|
 |
|
Coordinated nationally by the Institute for Children's Environmental Health |
To join the Partnership for Children's Health and the Environment (PCHE) and receive this bulletin, please complete the form at http://www.partnersforchildren.org/members.html#member.
May 10, 2006
9:00 a.m. Alaska time (1:00 p.m. EDT)
Diabetes is a serious concern in Alaska and is prevalent throughout the state. On this Collaborative on Health and the Environment -- Alaska teleconference seminar, we will discuss the complex factors that contribute to Type I and Type II diabetes. Speakers will review the current scientific literature and examine the role of environmental contaminants such as PCBs and dioxins as contributing factors in the incidence of diabetes. Although risk factors commonly associated with diabetes include obesity and a sedentary lifestyle, the role of environmental exposures must be considered. Diabetes prevention programs have generally focused on education concerning diet and physical activity. The presenters will discuss why prevention measures must also address environmental exposures. Speakers include 1) Dr. Ted Schettler, Science and Environmental Health Network; 2) Dr. David Carpenter, Director, Institute for Health and the Environment, School of Public Health, State University of New York; and 3) Dr. Gary Ferguson, Complementary and Integrative Medical Services, Eastern Aleutian Tribes in Alaska. To join this call and receive dial-in information please RSVP to Lisa Norman at Alaska Community Action on Toxics as detailed below.
Contact: Lisa Norman, 222-7714 or info@akaction.net
May 24, 2006
8: 00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
Hartford, Connecticut
at the capitol building
The University of Massachusetts is sponsoring this workshop on children's environmental health, a statewide outreach program designed to educate nurses and other health professionals about existing environmental risks, problems and sources of exposures that may cause or exacerbate illness in children. The goal of the outreach program is to disseminate information on identifying sources of exposure, minimizing risk of exposure and accurately identifying environmental exposures related to disease states, and providing the tools (education material) necessary to educate the public in a meaningful way on existing and potential environmental risks and their affects on children's health. This full-day professional development workshop, which includes a continental breakfast and lunch, is provided at no cost through a grant from the United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Children's Health. This is a CEU program for nurses and health care providers and public/community health care professionals serving the pediatric population and the larger community.
May 29 - 31, 2006
Stockholm, Sweden
at the Stockholm City Conference Centre
The activities of healthcare facilities have a significant impact on the environment that contributes to the destruction of our natural ecosystems. And an unhealthy natural environment is a danger to human health. As healthcare professionals pledge an oath of "First, do no harm", allaspects of healthcare should be carried out in a way that is not damaging to public health and the environment. Forward-thinking healthcare systems must therefore be ecologically sustainable. CleanMed Europe will show you how to achieve this.
Website: http://www.cleanmed.org/europe/2006/home.html
Contact: cleanmedeurope@congrex.se
May 31 - June 3, 2006
Minneapolis, Minnesota
With the remarkable expansion of interest and investment in community-campus partnerships, the time is right to take a critical look at these partnerships in all of their iterations and ask (and answer) key questions about where we are now, where we are going and where we need to be. Community-Campus Partnerships for Health's 9th conference promises to address these questions and more as we create a vision for the future of community-campus partnerships as a strategy for social justice: How do we fully realize authentic partnerships between communities and higher educational institutions? How do we balance power and share resources among partners? How do we build community and campus capacity to engage each other as partners? How do we create healthier communities through partnerships? What are the barriers and challenges getting in our way? How do we overcome these, individually and collectively? How do we translate "principles" and "best practices" into widespread, expected practice?
Website: http://www.ccph.info
June 9 - 11, 2006
Baltimore, Maryland
Join with groups across America who are applying the precautionary approach to environmental hazards by shifting the focus to "how can we prevent harm?", instead of asking "what level of harm is acceptable?" This national event will bring together people working on conservation, disease prevention, environmental justice, environmental health, green purchasing, precautionary business practices, toxic and nuclear pollution prevention, worker safety and more to build a stronger movement to protect our health and environment. The conference will include sessions on 1) model policies and successful campaigns from Europe and U.S. national, state and local initiatives; 2) precautionary tools like safer alternatives assessments and full cost-accounting on pollution's hidden costs; 3) crafting effective messaging, countering the critics and building a broader movement for precaution; 4) collaborative opportunities, with sessions on water, land use and ecosystems, trade, energy, and a cross-fertilization session with groups working on children's health, environmental justice, health professionals, chemical, nuclear and pesticide reforms; and 5) skills trainings on organizing, campaign strategies, media outreach, partnering with tribes and more.
Website: http://www.besafenet.com/
Contact: Anne Rabe, CHEJ, 518-732-4538 or annerabe@msn.com
August 6 - 11, 2006
Madison, Wisconsin
at the Monona Terrace Community and Convention Center
This is an international forum for formal presentation and discussion of scientific advances concerning environmental mercury pollution. The conference organizing committee has set three principal goals for the conference: 1) to enhance the synthesis of information presented at the conference through an integration of focused plenary sessions, poster sessions, conferee discussions, and synthesis papers; 2) to focus and enhance the integration of science and policy concerning environmental mercury pollution; and 3) to increase participation by underrepresented groups, including graduate students, beginning professionals, and representatives of developing nations.
Please note that conference grants do not cover airfare. The deadline for submitting an application has been extended to May 12, 2006.
Website: http://www.mercury2006.org/Default.aspx?tabid=1435
Contact: conference organizing committee at info@mercury2006.org
by Dee DePass, Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune
May 6, 2006
http://www.startribune.com/535/story/414809.html
Juanna Graham tried to get her 1-year-old to lie down for a nap with her, but he quickly squirreled down from the mattress and tottered off to search again for his older brother. "He doesn't even want to take a nap. I guess he misses his brother," said Graham, her voice weary. "It's hard."
It's been more than two months since Graham lost her 4-year-old son, Jarnell Brown, to lead poisoning. He swallowed part of a Reebok charm bracelet made of lead that came tied to sneakers Graham bought for herself just weeks before on Lake Street in Minneapolis. Jarnell, who died Feb. 22, would have turned 5 tomorrow.
"I never thought he could get [it] off of the sneaker," Graham said. "There is a lot to say about a little guy who was here this short a time. He was so sweet. He touched so many people. I never want anyone else to go through this."
Jarnell's legacy is a renewed focus by regulators on the age-old threat posed by lead, including the recall of nearly 1 million lead products. Long banned from most commercial uses in this country, the metal remains commonplace in some of the millions of products made overseas each year for export to the United States.
"We are trying hard to get the word out that manufacturers, retailers and importers and distributors need to be in line with our compliance procedures for children's jewelry," CPSC spokeswoman Patty Davis said. Last year, federal regulators issued new guidelines for manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers, outlining that jewelry for children should have fewer than 600 parts per million of total lead, and less than 175 micrograms of "accessible" lead.
But there is no federal oversight to ensure jewelry is tested, and critics contend that recalls can come too late for some children. What's more, the problem extends beyond jewelry: Lead is turning up in some ceramic pots, imported vinyl lunch boxes, window blinds, flashlight lollipops and Mexican candies, among other products. "Who would know there was a risk?" asked Kathy Carlson, of the Minnesota Department of Health's childhood lead poisoning prevention program. "When I first started working here, I heard others discuss lead in kids' candy. I said, 'Yeah, right!' I thought they were kidding. Well, they were right."
Old uses, new threats
Even when samples of imported goods are inspected, investigators say there is no guarantee lead will always be identified. Product batches vary, said Lisa Smestad, the Minneapolis lead risk assessor who investigated Jarnell's poisoning. Carlson agreed, noting that some of the bindi dots worn on the foreheads of Indian women in Minnesota were found to have high lead levels, while others showed none. Some bracelet clasps and charms have shown high lead content, while the chain shows none. In others, the chain has lead, the charm doesn't.
Don Mays, Consumer Reports' senior director of product safety and consumer sciences, said lead can end up in imported products that previously had no safety blemish. "Every once in a while the manufacturer will switch components," he said. "Not long ago there was a recall on an [imported] crib because it was made from lead paint. My God, lead paint has been gone from cribs for 50 years. But here was a crib that got through."
The identity of the Chinese jewelry supplier associated with Jarnell's death has not been revealed by Reebok and federal officials. They have refused comment beyond saying the case remains under investigation. What's clear, however, is that lead -- dense, malleable and cheap -- remains in wide use in many countries, despite its known toxicity. Used as a stabilizer and strengthening agent in plastics, vinyls, ceramics and jewelry, lead is a mainstay in many overseas factories, some of which make products under contract to U.S. companies.
Death from lead poisoning remains highly unusual. However, high levels of lead in the blood can have wide-ranging consequences short of death, including brain damage, learning disabilities and behavioral problems.
In this country, a child is considered poisoned if he has more than 10 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood. In Minnesota, lead blood levels above 15 micrograms mandate a visit from lead risk assessors such as Smestad. Levels above 25 trigger recalls by the CPSC. Jarnell's level exceeded 100. "Most of the lead deaths I have heard about are over 150 micrograms, and that is because the child ingested it or inhaled it," Smestad said. "But anything over 70 I would be real concerned about."
Getting over 70 doesn't take much effort. Smestad placed a speck of lead paint on the ceramic green tile she recently found a baby sucking on. That single speck would have given the child a lead blood level over 10 micrograms, she said. Lead paint often peels off in potato-chip size patches.
In 2004, the Minnesota Department of Health reported that 1,513 children tested positive for lead poisoning. Of that group, 122 had levels higher than 20. "I can't imagine the pain of losing a child, especially when [Graham] did all that she could in taking him to the hospital, twice," Smestad said. "It's awful."
While most lead poisoning cases are traced to paint, other sources of contamination Smestad has identified include children's jewelry, ceramic tiles, pots and plates, key rings, plastic dinosaurs, even an old potato masher that had been donated to a refugee family. "The paint was peeling from the potato masher, and the paint was made of lead. You can see the child's teeth marks on the handle," she said.
One of the more alarming trends to surface lately is the presence of lead in a product that's meant to be eaten: candy. On March 31, the FDA recalled thousands of organic chocolate bars because they contained unusually high levels of lead. Dagoba Organic Chocolate of Ashland, Ore., recalled candies labeled Eclipse 87%, Los Rios 68%, and Prima Matera 100%, which were sold at organic and bulk food stores. California recently banned Mexican fruit pulp candies called Chaca Chaca for the same reason. The FDA recommends that lead levels in candy never exceed 0.1 parts per million.
High lead levels also have been found in tamarind lollipops, fruit rolls and other candies sold under the names Casa de Dulce, Juanita's, Payaso, Mojave and Bolirindo, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Smestad knows the candy problem well. "With the [Mexican] tamarind fruit candy, the workers get paid by the weight of the fruit they pick. And if they throw a ball of lead in their (bushels), they get paid more. But the lead then gets thrown into the hoppers along with the fruit, and it gets ground up with the fruit."
Lind Electronics in St. Louis Park, is offering to run $100 lead tests with its new X-ray Fluorescence lead analyzer for Minnesota retailers, importers and exporters who must be certain their products are lead free and don't want to continue relying on suppliers to avoid the problem. Lind bought the $65,000 laboratory machine after discovering that a supplier accidentally had used lead-based wires to make battery cables for Lind. European environmental standards that take effect July 1 prohibit lead-based wires, and Lind exports its DC adapters to Europe.
To ensure components stay lead-free, Lind purchased the machine. After reading about Jarnell's death, Lind sales vice president Dave Murphy and his peers decided to let other firms use the lead detection machine. "We would just like to make this available to others to get this [lead jewelry] off U.S. shelves. That was our original motivation. If a corporation wanted to have some systematic process in place to screen out lead products, we would be glad to be their resource."
Last month, Lind ran ads in trade magazines offering the lead testing. A charm bracelet would need three tests -- one for the clasp, one for the chain links and a third for any charms or pendants.
John Gilkeson, a toxicity reduction expert for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, said companies have no excuse not to test. "We've seen light-up popsicles and lollipops where there was lead in the little light ring. We were trying to get the manufacturer's attention that it is not acceptable," he said. "Frankly, we are very lucky this kind of thing [a child's death] doesn't happen very often. "The toxicology of lead poisoning is really simple, and there is nothing unique about this [Reebok bracelet] except the size of the charm, the size of his mouth and digestive tract," he said. "If he were older, it would have passed through him. That poor boy."
by Geoffrey Lean, London Independent
May 8, 2006
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article362557.ece
Invisible "smog", created by the electricity that powers our civilisation, is giving children cancer, causing miscarriages and suicides and making some people allergic to modern life, new scientific evidence reveals. The evidence -- which is being taken seriously by national and international bodies and authorities -- suggests that almost everyone is being exposed to a new form of pollution with countless sources in daily use in every home.
Two official Department of Health reports on the smog are to be presented to ministers next month, and the Health Protection Agency (HPA) has recently held the first meeting of an expert group charged with developing advice to the public on the threat. The UN's World Health Organisation (WHO) calls the electronic smog "one of the most common and fastest growing environmental influences" and stresses that it "takes seriously" concerns about the health effects. It adds that "everyone in the world" is exposed to it and that "levels will continue to increase as technology advances".
Wiring creates electrical fields, one component of the smog, even when nothing is turned on. And all electrical equipment -- from TVs to toasters -- give off another one, magnetic fields. The fields rapidly decrease with distance but appliances such as hair dryers and electric shavers, used close to the head, can give high exposures. Electric blankets and clock radios near to beds produce even higher doses because people are exposed to them for many hours while sleeping. Radio frequency fields -- yet another component -- are emitted by microwave ovens, TV and radio transmitters, mobile phone masts and phones themselves, also used close to the head.
The WHO says that the smog could interfere with the tiny natural electrical currents that help to drive the human body. Nerves relay signals by transmitting electric impulses, for example, while the use of electrocardiograms testify to the electrical activity of the heart.
Campaigners have long been worried about exposure to fields from lines carried by electric pylons but, until recently, their concerns were dismissed, even ridiculed, by the authorities. But last year a study by the official National Radiological Protection Board concluded that children living close to the lines are more likely to get leukaemia, and ministers are considering whether to stop any more homes being built near them. The discovery is causing a large-scale reappraisal of the hazards of the smog.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer -- part of the WHO and the leading international organisation on the disease -- classes the smog as a "possible human carcinogen". And Professor David Carpenter, dean of the School of Public Health at the State University of New York, told The Independent on Sunday last week that it was likely to cause up to 30 per cent of all childhood cancers. A report by the California Health Department concludes that it is also likely to cause adult leukaemia, brain cancers and possibly breast cancer and could be responsible for a 10th of all miscarriages.
Professor Denis Henshaw, professor of human radiation effects at Bristol University, says that "a huge and substantive body of evidence indicates a range of adverse health effects". He estimates that the smog causes some 9,000 cases of depression. Perhaps strangest of all, there is increasing evidence that the smog causes some people to become allergic to electricity, leading to nausea, pain, dizziness, depression and difficulties in sleeping and concentrating when they use electrical appliances or go near mobile phone masts. Some are so badly affected that they have to change their lifestyles.
While not yet certain how it is caused, both the WHO and the HPA accept that the condition exists, and the UN body estimates that up to three in every 100 people are affected by it.
Case History: 'I felt I was going into meltdown'
Until a year ago, Sarah Dacre reckoned she had a "blessed life". Running her own company, and living in an expensive north London home, the high-earning divorcee described herself as "fab, fit and 40s". Then suddenly the sight in her right eye failed: she first noticed it when she was unable to read an A-Z map. Soon she was getting pains and numbness in her joints. She could not sleep and spent nights "pacing about like a caged lion". Her short-term memory failed and if she took notes to remind her, she would forget she had made them.
The symptoms got worse whenever she was exposed to electricity. She could not use a computer for more than five minutes without becoming nauseous. Even using a telephone landline gave her a buzzing in the ear and made her feel she was "going into meltdown".
by Sam Lister, London Times
May 6, 2006
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,175-2167122,00.html
ASPARTAME, the artificial sweetener used in thousands of foods and drinks, does not pose a cancer risk, contrary to the findings of a scientific study, the European Union's food safety agency said yesterday. Aspartame, which is 200 times sweeter than sugar, is used in a wide range of lowcalorie products from Diet Coke, Lucozade and Robinson's fruit squashes, to Müllerlight yoghurts, Walkers prawn-flavoured crisps, sugar-free gum and many puddings and desserts. It is marketed under trademarks including NutraSweet and Canderel and is thought to be consumed by one in fifteen people worldwide every day.
A recent study in Italy claimed that the sweetener increased cancers in rats. However, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which reviewed the Ramazzini Institute research, found no conclusive evidence that aspartame was responsible and that, although the additive did cause damage to the rats' kidneys, this would not happen to human beings. "Our conclusion on the basis of all the evidence currently available to us is that there's no reason to revise the previously established ADI (acceptable daily intake), nor at this stage . . . to undertake any further extensive review of the safety of aspartame," Iona Pratt, the chairman of the EFSA's working party, told a news conference in Rome yesterday.
Aspartame's ADI is set at 40 milligrams per kilogram of body weight -- equivalent to 2,800 milligrams for an average British adult or about 600 milligrams for an average three-year-old child. An adult would have to consume 14 cans of a sugar-free drink every day before reaching the ADI, assuming that the sweetener was used in the drink at the maximum permitted level.
The EFSA said that increased incidence of leukaemias and lymphomas in the rats in the Ramazzini study could be attributed to chronic health problems that made the animals predisposed to such conditions, and not consumption of aspartame.
This year Roger Williams, the Liberal Democrat MP for Brecon and Radnorshire, called on the Government for action about the growing body of evidence suggesting that the sweetener might pose a significant risk to human health. Addressing an adjournment debate in Westminster, Mr Williams said that evidence of aspartame's carcinogenic properties and the adverse brain reactions that it could cause was irrefutable. He said that the problem still went widely unnoticed by doctors because aspartame consumption was not considered when patients complained of headaches, blurred vision, mood swings and other neurological disorders.
Several international experts have also voiced concern about the sweetener's safety and its original appraisal process, dating back to the 1980s. A study by Ralph Walton, professor of psychiatry at Lake Erie College of Medicine in Pennsylvania, suggested that intakes of 30mg per kg per day -- about eight or nine Diet Cokes -- could trigger reactions as serious as haemorrhaging in the eye. Professor Walton said he believed that aspartame was also a factor in the increase in obesity and type 2 diabetes because it affected appetite and induced carbohydrate cravings, leading users to gain weight. He added that patients who had come to him with mental problems such as headaches had their health transformed by cutting down their intake of aspartame.
Food manufacturers welcomed the EFSA's verdict. Alain Beaumont, secretary-general of the European beverage association, UNESDA, which represents leading soft drinks producers such as Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Cadbury-Schweppes, said that the announcement had reconfirmed the safety of aspartame "as an important tool in the fight against obesity".
But the Ramazzini Institute, which tested aspartame on 1,800 rats over their entire lives, stood by its findings and said that it planned further research. "Because of the globalisation of the industrialised diet and the ever-increasing use of artificial sweeteners among billions of people in both industrialised and developing countries, the European Ramazzini Foundation considers its work on sweeteners to be of the highest priority for the protection of public health," it said in a statement."
from SwissInfo
May 6, 2006
http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/detail/States_come_to_terms_with_dirty_dozen.html?siteSect=105&sid=6690001&cKey=1146903185000
A Swiss proposal to improve coordination in the fight against dangerous chemicals has failed to win enough support at an international conference in Geneva. But Swiss officials said there had been agreement on further steps aimed at ridding the world of hazardous pesticides and chemicals during the weeklong meeting, which ended on Friday.
The Swiss were hoping to convince other countries to appoint a single individual to take charge of the three secretariats dealing with chemicals, pesticides and hazardous waste. These administer the Rotterdam, Stockholm and Basel conventions respectively. The meeting was the second conference of parties to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs).
The treaty, which came into force two years ago, regulates the use and production of a list of 12 highly toxic chemicals, known as the "dirty dozen". POPs remain intact in the environment for long periods and accumulate in living organisms. However, a member of the Swiss delegation to the talks told swissinfo that no consensus could be reached on the Swiss proposal. Georg Karlaganis of the Federal Environment Office said a working group would now re-examine ways of improving coordination and was expected to present its findings by 2009.
Progress
Karlaganis said there had been progress on agreeing further measures to curb dangerous chemicals, notably a decision to ban the use of DDT in agriculture. Karlaganis said this followed "lengthy discussions involving countries where malaria is prevalent" since some governments use the pesticide to combat the killer disease.
Switzerland had feared that the rules would be watered down to permit the use of DDT in situations where effective alternatives exist. Karlaganis said the delegations did approve a framework deal allowing for exemptions for DDT and the other eleven POPs, but agreed on very "stringent criteria". He said Switzerland did not demand any exemptions.
There was also heated debate over the adoption of standards to identify and quantify dioxins and furans, which are unintentional byproducts of waste incineration.
Reluctance
The standards were approved, but Karlaganis said it had been an uphill struggle against "reluctance" from countries such as India and Brazil where waste is commonly burned in the open.
There was also discussion on "effectiveness evaluation", one of the key issues because signatory states would have to implement a system to monitor the harmful chemicals. The Swiss intend to start an evaluation programme to record levels of POPs in the environment, such as taking samples of air-borne particles and traces of harmful substances in breast milk.
Switzerland last week became the second industrialised nation to submit a national implementation plan in accordance with the Stockholm Convention. Switzerland has already complied with its obligations under the convention and has banned the sale and use of ten POPs. The remaining two POPs on the list -- dioxins and furans -- cannot be prohibited.
By Kate Snow, ABC News
May 5, 2006
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1928890&page=1
Justine Guarda has made a lot of changes since her daughter Eva came along, but some have nothing to do with her sleep schedule or daily routine. She's one of a number of parents who are changing their household products out of concern that the chemicals will lead to future health problems for their children.
Guarda uses natural cleaners, chlorine-free diapers and searches for shampoos without the chemical sodium lauryl sulfate that she believes is linked to cancer. "I'm thinking about the health and safety of my family," Guarda said.
But despite a widely circulated e-mail warning of the dangers of sodium lauryl sulfate, the American Cancer Society says the chemical has not been shown to cause cancer.
'Prudence Without Paranoia'
Easy access to information may be leading to more confusion than solutions. Guarda often researches chemicals on the Web and shares her concerns through e-mails to other parents at her daughter's preschool, but with so much information for parents to digest, scientists caution it can go too far. "I have a saying, 'prudence without paranoia'," said Dave Eaton of the University of Washington. "I'd say do your research. Look for objective sources of information."
Even that can be tough. Another parent said he is worried about buying a new couch. "We're having a hard time finding anything that's not treated with all sorts of unknown chemicals," said John Kaiser. Guarda shops for European pajamas for the same reason, to avoid flame-retardant chemicals known as PBDEs. But that may be overzealous. While these chemicals have been associated with health risks, a chemical industry group claims they're no longer found in children's sleepwear.
Still, children's environmental specialist Leo Trasande says parents are right to worry. "You can't rewind a child's development, and unfortunately, when a chemical causes a toxic injury the effects of that exposure can be lifelong," Trasande said.
There are roughly 80,000 chemicals in use in this country, with 2,800 used widely. But of those, less than half have been thoroughly studied for toxicity.
To offer some guidance, doctors say parents should avoid the big risks: Mercury in fish, lead paint and smoking. "I'm not going to spend all my days concerned and stressed out, but I will do what I can," Guarda said. "For your children, it's a no-brainer," Kaiser said.
by Shankar Vedantam, Washington Post
May 5, 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/04/AR2006050401724.html
About 300,000 American children have been diagnosed as having autism, according to the first comprehensive national surveys of the developmental disorder. Boys were four times more likely than girls to have the disorder, which is characterized by verbal, social and emotional problems. White families with higher incomes were also more likely to report having children with the disorder, a fact that federal experts said probably reflected unequal access to medical services.
The new data came in two surveys released yesterday by researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who said the numbers matched the range found by earlier studies that looked at smaller groups of people.
Autism has been dogged by controversy for more than a decade after what appeared to be a sharp increase in diagnoses in the 1990s. Many experts believe the increase reflects changes in diagnostic criteria adopted in 1994, increased public awareness of the problem, and the difficulties in telling apart a number of overlapping conditions that fall under an umbrella known as autism spectrum disorders. Some advocates have blamed a mercury-based preservative in children's vaccines, even though repeated analyses have failed to confirm a link.
The new surveys show that Hispanics have a much lower autism rate than whites, but experts said that this probably reflected differences in access to care. "This does provide important results on the need to consider autism may be under-diagnosed in certain populations," said Laura Schieve, an epidemiologist at the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, at a teleconference organized by the CDC. Schieve and Jose Cordero, director of the birth defects center, said both surveys showed some differences in autism prevalence by age group -- with children ages 6 to 11 more likely to be diagnosed than those ages 4 to 5. However, they said the differences were not statistically meaningful and could not address whether the decision to phase out the mercury-based preservative from children's vaccines in 1999 had led to a leveling off or fall in autism diagnoses.
Cordero said it was far more likely that the age-group differences in prevalence reflected the fact that many children are not diagnosed until they enter school and teachers recognize the problem. That means the number of diagnoses among the 4-to-5-year-olds in the surveys could rise as they enter school. "Let's do it again next year and the year after," said Gary Goldstein, president and CEO of the Kennedy Krieger Institute at Johns Hopkins University, which has a large autism research program. "My prediction is you are going to see a rise in the younger ones. If it was going away, which I would love, you would see a falling number."
Goldstein said the racial and class differences in diagnoses reflected the fact that getting a diagnosis often requires that parents be effective advocates, at least in the years before children arrive in school. "It's not like leukemia or a broken bone where a diagnosis will be made no matter what your social class is," said Goldstein, who is also a board member at Autism Speaks, an advocacy group focused on research and awareness. "You have to be an advocate."
Peter Bell, chief executive of the Cure Autism Now Foundation, an advocacy group, said the fact that some children do not get diagnosed before they reach school is troubling. Early diagnoses, he said, allow for early interventions, which are more effective.
Two local researchers who have long claimed there is a link between the mercury additive thimerosal and autism said the CDC numbers suggest there is a connection. Mark and David Geier, a father-son team, said at the very least the CDC data showed a leveling off in autism diagnoses. "In early 2003, we looked at a number of databases and how much mercury children were getting from their shots, and we said there is a causal relationship between thimerosal and autism," David Geier said. "Thimerosal started to be removed in July 1999. We predicted the rates of autism would begin to decrease. What we are seeing is decreasing trends. It coincides with children getting less mercury in their shots."
Penn Medicine News Release
MAY 4, 2006
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/may06/ctrenvtox.htm
(Philadelphia, PA) -- Over the next four years, the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine will receive $4.1 million from the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), to study the effects of environmental pollutants on human health. The new Center of Excellence in Environmental Toxicology (CEET) represents a partnership between research scientists and communities in southeastern Pennsylvania. The CEET mission is to understand the mechanism by which environmental exposures lead to disease. Understanding these processes can lead to early diagnosis, intervention, and prevention strategies. The goal will be to improve environmental health and medicine in the region.
The Penn CEET is one of 22 designated Environmental Health Science Centers in the United States and the first in Pennsylvania. "We have the opportunity with the center to improve the environmental health of all southeastern Pennsylvanians through research and outreach," says Trevor M. Penning, PhD, the Center's Director. Penning is also a Professor of Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Biophysics, and OB/GYN.
An area of interest will be to study the role of environmental exposure in lung disease, including cancer, mesothelioma, asthma, and emphysema. Researchers will also focus on how certain environmental triggers can disrupt the body's endocrine (hormonal) and reproductive systems, causing problems such as pre-term birth and birth defects. A number of researchers are focusing on how oxidants and oxidizing chemicals in our environment cause disease. Other investigators will examine the interplay between genes and environmental exposure. The CEET will use modern methods of genomics and proteomics to identify early fingerprints of disease onset, so that we can detect problems before they are too far advanced.
In addition to its research agenda, the center will have a major community outreach and education component. Five communities, both in Philadelphia and other counties, with a variety of environmental concerns, are part of the center's mission. The center's research agenda was established after extensive background work to determine the most pressing environmental-related health problems in southeastern Pennsylvania. "In putting the center together, it would have been easy to live in an ivory tower and just appeal to our research strengths," says Penning. "But we took the time to look at the incidence of disease and health effects in this area and pinpoint those diseases that are associated with environmental exposure or environmental triggers."
The five communities selected to be part of the effort are the Eastwick neighborhood in southwest Philadelphia; the neighborhood of West Philadelphia; Chester, in Delaware County; Pottstown, in Montgomery County; and Palmerton, in Carbon County, about 70 miles north of Philadelphia. "The idea is to have two-way dialogues, to disseminate findings of the center to community leaders by way of workshops and other educational programs," explains Penning. "We're also looking for community leaders to tell us their environmental concerns. By working with communities, we can empower them with the knowledge to make changes in environment and public health policy."
Penning notes that Penn is an ideal place for an environmental health sciences center because Pennsylvania is a highly polluted state: "Pennsylvania is considered to be the fourth-most polluted state in the country, by a series of different indices. We have the second largest number of Superfund sites, 92 with 45 in southeastern Pennsylvania alone, and the second largest amount of nuclear waste in the country. We are in non-compliance with the Clean Air Act and non-compliance with the Clean Water Act. When you put all these facts together, we become highly ranked as one of the most polluted states." At the same time, Pennsylvania has the second-highest incidence of cases of cancer per 100,000 people. And southeastern Pennsylvania, in particular, has high rates of asthma and adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as low birthweight and birth defects, all problems that can have an environmental connection.
Penn's Center of Excellence in Environmental Toxicology will not be housed in any one building. Rather, it will draw on the expertise of 50 faculty members from 16 departments and five schools at the university, including the law and business schools. Edward A. Emmett, MD, Professor of Occupational Medicine, is the center's Deputy Director. Emmett's research portfolio includes the study of C8 (perfluorooctanoic acid), a chemical used in the production of fluoropolymers, which are used to make non-stick surfaces for cookware and in other products, such as breathable, all-weather clothing.
In its efforts to study the interplay between environmental pollutants and genes, Penn researchers will look at questions such as what makes one person susceptible to disease and another not. "If two people breathe the same polluted air, why does one get asthma and one does not?" asks Penning.
Research will also focus on identifying early markers of disease, such as changes in genes and proteins that could signal a problem down the road. For instance, markers could identify people susceptible to asthma and to pinpoint early changes in lung tissue and cells that may not yet manifest as full-blown disease.
Each of the five communities that will be part of the center's work has its own particular concerns. Philadelphia's Eastwick neighborhood, for instance, has a host of environmental worries because of its close proximity to the Sunoco oil refinery, I-95, I-76, and the airport. The surroundings of Pottstown include refining, a nuclear power plant, and a large landfill; and Palmerton is located in a "petrified forest," caused by metal pollution from old zinc smelting operations.
Lead exposure and the effects from past industrialization from mostly closed down industries are big concerns in West Philadelphia. Chester has a long list of environmental worries, including pollution from waste incineration, oil refining, and I-95 traffic.
However, the scientific aspects of environmental exposure cannot be looked at in isolation. There are political, social, and health-care issues to also deal with; hence the involvement of other schools at Penn. "The community outreach component of the center is so important because we want to be able to empower local communities to actually start thinking about ways in which they can talk to their decision makers in terms of how to improve environmental policy in their area," says Penning. "We have to deal with issues of environmental justice and health disparities. Many of the people in the outreach communities that are environmentally challenged are from lower socioeconomic status and do not have access to vibrant healthcare. We also need to provide governmental decision makers and health professionals with reliable information. "The Center, with its research and outreach program, is anticipated to improve the lives of southeastern Pennsylvanians and will be an example of the PENN Compact at work, ‘to engage both locally and globally' and ‘to integrate knowledge across disciplines,'" notes Penning.
by Eben Harrell and Ian Johnston, [UK] Scotsman
May 3, 2006
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=658762006
HUNDREDS of nanotechnology products about to hit shop shelves have not been properly tested for their safety, one of the UK's leading environmental health experts has warned. Nanotechnology, in which substances are manipulated at the microscopic level, is being used in a tranche of new products, from medical bandages to golf clubs and paints.
But Edinburgh-based Professor Anthony Seaton said there had been no rigorous investigation into the potential for goods which used nanotechnology to cause harm to health. He said concerns tiny particles from the products might cause respiratory, cardiac and immune problems had not been properly assessed. Prof Seaton was speaking just weeks after the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs launched a consultation on plans to ask companies developing products such as sunscreens, paints and fuels that use nanoparticles to provide health and safety information.
But a leading industry scientist described fears about nanotechnology as "a load of baloney".
Prof Seaton helped draft a joint Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering paper on nanotechnology in 2004. While the paper dispelled the widely ridiculed doomsday fears and affirmed overall support for the technology, it laid out several areas of concern and called for further testing. However, speaking to The Scotsman ahead of a presentation he gave yesterday at the Nanoparticles for European Industry conference in London, Prof Seaton said, two years on, the recommended testing "simply hasn't happened". He said: "The technology and applications of nanoparticles are racing ahead and still we haven't actually put together a proper research programme into the effect of nanoparticles on the biological system. "We don't know enough to know which nanoparticles would be harmful."
Nanotechnology is an emerging field of science involving substances ten thousand times smaller than the width of a human hair. A recent report from a United States science watchdog suggested there were already 200 products containing nanoparticles on the marketplace, with hundreds more to be introduced in the coming year.
Campaigners point to asbestos -- a nanoparticle already linked to cancer -- and the high rate of heart failure in dense pollution areas as early warnings of nanoparticles' potential hazards when inhaled. Others worry that nanoparticles can pass through the skin, causing inflammation and other potential health problems.
In one of the more alarmist scares, the Prince of Wales backed claims in 2003 that nanotechnology could lead to the world disappearing into a "grey goo" of out-of-control, self-replicating nano-scale robots.
Prof Seaton said that along with risks to public health, unforeseen adverse events might damage public perception of an important new field of science. "This technology promises many benefits to society, and public confidence is very important. Genetic modification is a good analogy," he said. "Because of suspected commercial abuses, it lost credibility with the public and thus the likely benefits of its judicious use have been lost."
In response to the Royal Society's concerns, Defra has asked companies to sign up to a voluntary reporting scheme as the government prepares potential control guidelines. However, environmentalists have raised concerns about how much companies will be willing to disclose about their research and development.
Greenpeace UK's chief scientist, Doug Barr, said the government should impose a moratorium on the release of products with free nanoparticles -- ones not bound up in a compound, as most are -- until evidence of their safety emerged, ideally from publicly funded studies. "Industry data rarely provides the whole story. On what basis do we think the nanotechnology industry is going to tell Defra things that are not in its commercial interest to disclose?" he said. "Further, by the time Defra collects data and releases controls, we will already have hundreds of products on the marketplace, meaning there would be great commercial and political obstacles to taking them off the market."
Prof Seaton said many nanotechnology companies were small spin-offs from academic institutions and could not afford elaborate health and safety research. However, he described Defra's recommendations as "very satisfactory". He said: "It's good to see that something is being done. Once we know what the small companies are doing, we will be able to decide if the government should fund their safety research. The problem is, at the moment, we simply don't know who is developing what."
However Dr Gerhard Nohynek, scientific director of worldwide safety evaluation at cosmetic giant L'Oréal, which uses nanotechnology in some of its products, said: "This is a load of baloney. There are products which contain nanoparticles, such as sunscreens, but these have been tested and are known to be safe." Dr Nohynek said that where there was a risk of exposure to raw or free nanoparticles there might be more of a problem.
However he said that even there, experts had found it difficult to show there was any risk. "I know people who try to do inhalation toxicity studies with nanoparticles. It is very difficult to keep them up in the air," he said. They have a tendency to conglomerate and fall out. "If you take a pot of [larger] micro-particles, they look like flour - flour is a microparticle. Nanoparticles look like glue. It's sticky stuff. It becomes a more liquid-like consistency than a powder. You get down to a size where the differences between these terms -- solid, liquid, powder -- start falling apart." He added: "To the best of my knowledge, I see no imminent danger or risk to public health."
A spokeswoman for Defra said concerns about the potential harmful effects on health were the reason the government was working with the European Union and other international bodies "to look at all the possible risks and work them out of the system, to manage them. "We need to work out what the possible consequences might be. The aim is for [nanotechnology] to be for the good, but there might be some bad. The aim is to identify issues before they become a problem," she said. "It is something that has the potential both for benefits and for possible harm. So we have to work out which is which."
Asked whether the government would act in time to prevent harmful nano products coming on to the market, the spokeswoman said: "That's the general idea."
Thinking small
Nanotechnology products include:
by Marilyn Elias, USA Today
May 2, 2006
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-05-01-atypical-drugs_x.htm
Nancy Thomas remembers the bad old days when she had to wear long-sleeve clothes to church to cover bite marks all over her arms from her daughter Alexa's rages. At age 8, Alexa was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. She was a violent child with sharp mood swings and meltdowns that drove her to tear up the house. Antidepressants and drugs for attention-deficit disorder had only made Alexa more aggressive, Thomas says.
A mix of medicines including so-called atypical antipsychotics -- drugs approved only for adults -- finally stabilized Alexa's moods. Now at 15, she is able to live a more normal life -- as long as she takes the medication. Even so, the Russellville, Mo., teen is paying a price: On one of the atypical antipsychotics, Alexa gained about 100 pounds in a year, putting her at risk for a host of health problems, including diabetes. It has taken her three years to lose a third of that extra weight; she is still struggling with the rest.
Atypicals are a new generation of antipsychotic drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration for adult schizophrenia and bipolar disorder (manic depression). None of the six drugs -- Clozaril, Risperdal, Zyprexa, Seroquel, Abilify and Geodon -- is approved for kids, but doctors can prescribe them as "off-label" medications. Psychiatrists say the drugs can be helpful for children with serious mental illnesses and have been known to save young lives. But diagnosis often is difficult, making appropriate prescribing tricky. And many experts, including behavioral pediatrician Lawrence Diller, author of Should I Medicate My Child?, say there is growing overuse of these powerful antipsychotics.
Schizophrenia is rare in children under 18: It strikes about 1 in 40,000, as opposed to 1 in 100 adults, according to the National Institute of Mental Health. Nobody knows exactly how many kids have bipolar disorder; psychiatrists don't even agree on criteria to diagnose the disease in childhood. Research on how the drugs affect children is sparse, and experts increasingly are concerned that the drugs are being prescribed too often for children with behavior problems, such as attention-deficit disorder and aggression. John March, chief of child and adolescent psychiatry at Duke University School of Medicine, prescribes the drugs to kids in some cases of serious illness when he thinks the benefits outweigh the risks. But he says prescribing them for behavior problems alone may be a mistake. "We have no evidence about the safety of these agents or their effectiveness in controlling aggression," he says. "Why are we doing this?"
At the same time, reports of deaths and dangerous side effects linked to the drugs are mounting. A USA TODAY study of FDA data collected from 2000 to 2004 shows at least 45 deaths of children in which an atypical antipsychotic was listed in the FDA database as the "primary suspect." There also were 1,328 reports of bad side effects, some of them life-threatening. Drug companies are required to file any reports they have to the FDA, but consumers and doctors report such events on a voluntary basis. Studies suggest the FDA's Adverse Events Reporting System database captures only 1% to 10% of drug-induced side effects and deaths, "maybe even less than 1%," says clinical pharmacologist Alastair J.J. Wood, an associate dean at Vanderbilt Medical School in Nashville. So the real number of cases is almost certainly much higher. "We're conducting a very large experiment on our children," March says.
Side effects that linger
Some parents tell stories of serious effects that linger long after their kids stop taking the drugs. Rex Evans' parents are bitter about what happened to their son. They believe the 13-year-old Colorado Springs boy was harmed permanently by an atypical antipsychotic he took several years ago. Rex now has a serious case of tardive dyskinesia (TD), suffering daily episodes of involuntary jerking movements and facial grimacing, says Erin Evans, his mother. Antipsychotics are known to cause TD, but it's thought to be a rare effect for the newer atypicals.
Despite such reports, outpatient prescriptions for kids ages 2 to 18 leaped fivefold -- from just under half a million to about 2.5 million -- from 1995 to 2002, according to a new analysis of a federal survey by Vanderbilt Medical School researchers. This doesn't include prescriptions at psychiatric hospitals or residential treatment centers. And even though the drugs are approved only for adults, the rate of children treated with atypicals "is growing dramatically faster than the rate for adults," says Robert Epstein, chief medical officer for Medco Health Solutions, pharmacy benefit managers.
Medco did an analysis of outpatient prescriptions for USA TODAY and found that, in a sampling of about 2.5 million of Medco's 55 million members, the rate of children 19 and under with at least one atypical prescription jumped 80% from 2001 to 2005 -- from 3.6 per 1,000 to 6.5 per 1,000. And that only represents kids who are privately insured, not those in foster care or others on Medicaid. "We know these are very strong medicines," Epstein says. "You'd want to be absolutely sure the child needs it."
The more serious risks
Because of the nature of the FDA data, they don't prove that these drugs caused the deaths or the side effects. Many side effects for which an atypical is listed as the "primary suspect" occurred in the normal course of using the drug, but the database also includes cases involving drug abuse, overdoses, suicides and homicides. Entries are sometimes cryptic, and the FDA enters verbatim -- misspellings and all -- what's reported on the form.
Still, the data "can be a useful signaling device" suggesting problems with a drug that warrant conclusive studies, says Jerome Avorn, a pharmacology specialist at Harvard Medical School and author of the book Powerful Medicines. One-fourth of the cases in the database studied by USA TODAY did not list the patient's age. But in cases that listed an age under 18:
The FDA office of drug safety checks the database, "and we haven't been alerted to any particular or unusual concern," says Thomas Laughren, director of the agency's division of psychiatry products. "The effects (in kids) are similar to what we're seeing in adults. We have not systematically looked at the data for children" because the drugs aren't approved for them, he says.
The 45 deaths
Among the 45 pediatric deaths in which atypicals were the primary suspect, at least six were related to diabetes -- atypicals carry warnings that the drugs may increase the risk of high blood sugar and diabetes. Other causes of death ranged from heart and pulmonary problems to suicide, choking and liver failure.
An 8-year-old boy had cardiac arrest. A 15-year-old boy died of an overdose. A 13-year-old girl experienced diabetic ketoacidosis, a deficiency of insulin. More than half of the kids who died were on at least one other psychiatric drug besides the atypical antipsychotic, and many were taking drugs for other ailments. The youngest, a 4-year-old boy whose symptoms suggested diabetes complications, was taking 10 other drugs.
The reports don't tell the child's general state of health or other factors that could predispose him to trouble. Also, neither Clozaril, which is rarely used, nor Abilify, the newest atypical, was listed as a primary suspect in any deaths.
All the drugmakers emphasize that their products are not approved for children, and they say the drugs are safe and effective for adults with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder who are monitored for side effects. Still, "there are worrisome questions here," says Avorn. Large, longer-term database studies could provide answers, he says. There's some evidence that the drugs can help young schizophrenics and may be helpful in treating bipolar disorder in children, says Robert Findling, a child psychiatrist at University Hospitals of Cleveland. But the data from controlled studies "are too few to guide treatment decisions" on bipolar disorder, concluded Findling's research team in a summary of pediatric studies published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
These antipsychotics are the most widely used class of drugs to treat disruptive kids who attack others and defy adults, Findling says. Again, there's a paucity of proof that the drugs help. There are only a handful of carefully controlled, sizable studies testing the drugs for any pediatric disorder, and they're mostly short-term, says Benedetto Vitiello, chief of child and adolescent psychiatry at the national mental health institute. The most serious, widespread problem found to be caused by the medicines is weight gain, he says.
The effect varies by drug, but kids typically put on twice the pounds they should in their first six months on atypicals. In the first three months on the drugs, children add about 2 to 3 inches to their waistlines, says research psychiatrist Christoph Correll of Zucker Hillside Hospital in Glen Oaks, N.Y. A lot of this is abdominal fat, which increases the risk of diabetes and heart disease. Obese children are twice as likely as normal-weight children to have diabetes, according to a new University of Michigan study. "Some patients gain weight on Zyprexa and others do not," says Calvin Sumner, a medical adviser to Eli Lilly Research Laboratories. Lilly makes the drug, which has been associated with weight gains in adult studies. Sumner stresses that Zyprexa isn't approved for kids.
There's no proof atypicals cause diabetes, says Ramy Mahmoud of Janssen LP, maker of Risperdal. He says the FDA added a label warning of increased diabetes risk "to make people aware of the possibility."
One key question about atypicals is whether they will have long-term, unknown effects on the brains of children. The brain system that the drugs work on develops through childhood and adolescence, says Cynthia Kuhn, a Duke University pharmacologist. "We really don't know the impact of chronically perturbing that system in childhood."
Why atypicals get prescribed
Given all the potential problems, why would doctors prescribe these drugs to children to begin with? Nobody disputes that the lives of schizophrenic or severely manic children may be saved by antipsychotics. "I use them myself for patients," says March, the Duke psychiatrist. "I have a 9-year-old who threatened to jump out of a second-story window if her mom didn't give her the car keys to drive down to the 7-Eleven to get a Coke. If I took her off antipsychotics, she'd disintegrate."
But several factors can lead to misprescribing of antipsychotics. It can be difficult to tell one behavioral disorder or illness from another in kids. For example, the aggression and irritability of bipolar disorder can mimic attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder or depression, the mental health institute says. Also, the environment can be a key cause of symptoms that may be mistakenly diagnosed as mental disorders, says Diller, the behavioral pediatrician. Some events in a child's life can trigger acting-out or other symptoms. Adults can explain what happened to them; children, especially the youngest, may be more reticent.
Doctors often face time pressures that prevent them from finding out what's going on in kids' lives, knowledge that might suggest alternative treatments, Penn says. For example, abuse of drugs such as methamphetamine, OxyContin and cocaine is fairly common among teens, he says. Kids begin acting strangely, hearing voices, becoming paranoid. The symptoms can mimic psychosis or behavioral disorders, and doctors can end up giving these children unneeded antipsychotic drugs, he says.
Insurance coverage rules may encourage the soaring use of antipsychotics for children, as well. "With some companies, the only thing they reimburse for is prescribing. There's little or no therapy," says Ronald Brown, editor of the Journal of Pediatric Psychology and a dean at Temple University. Also, kids with serious mental health problems often have at least one hospitalization, but policies cover only a week or two. It can take a couple of weeks just to get medical records and family histories, Penn says, but insurers often extend time if there's a new medicine started, which encourages drug dabbling for children who are not ready to go home.
In the end, some parents say their children have such severe behavior disorders or mental illness that the benefits outweigh risks. Parents of children such as Alexa Thomas, who have bipolar disorder, say the atypicals often help. "We were very fortunate," says Alexa's mother, special-education director for the Russellville, Mo., school district. "The medication worked for my daughter. It doesn't work for everybody."
Misdiagnosis common
The Vanderbilt study of antipsychotic prescribing finds at least 13% of pediatric prescriptions are for bipolar disorder. But there is some concern about over-diagnosis and "jumping to this (bipolar) label too quickly," says psychiatrist Peter Jensen, head of the Center for the Advancement of Children's Mental Health at Columbia University.
Sandra Spencer's son, Stephen, was diagnosed as bipolar at age 6 and put on atypicals. He developed liver abnormalities and obesity, his mother says. "He's been on a smorgasbord of meds," she says. None worked well for very long. By the time he was in sixth grade, doctors said they weren't sure Stephen was bipolar after all. Now 15, he is on low doses of an antidepressant and mood stabilizer. He's being weaned off both, says Spencer, executive director of the Federation of Families for Children's Mental Health, a support group. She worries about how the drugs have affected Stephen, who is black: As little psychiatric drug research as there is on children, there's least of all on minority kids. Some drugs are known to affect black adults differently from whites. "He probably had ADHD all along," Spencer says. "Psychiatry is so not an exact science."
Child psychiatrist Barbara Geller, a bipolar expert at Washington University in St. Louis, agrees: "The science is nowhere near where it is in other branches of medicine." So parents struggle to make the right decisions for very troubled kids. "There's a lot of fear among parents," Spencer says. "You don't know what the effects of these drugs are going to be. You're at the mercy of your doctor. "I have had to make a lot of decisions, and they were fear-driven. You don't have enough information to make an intelligent decision."
Contributing: Susan O'Brian
by Andrew Silva, Long Beach [California] Press-Telegram
May 2, 2006
http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_3773487
A whole new layer of regulations may be needed to deal with the tiniest and most dangerous bits of air pollution, as scientists released another study Monday showing children who live next to busy roads are twice as likely to have asthma symptoms. "This is a major health issue," said John Froines, director of the Southern California Particle Center, during a conference in Los Angeles on ultrafine particles.
Ultrafine particles are unregulated, and are so small they can actually penetrate into cells, carrying toxic compounds right to a person's DNA and other critical areas. As regulators struggle to scrub the air clean during a time of explosive growth in the diesel-powered shipping industry, scientists continue to warn that pollution from diesel sources is by far the most deadly. And the smaller the particle, the greater the danger. "Ultrafines possess the greatest toxic potential compared to other particles," Froines said.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District will begin an in-depth examination of ultrafine particles in its next air quality management plan this year, said Barry Wallerstein, executive officer of the region's smog-fighting agency. Regulations to control the toxic flecks of pollution are expected to follow in the next few years.
The study on asthma and roads, published this month in the journal "Environmental Health Perspectives," looked at more than 5,000 children, ages 5 to 7, who live in 13 Southern California communities. It found those who live within about 80 yards of a major road are 50 percent more likely to have had asthma symptoms in the previous year than those who live farther away. The study dovetails with previous research showing concentrations of ultrafine particles are greatest near roadways and drop off dramatically with distance. "Ultrafines may be the cause" of respiratory problems, said Rob McConnell, one of the study's authors and a professor at USC.
Restrictions are in place for larger particles, those 10 microns in diameter, or PM10, which is about one-seventh the diameter of a human hair, and the smaller PM2.5. A micron is one-millionth of a meter, or about the thickness of a dime sliced 1,000 times.
The regulations may be having a strange side effect. Reductions in larger particles may actually spur an increase in the number of ultrafine particles, scientists said. "Little particles attach to larger particles," Froines said. If you lower the number of big particles, there are fewer for the small particles to glom onto, he said. That phenomenon has scientists calling for a change in the way particulates are measured.
Currently, particles are regulated by their mass, which is to say the particles in a cubic meter of air are basically weighed. Instead, the particles should be counted, which is now being done in Europe.
by David Biello, Scientific American
May 1, 2006
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa004&articleID=000B59D6-9CA4-1446-9A6283414B7F0000
One chemical alone may do no harm in low doses, but in conjunction with a few of its peers, even in doses that are individually safe, it can inflict serious harm. New research in frogs shows that a mixture of nine chemicals found in a seed-corn field in York County, Nebraska, killed a third of exposed tadpoles and lengthened time to metamorphosis by more than two weeks for the survivors.
Biologist Tyrone Hayes and his colleagues at the University of California, Berkeley, have spent the past four years testing four herbicides, two fungicides and three insecticides commonly used in American cornfields. Individually, the chemicals had little effect on developing tadpoles at low concentrations, such as about 0.1 part per billion. But when Hayes exposed them to all nine at the same low level in the laboratory -- the lowest level actually found in the field -- the future frogs fell prey to endemic infection. Those that survived ended up smaller than their counterparts raised in clean water -- despite taking longer to mature into adults. "In humans, this is like saying, 'The longer you are pregnant, the smaller your baby will be,' which means the womb is no longer a nurturing environment," Hayes notes.
Hayes's study joins a growing body of work showing that chemicals in combination can produce a wide range of effects even at low concentrations. Rick Relyea of the University of Pittsburgh has shown in several studies that tadpoles exposed in their water to low levels of a single pesticide and the smell of a predator will face significantly higher mortality rates. For instance, about 90 percent of bullfrog tadpoles died from exposure to the pesticide carbaryl when the smell of predatory newts was present, whereas no tadpoles perished if exposed to each individually. The pesticide may be inducing a general stress in the tadpole that, when combined with another stressor, becomes deadly, Relyea argues.
It is not just pesticides that show a mixture effect. Phthalates -- chemical softeners that make polymers flexible -- can interfere with the sexual development of male rats. "We have males treated with phthalates where the testes are under the kidneys or floating around in the abdominal cavity," explains L. Earl Gray, Jr., a biologist at the Environmental Protection Agency and co-discoverer of this deformity, which has been dubbed phthalate syndrome. Gray has also found that various kinds of phthalates in combination either with one another or with certain pesticides and industrial effluents exert ever more powerful effects. For example, two phthalates at concentrations that on their own would not produce much deformity combined to create defective urethras (hypospadias) in 25 percent of exposed rats.
Besides adding to the issue of endocrine disruption -- whether industrial chemicals are mimicking natural hormones -- the findings on mixtures pose an incredible challenge for regulators. With tens of thousands of chemicals in regular use worldwide, assessing which combinations might prove harmful is a gargantuan task. "Most of the offices in the agency recognize that we cannot operate via the idea of 'one chemical, one exposure' to an individual anymore. We need to look at broader classes of compounds and how they interact," says Elaine Francis, national program director for the EPA's pesticides and toxics research program. But such testing has a long way to go to reach any kind of regulation, particularly given industry's qualms about the validity of existing research.
Marian Stanley, who chairs the phthalates panel for the American Chemistry Council, notes that at least one study showed that rodents suffering from phthalate malformations could still mate and have litters. "The additivity of phthalates alone are on end points that may not have any biological relevance," she says.
Access the full article at http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa004&articleID=000B59D6-9CA4-1446-9A6283414B7F0000.
by Serena Gordon, HealthDay
May 1, 2006
http://www.healthday.com/view.cfm?id=532427
It's known that lead exposure poses serious health risks, including cognitive function problems. But new research suggests that certain children are more likely to develop attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) when exposed to lead in their environment. The study found that youngsters with a specific genetic variation in a dopamine receptor, dubbed DRD4-7, had more problems with tasks that required attention and flexibility. The researchers also found that boys exposed to lead were at greater risk of attention problems than girls. "Lead exposure leads to problems with attention and executive function. And certain kids are going to be more affected by the adverse effects of lead," said study author Dr. Tanya Froehlich, a developmental, behavioral and pediatric specialist at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center. Froehlich was expected to present the findings Monday at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting, in San Francisco.
An estimated 3 percent to 5 percent of American children -- 2 million -- have ADHD. Symptoms include the inability to pay attention, hyperactivity and impulsive behavior. The exact cause of ADHD isn't known, but there are numerous theories as to what contributes to its development. Environmental factors, such as lead exposure, have long been suspected of being a contributing factor, according to the National Institute of Mental Health. Since lead exposure can contribute to problems with attention and executive function -- the ability to plan and organize behavior -- and people with ADHD also have problems with attention and executive function, the researchers thought there might be some genetic connection.
So, they looked at the dopamine receptor gene DRD4, because it had been previously associated with children with ADHD, Froehlich said. In a group of 172 boys and girls, the researchers looked at the DRD4 gene and tested the children for lead at 60 months of age. Then at 66 months, the children were given ADHD tests. Eight percent of the children were diagnosed with ADHD, but about one-quarter of the children showed symptoms of ADHD.
The researchers found two types of DRD4 variations -- a low-risk and a high-risk one. Children with the high-risk variation were more likely to have ADHD symptoms, such as problems with spatial working memory (the ability to keep information in mind while performing a complex task) and "attentional flexibility" (the ability to change when you get new information or encounter an obstacle). Exposure to lead didn't seem to increase the symptoms in this group, however. But in the low-risk group, whose members were less likely to have attention problems to start with, lead exposure significantly impaired their spatial working memory and attentional flexibility, the study found. "In an environment contaminated with lead, a genetic variation that was protective becomes disadvantageous," Froehlich said.
The researchers also found that boys were more likely to suffer from lead's adverse effects. And, Froehlich noted, boys have higher rates of ADHD. "This could be one of the reasons why," she said.
Dr. Karen Ballaban-Gil, a pediatric neurologist at Montefiore Medical Center in New York City, said, "Lead exposure may have more cognitive consequences in a susceptible subset of the population." "Parents need to be very vigilant about looking for homes that are free of lead. And it's not just houses -- lead can be in toys or ceramics, especially those bought outside of the U.S.," she said, adding that simple lead tests are available in stores. "The most important thing is to prevent lead exposure in the first place," Froehlich said.
More information
To learn more about the effects of lead and steps you can take to minimize exposure, visit the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Sources
Tanya Froehlich, M.D., developmental, behavioral and pediatric specialist, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Ohio; Karen Ballaban-Gil, pediatric neurologist, Montefiore Medical Center, and professor of clinical neurology and clinical pediatrics, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York City; May 1, 2006, presentation, Pediatric Academic Societies, annual meeting, San Francisco
by Conrad Defiebre, Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune
May 1, 2006
http://www.startribune.com/587/story/405614.html
In a first step toward what a legislative sponsor called Minnesota's "Year of the Environment," the House unanimously passed a bill Monday that would dramatically reduce toxic mercury emissions from the state's three largest coal-fired power plants. The measure sponsored by Rep. Tom Hackbarth, R-Cedar, follows terms of an agreement among utilities, businesses and environmentalists announced last week by Gov. Tim Pawlenty. It would require a 90 percent cut in mercury output from the plants by the end of 2014, an estimated reduction of 1,200 pounds per year.
To achieve that, the plants must install emissions collectors costing hundreds of millions of dollars, Hackbarth said. That will be funded by an estimated monthly increase in residential electricity bills of 55 cents to $1.55 once all requirements are met, he added. Rep. Frank Hornstein, DFL-Minneapolis, said those costs were the sticking point during nearly 15 years of pressure from environmental groups to clamp down on the plants' mercury emissions, which can harm the nervous systems of wildlife and humans who consume fish.
But in what is shaping up as a pivotal election year, environmental measures are advancing through the State Capitol as seldom before. Hackbarth said the Year of the Environment will feature not only the mercury bill, but also a historic clean-water initiative, a chance for voters to dedicate a portion of the sales tax to the outdoors and new curbs on computer waste.
Bipartisan enthusiasm
DFLers and Republicans were equally keen about Hackbarth's bill, which was approved 132-0. Rep. Margaret Anderson Kelliher, DFL-Minneapolis, called it "the best mercury reduction bill in the country." Rep. Frank Moe, DFL-Bemidji, said it could lead to an end of warnings not to eat too many fish caught in Minnesota lakes. Senate sponsor Scott Dibble, DFL-Minneapolis, predicted that the bill will pass that chamber overwhelmingly on Thursday.
Although other coal-fired power plants in Minnesota release mercury into the environment, the Hackbarth bill, HF 3712, focuses only on the largest ones that are collectively responsible for 70 percent of such emissions. They are Xcel Energy plants at Oak Park Heights and Becker, Minn., and a Minnesota Power facility in Cohasset, Minn. Under the bill, the utilities would be required to phase in the new standards at some generating units as early as 2009 and 2010 and complete the work in 2014.
Those mandates are markedly tougher than federal rules calling for a 70 percent cut in power plant mercury emissions by 2018. Hackbarth's bill would have no effect on the estimated 80 to 90 percent of the mercury falling in Minnesota that comes from elsewhere. But Moe said the measure will lead other states by example.
