Scientists Measure Pollution in Humans

[Guest guest]

Scientists Measure Pollution in Humans

 

Sat 27 Dec 2003

 

By PAUL ELIAS, AP Biotechnology Writer

 

SAN FRANCISCO - Davis Baltz shops for organic food and otherwise tries to

live as healthy as he can. So he was shocked to learn that the pollutants

collecting inside his body sounded much like a Superfund cleanup site:

pesticides, flame retardants and other nasty, man-made chemicals turned up

in a recent test.

 

 

" What that told me is that no matter what I tried to do, the plumes of

chemicals that we are passing in and out of everyday give us exposure, "

said Baltz, who works for Commonweal, an environmental group in Bolinas,

Calif. Commonweal and the Washington-based Environmental Working Group

funded tests for Baltz and eight others at $5,000 apiece.

 

For decades, researchers have sampled the air, land and sea to measure

pollution from power plants, factories and automobiles. More recently, they

have expressed concern about mounting " e-waste " ­ discarded tech gadgets

that contain flame retardants, lead and other toxins.

 

But there's been trouble determining precisely how much pollution gets

absorbed by humans.

 

Now, in a process called biomonitoring, scientists are sampling urine,

blood and mother's milk to catalogue the pollutants accumulating in humans.

They call the results " body burden. "

 

Though the tests are yielding scary lists of contaminants found in the

body, their links to disease are less clear. Nonetheless, proponents say

such testing will help researchers learn what role the environment plays in

causing disease and how to treat it.

 

Many chemicals such as PCB and DDT, both banned decades ago, remain in the

environment for years and build up in the body over a lifetime.

 

It's not a new phenomenon. Rachel Carson wrote about the poisons in her

1962 book " Silent Spring, " which is widely credited for jump-starting the

environmental movement.

 

But until now, researchers were left mostly to guess about exactly how much

and how many of the toxins lingered in our bodies.

 

Few of the estimated 75,000 chemicals found in the United States have been

tested for their health effects, Baltz and other biomonitoring proponents

say. By looking directly in the human body, they hope to catalogue the

environmental influences that may cause disease.

 

Already, several studies have been completed:

 

_ In March, California researchers reported that San Francisco-area women

have three to 10 times as much chemical flame retardant in their breast

tissue as European or Japanese women.

 

_ Indiana University researchers reported at the same time that levels in

Indiana and California women and infants were 20 times higher than those in

Sweden and Norway, which recently banned flame retardant.

 

_ The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (news - web sites) earlier

this year released data from 2,500 volunteers tested for 116 pollutants and

found such chemicals as mercury, uranium and cotinine, a chemical broken

down from nicotine.

 

The CDC also found that black children have twice the level of cotinine

than other children, implying they were exposed to more secondhand smoke

than their peers of other races.

 

Meanwhile, Mexican-American children were found to have three times the

amount of a chemical derived from DDT compared with other children.

Scientists suspect that Mexico and Latin America countries may still be

using the banned chemical.

 

Next month, state Sen. Deborah Ortiz plans to renew calls for California's

polluters to finance testing of contaminants in mother's milk.

 

 

 

" This will allow women to better make informed decision about their

health, " said Ortiz, a Democrat. " And the information will help researchers

and public health officials. "

 

But some fear that biomonitoring results could be misinterpreted and

frighten new mothers from breast feeding their babies.

 

" We are clearly concerned about what effects the stories of biomonitoring

will have, " said Barbara Brenner, executive director of the San

Francisco-based Breast Cancer (news - web sites) Action nonprofit advocacy

group. " Any rational woman will say to herself, `Should I be breast feeding?' "

 

Others see political motives behind some of the tests.

 

" Everyone's exposed to substances and there's no evidence that the low

levels people are exposed to are harming anybody, " said Steven Milloy,

author of " Junk Science Judo: Self Defense Against Health Scares and

Scams. " " It's a waste of time and money that only serves to scare people. "

 

Milloy noted that despite all the chemicals, the overall U.S. population is

living longer and healthier.

 

Although the tests conducted on Baltz and other Commonweal volunteers,

including public television journalist Bill Moyers, are too expensive for

most people, proponents believe costs will go down as technology advances.

Moyers' body had traces of 84 toxins, including lead and a byproduct of

mercury.

 

There's still a debate among advocates over which of the 75,000 chemicals

to specifically look for when biomonitoring. And even when chemicals are

found, there's little an individual can do.

 

But Baltz said the knowledge can at least help consumers make more informed

choices over what they eat.

 

" Since we don't have a whole lot of control over most of the environment,

we can take charge with the food we eat, " he said. " There are few places

where you can exercise such power than controlling what we digest. "

 

On the Net:

 

Baltz' test results: http://www.bodyburden.org

 

CDC: http://www.cdc.gov

 

California Sen. Ortiz: http://democrats.sen.ca.gov/senator/ortiz/