Guest guest Posted November 19, 1999 Report Share Posted November 19, 1999 >The Threat Beyond Cancer: Our Stolen Future > >One of the most compelling cases for caution--precaution--with regard to >chemicals in the environment can be found in Theo Colborn, Dianne >Dumanoski and Meyers's, " Our Stolen Future: Are We >Threatening Our Fertility, Intelligence and Survival? A Scientific >Detective Story. " Their work focuses not on cancer but on new discoveries >about " endocrine-disrupting " features of chemicals like DDT, PCBs and the >family of dioxins. By disrupting the carefully regulated system of >hormones dispersed through the bloodstream, these chemicals induce lower >sperm counts, hormone related cancers, birth defects and can upset normal >developmental processes. With scientists so locked into thinking about > " cancer-causing " toxins, these hormone-disruptive effects went largely >unnoticed prior to the book's publication in 1996 and updating in 1997. > >Though they can be found in water and air, many of these chemicals >originate in plastics. In 1987-89, doctors Ana Soto and >Sonnenschein were conducting research on the effects of estrogen on breast >cancer cells. They kept samples in test tubes and would observe the >changes induced by applying estrogen. But they began to notice strange >proliferations in groups of cells that had no estrogen applied to them. It >would take them almost a year to discover the cause: something was >leaching from the plastic caps on the test tubes and mimicking estrogen. >To confirm their finding, they injected material from the plastic into >rats. In tests with female rats that had no ovaries, they found that >p-nonylphenol would cause the lining of the uterus to proliferate as if >the rats had been given estrogen. > >In 1993, a team from Stanford University School of Medicine reported >discovering estrogenic effects of the bisphenol-A found in polycarbonate >manufactured by the GE Plastics Company. But GE could not detect the >chemical in samples sent by the Stanford lab--samples that were causing >proliferation in estrogen-responsive breast cancer cells. GE, it turned >out, could not detect the chemical below limits of ten parts per billion. >The amount needed to prompt an estrogenic response, the Stanford team >found, was two to five parts per billion. In other words, the whole >concept of a threshold exposure to these chemicals is irrelevant: the >issue becomes exposure at any level, not beyond a certain level. > >Colborn et al show how ubiquitous these chemicals are--plastic coating is >inserted in 85% of food cans in the United States, ironically to prevent >contamination of the food by the metal. One study of twenty brands of >canned foods in the U.S. and Spain found bisphenol-A in half of them--the >same chemical that Stanford researchers discovered mimicked estrogen. The >food in the cans had stunningly high levels of the chemical, eighty parts >per billion, or twenty-seven times the amount the Stanford team discovered >was necessary to make breast cancer cells proliferate. > >Colborn et al are clear about what to do next: > > " Deciding on a wise course involves a host of considerations and, most of >all, value judgements. It is not just a question of science describing the >problem but also of how we see the risks and how much risk we are willing >to entertain. Consider the convenience that endocrine-disrupting plastics >bring to human lives against the risks they entail. If all that is at >stake is the survival of a single gull colony, it may be wise to wait for >further scientific study before embarking on an effort to reduce exposure. >If, on the other hand, it is a question of decreasing human sperm counts, >prudence may dictate acting immediately rather than waiting to see if the >downward trend continues. > > " Phasing out hormone-disrupting chemicals should be just the first step, >in our view. We must then move to slow down the larger experiment with >synthetic chemicals. This means first curtailing the introduction of >thousands of new synthetic chemicals each year. It also means reducing the >use of pesticides, for these compounds are biologically active by design, >and billions of pounds are deliberately released into the environment each >year. " > >These principles guide a series of specific steps: > >1. Shift the burden of proof to chemical manufacturers; >2. Emphasize prevention of exposure; >3. Set standards that protect the most vulnerable, namely children and the >unborn; >4. Consider the interactions among compounds, not just the effects of each >chemical individually; >5. Take into account cumulative exposure to air, water, food, and other >sources; >6. Amend trade-secrets laws to make it possible for people to protect >themselves against undesired exposure while preserving any real need for >confidentiality; >7. Require companies selling products-- especially food, but also consumer >goods and other potential sources of exposure--to monitor their products >for contamination; >8. Broaden the concept of the right-to-know law, the Toxic Release >Inventory; >9. Require notice and full disclosure when pesticides are used in settings >where the public might encounter them; >10. Reform health-data systems so they provide the information needed to >make sound and protective policies. > >These facts come from Theo Colborn et al, " Our Stolen Future: Are We >Threatening Our Fertility, Intelligence and Survival? A Scientific >Detective Story, " available at a discount at >http://www.commoncouragepress.com/stolenfuture.html > >NEXT WEEK: The CIA. >MONDAY (November 22): Noam Chomsky on Rethinking Camelot > >This is the free Political Literacy Course from Common Courage Press: A >backbone of facts to stand up to spineless power. > >Email 56, November 19 1999. Week 11: The New Math of Science + Corporate >Power > > Homepage: http://www.commoncouragepress.com > To subscribe (or unsubscribe) for free: http://www.commoncouragepress.com > Chatroom: http://www.cartserver.com/bbs/a/3827/index.cgi > Feedback/Title suggestions: mailto:gbates@... > >Missed any? > Course archive: http://www.commoncouragepress.com/politlitarchive.html > >YES! This course is partly advertising for books. But it's also intended >as political fertilizer: feel free to spread it around! > > >______________________________________________________________________ >To unsubscribe, write to PolitLit-unsubscribe@... > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.