Environmental toxins possible link to our children's issues? Really?

[Guest guest]

I wrote about environmental toxins and our rising group of kids (and adults) in

2003...read http://www.cherab.org/news/Save.html and then read the following

article and you'll see what I mean. I have spoken to the EPA about the toxins

near my home in Jersey and the rise in apraxia a " used to be " rare disorder. I

have books sent to me by the US Department of Education for over a ten year

period to look at numbers which I've shared here and for sure it's hard to get a

clear number for apraxia because unlike autism our apraxic children are

classified as " learning disabled " or something that means the same thing or

under the classificiation for " speech " or " speech and language " or

" communication " a few fall into some of the other classifications but more an

more frequently " autism " (I know ironic huh)I'll have to write about that too.

Actually speaking of the awesome Sallie Bernard -last we spoke a few months ago

she encouraged me to write such an article about the rise in autism and how many

of the children today fall into the autistic " like " diagnosis -but how without

appropriate diagnosis and therapies the apraxic children will remain voiceless.

And that includes those apraxic children both with and the without autism as

well.

I'm just happy to stay one step ahead of the crowd to help my children and share

what works with all of you...and BTW...speaking of LDs as the writer Donna

refers to apraxia below...Tanner just told me today that even though he didn't

get his report card yet he got notice that his grades are ALL As AND Bs!!!!!

(He was always a good student but he'd get Cs too and we don't know yet -he may

even be close to or all As!!!) GO NUTRIIVEDA (like fish oils another secret

weapon against environmental toxins perhaps???)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Environmental toxins and learning disorders

Monday, February 1, 2010

BY DONNA NITZBERG

At a recent family party, a friend asked me to introduce her to another friend

about whom I had spoken in the past. I had mentioned that they both have sons

with similar learning disabilities and she wanted to meet this other friend and

compare notes. Strangely, it took me a moment to figure out who she was talking

about. That’s because � " it suddenly occurred to me � " almost half of the

20 or so families at our happy gathering included a son (yep, they were all

boys) with a serious neurological issue. In fact, eight out of 38 children at

the party, or about 21 percent of my contemporaries’ children have a learning

disorder (LD), defined by the Learning Disorder Association (LDA) of America as

" a neurological disorder that affects one or more of the basic psychological

processes involved in understanding or in using spoken or written language. The

disability may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak,

read, write, spell or to do mathematical calculations. "

This can’t be typical. Can it? It never used to be like this. Did it? Well, I

certainly don’t remember in my childhood that every other family had a kid who

had serious problems with their schoolwork. Which seems to indicate that the

incidence of learning disorders like ADHD, autism, auditory and various central

processing disorders, dyslexia and apraxia, have skyrocketed in recent years.

And, if that’s true, why is this happening?

The numbers

So I did some research. There are many different figures reported in the media,

ranging from 5 percent of all school-aged children in public schools to as many

as 20 percent of adopted children. And boys are three times as likely to have

learning disorders than girls.

A word of caution. Numerous factors muddy these numbers, including:

*There are a lot of different learning disorders, and figures for some � " like

autism and ADHD � " - are more available than others;

*Many kids are dealing with more than one problem at the same time, so you

can’t just add the figures from each individual disorder;

*There’s a tendency to over-diagnose learning issues today in an effort to

increase test scores and thus school funding in this era of No Child Left

Behind;

*There was a tendency to under-diagnose learning disorders in past years, when

many were left to struggle through school without help;

*Local school districts � " well, our New Jersey district anyway � " are so

good at providing effective special education that families with kids who need

extra help in school flock here from other parts of the country with less strong

special education programs, thus inflating the local numbers.

*Despite uncertainty about statistics, many experts believe learning disorders

are becoming more prevalent. Indeed, in 2008 a group of concerned scientists

issued a statement saying that: " in general, disabilities (including disorders

of learning, attention, emotional state and behavior) have increased

significantly over the past four decades. "

(http://www.healthandenvironment.org/working_groups/learning/r/consensus)

*Furthermore, in December, the CDC published a report that said that the rate of

one such learning disorder-associated disability � " autism � " increased by

58 percent in the past three years, to about 1 percent of all children.

Which leads us to the $64,000 question: what is causing all this seemingly extra

brain damage? Again, nothing is straightforward here. The possible causes of

each child’s particular learning disorder are vast and complicated. They have

been attributed to everything from infectious diseases to poor nutrition to

genetics or a combination of these types of problems. But a growing number of

people believe that a major cause of the uptick in neurological problems in

children involves the ever-increasing amounts of toxic chemicals in the

environment � " the very same types of agents that are suspected of causing

increases in the rates of cancers and other physical ailments.

" We now have scientific evidence that a variety of environmental agents can

adversely affect the nervous system " …. reads the scientific consensus

statement from 2008. " The proportion of environmentally induced LDs is a

question of profound … significance. Existing … data suggest that a greater

proportion is environmentally influenced than has yet been generally realized or

than can be demonstrated with scientific certainty. "

In other words, an aggregate of chemicals in the environment are likely leaching

into our children’s bodies � " both before and after birth � " and could be

wreaking havoc with their brains.

Chemical compounds

Since World War II, over 80,000 chemical compounds have either been developed or

used as industrial additives (such as lead and mercury, which are found in

nature but used in manufacturing). More than 3,000 of these chemicals are

currently being produced in huge amounts (more than a million pounds a year),

according to Mount Sinai Medical Center’s Children’s Environmental Health

Center. In total, they say, about 2.5 billion pounds of industrial chemicals are

released into the American environment each year. Evidence of many of them can

be found in pretty much every American, including the newest babies. In

addition, traces of these chemicals are apparent in almost all American breast

milk.

So industrial chemical compounds are ubiquitous. And many, known as PBTs or

persistent bio-accumulative toxins, tend not to break down and thus accumulate

over time in the environment and in people, according to Maureen Swanson, the

coordinator of the Learning Disabilities of America’s Healthy Children

Project, which investigates and highlights the relationship between toxic

chemicals and brain damage.

At the same time, most of these chemicals have not been thoroughly vetted for

toxicity in children. Now, to be fair, that’s a difficult thing to do. You

can’t actually dose kids with chemicals to see what happens.

There has been some research on animals and even investigations into adult

tolerances, especially when people are accidentally exposed to some of these

compounds. Overall, though, only about 20 percent or so of common industrial

chemical compounds have been investigated for safety. Swanson argues that the

main regulation governing toxic chemicals, the Toxic Substances Control Act

passed in 1976, is not effective. " Basically it requires the government to prove

a chemical is dangerous or harmful to health after it is already in the market

and after people are already exposed to it, " she says, adding that the " burden

of proof is extremely high. The EPA has only banned or limited the use of five

chemicals. Out of thousands. People think we have a safety net, but we do not. "

http://www.northjersey.com/news/83226217_Environmental_toxins_and_learning_disor\

ders.html?page=all

=====