Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiChemical Pollutants Likely Culprits in Rising Birth Defects
As public health professionals, we are concerned about the high rates of birth defects in Alaska and possible links to environmental contaminants. As reported last month in the Daily News, the fact that "Alaska infants are twice as likely to be born with major birth defects as infants in the U.S. as a whole" cannot be explained simply by cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, maternal age and diet. The article did not discuss the growing body of scientific evidence that suggests environmental contaminants are linked to birth defects and other harmful reproductive health effects in both males and females.
Even though many people think of Alaska as pristine, Alaska has over 2,000 toxic waste sites. They include over 700 formerly used military defense sites, countless open dump sites throughout rural Alaska, and five major military sites that are designated among the most hazardous sites in the country (known as Superfund sites) -- two of which are in Anchorage. These sites contain hazardous materials that are linked to a range of adverse health effects, including birth defects.
Alaska and the circumpolar Arctic are also subject to pesticides and industrial chemicals that originate from thousands of miles away, traveling northward via oceanic and atmospheric currents and eventually settling in cold climates. These chemicals accrue in the north because the cold climate and fat-based food web favor retention of these persistent toxics.
Even toxic chemicals that have been banned in the U.S. (such as the insecticide DDT and class of industrial chemicals known as PCBs) continue to accumulate in the Arctic and sub-Arctic. Contaminants threaten the health of northern peoples who rely on traditional diets of fish and marine mammals.
Research demonstrates that industrial chemicals, pollutants, and pesticides cross the placenta as readily as residues from cigarettes and alcohol.
A review of scientific studies revealed contaminants such as solvents, heavy metals, and pesticides are linked to birth defects such as heart abnormalities, oral clefts (lip and/or palate) and neural tube defects (incomplete development of the brain, spinal cord and/or protective coverings of these organs).
Exposure to plasticizers (used in consumer products) is linked to feminization of baby boys. PCBs and fine particulate matter are linked to low birth weight. A recent study in Alaska found that women from villages with "hazardous" open dump sites were more likely to deliver preterm or low birth weight babies.
High levels of man-made chemicals in the blood of pregnant women may also contribute to the newly discovered gender imbalance in the Arctic. Nationwide, the number of males being born is declining. Twice as many girls than boys are born in some Arctic villages in Greenland and Russia, and in some Greenland villages near the Thule American military base no boys are being born at all.
We call upon Governor Palin and our public agencies to protect public health by:
• Phasing out persistent, bio-accumulative chemicals, especially those that cause cancer, genetic harm, endocrine disorders, immune and neurological damage;
• Enacting laws that prevent the release of toxic chemicals from military and industrial sources;
• Establishing protective standards for environmental cleanup;
• Preventing the use of harmful pesticides in schools, hospitals, parks, and neighborhoods;
• Establishing purchasing policies that eliminate use of PVC plastics and chlorine-bleached paper; and
• Establishing bio-monitoring and health tracking systems.
To ensure the future health of Alaska's peoples and environment, it is imperative that we act now to prevent exposure to chemicals that harm the most vulnerable population -- developing children.
8 Comments so far
Show AllGood article. I hadn't known that fat soluble pollutants are concentrated in the arctic, but it now makes sense based on the food chain, or is it web? Bunyipgirl makes a valid point about age of mothers causing DNA errors vs. environmental factors. It is hard to imagine who would do such an unbiased study these days, since almost every university depends on funding from chemical and pharmeceutical companies. But we know enough to get started cleaning up our acts.
We KNOW solvents, halogenated hydrocarbons, PCBs pollute our air soil and waters. These are KNOWN teratogens, causing improper cell development. Hormones and drugs in the food and water supply have powerful potential to influence fetal development. Heavy metals and plastics are not too healthy either.
We have such cavalier attitudes toward toxic chemicals, including those produced by the pharmaceutical industry, as iamhere points out.
My family has never let our landlord spray our house for bugs, but instead kept food in glass containers and kept the kitchen clean. I felt that the occasional roach scouting our kitchen was less of a threat than those chemicals. A few germs on a clean surface are probably better for us (developing immunity through small exposures) than the powerful germ killers that we are urged to use everywhere, including inside the toilet bowl. (Why? Do people socialize or eat there?)
We need to look for alternatives to spewing harmful chemicals in our homes and beyond. It bothers me that my city blankets neighborhoods with mosquito spray for West Nile virus, which causes very very few or no deaths per year. It can make a difference in people who are already close to the edge, but so does a common cold. Does anyone know what cumulative harm the spraying does? Lacking specific evidence (now who would give that to me when there is a spraying contract to be had), and based only on general knowledge of human / environment interactions, I believe spraying probably does more harm than good and it would be better to identify and drain mosquito puddles.
I could say more, but don't like reading long posts myself.
Joe
The site:
http://www1.environmentalhealthnews.org/
has a great deal of information on pollutants.
I would like to see citations for all the studies quoted.
Yes, these chemicals are present in the human body in detectable amounts. Yes, many cross the placental barrier.
The article makes no distinction btw teratogenic defects and genetic defects.
Nor does it even demonstrate anything other than correlation.
It does not addresss other possible causes of birth defects, such as the increasing age of first time births for mothers or the greater survival rates of neonates. iow, babies that would have died in the past because of defects now live through better medical care and are therefore counted in the morbidity tables.
Yeah, I know it's only a newspaper article. And I do agree with the call for greater responsibility and accountabilty in industry and government.
There are environmental pollutants everywhere that humans are. Being in healthcare, I see the results of this exposure on a daily basis and that includes myself. We moved out to a rural farming community so the kids could go to a better school. Moved right into a toxic waste dump of American mass produced agriculture. I am now sick from it but if you go to a mainstream doctor and start talking about heavy metal and toxic chemical exposure they just look at you funny and think you're over reacting. The current allopathic, disease oriented health system makes money from the poisoning that is causing diseases. They make lots of money "treating" disease and giving you more toxic chemicals called pharmaceuticals. No one is interested in prevention cause that's not where the money is. It's all built into the system of greed and disregard for humanity.
AND, Please do rule out Electronic Warfare, or radiation from some of the largest emitters in the World in Northern Alaska. Around the base where I am at, when all the officers get together with their families - it looks a "girl scout convention" is going on.
Coffeelover,,,,,,
When demand for environmental progress rises:
demand for pesticides and agricultural chemicals goes down,
consumerism goes down,
militarism declines,
people's health improves,
and the oligarchy's profits go down.
To your list you should add: If you want environmental progress, don't vote for or enable the Bush/McCain oligarchy.
If true some of this information is mind blowing. All the talk of global warming may be designed to bury this man made tragedy. Renewable energy - industrial hemp to eliminate plastic - compressed air vehicles - many solutions - too little action.
I don't think the GW talk is designed to distract from this story--both problems stem from the same cause, namely, the thoughtless dumping of all kinds of waste into the environment without understanding or caring what the long term consequences might be.
There are solutions--usually the best and cheapest is prevention, but failing that there are ways of cleaning up or containing some of the damage--but lots of chemical pollution will linger long after the perpetrators are forgotten.
Here's a big part of the problem: the average human wants a safe ecology to raise a family and will look to be informed of any possible danger from pollution. For certain corporations, a safe local environment is often an unimportant detail, and the main danger is the impact on profits that responsible safe disposal entails.
I hope the citizens of Alaska can get their elected representatives to investigate this thoroughly and take appropriate measures. Too often there is a fog of dissent and misinformation and remedial action, and even investigative action, get delayed as the problem worsens.