1. US pollutants killing the Inuit in Arctic.
The US has released pollutants and toxins into our environment and these poisons were carried north by sea currents and weather patterns, contaminating sea animals eaten by the Inuit and water they drink. Researchers have documented for the first time that "unacceptable levels" of environmental toxins are in the bodies of some of the Inuit. The level of contamination in the animals and in mothers' breast milk is exponentially higher than that level deemed to be hazardous waste when found in soil. Now, the Inuit are suffering deaths and illnesses from contamination and their culture -- which is interconnected with their environment -- is being lost due to environmental degradation.
2. Our bodies are contaminated by chemicals and pesticides that pollute our air, water, food and land.
Please meet Patricia, Denis and Deb. They were part of a group from Washington state who volunteered blood, urine and hair samples to be tested for eight classes of chemicals. They are not "walking toxic waste dumps," but the level of pesticides and chemicals in their bodies "were high enough to make both scientists and subjects sit up and take notice."
"Dr. Patricia Dawson, 56, a Seattle surgeon, had the dubious honor of having 38 chemicals detected in her chemical profile. Her PBDE levels were near those found to cause reproductive problems in laboratory animals. Her levels of DDT (banned since 1972) were greater than 90 percent of the U.S. population.
Denis Hayes, president of the Bullitt Foundation and a founder of Earth Day, was found to have mercury above a level deemed safe by the Environmental Protection Agency. Mercury has the potential for causing learning deficits.
Deb Abrahamson, 51, a Native American living on the Spokane Indian Reservation, and the Rev. Ann Holmes Redding, 54, of Seattle, were found to have very high levels of pesticides."
3. In 2005, the World Bank issued a report that linked cancers to environmental conditions.
"For almost all forms of cancer, the risk of contracting this disease can be reduced if physical environments are safe for human habitation and food items are safe for consumption."
4. Our government does not know what constitutes a "safe" level of pollutant.
How many times how we heard our government or a corporation say, "hey, don't worry about this particular pollutant that you are drinking, eating or breathing because it's usage is at a safe level?"
Our government operates under the assumption that any pollutant has a safe level which may be discharged into our environment for ultimate consumption by us. But, only 25% of the chemicals used in the US have ever been tested for toxicity. That means 75% of the chemicals are released into our environment and homes without any testing for toxicity.
In short, we are the guinea pigs who ultimately determine what constitutes a safe level of exposure. After a sufficient number of illnesses or deaths have been proved to be caused by a particular chemical or pesticide, then our government may take it off the market.
5. There are few studies which address what damage is caused by "chronic low-level exposure to the pollutants."
Our government permits a specified quantity of a particular chemical to be released into our environment under the assumption that the particular chemical is not harmful unless we are exposed to a higher dosage. This ignores the fact that chronic exposure to low levels of pollutants can be just as harmful as a one-time exposure to the same pollutant at a higher dosage. One study suggested that "day-to-day exposure to relatively low levels of pollution can cause permanent damage."
6. What are the side-effects of mixing chemicals, pesticides and pollutants in our bodies?
Even if we tested pollutants before releasing into our air, water, food and land, what about testing for the side effects and harms of mixing the pollutants together? Doctors often warn us to not mix certain prescriptions together because one drug may be safe, but when combined with another drug a harmful result may occur. What about the different permutations of all the chemicals, pesticides and pollutants in our bodies?
The deadly impact of mixing pollutants became an issue with the pet food recall when the chemical melamine was found to be the contaminant that killed cats and dogs. Melamine was also found in the human food chain, but we were told not to worry because melamine is not supposed to be a "highly toxic" chemical. Interesting, but melamine's interaction with other chemicals inside the food can make it a killer agent.
Melamine's effects on humans, if ingested, is unclear. In fact, the chemical has not been found in earlier tests to be highly toxic, a fact that has scientists looking for second chemical agent that could be increasing its toxicity.
It was reported that a second chemical -- cyanuric acid (which is used in US as disinfectant in swimming pools) -- may have been added to animal feed to artificially increase the protein testing of the feed.
Scientists said that the use of cyanuric acid "may provide clues as to why the pet food in the United States became so poisonous." The assumption is that melamine and cyanuric acid are not "particularly toxic." One explanation for the deaths may be the toxic effect of mixing presumably not-so-toxic chemicals together:
Now, however, scientists studying the pet food deaths say the combination of the two chemicals, mixed together with perhaps some other related compounds, may have created a toxic punch that formed crystals in the kidneys of pets and led to kidney failure."
The reason that scientists in the pet food recall are working backwards to find out the cause of death of the animals is that few studies have been done to determine the negative interactions of chemicals by mixing chemicals together. For example, the California Dept. of Health Services has a program called Occupational Health Branch (OHB) to improve worker health and safety. The purpose of OHB is to prevent injury and illness on the job by identifying and evaluating workplace hazards as well as training and education.
One educational booklet addresses hazardous substances used in workplaces to educate workers about the health effects of chemicals which they use or may be exposed to at work.
This booklet explains toxicity and how some harmful toxic effects may be visible while others can only be determined by a test:
The toxicity of a substance is its ability to cause harmful effects. These effects can strike a single cell, a group of cells, an organ system, or the entire body. A toxic effect may be visible damage, or a decrease in performance or function measureable only by a test. All chemicals can cause harm. When only a very large amount of the chemical can cause damage, the chemical is considered to be relatively non-toxic. When a small amount can be harmful, the chemical is considered toxic.
The booklet also warns workers that if they are exposed to more than one chemical, then they should be aware of the possible reactions and interactions between the chemicals:
"A reaction occurs when chemicals combine with each other to produce a new substance. The new substance may have properties different from those of the original substances, and it could be more hazardous. For example, when household bleach and lye (such as a drain cleaner) are mixed together, highly dangerous chlorine gas and hydrochloric acid are formed."
There are two kinds of interactions which make "safe" levels of chemicals more harmful:
"An interaction occurs when exposure to more than one substance results in a health effect different from the effects of either one alone. One kind of interaction is called synergism, a process in which two or more chemicals produce an effect that is greater than the sum of their individual effects. For instance, carbon tetrachloride and ethanol (drinking alcohol) are both toxic to the liver. If you are overexposed to carbon tetrachloride and drink alcohol excessively, the damage to your liver may be much greater than the effects of the two chemicals added together.
Another interaction is potentiation, which occurs when an effect of one substance is increased by exposure to a second substance which would not cause that effect by itself. For example, although acetone does not damage the liver by itself, it can increase carbon tetrachloride's ability to damage the liver."
Here's the kicker:
"Unfortunately, few chemicals have been tested to determine if interactions with other chemicals occur."
The failure to conduct studies on the mixing of chemicals is made worse by the fact that a chemical may have a latency period of years, even 4 decades, before the toxic effect occurs. This booklet explains:
"The delay between the beginning of exposure and the appearance of disease caused by that exposure is called the latency period. Some chronic effects caused by chemicals, such as cancer, have very long latency periods. Cancer has been known to develop as long as 40 years after a worker's first exposure to a cancer-causing chemical.
The length of the latency period for chronic effects makes it difficult to establish the cause-and-effect relationship between the exposure and the illness. Since chronic diseases develop gradually, you may have the disease for some time before it is detected. It is, therefore, important for you and your physician to know what chronic effects might be caused by the substances you use on the job.
There are a few substances, such as asbestos fibers, that, once deposited, remain in the body forever."
Time for a little recap of this cycle of death. Companies create chemicals and the EPA permits the chemicals to be released into our land, water, air and food without first testing the toxicity of 75% of the chemicals, yet our government says any contamination is at a "safe level." We don't know much about the harmful effects from chronic low-level exposures. We don't know much about the harmful effects of chemicals mixing and interacting within our bodies. However, we do know that the latency period may be so many years that it will be difficult for us to prove that a company or our government is responsible for our illness or death.
This is just backwards. Companies should have to prove that their pollutants are safe before they are released into our air, water, homes and offices.
Permalink | 27 comments