill in the group you think replies should go to.
I indicated I was setting the followup-to header by typing [Followup-To: set to misc.health.alternative.] at the top of my "dozens of chemicals" post, many people *don't* indicate they've set that header so it always pays to check the newsgroups list to see where your post will end up. :)
> I'm not desperate enough to bother with spoiler spaces, or to post > to a Potter newsgroup; I think I shall just wait 'til David lets > us know he finished. What if he won't say just to test your patience? ;)
> The idea of six Vashtis; interesting. Are you all ADHD? Because > that sounds quite scary! Ah, I'm not sure since we've never been in the same group at the same time... for all I know something decidedly quantum could occur if I allowed that to happen, thankfully we don't seem to share the same interests. To be honest I've only seen evidence of 4 other Vashtis on Usenet so far, I wonder what the other one is up to?
> Worse than my house on the last day of a school term:) <g> I can imagine that: had my two nephews(2 and 4) visit twice last week and that was quite chaotic enough! 6 of *me*... disaster!!!
Vashti
David Wright - 31 Jul 2005 18:33 GMT >> To be honest, I don't even check. Since I only read mha, it's >> never really occurred to me. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >> BTW, do you suppose David Wright has finished Harry Potter yet? >> Because I have some interesting theories... But they probably are not appropriate material on m.h.a. However, I have indeed finished the book.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, wholesome and natural things that money can buy." -- Steve Martin
Mr-Natural-Health - 05 Aug 2005 15:45 GMT > "I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, wholesome and > natural things that money can buy." > -- Steve Martin Only if you are dog in heat, totally devoid of a brain.
Yep, that pretty much summaries the waste called 'David Wright.'
Just my opinion, but I am right as usual. :)
David Wright - 07 Aug 2005 18:30 GMT >> "I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, wholesome and >> natural things that money can buy." [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Just my opinion, but I am right as usual. :) Let's see here -- toothless John Gohde, who sets himself up as a health authority, rips off a line from my .sig (with slight alterations), and can't tell the difference between a humorous quotation and my personal opinion.
Yep, John, you're definitely at the bottom of the intellectual food chain.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, wholesome and natural things that money can buy." -- Steve Martin
Mr-Natural-Health - 07 Aug 2005 21:15 GMT > >Only if you are dog in heat, totally devoid of a brain. > >Yep, that pretty much summaries the waste called 'David Wright.'
> Yep, John, you're definitely at the bottom of the intellectual food > chain. Last week there was Stacy. A few weeks before that it was PizzaGirl, who has a wife. This afternoon it was, Purple. In the morning, I got to converse with Monty the 'Quack' who has a PhD from a major university.
It is all in a days work for 'the Man.'
Now who the heck is David Wright? Oh! I know: Yesterday's news. You are history, Mr. Wrong. Time to get a life.
Just my opinion, but Gee ... I am always Wright.
Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
David Wright - 10 Aug 2005 21:57 GMT >> >Only if you are dog in heat, totally devoid of a brain. >> >Yep, that pretty much summaries the waste called 'David Wright.' > >> Yep, John, you're definitely at the bottom of the intellectual food >> chain. Not to mention the honesty chain, due your dishonest snipping.
>Last week there was Stacy. A few weeks before that it was PizzaGirl, >who has a wife. This afternoon it was, Purple. In the morning, I got >to converse with Monty the 'Quack' who has a PhD from a major >university. > >It is all in a days work for 'the Man.' Getting trashed by others, I assume you mean.
>Now who the heck is David Wright? Oh! I know: Yesterday's news. You >are history, Mr. Wrong. Time to get a life. > >Just my opinion, but Gee ... I am always Wright. Even a stopped clock is right twice per day -- you don't even rise to that level.
>Ha, ... Hah, Ha! The echoes from your empty head are annoying.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, wholesome and natural things that money can buy." -- Steve Martin
wc - 25 Jul 2005 20:32 GMT Thank you, Vashti
Will, crna (sci.med.nursing)
|
|
|