Routine Chemical Exposure is Slowly Killing Us
Posted by: Frank Carini
in Environment
on March 10, 2010
Everyday people — even Joe the Plumber — are regularly exposed to 200-plus chemicals. They're percolating in our bodies, and likely compromising our health.
The acronyms DDT, PCB, PVC, PBDE and BPA are the foundations of a toxic alphabet soup that is boiling in our waterways and collecting in our tissue.
Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1974 to protect public health by regulating the nation's public drinking water and its sources — rivers, lakes, reservoirs, springs and groundwater wells. It regulates 91 contaminants, yet more than 60,000 chemicals are used in the United States, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
In fact, more than 80,000 new chemicals have been developed since World War II, but fewer than 20 percent have been tested for toxicity to children, according to the Children's Environmental Health Center at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York.
We make it a routine practice to release large amounts of chemicals into the environment or add hard-to-pronounce synthesized substances to our food without first fully understanding their effects on ecology or human health, and usually without strenuous testing
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has released its latest assessment of the chemicals we're carrying around in our bodies. The results are sickening.
Studying the blood and urine of 8,000 Americans, the CDC determined 212 chemicals likely would be found in your body.
Unfortunately, the CDC's comprehensive testing regimen accounts for less than 1 percent of the chemicals most Americans are exposed to regularly. The EPA identifies at least 6,000 chemicals that we are exposed to routinely.
The CDC highlighted several chemicals found in its most-recent study because they are both widespread — found in all or most of the 8,000 people tested — and potentially harmful.
Polybrominated diphenyl ethers. Better known as "flame retardants," PBDEs are used widely in a variety of items — from foam furniture to electronics to children's pajamas — to reduce fire risk. They also accumulate in human fat, and some studies suggest they may harm the liver and kidneys.
The safety of PBDEs has been questioned since the 1990s, yet most states, including Rhode Island, haven't banned the sale of products containing these dangerous compounds.
Rainer Lohmann, a University of Rhode Island professor, is studying the concentration of PBDEs in the Narragansett Bay watershed.
"There's no reason why certain chemicals are still being used today," he said. "The compounds in flame-retardants can potentially mess up hormonal systems. Fertility rates are down across most industrialized countries and there is a link to compounds of widespread use."
Brown University professor Phil Brown is conducting research related to flame-retardant chemicals, specially a study of social responses to environmental contaminants.
Bisphenol A. BPA, a hormone-disrupting chemical considered to be potentially harmful to human health and the environment, was found in more than 90 percent of those tested. It can be found in many plastics, including those used to make baby bottles, pacifiers, water bottles and sippy cups.
The chemical has been suspected of being hazardous to humans since the 1930s.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, however, ruled more than a year ago that the chemical is safe for all uses. To come to that conclusion, the federal agency relied on two studies funded by BPA manufacturers.
Perfluorooctanoic acid. PFOA and other perfluorinated chemicals are synthetic and do not occur naturally in the environment. However, they are indefinitely persistent in nature, and are a toxicant and carcinogen in animals.
They often are used to create heat-resistant and non-stick coatings on cookware, and are used in stain-resistant clothing. Studies have linked these chemicals to a range of health problems, including infertility in women, and to liver, immune system, and developmental and reproductive problems in lab animals.
Now that these chemicals have been widely introduced into the environment, scientists are looking to see if micro-amounts of these compounds and others that humans are exposed to will stay in our bodies, or have lasting effects.
One of the chemical compounds they are watching closely are phthalates, which are used to soften plastics and have been linked in some studies to reproductive problems. They're found in toys, shower curtains, flooring and medical equipment.
A recent study in the journal Toxicology also has shown that at low levels, which currently allowed it to be sprayed on our crops, the weed killer Roundup could cause DNA damage, endocrine disruption and cell death. The study, conducted by French researchers, also shows glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic to human reproductive cells.
Glyphosate, mostly in the form of Roundup products manufactured by the Missouri-based Monsanto Co. — one of the largest producers of Agent Orange — has been widely used in the United States since the 1970s. Today, we annually spray more than 100 million pounds on our yards, gardens and farms.
Monsanto officials, however, continue to assure us Roundup is safe. "It's used to protect schools," a Monsanto spokesman told Scientific American. From the vicious Venus flytrap in "The Little Shop of Horrors" no doubt.
A Monsanto spokeswoman said the French report used inaccurate methodology. "It is inaccurate and misleading in its assessment of biotech herbicide tolerant traits, as it fails to acknowledge several key benefits that U.S. farmers and citizens have derived from using the technology," she told reporters.
The company has the U.S. government and plenty of backyard gardeners and farmers fooled that the chemicals it's designed to kill cells only harm poison ivy and other dastardly weeds and are harmless to Kentucky bluegrass, wildlife and our health.
Frank Carini is the executive director of ecoRI.org, a nonprofit organization devoted to covering Rhode Island environmental news.









You need to be careful of looking at only nebulous threats, and forgetting the benefits. How many people could we feed if roundup ready grains were adopted worldwide?