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 / August 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Dozens of Chemicals Found in Most Americans' Bodies

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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)
 
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



©2009 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.