.gif "IP Gear")
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2008
- Messages
- 410
Anyone catch the Colbert Report on Endocrine disruption? Talked about how the hormones, estrogen mostly, is seeping into our systems. They(ED) are found in pestacides, soft plastics & drinking water. The estrogen(birth control) is not being fully absorbed & stays in the urine. The water treatment plants fail to remove the hormones & they make their way into the water we use daily. 100% of the small mouth bass(males), in the Patomic river have started producing eggs. 25% of American women have levels high enough that its causing gental birth defects in their offspring. I imagine it would contributeto the trigger onset of early puberty also. The author had a story in the NY times. Scary stuff. Found an article.
"My Sunday column is unusual and has been in gestation for a couple of months, and frankly the research has been scary. We don’t know for sure that these chemicals are harmful, but the evidence is mounting. I only wish I had more space than the 750 words that the column allows.
I became interested in the issue when I saw Hedrick Smith’s Frontline special, “Poisoned Waters,” in April. I had vaguely known about amphibian and fish deformities, but that made me dig deeper — and it was like pulling at a ball of string.
This is a difficult kind of journalism to pull off successfully, and let me know if you think I blew it. On the one hand, we should call public attention to a potential public health hazard so that threats can be addressed. On the other hand, we have to acknowledge the uncertainties and avoid hysteria. The balance is particularly difficult with endocrine disruptors because the science is so complex (the causal pathways are particularly murky). One of the crucial questions is whether the effective of different chemicals is additive, so that low levels of particular substances — each harmless in and of itself — collectively create a threat, perhaps in conjunction with some genetic susceptibility. If it is additive, then studies based on exposure to a particular chemical are less reassuring.
In addition, the chemicals often interact with other elements in the environment. Perhaps the leading theory on the frog deformities today is that agricultural chemicals weaken their immune system, and then parasites actually trigger the deformities. But hermaphroditism in amphibians seems to be caused by chemicals alone.
Then there are measurement questions. There appears to be more hypospadia now, and more cases of undescended testicles, but is just that doctors are more meticulous about recording cases? It’s hard to be 100 percent certain. Likewise, some studies show declining sperm count, but some don’t. I used “up to 7 percent” for undescended testicles because a new Cambridge University study found 7 percent, up from 4 percent the last time it looked at the issue; more common figures are 4 to 5 percent. My figure of up to 1 percent for hypospadias comes from an article this year in Journal of Pediatric Urology, which estimated incidence at .3 to 1 percent of newborn boys.
Then there is the question of phthalates, used in plastics. They are significant endocrine disruptors to which we’re regularly exposed. I may come back to them in a later column.
For those interested in more information, there is an abundance of scholarly journal articles on these issues. The best single report I found was the 50-page scientific statement of the Endocrine Society, which was issued this month and systematically goes through the evidence on point after point. Unfortunately, the full report is hidden behind a wall, but the summary is here. In addition, The Endocrine Disruption Exchange offers lots of information. (UPDATE: Here’s a link to the Endocrine Society statement that isn’t behind a firewall.)
So what do we do? A starting point is much more rigorous research and very likely restrictions on chemicals used in pesticides. The EPA is moving ahead but needs more support. Still, all this may not be enough. Since human urine is a major source of estrogens in some areas, we may have to treat tap water to destroy hormones (this can be done but gets expensive). And we should be very careful of phthalates and other endocrine disrupting chemicals in the consumer products we use. I’m a novice in all this, though, so — particularly for you scientists and doctors who know these issues — I’d welcome your thoughts and suggestions."
"My Sunday column is unusual and has been in gestation for a couple of months, and frankly the research has been scary. We don’t know for sure that these chemicals are harmful, but the evidence is mounting. I only wish I had more space than the 750 words that the column allows.
I became interested in the issue when I saw Hedrick Smith’s Frontline special, “Poisoned Waters,” in April. I had vaguely known about amphibian and fish deformities, but that made me dig deeper — and it was like pulling at a ball of string.
This is a difficult kind of journalism to pull off successfully, and let me know if you think I blew it. On the one hand, we should call public attention to a potential public health hazard so that threats can be addressed. On the other hand, we have to acknowledge the uncertainties and avoid hysteria. The balance is particularly difficult with endocrine disruptors because the science is so complex (the causal pathways are particularly murky). One of the crucial questions is whether the effective of different chemicals is additive, so that low levels of particular substances — each harmless in and of itself — collectively create a threat, perhaps in conjunction with some genetic susceptibility. If it is additive, then studies based on exposure to a particular chemical are less reassuring.
In addition, the chemicals often interact with other elements in the environment. Perhaps the leading theory on the frog deformities today is that agricultural chemicals weaken their immune system, and then parasites actually trigger the deformities. But hermaphroditism in amphibians seems to be caused by chemicals alone.
Then there are measurement questions. There appears to be more hypospadia now, and more cases of undescended testicles, but is just that doctors are more meticulous about recording cases? It’s hard to be 100 percent certain. Likewise, some studies show declining sperm count, but some don’t. I used “up to 7 percent” for undescended testicles because a new Cambridge University study found 7 percent, up from 4 percent the last time it looked at the issue; more common figures are 4 to 5 percent. My figure of up to 1 percent for hypospadias comes from an article this year in Journal of Pediatric Urology, which estimated incidence at .3 to 1 percent of newborn boys.
Then there is the question of phthalates, used in plastics. They are significant endocrine disruptors to which we’re regularly exposed. I may come back to them in a later column.
For those interested in more information, there is an abundance of scholarly journal articles on these issues. The best single report I found was the 50-page scientific statement of the Endocrine Society, which was issued this month and systematically goes through the evidence on point after point. Unfortunately, the full report is hidden behind a wall, but the summary is here. In addition, The Endocrine Disruption Exchange offers lots of information. (UPDATE: Here’s a link to the Endocrine Society statement that isn’t behind a firewall.)
So what do we do? A starting point is much more rigorous research and very likely restrictions on chemicals used in pesticides. The EPA is moving ahead but needs more support. Still, all this may not be enough. Since human urine is a major source of estrogens in some areas, we may have to treat tap water to destroy hormones (this can be done but gets expensive). And we should be very careful of phthalates and other endocrine disrupting chemicals in the consumer products we use. I’m a novice in all this, though, so — particularly for you scientists and doctors who know these issues — I’d welcome your thoughts and suggestions."
Last edited:
