I Wish I Were Far From the Madding Crowd

June 27, 2010

More on the oil spill and the dispersants

Richard Denison of the Environmental Defense Fund has been blogging about the oil spill dispersants being used on the BP oil spill.

Most concerning is the fact that EPA data show dispersants plus oil are more toxic than either alone.

Meanwhile, the Society of Environmental Journalists Daily Glob blog reported on June 25 that “Spill-Related Measures Advance in Congress”.

NOAA

NOAA Response – Provides a wide variety of information about the Deepwater Horizon Incident, including trajectory maps and links to such sources as IncidentNews (http://www.incidentnews.gov/), which provides information from NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration (OR&R) about the BP oil spill and other incidents.

GeoPlatform.gov/gulfresponse (http://www.geoplatform.gov/gulfresponse/) is a new online tool that provides you with near-real time information about the response effort.  Developed by NOAA with the EPA, U.S. Coast Guard, and the Department of Interior, the site offers you a “one-stop shop” for spill response information.

The site integrates the latest data the federal responders have about the oil spill’s trajectory with fishery area closures, wildlife data and place-based Gulf Coast resources — such as pinpointed locations of oiled shoreline and current positions of deployed research ships — into one customizable interactive map.

Other mapping sites the Daily Glob links to include:

Tired of being a guinea pig?

Toxic chemicals are everywhere

There are ten of thousands of chemicals in your life, some of which can be harmful.

We are all exposed

Many toxic chemicals are found in the bodies of virtually every person on the planet, even those living in remote communities. In fact, the blood of nearly every American contains hundreds of chemicals, including those used in flame retardants, food packaging and even rocket fuel.

I Am Not a Guinea Pig is a new online campaign created by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) that provides tools and information Americans from all walks of life can use to press for fundamental reform of our nation’s toxic chemical law, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  (EDF press release)

The “I Am Not a Guinea Pig” campaign is aimed at helping to ensure that the voices of millions of Americans who are concerned about and affected by exposures to untested and unsafe chemicals are heard as Congress begins the first serious effort to overhaul the 34-year-old TSCA.

The campaign will use a variety of social media, including a website, a Facebook page with daily updates, and a #NAGP Twitter hashtag.  It supports the efforts of the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition to enact an effective chemical safety law.

The campaign’s goal is to engage Americans across the country to push for substantive reform of our toxic chemicals law.

To encourage support for a strong bill, EDF has joined with other members of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, a coalition that EDF helped found that includes over 200 health and environmental groups representing 11 million people across the nation. Key coalition partners in EDF’s campaign include:

The “I Am Not a Guinea Pig” website describes how we’re all exposed to toxic chemicals.  It includes a short video on “Chemicals in Your Home” and other videos on exposure to toxic chemicals.

The site notes that some groups are especially at risk

Teens and Toxic Chemicals in Products

Many teens don’t realize products they use every day may contain chemicals that can disrupt their still-developing biochemistry.

Kids & Chemicals: Developing Brains At Risk

Exposure to toxic chemicals in the womb, during infancy and childhood can result in lifelong problems with learning, behavior and development.

Health Professionals and Toxic Chemicals

Health care institutions regularly use a surprising number of highly toxic materials that can affect the health of doctors, nurses and other hospital staff.

March 28, 2010

Risk factors for breast cancer – Missing one of the major ones?

Up to a third of breast cancers could be avoided (Yahoo! News)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100325/ap_on_he_me/eu_med_avoiding_breast_cancer

European breast cancer conference in Barcelona. Carlo La Vecchia cited figures from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (website).  I couldn’t find the precise source for the figures, but perhaps they came from “Estimates of cancer incidence and mortality in Europe in 2008” (abstract only).

Conference website – http://www.ecco-org.eu/Conferences-and-Events/EBCC-7/page.aspx/840

Abstracts – http://www.ecco-org.eu/Conferences-and-Events/EBCC-7/Abstracts-online/page.aspx/2177

Or go directly to http://ex2.excerptamedica.com/ciw-10ebcc/

Type in “cancer” in the search field.  You should get 655 abstracts.

The focus of the conference was clearly on diagnosis and treatment with little to no discussion of environmental factors.  Certainly screening, diagnosis, and treatment are critical, but shouldn’t we try to prevent as much as we can?

More from the Yahoo story

Dr. Michelle Holmes of Harvard University, who has studied cancer and lifestyle factors, said people might wrongly think their chances of getting cancer depend more on their genes than their lifestyle.

“The genes have been there for thousands of years, but if cancer rates are changing in a lifetime, that doesn’t have much to do with genes,” she told The Associated Press in a phone interview from Cambridge, Mass.

Could perhaps increasing exposure to substances in the environment change rates in a lifetime?  That doesn’t have much to do with genes either.  Though if you’re being exposed to chemicals that interfered with how your genes were turned on and off before you were born, or are interfering with that now, perhaps it does.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women. In Europe, there were about 421,000 new cases and nearly 90,000 deaths in 2008, the latest available figures. The United States last year saw more than 190,000 new cases and 40,000 deaths.

Tara Beaumont, a clinical nurse specialist at Breast Cancer Care, a British charity, noted that three of the major risk factors for breast cancer — gender, age and family history — are clearly beyond anyone’s control.

What about environmental exposure to chemicals?

IARC, on its World Cancer Day page, notes that it has an active program in the identification of carcinogenic risks. The IARC Monographs identify environmental factors—including chemicals, complex mixtures, occupational exposures, physical and biological agents, and lifestyle factors—that can increase the risk of human cancer.

In other words, there are several other environmental factors besides lifestyle that have been identified.  See the articles below for examples of how environmental factors could be contributing to breast cancer.

While the advice to eat less and exercise more is good (in fact, given that no one really has much direct control over environmental exposures that advice is probably even more important), I find it disturbing that the major risk factors cited in news stories seem to be reduced to diet, lifestyle, gender, age, and family history (that is, genetics), leaving environment out of the picture.

Why is that?  Because it’s easier to blame cancer victims than to confront companies and industries that sell us products that release substances that can mess with our health and who continue to release carcinogens and endocrine disruptors into our air and water?  (I’ll refer you again to the TEDX site, “Prenatal Origins of Cancer” for more information on that.)

Another perspective

In a post “do patients need doctor navigators to use the internet?”, David Collins discusses a March 25 New England Journal of Medicine opinion piece titled “Untangling the Web — Patients, Doctors, and the Internet” in which the authors “expressed a lot of concerns about how the internet is putting patients in touch with a lot of questionable information about disease” and about how they thought that changes the doctor-patient relationship in an adverse way.  (While they do raise some good points about the quality of some of the information on the Internet, I tend to agree with Collins.)

The reason I’m citing that here is the following statement from his post:

When I joined cancer public health in the ’70s the medical community almost universally rejected the idea that food and nutrition had anything to do with the prevention of cancer. People who talked about a relation between nutrition and cancer were sneered at and called the “fruits and nuts” crowd. Thirty-five years later as I approached retirement I had to chuckle inwardly many times about the current enthusiasm for the view that diet and nutrition are key to the prevention of much cancer. These days ya gotta eat your greens and grains!

So even the experts can change their minds….

Finally, it seems that environmental factors only really get attention when there are clusters of rare cancers.

Democratic Senators Eye New EPA Role Investigating Local Cancer Clusters

Environmental Policy Alert – March 24, 2010

From InsideEPA.com’s Environmental NewsStand (pay-per-view news)

Note: The site has a one-time offer of three free articles or documents by creating a new account today.

Senate environment committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) are working on legislation that would give EPA and the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) a major new role helping local health agencies investigate and address cancer clusters and communicate risks to local residents.

Press release from Sen. Bill Nelson on legislation

Nelson plans to preview testimony he’s been invited to give at next Wednesday’s hearing (my blog post on the March 17 hearing), which aims to find ways to strengthen the federal government’s hand in investigating cancer clusters, like the Acreage.

Recent Acreage blog post on Nelson’s efforts

Right now the federal Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) and Department of Health and Human Services ( HHS ) usually don’t get involved absent a request from a state.
“This effort is aimed at finding ways to bring in more federal resources more rapidly to help protect people, especially little children,” said Nelson, who’s also expected on Friday to announce he’s partnering with U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer on new legislation to do the same.
Sen. Nelson’s testimony at Senate committee hearing on EPA and children’s environmental health

March 2, 2010

Endocrine Disruption Prevention Act of 2009

Important legislation authorizing the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to conduct a research program on endocrine disruption was introduced in the 111th Congress this past December.

Title: A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to authorize the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to conduct a research program on endocrine disruption, to prevent and reduce the production of, and exposure to, chemicals that can undermine the development of children before they are born and cause lifelong impairment to their health and function, and for other purposes.

Both versions of the bill were introduced on Dec. 3, 2009, and were referred to committees in their respective chambers.

The bill has been endorsed by The Endocrine Society and the American Medical Association.

Here’s a bill status widget from OpenCongress.org:

S.2828 Feed-icon-10x10

Endocrine Disruption Prevention Act of 2009

  • Introduced: December 02, 2009
  • Status: Introduced
  • Next step: Senate Passes
  • Latest action: Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S12324)
  • Sponsor: Sen. John Kerry [D, MA]
Powered by OpenCongress

Blog at WordPress.com.