EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Scientists Warn of Low-Dose Risks of Chemical Exposure
A new study finds that even low doses of hormone-disrupting chemicals — used in everything from plastics to pesticides – can have serious effects on human health. These findings, the researchers say, point to the need for basic changes in how chemical safety testing is conducted.
Since before the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring 50 years ago, scientists have known that certain synthetic chemicals can interfere with the hormones that regulate the body’s most vital systems. Evidence of the health impacts of so-called endocrine-disrupting chemicals grew from the 1960s to the 1990s. With the 1996 publication of Our Stolen Future by Theo Colborn, Dianne Dumanoski, and J. Peterson Myers, many people heard for the first time how such exposures — from industrial pollution, pesticides, and contact with finished consumer products, such as plastics — were affecting people and wildlife. Since then public concern about these impacts has grown.
In 2009, the American Medical Association called for reduced exposure to endocrine- disrupting chemicals. Last year, eight scientific societies, representing some 40,000 researchers, urged federal regulators to incorporate the latest research on endocrine-disrupters into chemical safety testing.
Last week, 12 scientists – including such experts as Colborn and the University of Missouri’s Frederick vom Saal — published a paper that they say significantly advances the debate. Their research, based on a review of 800 scientific studies, concludes that it is “remarkably common” for very small amounts of hormone-disrupting chemicals to have profound, adverse effects on human health. Hormone-disrupting chemicals, the paper explains, challenge a fundamental tenet of toxicology — “the dose makes the poison” — which contends that the greater the dose, the greater the effect. Hormone-disrupting chemicals don’t necessarily behave like this. Significant health effects, the researchers say, sometimes occur at low rather than high doses.
"Whether low doses of endocrine-disrupting compounds influence human disorders is no longer conjecture, as epidemiological studies show that environmental exposures are associated with human diseases and disabilities,” the paper’s authors write. The study, published in the journal Endocrine Reviews, maintains that the low-dose and special dose-response effects of hormone-disrupting chemicals means that “fundamental changes in chemical testing and safety determination are needed to protect human health."
The study’s lead author, Laura Vandenberg, a post-doctoral associate at Tufts University’s Department of Developmental and Regenerative Biology, said in an interview said that this low-dose and special dose-response behavior “should be expected of any chemical that acts like a hormone."
Not all experts in biology and toxicology agree with the study’s conclusions. Some scientists in academia, industry, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said there is not yet convincing proof that extremely low doses of endocrine-disrupting chemicals have ill health effects or consistently produce low-dose effects that are not predicted by their effects at higher doses.
"There’s no question that both natural and synthetic compounds can mimic hormones,” said George Gray, director of the Center for Risk Science and Public Health at The George Washington University. But that a chemical produces effects at one level, no effects at another, and different effects at yet another level of exposure, “that’s not yet widely accepted in toxicology,” said Gray. “It’s something toxicologists are not yet convinced of and comfortable with,” he added.
Hundreds of such hormone-disrupting chemicals have now been identified, and exposure to these compounds is virtually ubiquitous. Among the chemicals the new paper discusses are bisphenol A, used in plastics, can liners, and receipt papers; common pesticides, including atrazine and chlorpyrifos; methyl paraben, a preservative used in cosmetics and personal care products; triclosan, an antibacterial agent used in soaps and toothpaste; nonylphenol, a detergent ingredient; the flame retardant PBDE-99; perchlorate, a fuel compound; and dioxin, an industrial and incineration by-product. The paper also cites DDT and PCBs — discontinued but very environmentally persistent compounds.
"This is the first time anyone’s tried to synthesize this whole field and show that this is not a single chemical issue,” Vandenberg said of the new study.
Very small amounts of hormones, including endocrine system hormones — those that regulate many of the body’s most important systems, among them development, metabolism, and reproduction — can have significant biological effects. So, it’s been discovered, can synthetic compounds with similar chemical compositions. Research indicates that exposure to a small amount of such a chemical at a particular stage of development can prompt effects that can impact not just that particular individual, but, in some cases, several generations.
"It’s not just sex hormones but also thyroid hormones, and insulin among others, that are involved,” said Vandenberg. “We’re really complicated instruments."
The health effects documented in the studies the paper reviews have been observed in live animal and cell culture studies and in human epidemiological studies. Their effects include adverse impacts on reproductive and sexual development and fertility; cognition and neurological systems; immune system function; and metabolic effects, including diabetes and obesity. “The weight of the available evidence suggests that EDCs (endocrine-disrupting chemicals) affect a wide range of human health endpoints that manifest at different stages of life, from neonatal and infant periods to the aging adult,” write the authors.
Hormones interact with cellular receptors like locks and keys, explained Vandenberg. The hormone or hormone-like chemical is the key, and the receptor, the lock. “Touch the receptor and it starts to produce a response,” said Vandenberg. Too much chemical stimulus (the wrong-size key), however, can overwhelm the receptor, causing it to shut down and produce no response.
A key concept of the paper is that endocrine-disrupting chemicals are non-monotonic, meaning that the responses of animals or people to the chemicals do not necessarily intensify or diminish based on the dose. To illustrate this concept, Vandenberg said, “Picture a line of people, where those on the left have no exposure and those on the right have the most exposure. For endocrine-disrupting chemicals, where the greatest effects occur may not follow that line of increasing exposure level from left to right."
While complex and challenging, the studies gathered in this paper demonstrate that this phenomenon is now well documented, say the authors. “I hope that this paper opens the door to the realization that the endocrine system is the overarching control system of all other body systems,” said Theo Colborn, president of the Endocrine Disruption Exchange, whose work has been instrumental in popularizing knowledge of endocrine-disrupting chemicals. “It controls how we develop, function, and reproduce from the moment we are conceived — in other words, the quality of our lives and our existence."
While epidemiological studies show environmental exposure to EDCs are associated with human diseases, linking a specific environmental chemical exposure to an individual’s health disorder remains difficult, particularly given the many variables that contribute to health outcomes — life stage, genetics, and other environmental factors.
"There are different susceptibilities in different populations that may cause very minute amounts of a hormone to prompt effects in some people but not others,” said Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, who was one of the paper’s reviewers. This literature, she said, points to the importance of investigating low doses and timing of exposure when assessing chemicals for endocrine and other hormonal health outcomes, she explained in an interview.
Some scientists think more research is needed to confirm how endocrine disrupting chemicals behave. L. Earl Gray, Jr., a research biologist at the EPA’s Reproductive Toxicology Branch, said these low-dose effects are “certainly biologically plausible.” But he questioned whether there is sufficient evidence to firmly establish the non-monotonic responses of endocrine-disrupting chemicals.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC), which represents chemical manufacturers, issued a statement saying that it “has committed substantial resources” to better understanding the potential effects of chemicals on the endocrine system, and cited a Michigan State University professor emeritus of toxicology who concluded that “low-dose effects have not been proven, and therefore should not be applied to real-world conditions and human exposures.”
To verify these effects, studies must prove the mechanism of these responses and be replicable, said Lorenz Rhomberg, principal at the Gradient Corporation, a private environmental and risk analysis consultancy. “In my experience that’s been lacking,” said Rhomberg, co-author of an ACC-funded study that found low doses of BPA to be without adverse human reproductive and developmental health effects.
But, said Vandenberg, that’s exactly what the new paper shows. “We don't just know that these effects occur, we know how they occur,” she said, noting that for some chemicals like BPA, non-monotonic responses are reported by dozens of labs.
Thomas Zoeller, a University of Massachusetts biologist and paper co-author, said that regulatory testing of chemicals for endocrine-disrupting impacts lags behind the growing evidence of the compounds’ health effects, particularly at levels to which people are routinely exposed. “There is a very large disconnect between regulatory toxicology and the modern science of endocrinology that is defining these issues,” said Zoeller.
How much will testing chemicals at low, environmentally relevant levels improve human health, the paper authors ask? While it’s not currently possible to quantify in dollars, current evidence “linking low-dose EDC exposures to a myriad of health problems, diseases, and disorders suggests that the costs of current low-dose exposures are likely to be substantial,” they conclude.
"People can easily get overwhelmed by this issue,” said Laura Vandenberg. “But from a public health perspective, we can’t see this problem as too big to deal with. We wouldn’t do that with any other medical problem.”
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
38 Comments so far
Show AllThe effects of plastics and other toxins on the endocrine system have been known for many decades. Under a Capitalistic system health does not matter. Only the bottom line counts.
If you think things are bad now - just wait until the effects of EMF pollution starts making more of us sick. How many are now willing to give up all of their wireless devices? How many are opposing Smart Meters and the Smart Grid? The worse is yet to come.
I couldn't agree with you more. When profit is king, nothing else matters, even the health of a countries people.
Where is it written that we have to keep an economic system that will destroy life as we know it, just for [to quote the late great Utah Phillips]"the sake of a greasy buck?"
Unfortunately, iceman, it's written everywhere: ads online and in the media, billboards, in newspapers and magazines, etc., etc., etc. Conditioning through the media (marketing) works. It is now so ubiquitous that we don't even notice it.
White noise, the language of capitalism, is not noise. It is an environment that is defining the life -- and death -- of our species on this planet a place that is so abundant and wonderful without all of the damned noise.
tj, Of course you are correct. I concur.
I live far in the boonies, have no cell, leave my tv off most of the time, and actually cannot get wifi or cell reception here!! It is so quiet I can hear a hundred birds. I go to town and feel like I am in a cement mixer in my head. And it's a small town.
You must live in one of the only places left with birds. I spend a lot of time outdoors and have noticed a precipitous drop in the bird population. Yesterday I spent several hours in the mountains and saw virtually no birds.
According to the Audobon Society, "Since 1967 the average population of the common birds in steepest decline has fallen by 68 percent; some individual species nose-dived as much as 80 percent. All 20 birds on the national Common Birds in Decline list lost at least half their populations in just four decades."
http://web4.audubon.org/bird/stateofthebirds/CBID/
Yes, and look at how quickly this mess has been exported and incorporated into countries all around the globe! A few decades ago, it was only in the 'industrialized' places....now it's ubiquitous.
I have an EMF meter and have noticed that the worst levels are near clocks, any and all clocks. I would strongly advise everyone to sleep with their clock radio or alarm clock at well over arm's distance. Also please do not sleep right next to a service entry panel. With but a few cautions such as this, I do not think EMF is of any great concern. For those who spend a lot of time on the phone, perhaps one main corded phone or a speaker phone is a good idea.
GregR...I too went through my house with meters. It is an interesting experiment. High levels near the electric stove. Analog clocks higher levels than digital. Decades ago, women were advised to not use electric blankets when pregnant.
I envision the day, many years from now, when people throw away their cell phones and all wireless devices. By then there might not be any land lines left. We will be engineered back to semaphore and smoke signals. Maybe people will actually start talking to each other face to face. I remember when people did that. It was fun.
It is still possible to purchase wind-up clocks.
bardamu...I tried to buy a wind-up watch. Too expensive. I could not afford it.
What's overwhelming is the fact that we've been reading about endocrine disruptions for at least ten years yet that stuff is still everywhere, ten years from now we'll read more about it and that stuff will still be everywhere. Most people don't care or choose to ignore it.
No industry shill to: "Most people don't care or choose to ignore it."
Most people don't know, listen to the PR campaigns that make all the claims about inherent dangers sound like "alarmist" rhetoric, or rely on the EPA to enact the appropriate safety regulations.
Why fail to mention something as profound as ALEC in shaping the National Discourse in everything from Global Warming to the nature of the "food" we eat? Just make the topic about all those people who (apparently) don't care. Same line of reasoning continues to blame voters for the piss poor choices allotted to them in carefully orchestrated pageants based 100% on an insidious quid pro quo, a/k/a between "candidates" and what's owed back via campaign finance contributions.
Historically, at least one generation has always had to die from identifiable causes before anything has been done. The boomers, who were young with the first plastic bottles, are only just starting to bow out.
Sadly, so many toxins have been introduced more or less at once, over the last sixty or seventy years, that people who have learned helplessness gag on the information and seem willing to swallow their toxins. How many people have I heard say "Everything is carcinogenic nowadays" as though that indicated some weakness in regarding medical research.
While a few remarkably poisonous products will get caught here and there, there will be no way to separate the results of one low-grade toxin from another, because most all of us have been exposed to so many for so long that there is no way for measure or control.
The various industries, even most of their clients, seem determined to assume that the difficulty is that one or another particular product is toxic, whereas another has not been demonstrated to be so. That cannot work: look how long it took to actually get public condemnation of something so obvious as nicotine.
The situation corresponds in some ways to the problems one has trying to avoid purchasing from companies that run sweat-shops abroad. One simply cannot run around behind every oppressive government with its American military base or every subcontractor to every corporation every time one buys a bag of groceries or a pair of shoes. And the American government has become grossly unwilling to police even food in any terribly useful way. The ratio of inspectors to meat and produce has dropped.about tenfold in recent years, and what inspection exists often goes to shut down small producers fingered by factory farms and large retailers. We can probably all imagine a dozen reasons why this will likely get worse before it gets better--*if.*
It seems to me that a primary part of most useful responses to any of this must be to remove oneself from the market little by little. Quit buying the worthless folderol today. Invest some time and money to quit buying most of the rest of it tomorrow.
We don't need more testing, more studies, more data...blah, blah, blah.
The vast majority of these chemicals and compounds have been introduced into the environment since WWII. At one time, the count was about 60,000. It's probably higher now.
As RJ says above, many of the effects have been known for decades.
Like nuclear wastes (which contain many toxic non-radioactive compounds, radioactive materials, and mixed wastes), there is only one answer:
Stop producing this stuff PERIOD.
One problem is that chemicals are first introduced into the system. Then, they are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. That involves a lot of argument and counter argument. Then, they simply become part of life and are merely discussed. One thing that bothers me a great deal is that, although individual chemicals may cause problems for us, I have seen no studies that look at what the combination of chemicals do. What happens if a dozen or so dangerous chemicals are all lurking in our bodies?
TJ: I was discussing this subject with the owner of a bookstore in St. Pete Florida some years ago and the following subjects emerged as key contributing forces:
1. The lie of convenience--attached to all the gadgets that are now part of modern life
2. The lie of: Better Living Through Chemistry (a pesky boast given the genetic deformities already showing up in amphibians)
3. The lie that science would wipe out all diseases
,
People ARE living longer. Nonetheless, rates of depression, alcoholism, drug addiction, Depression, obesity, Cancer(s), Diabetes, and Autism are all sky high and rising... and it's DEFINITELY about the nature of the chemical sewer we live in, breathe in, and feast upon.
SR,
This is not me. It's an impostor who fought us on the nuke threads. He was banned repeatedly as RF Finston, rf, and lastly as RatFink. Apparently he's taken up all my positions to try to confuse everybody. He's a sock puppet invented right after I started attacking the government and wall street about two years ago. He disappeared for years and now is back. I guess he's going to have an epiphany after a time, and tell us he was wrong, that AGW is a hoax, that wall street is our savior, and that war is the answer to all our problems. I can't say I'm surprised. I thought the boiler room would have tried this subterfuge a long time ago.
TJ (the real one)
In 1962 Rachel Carson wrote "The Silent Spring", arguably the book that sparked environmental awareness in the US. At the beginning of the book she quoted E.B.White.
"I am pessimistic about the human race because it is too ingenious for its own good. Our approach to nature is to beat it into submission. We would stand a better chance of survival if we accommodated ourselves to this planet and viewed it appreciatively instead of skeptically and dictatorially."
Thank you. Iceman. I love that quote and will now attach it as my new email tagline. It is truly sad that a major catastrophe and world obliteration will be required to shift us back to that way of living. Recommend Jean Auel's Earth Children books for inspiration. And a couple Foxfires in order to be prepared.
Stonepig -- Well, "that way of living" didn't prevent us from living the way we do now, did it. So, do you think next time "that way of living" will lead to a different outcome? Your philosophy of life lacks certain ingredients required for being human. "Fun" comes to mind. We need to have fun too. And with fun comes misery. LIfe is fatal.
Each person, every individual, with the capacity to understand danger, is responsible for his or her own health and well being, away from toxic things. These same people have a responsibility to question and act against the authorities who defy and reject the danger of the NAPL http://toxics.usgs.gov/definitions/napls.html they are killing us with.
And that is only one of the dangers coming at us. The ATSDR will give you more information than you want to know. It'll scare the becraggies outta ya.
But this summer when the bugs are rampant due to a warm winter, are you going to continue the poisoning because you're uncomfortable and don't want to get your arms sweaty swatting mosquitoes, or stay afraid of bats, or have a phobia such that you'd rather suck bisphenolA...
Yes, this has been an issue and well researched for years. There are some excellent books written on the subject. BUT LOOK AT WHO still thinks it's no big deal...duh...the EPA. Who's in charge of all the clean up sites? The EPA. Who defines the level of danger of a polluted site? The EPA.
"Some scientists in academia, industry, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said there is not yet convincing proof that extremely low doses of endocrine-disrupting chemicals have ill health effects or consistently produce low-dose effects that are not predicted by their effects at higher doses." NOT YET CONVINCING PROOF????? ARE YOU KIDDING ME???? Have you not seen the level of obesity and diabetes rise drastically in the last 50 or so years? Have they not seen the disparaging lack of brain power? Rise in cancer...jeesiss what the hell does it take to get people to start bitching louder and longer? Have people given up because their brains are waved wified cell lithiumed defiled so badly they can no longer think? Seriously? Are we being systematically brain poisoned? When's the last time you had a brilliant thought?
It took the EPA 30 years to release their report on dioxin. Although it was broken down into 2 parts -- the "good" news and the bad news. The bad news part has been held back until who knows when. Regulation run by horse traders.
And they keep changing their ppm's and we mostly now know that there is zero tolerance for dioxin and its f factor.
STONE PIG: The problem addressed in your final paragraph goes to the subject Ruth brought up: that in a climate of so much ecological trespass, it becomes exceedingly difficult to isolate one causative agency and build a case that can meet the burden of proof. I've argued OFTEN in this forum that the climate of trespass in this age of industrial effluents protects perpetrators thanks to the presumption of innocence our legal system extends.
There are two ideologies that make the killing of nature possible:
Foremost, the profit motive attached to today's version of global corporate capitalism without conscience. Since it regards NOTHING as holy or sacred, and has managed to put in the place of the thing's inherent value, the substantial equivalent based on a MANmade valuation system, it's seized control of what belongs to all children of The Infinite. Note the degree to which law bows to Capital as if MONEY were the Source, not the means...
Secondly, without a dominator culture based on the model of war and predation, the antithetical approach to nature's systems everywhere underway would never have come into use in the first place. Most Indigenous Tribes protect their earthly homes, as did those Partnership societies that pre-dated the onslaught of the "Rush of the Barbarians." It's been hell, war, and damnation pretty much since.
These approaches are NOT what a balanced human society, or balanced human nature (i.e. that which is based on equal input from both sides of The Great Force) would commit to. It reflects an ethos that sees life as cheap, the female body as chattel, and all things natural just there for the taking. It is a lop-sided theology that leads to death, war, and resource depletion.
I call it out AT ESSENCE because no problem can be solved from the level of thinking that brought it about (Einstein). And yet THAT LEVEL--and its advocates--still demand to speak for all and continue to commandeer spaceship earth's controls... as they aim straight towards the ecological abyss.
and we are not educating scientists as they might kill the profit motive and expose it for the killing machine it is, and I am a business person who loves profits but not over life and health and the planet earth.
and we have a man running for President that doesn't believe in science and believes God created earth for man to use, use and misuse. Of course none of the three candidates believe in science but only two of them would take us back to 18th century.
Undergrad science students are brain washed mostly, grad students rely on corporate funding, and doctoral people are then told to avoid certain topics for their research papers.....but most of them ARE smart enough to recognize the bull shit...and some of them do. They are the whistleblowers, some quietly, some not. And some step out here and get berated by the likes of stupidity. We have seen McKibben, Hansen, Pauling, Carson, etc...berated and ignored...and that's stupid.
As for candidates...now there's stupid.
I'd be willing to bet the national debt that--"Not all experts in biology and toxicology agree with the study’s conclusions. Some scientists in academia, industry, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said there is not yet convincing proof that extremely low doses of endocrine-disrupting chemicals have ill health effects or consistently produce low-dose effects that are not predicted by their effects at higher doses."--are all on industrial retainers in a manner quite similar to Tobacco and Global Warming Denialists. Hell, there are even "scientists" who today debate the toxicity of lead despite overwhelming proof. Failure to enact and strictly follow the Precautionary Principle has allowed for the poisoning of every living thing on the planet. And that's about the only good thing: The Denialists are just as poisoned as everyone else.
Right-on truth, Karlof1!
In our inverted totalitarian state, the precautionary principle is only held up to silence whistle-blower/truth-tellers, or pre-empt the peace-oriented efforts of the anti-war crowd. Developers of killer Science, technology, and warfare need not apply.
Ensuing commentors have seen the point raised and elaborated, which is excellent. The original publisher, Yale 360, is far from unbiased, and exhibits the same fundamental framing as used in a whole slew of industry-backed FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) sewing essays that Mann lays bare in his Climate Wars.
As usual our criminal corporate Congress lags far behind the civilized world.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/10/14/us-bpa-idUSTRE69D4MT20101014
OTTAWA | Thu Oct 14, 2010 1:46pm EDT
OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada has declared bisphenol A a toxic chemical, prompting calls for far-reaching curbs on the industrial chemical that is used in everything from the linings of aluminum cans to coatings on electronic till receipts.
Canada added the compound, known as BPA, to a list of substances deemed potentially harmful to health or the environment in a notice published in the Canada Gazette on Wednesday.
That makes it easier for Ottawa to regulate the use of the chemical, perhaps by limiting how much BPA can be released into air or water or perhaps with outright bans on its use in specific food containers.
The risk assessment of BPA put together by our federal government is very strong in terms of its conclusions, so I think it's a foregone conclusion that it will drive further action rather quickly," said Rick Smith, executive director of Environmental Defense, which campaigned to ban BPA.
BPA is mass produced and has been used for decades to harden plastics. It is widely used to line food and beverage containers, and a recent government report said it was present in the bodies of 91 percent of Canadians.
If ending up as a human sacrifice isn't good enough for you, maybe you and your kids will want to avoid large doses of these delicious chemicals:
Thanks to my wife, I have not consciously eaten food from a steel can in about a decade. That can of green beans is convenient but the BPA in the can's inner lining mixes with the nutritious water for a few months.
I don't have plastic bottled water. Truckers can let these bottles sit in a hot truck or out in the sun, where the sun's heat cooks extra phthalates (a unique word for a large set of chemicals) into the water.
You can also find nasties in baby bottle nipples suck suck suck.
American yellow rubber ducks are made of polyvinyl chloride. European yellow rubber ducks aren't. The CE symbol on a product means Council of Europe, which means less cancer, so look for it.
Don't spray your lawn with nasties, especially if you have a dog. The dog has a good chance of getting leukemia. If you don't have a dog, just kids, well you get the picture. You can tox up the kids of abutting neighbors too. Hopefully your town isn't spraying the playing fields. They are?? Woo baby!
Your new house can make you ill, or just a ticking time bomb. Don't breathe the outgassing of paints, plywood, rugs, wood finishes. To their credit, many towns are doing a good job on radon buildup. The EPA health people have recommended that you leave a window open a crack in the middle of winter, which drives the EPA energy efficiency people nuts but they'll get their act together some day.
For that look to die for, they have lots of carcinogenic stuff that you put on your skin and then the toluene and other carcinogenic chems soak right through the skin like a nicotine patch does. Those sanitizers at the supermarket door often are forced to say "Warning: wash your hands immediately after using this product" but nobody ever does. Do you see a sink at the supermarket door?
Your dentist wants to put mercury into your mouth. In a few decades all of the mercury will leach out of the fillings, and the fillings will need to be replaced. Where else would every bit of that mercury go but down into your stomach with swallowing?
“There is a very large disconnect between regulatory toxicology and the modern science of endocrinology that is defining these issues."
Exactly! In my experience, toxicologists are not quite as up-to-date on advances in molecular/cellular biology, physiology, and medicine* as a basic researcher in those fields. And, on the other hand, a lot of basic researchers in molecular/cellular biology, physiology, and medicine aren't often very up-to-date on the latest findings regarding environmental toxins/xenobiotics. There needs to be more collaboration between those disciplines... more crosstalk (pun intended), if you will. : )
*Endocrinology is a specialty of medicine that is practiced by physicians who are trained to diagnose various endocrine disorders (problems with growth hormone, thyroid function, and diabetes are examples). Basic science research in endocrinology is usually carried out by researchers (MDs and/or PhDs) who refer to their work as being in the areas of molecular/cellular biology, physiology, or medicine.
Very good points.
Hey there, rfloh. You may find this article amusing:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/322/5903/917.abstract?sid=62595943-3902-4b2c-9f5b-af7209b1a61c
That's where toxicology meets cell biology. : )
Oh, I forgot: include pharmacology as another area of basic science where research on exogenous compounds is conducted.
"..and cited a Michigan State University professor emeritus of toxicology who concluded that “low-dose effects have not been proven, and therefore should not be applied to real-world conditions and human exposures.”"
Might I point out to this professor in his high office that cigarette smoking and cancer have never been proven either. There is such an overwhelming correlation between the two though that only someone as disingenuous as Karl Rove could dispute the connection. It might be interesting to know the provenance of this professor's research budget.
Considering the subject matter this article was well written and understandable for the lay person. Important consumer concerns remain primarily suppressed as we all fixate on concerns of the dominant state systems we live within. As consumers if we can all continue to shift to more sustainable, non-toxic and simple ways of life the better off we will all be. However I still believe that the toxic thought systems that are mainstream may not only contribute to the material toxicity that abounds but may be the cause. These warped mental ways of viewing others in relationship to self , even in low doses are still part of a little understood threat to humans and few seem aware or willing help clean it up.
Not only are the EPA, USDA, and FDA not looking after our health they are enabling the unhealth of the entire biosphere An urgent case is the continued permitting of the use of neonicotinoids made by Bayer. These are systemic insecticides that have been strongly tied to Honey Bee Colony Collapse Disorder. Like EDC's they work at very low dosages that may be undetectable. There is a study sponsored by USDA done at Penn State that indicates just that. It was done three years ago but hasn't been published. http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=4826 . The insecticide works on all invertebrates, is water soluble and persists for 20 years. Systemic means it is in all parts of the plant because they soak the seeds in it. When an insect eats any part of the plant including pollen or nectar or leafs or flowers it dies and the insecticide ends up wherever the insect does and when the plant dies the insecticide is released into the soil. The insecticide is not very toxic to vertebrates (its a patentable variant of nicotine) so it was initially considered benign. But without invertebrates to pollinate, or as a low rung on the food ladder for us and other vertebrates such as birds much of our food is endangered. There has been a documented decline in insectivorous birds since 2003. This stuff is potentially worse than DDT and it took 10 years and considerable public pressure after the publication of "Silent Spring" for DDT to be banned. Listen to this interview and then peruse the rest of the site. http://www.bouldercountybeekeepers.org/dr-henk-a-tennekes-the-catastrophic-effects-of-neonicotinoids-on-insects-and-birds/ . Its banning is being considered by the EPA now, but they want to hem and haw about further public comment and study which will allow its use for another season at least. It is banned in Germany, France, Austria and other countries in Europe with a resulting easing of Colony Collapse Disorder. Not completely because it is a persistent chemical. Use the Boulder County Beekeepers Assoc. site for further info and action.