Rachel's #931: Opportunity Amid the Problems

[Guest guest]

At 10:29 AM 11/2/07, you wrote:

>Peter Montague <peter

>Rachel's #931: Opportunity Amid the Problems

>rachel

>

>

>Having trouble viewing this email? You can read it as a web page.

>.

>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>Rachel's Democracy & Health News #931

> " Environment, health, jobs and justice--Who gets to decide? "

>Thursday, November 1, 2007..............Printer-friendly version

>www.rachel.org -- To make a secure donation,

>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>

>Featured stories in this issue...

>

>Problems Create Opportunities

> A new report from the United Nations offers a wake-up call. It's

> time to turn things around. By making major investments in solar

> power, green chemistry, and clean production, the U.S. could create

> whole new industries and large numbers of new jobs. Most importantly,

> we could reclaim our standing as a beneficent giant, a global leader

> in ideas, research, and manufacturing. What are we waiting for?

>Tests Reveal High Chemical Levels in Kids' Bodies

> " [Rowan's] been on this planet for 18 months, and he's loaded with

> a chemical I've never heard of, " Holland said. " He had two to three

> times the level of flame retardants in his body that's been known to

> cause thyroid dysfunction in lab rats. "

>Exposed: The Poisons Around Us

> " In one industry after another, a new double standard is emerging:

> that between the protection offered Europe's citizens, and those

> afforded to Americans. " It is now fair to ask: " Is America itself

> becoming a new dumping ground for products forbidden because of their

> toxic effects in other countries? " Outmoded thinking has endangered

> not only America's health but also its economic future.

>Parents Raising Concerns Over Synthetic Turf

> Dr. Philip J. Landrigan, a professor of pediatrics, agreed that

> there should be a moratorium on new playing fields made from synthetic

> turf. He said the turf poses other dangers to children besides just

> exposure to chemicals.

>Global Warming May Hit Kids Harder, Pediatrics Group Says

> Global warming is likely to disproportionately harm the health of

> children, and politicians should launch " aggressive policies " to curb

> climate change, the American Academy of Pediatrics now says.

>Troubling Meaty 'Estrogen'

> High temperature cooking can imbue meats with a chemical that acts

> like a hormone. But cooks can take steps to alleviate the danger.

>

>:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

:::::::::

>

>Rachel's Democracy & Health News #931, Nov. 1, 2007

>[Printer-friendly version]

>

>PROBLEMS CREATE OPPORTUNITIES

>

>The new GEO-4 Report from the United Nations describes a world in

>decline, but it doesn't have to be this way.

>

>By Peter Montague

>

>The United Nations published its long-awaited GEO-4 report last

>week.

>

>Five years in production, the 570-page report offers a catalog of

>human impacts on the natural environment and warns that national

>governments must make the natural environment central to their policy

>focus. The report was written by 390 experts and peer-reviewed by 1000

>more.

>

>The report says humans are now requiring 22 hectares (54 acres) per

>person for all the activities that sustain human life. However, there

>are only 16 hectares (39 acres) per person available world-wide. As a

>result, farm land is being degraded, ocean fisheries are being

>depleted, and fresh water is becoming scarcer. Furthermore, the human

>population is expected to grow 50% in the next 50 years.

>

> " About half of the footprint is accounted for by the areas that are

>required to absorb our greenhouse gas emissions, " says Neville Ash of

>the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre. " The other half is the

>land which produces our food, the forests which produce our timber,

>the oceans and rivers which produce our fish. "

>

>Clearly, all is not lost if we recognize that the GEO-4 report is a

>wake-up call. Major investments by nations like the U.S., which affect

>the world all out of proportion to their population size, could create

>a new world of possibilities. (The U.S. is 4% of world population but

>produces 25% of all global warming gases.)

>

>A major push to develop solar power, so we could leave all remaining

>fossil fuels in the ground -- stop mining them as soon as humanly

>possible -- would drastically reduce the human footprint on the

>planet. It would also create whole new industries and large numbers of

>new jobs, and would revive America's standing as a beneficent giant of

>positive ideas, applied research, and high-quality products.

>

>We have a detailed road map that shows us the direction we need to

>go. Our military leaders have told us that our national security

>depends upon ending our addiction to fossil fuels. We know we need the

>jobs and the revival of national spirit that such a crash program

>would bring. What are we waiting for?

>

>Now here are four published summaries of the new United Nations GEO-4

>report -- facts you can use to persuade friends, family, and elected

>representatives that a new beginning for America is necessary and is

>possible:

>

>=========================================================

>

>Source: Scientific American October 26, 2007

>

>Headline: The World Is Not Enough for Humans

>

>URL: http://www.precaution.org/lib/07/world_not_en

>ough_for_humans.071030.htm

>

>Humanity's environmental impact has reached an unprecedented scope,

>and it's getting worse

>

>Since 1987 annual emissions of carbon dioxide -- the leading

>greenhouse gas warming the globe -- have risen by a third, global

>fishing yields have declined by 10.6 million metric tons and the

>amount of land required to sustain humanity has swelled to more than

>54 acres (22 hectares) per person. Yet, Earth can provide only roughly

>39 acres (15 hectares) for every person living today, according to the

>United Nation's Environmental Program's (UNEP) Global Environment

>Outlook, released this week. " There are no major issues, " the

>report's authors write of the period since their first report in 1987,

> " for which the foreseeable trends are favorable. "

>

>Despite some successes -- such as the Montreal Protocol's 95 percent

>reduction in chemicals that damage the atmosphere's ozone layer and a

>rise in protected reserves of habitat to cover 12 percent of the

>planet -- humanity's impact continues to grow. For example:

>

>Biodiversity -- The planet is in the grips of the sixth great

>extinction in its 4.5-billion-year history, this one largely man-

>made. Species are becoming extinct 100 times faster than the average

>rate in the fossil record. More than 30 percent of amphibians, 12

>percent of birds and 23 percent of our own class, mammals, are

>threatened.

>

>Climate -- Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit

>(0.76 degree Celsius) over the past century and could increase as much

>as 8.1 degrees F (4.5 degrees C) over the next unless " drastic " steps

>are taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from, primarily, burning

>fossil fuels. Developed countries will need to reduce this globe-

>warming pollution by 60 to 80 percent by mid-century to stave off dire

>consequences, the report warns. " Fundamental changes in social and

>economic structures, including lifestyle changes, are crucial if rapid

>progress is to be achieved. "

>

>Food -- The amount of food grown per acre has reached one metric

>ton, but such increasing intensity is also driving rapid

>desertification of formerly arable land as well as reliance on

>chemical pesticides and fertilizers. In fact, four billion out of the

>world's 6.5 billion people could not get enough food to eat without

>such fertilization. Continuing population growth paired with a shift

>toward eating more meat leads the UNEP to predict that food demand may

>more than triple.

>

>Water -- One in 10 of the world's major rivers, including the Colorado

>and the Rio Grande in the U.S., fail to reach the sea for at least

>part of the year, due to demand for water. And that demand is

>rising; by 2025, the report predicts, demand for fresh water will rise

>by 50 percent in the developing world and 18 percent in industrialized

>countries. At the same time, human activity is polluting existing

>fresh waters with everything from fertilizer runoff to pharmaceuticals

>and climate change is shrinking the glaciers that provide drinking

>water for nearly one third of humanity. " The escalating burden of

>water demand, " the report says, " will become intolerable in water-

>scarce countries. "

>

>The authors -- 388 scientists reviewed by roughly 1,000 of their peers

>-- view the report as " an urgent call for action " and decry the

> " woefully inadequate " global response to problems such as climate

>change. " The amount of resources needed to sustain [humanity] exceeds

>what is available, " the report declares.

>

> " The systematic destruction of the earth's natural and nature-based

>resources has reached a point where the economic viability of

>economies is being challenged, " Achim Steiner, UNEP's executive

>director, said in a statement. " The bill we hand our children may

>prove impossible to pay. "

>

>=========================================================

>

>Source: New Scientist October 25, 2007

>

>Headline: Unsustainable Development 'Puts Humanity at Risk'

>

>URL: http://www.precaution.org/lib/07/humanity_at_risk.071025.htm

>

>By Catherine Brahic

>

>Humans are completely living beyond their ecological means, says a

>major report published by the UN Environment Programme on Thursday.

>

>The 550-page document finds the human ecological footprint is on

>average 21.9 hectares per person. Given the global population,

>however, the Earth's biological capacity is just 15.7 hectares per

>person.

>

>The report is UNEP's latest on the state of the planet's health,

>taking five years in the making. It was put together by about 390

>experts and peer-reviewed by an additional 1000.

>

>It reviews the state of Earth's natural resources, from the atmosphere

>and water, to land surfaces and biodiversity. It concludes that

>instead of being used and maintained as a tool for the sustainable

>development of human populations, the environment is being sucked dry

>by unsustainable development.

>

>Examples of how humans are over-exploiting natural resources to their

>own detriment include:

>

>** Water -- by 2025, 1.6 billion people will live in countries with

>absolute water scarcity; 440 million school days are already missed

>every year because of diarrhoeal diseases.

>

>** Land use -- modern agriculture exploits land more intensively than

>it has in the past. In 1987, a hectare of cropland yielded on average

>1.8 tonnes of crops, today the same hectare produces 2.5 tonnes. This

>increased productivity comes at a cost -- overexploited land is

>degraded and becomes less productive.

>

>** Fish -- 2.6 billion people rely on fish for more than 20% of their

>animal protein intake, yet as the intensity of fishing increases, the

>biodiversity of the ocean and the ocean's capacity to produce more

>fish decreases.

>

>** Air -- more than 2 million people die each year because of indoor

>and outdoor pollution.

>

>Unsustainable consumption

>

>The individual average footprint of 21.9 hectares per person estimated

>by UNEP, includes the areas required to produce the resources we use,

>as well as the areas needed to process our waste.

>

> " About half of the footprint is accounted for by the areas that are

>required to absorb our greenhouse gas emissions, " says Neville Ash of

>the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, underlying the scale of

>the climate change problem. " The other half is the land which produces

>our food, the forests which produce our timber, the oceans and rivers

>which produce our fish. "

>

>The inflated size of the footprint, says Ash, is partially the result

>of the growth of the human population. The population is currently

>estimated at 6.7 billion people, and is expected to reach 8 to 10

>billion by 2050.

>

>But for Ash, the main driver of the size of our footprint is our

>unsustainable consumption. " There is no doubt that we could sustain

>the current and projected population if we lived sustainably, " he told

>New Scientist.

>

>'Inexorable decline'

>

>According to the report authors, energy efficiency is key to

>sustainability. Johan Kuylenstierna of the Stockholm Environment

>Institute says that the growth of greenhouse gas emissions in

>developing nations could be halved by 2020 simply by using existing

>technologies for energy efficiency.

>

>According to Jo Alcamo, at the University of Kassel in Germany, who

>led the group which looked at future development for the report, open

>borders and free trade could also be important. In models of the

>future where trade between countries is made simpler, technologies

>that improve the sustainable use of resources are adopted more

>quickly.

>

> " Much of the 'natural' capital upon which so much of the human

>wellbeing and economic activity depends -- water, land, the air and

>atmosphere, biodiversity and marine resources -- continue their

>seemingly inexorable decline, " warns Achim Steiner, UNEP executive

>director.

>

> " The cost of inaction and the price humanity will eventually pay is

>likely to dwarf the cost of swift and decisive action now. "

>

>=========================================================

>

>Source: New York Times October 26, 2007

>

>Headline: U.N. Warns of Rapid Decay of Environment

>

>URL: http://www.precaution.org/lib/07/u.n._warns_on_enviro

>nment.071026.htm

>

>By James Kanter

>

>PARIS, Oct. 25 -- The human population is living far beyond its means

>and inflicting damage to the environment that could pass points of no

>return, according to a major report issued Thursday by the United

>Nations.

>

>Climate change, the rate of extinction of species, and the challenge

>of feeding a growing population are putting humanity at risk, the

>United Nations Environment Program said in its fourth Global

>Environmental Outlook since 1997.

>

> " The human population is now so large that the amount of resources

>needed to sustain it exceeds what is available at current consumption

>patterns, " Achim Steiner, the executive director of the Environment

>Program, said in a telephone interview.

>

>Many biologists and climate scientists have concluded that human

>activities have become a dominant influence on the Earth's climate and

>ecosystems. But there is still a range of views on whether the changes

>could have catastrophic impacts, as the human population heads toward

>nine billion by midcentury, or more manageable results.

>

>Over the last two decades, the world population increased by almost 34

>percent, to 6.7 billion, from 5 billion. But the land available to

>each person is shrinking, from 19.5 acres in 1900 to 5 acres by 2005,

>the report said.

>

>Population growth combined with unsustainable consumption has resulted

>in an increasingly stressed planet where natural disasters and

>environmental degradation endanger people, plants and animal species.

>

>Persistent problems include a rapid rise of " dead zones, " where marine

>life no longer can be supported because pollutants like runoff

>fertilizers deplete oxygen.

>

>But Mr. Steiner, of the Environment Program, did note that Western

>European governments had taken effective measures to reduce air

>pollutants and that Brazil had made efforts to roll back some

>deforestation. He said an international treaty to tackle the hole in

>the earth's ozone layer had led to the phasing out of 95 percent of

>ozone-damaging chemicals.

>

> " Life would be easier if we didn't have the kind of population growth

>rates that we have at the moment, " Mr. Steiner said. " But to force

>people to stop having children would be a simplistic answer. The more

>realistic, ethical and practical issue is to accelerate human well-

>being and make more rational use of the resources we have on this

>planet. "

>

>Mr. Steiner said parts of Africa could reach an environmental tipping

>point if changing rainfall patterns turned semi-arid zones into arid

>zones and made agriculture much harder. He said another tipping point

>could occur in India and China if Himalayan glaciers shrank so much

>that they no longer supplied adequate amounts of water.

>

>He also warned of a global collapse of all species being fished by

>2050, if fishing around the world continued at its current pace. The

>report said that two and a half times more fish were being caught than

>the oceans could produce in a sustainable manner, and that the level

>of fish stocks classed as collapsed had roughly doubled over the past

>20 years, to 30 percent.

>

>In the spirit of the United Nations report, President Nicolas Sarkozy

>of France outlined plans on Thursday to fight climate change.

>

>He said he would make 1 billion euros, or $1.4 billion, available over

>four years to develop energy sources and maintain biodiversity. He

>said each euro spent on nuclear research would be matched by one spent

>on research into clean technologies and environmental protection.

>

>=========================================================

>

>Source: Agence France Presse (AFP) October 26, 2007

>

>Headline: Save the planet? It's now or never, warns landmark UN report

>

>URL: http://www.precaution.org/lib/07/its_now_or_never_for_earth.

>071026.htm

>

>NAIROBI (AFP) -- Humanity is changing Earth's climate so fast and

>devouring resources so voraciously that it is poised to bequeath a

>ravaged planet to future generations, the UN warned Thursday in its

>most comprehensive survey of the environment.

>

>The fourth Global Environment Outlook (GEO-4), published by the United

>Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), is compiled by 390 experts from

>observations, studies and data garnered over two decades.

>

>The 570-page report -- which caps a year that saw climate change

>dominate the news -- says world leaders must propel the environment

> " to the core of decision-making " to tackle a daily worsening crisis

>

> " The need couldn't be more urgent and the time couldn't be more

>opportune, with our enhanced understanding of the challenges we face,

>to act now to safeguard our own survival and that of future

>generations, " GEO-4 said.

>

>The UNEP report offers the broadest and most detailed tableau of

>environmental change since the Brundtland Report, " Our Common Future, "

>was issued in 1987 and put the environment on the world political map.

>

> " There have been enough wake-up calls since Brundtland. I sincerely

>hope GEO-4 is the final one, " said UNEP Executive Director Achim

>Steiner.

>

> " The systematic destruction of the Earth's natural and nature-based

>resources has reached a point where the economic viability of

>economies is being challenged -- and where the bill we hand on to our

>children may prove impossible to pay, " he added.

>

>Earth has experienced five mass extinctions in 450 million years, the

>latest of which occurred 65 million years ago, says GEO-4.

>

> " A sixth major extinction is under way, this time caused by human

>behaviour, " it says.

>

>Over the past two decades, growing prosperity has tremendously

>strengthened the capacity to understand and confront the environmental

>challenges ahead.

>

>Despite this, the global response has been " woefully inadequate, " the

>report said.

>

>The report listed environmental issues by continent and by sector,

>offering dizzying and often ominous statistics about the future.

>

>Climate is changing faster than at any time in the past 500,000 years.

>

>Global average temperatures rose by 0.74 degrees Celsius (1.33

>Fahrenheit) over the past century and are forecast to rise by 1.8 to

>four C (3.24-7.2 F) by 2100, it said, citing estimates issued this

>year by the 2007 Nobel Peace co-laureates, the Intergovernmental Panel

>on Climate Change (IPCC).

>

>With more than six billion humans, Earth's population is now so big

>that " the amount of resources needed to sustain it exceeds what is

>available, " the report warned, adding that the global population is

>expected to peak at between eight and 9.7 billion by 2050.

>

> " In Africa, land degradation and even desertification are threats; per

>capita food production has declined by 12 percent since 1981, " it

>said.

>

>The GEO-4 report went on to enumerate other strains on the planet's

>resources and biodiversity.

>

>Fish consumption has more than tripled over the past 40 years but

>catches have stagnated or declined for 20 years, it said.

>

> " Of the major vertebrate groups that have been assessed

>comprehensively, over 30 percent of amphibians, 23 percent of mammals

>and 12 percent of birds are threatened, " it added.

>

>Stressing it was not seeking to present a " dark and gloomy scenario " ,

>UNEP took heart in the successes from efforts to combat ozone loss and

>chemical air pollution.

>

>But it also stressed that failure to address persistent problems could

>undo years of hard grind.

>

>And it noted: " Some of the progress achieved in reducing pollution in

>developed countries has been at the expense of the developing world,

>where industrial production and its impacts are now being exported. "

>

>GEO-4 -- the fourth in a series dating back to 1997 -- also looks at

>how the current trends may unfold and outlines four scenarios to the

>year 2050: " Markets First " , " Policy First " , " Security First " ,

> " Sustainability First " .

>

>After a year that saw the UN General Assembly devote unprecedented

>attention to climate change and the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the

>IPCC and former US vice president Al Gore for raising awareness on the

>same issue, the report's authors called for radical change.

>

> " For some of the persistent problems, the damage may already be

>irreversible, " they warned.

>

> " The only way to address these harder problems requires moving the

>environment from the periphery to the core of decision-making:

>environment for development, not development to the detriment of

>environment. "

>

>Return to Table of Contents

>

>:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

:::::::::

>

>CNN.com, Oct. 22, 2007

>[Printer-friendly version]

>

>TESTS REVEAL HIGH CHEMICAL LEVELS IN KIDS' BODIES

>

>So-called " body burden " testing reveals industrial chemicals in

>humans; many of these chemicals harm rats, but studies on humans are

>preliminary

>

>One scientist warns modern-day humans are living an " unnatural

>experiment "

>

>By Jordana Miller, CNN

>

>NEW YORK (CNN) -- Michelle Hammond and Jeremiah Holland were intrigued

>when a friend at the Oakland Tribune asked them and their two young

>children to take part in a cutting-edge study to measure the

>industrial chemicals in their bodies.

>

> " In the beginning, I wasn't worried at all; I was fascinated, "

>Hammond, 37, recalled.

>

>But that fascination soon changed to fear, as tests revealed that

>their children -- Rowan, then 18 months, and Mikaela, then 5 -- had

>chemical exposure levels up to seven times those of their parents.

>

> " [Rowan's] been on this planet for 18 months, and he's loaded with a

>chemical I've never heard of, " Holland, 37, said. " He had two to three

>times the level of flame retardants in his body that's been known to

>cause thyroid dysfunction in lab rats. "

>

>The technology to test for these flame retardants -- known as

>polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) -- and other industrial

>chemicals is less than 10 years old. Environmentalists call it " body

>burden " testing, an allusion to the chemical " burden, " or legacy of

>toxins, running through our bloodstream. Scientists refer to this

>testing as " biomonitoring. "

>

>Most Americans haven't heard of body burden testing, but it's a hot

>topic among environmentalists and public health experts who warn that

>the industrial chemicals we come into contact with every day are

>accumulating in our bodies and endangering our health in ways we have

>yet to understand.

>

> " We are the humans in a dangerous and unnatural experiment in the

>United States, and I think it's unconscionable, " said Dr. Leo

>Trasande, assistant director of the Center for Children's Health and

>the Environment at the Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City.

>Trasande says that industrial toxins could be leading to more

>childhood disease and disorders.

>

> " We are in an epidemic of environmentally mediated disease among

>American children today, " he said. " Rates of asthma, childhood

>cancers, birth defects and developmental disorders have exponentially

>increased, and it can't be explained by changes in the human genome.

>So what has changed? All the chemicals we're being exposed to. "

>

>Elizabeth Whelan, president of the American Council on Science and

>Health, a public health advocacy group, disagrees.

>

> " My concern about this trend about measuring chemicals in the blood is

>it's leading people to believe that the mere ability to detect

>chemicals is the same as proving a hazard, that if you have this

>chemical, you are at risk of a disease, and that is false, " she said.

>Whelan contends that trace levels of industrial chemicals in our

>bodies do not necessarily pose health risks.

>

>In 2004, the Hollands became the first intact nuclear family in the

>United States to undergo body burden testing. Rowan, at just 1.5 years

>old, became the youngest child in the U.S. to be tested for chemical

>exposure with this method.

>

>Rowan's extraordinarily high levels of PBDEs frightened his parents

>and left them with a looming question: If PBDEs are causing

>neurological damage to lab rats, could they be doing the same thing to

>Rowan? The answer is that no one knows for sure. In the three years

>since he was tested, no developmental problems have been found in

>Rowan's neurological system.

>

>Trasande said children up to six years old are most at risk because

>their vital organs and immune system are still developing and because

>they depend more heavily on their environments than adults do.

>

> " Pound for pound, they eat more food, they drink more water, they

>breathe in more air, " he said. " And so [children] carry a higher body

>burden. "

>

>Studies on the health effects of PBDEs are only just beginning, but

>many countries have heeded the warning signs they see in animal

>studies. Sweden banned PBDEs in 1998. The European Union banned most

>PBDEs in 2004. In the United States, the sole manufacturer of two

>kinds of PBDEs voluntarily stopped making them in 2004. A third kind,

>Deca, is still used in the U.S. in electrical equipment, construction

>material, mattresses and textiles.

>

>Another class of chemicals that showed up in high levels in the

>Holland children is known as phthalates. These are plasticizers, the

>softening agents found in many plastic bottles, kitchenware, toys,

>medical devices, personal care products and cosmetics. In lab animals,

>phthalates have been associated with reproductive defects, obesity and

>early puberty. But like PBDEs, little is known about what they do to

>humans and specifically children.

>

>Russ Hauser, an associate professor of environmental and occupational

>epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health, has done some of

>the few human studies on low-level phthalate exposure. His preliminary

>research shows that phthalates may contribute to infertility in men. A

>study led by Shanna Swan of the University of Rochester in New York

>shows that prenatal exposure to phthalates in males may be associated

>with impaired testicular function and with a defect that shortens the

>space between the genitals and anus.

>

>The Environmental Protection Agency does not require chemical

>manufacturers to conduct human toxicity studies before approving their

>chemicals for use in the market. A manufacturer simply has to submit

>paperwork on a chemical, all the data that exists on that chemical to

>date, and wait 90 days for approval.

>

>Jennifer Wood, an EPA spokeswoman, insists the agency has the tools to

>ensure safe oversight.

>

> " If during the new-chemical review process, EPA determines that it may

>have concerns regarding risk or exposure, the EPA has the authority to

>require additional testing, " she said. EPA records show that of the

>1,500 new chemicals submitted each year, the agency asks for

>additional testing roughly 10 percent of the time. The EPA has set up

>a voluntary testing program with the major chemical manufacturers to

>retroactively test some of the 3,000 most widely used chemicals.

>

>Trasande believes that is too little, too late.

>

> " The problem with these tests is that they are really baseline tests

>that don't measure for the kind of subtle health problems that we're

>seeing, " Dr. Trasande said.

>

>In the three years since her family went through body burden testing,

>Michelle Hammond has become an activist on the issue. She's testified

>twice in the California legislature to support a statewide body burden

>testing program, a bill that passed last year. Michelle also speaks to

>various public health groups about her experience, taking Mikaela, now

>8, and Rowan, now 5, with her. So far, her children show no health

>problems associated with the industrial chemicals in their bodies.

>

> " I'm angry at my government for failing to regulate chemicals that are

>in mass production and in consumer products. " Hammond says. " I don't

>think it should have to be up to me to worry about what's in my

>couch. "

>

>Return to Table of Contents

>

>:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

:::::::::

>

>San Francisco Chronicle (pg. M1), Oct. 5, 2007

>[Printer-friendly version]

>

>EXPOSED: THE POISONS AROUND US

>

>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/

>

>By Steve Heilig

>

>Book Review of: Exposed -- The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products

>and What's at Stake for American Power, by Mark Schapiro (Chelsea

>Green, 219 pages, $22.95).

>

>Recently, many Californians have received dramatic mailings from a

>group named Californians for Fire Safety warning that if legislation

>banning some fire-retardant chemicals is passed, we would all be at

>much greater risk of burning to death in fires. Among the omissions in

>this literature are that the " Californians " are actually chemical-

>industry lobbyists, that firefighters themselves support the proposed

>legislation and that the chemicals in question have already been

>banned elsewhere because of concerns about health problems such as

>increased cancer, birth defects and reproductive problems.

>

>This last point, that we in the United States allow use of substances

>deemed too toxic in other nations, especially European ones, is the

>primary focus of San Francisco journalist Mark Schapiro's " Exposed. "

>And while environmental science underlies the book's argument, it is

>notable that Schapiro's perspective is more a business one than

>otherwise. His startling message is that by lagging behind on

>environmental innovation, American industries are jeopardizing their

>financial future. And since money talks, he may have produced a book

>with more eventual impact than a crate of dire environmental warnings.

>

>Public health researchers at UC Berkeley " estimate that forty-two

>billion pounds of chemicals enter American commerce daily, enough

>chemicals to fill up 623,000 tanker trucks, a string of trucks that

>could straddle the globe three times, every day, " notes Schapiro.

>Further, " fewer than five hundred of those substances have undergone

>any substantive risk assessments. " At the same time as this massive

>post-World War II production has taken place, research has

>demonstrated health hazards even or even especially, in some cases, at

>very low doses. And children, fetuses and pregnant women are

>especially vulnerable.

>

>Schapiro's previous book, " Circle of Poison, " demonstrated a quarter

>century ago that American chemical companies exported pesticides

>banned here, causing health hazards in poorer nations. Now the flow of

>risks is reversing. " In one industry after another, a new double

>standard is emerging: that between the protection offered Europe's

>citizens, and those afforded to Americans, " Schapiro writes. And

>ironically, although we like to think of our nation as more advanced

>in such arenas, it is now fair to ask: " Is America itself becoming a

>new dumping ground for products forbidden because of their toxic

>effects in other countries? "

>

>Consider cosmetics. A survey of common products " found hundreds of

>varieties of skin and tanning lotions, nail polish and mascara and

>other personal-care products that contain known or possible

>carcinogens, mutagens, and reproductive toxins. " Contrary to common

>assumption, most cosmetics are not effectively tested or regulated for

>their health effects. European authorities, however, started to demand

>toxicity information before multinational companies could continue to

>market their products there, and this development did garner corporate

>attention and action. Chemicals put on the European Union " negative

>list " were removed from products without seeming to hurt the bottom

>line.

>

>Back at home, however, such as when a Safe Cosmetic Act was proposed

>for California just last year, chemical lobbyists convened en masse in

>Sacramento to argue that there were no risks from the chemicals used.

> " They (the cosmetic companies) are spending hundreds of thousands of

>dollars to lobby against laws in the United States that they've

>already agreed to in Europe, " says a representative of the Breast

>Cancer Fund in San Francisco. Of course, the industry agreed only

>under duress and when the regulatory writing was already on the wall.

>But no bankruptcies of European cosmetic companies have occurred

>because of such healthier standards, and as another advocate notes, " I

>don't notice European women looking any less stunning than they'd

>looked before. "

>

>The example of cosmetics can be seen as one of voluntary exposure,

>although consumers would seem to have a right to know exactly what

>they put onto or into their bodies. But Schapiro provides similar case

>studies of other chemicals or categories of substances, such as

>phthalates used in plastics, persistent organic pollutants including

>pesticides, and genetically modified foods, where much of our

>exposures occur even if we do not actively use a product. Meanwhile,

>federal agencies we might expect to protect us, such as the

>Environmental Protection Agency, have been " eviscerated from within "

>by the current administration.

>

>The advent of the European Union has tilted balances of power in many

>ways, including how " chemical politics " now take place. When the EU

>developed far-reaching new regulations to reduce exposure to harmful

>substances, American chemical lobbyists swarmed across the Atlantic to

>fight them. But EU markets are now bigger than those in America, and

>as one diplomat there states, " We are not going to ask the United

>States for permission. " This is true even when the White House weighs

>in on behalf of the chemical lobby, as was shown when a leaked memo

>indicated that such lobbyists were drafting letters from our

>ambassador to the EU, " an extraordinary glimpse into the routine

>merging of U.S. governmental and private interests, " as Schapiro

>notes.

>

> " U.S. environmental policies are not sparking innovation; they are

>fighting it, " Schapiro holds. The EU economies are now growing faster

>than that of the United States; our balance of trade in chemicals has

>become negative for the first time. European experts calculate that

>their new safer chemical policies will " be repaid many times over by

>its benefits. " " Europe is looking at the future, " Schapiro concludes.

> " This is not utopian; it's more like a realpolitik for the twenty-

>first century. "

>

>How ironic then, that shortsighted, self-serving perspectives in what

>was once the New World have become outmoded, and put Americans at risk

>not only in terms of our health but also our economic future. So, yes,

>as the " fire safety " advocates advise, we probably should call our

>elected leaders. But read this book first.

>

>Steve Heilig is on the staffs of the Collaborative on Health and the

>Environment and the San Francisco Medical Society.

>

>Return to Table of Contents

>

>:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

:::::::::

>

>New York Times, Oct. 28, 2007

>[Printer-friendly version]

>

>PARENTS RAISING CONCERNS OVER SYNTHETIC TURF

>

>By Jeff Holtz

>

>Last school year, Patricia Taylor noticed something worrisome after

>her son Liam, 12, would play soccer at the Bedford Middle School in

>Westport, Conn., on a synthetic turf field made with rubber granules

>from recycled tires.

>

>Mrs. Taylor said Liam would come home with the tiny particles in his

>cleats, in his clothes and in his hair.

>

> " I just looked at him and said, 'What the heck is that?' " she said.

> " Kids are tracking it back home, into washers and dryers, on the rugs

>and in their tubs. It's not just staying on the field. It's

>migrating. "

>

>The turf is the latest in artificial playing surfaces, and its use has

>risen in the last decade at schools, colleges and sports stadiums

>worldwide. Supporters say it is cheaper to maintain than natural grass

>and softer, and therefore safer, than other artificial surfaces. But

>concern is growing among some parents and health officials that the

>rubber used in the turf can release chemicals that are potentially

>harmful to the athletes who play on it.

>

>Such concerns on the part of Mrs. Taylor and other parents led to a

>study this summer by the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station

>in New Haven. It found that when the rubber granules were heated in a

>laboratory at temperatures consistent to exposure to the sun, they

>emitted four organic chemicals that could irritate the eyes, skin and

>respiratory system. One of the chemicals is believed to be a

>carcinogen. The study also detected other chemicals that could not be

>identified without further testing.

>

>Mrs. Taylor and other parents said athletes should not be using the

>fields until they have been proven safe.

>

>Nancy O. Alderman, the president of Environment and Human Health Inc.

>in New Haven, a nonprofit group of doctors and public health officials

>that researches health issues and funded the study, has called for a

>moratorium on the installation of the fields until more studies are

>done. " We know the rubber pellets out-gas these chemicals, " Ms.

>Alderman said. " The one piece we do not know is how much of these

>chemicals are going into people's bodies. "

>

>Gordon F. Joseloff, the first selectman in Westport, where there are

>four synthetic turf playing surfaces at schools, agreed that more

>testing needed to be done, but said that the state's Department of

>Public Health, based on available information, saw no reason to stop

>using the fields.

>

> " We're open to testing in real-time conditions, not in laboratory

>conditions, because kids don't play in a laboratory, " he said.

>

>Brian Toal, an epidemiologist with the department's environmental and

>occupational health assessment program, acknowledged that " the

>information is somewhat sketchy, and some of the studies do indicate

>that there are exposures. "

>

> " But our estimation is the exposures are below levels that would cause

>a health effect, " he said.

>

>Similar health concerns have been raised in Massachusetts and on Long

>Island. In Albany on Wednesday, State Assemblyman Steven C.

>Englebright, a Democrat from Long Island, introduced legislation

>calling for a moratorium on new fields.

>

>There are about a dozen companies that manufacture synthetic athletic

>turf. Sportexe, based in Dallas, made the Westport fields.

>

>Phil M. Stricklen, a chemist who is the company's director of research

>and development, said the fields were safe.

>

> " We see no reason for concern for the people playing on these fields, "

>he said.

>

>Patricia J. Wood, the executive director of Grassroots Environmental

>Education in Port Washington, N.Y., a nonprofit group that studies the

>links between the environment and public health, said she had been

>contacted by a number of parents worried about synthetic turf.

>

> " They want answers, " she said. " They want to know whether it's safe,

>whether they should continue to allow their kids to play on it. "

>

>In Westchester, the county's Legacy Program, an open-space

>preservation fund, has committed close to $25 million and built eight

>turf and three natural grass fields, with several more planned. County

>health officials said they had received only a couple of calls on the

>fields' safety.

>

>Several parents in the county involved in the installations said the

>only concerns they were aware of were financial -- whether the fields,

>which cost $500,000 to $1 million each, were worth it.

>

>In White Plains, which has one field and is installing two more, Arne

>M. Abramowitz, the city's parks commissioner, said he had not heard of

>any health concerns.

>

>There are more than 50 synthetic turf fields in Connecticut, including

>in Westport, Stamford and Greenwich.

>

>In Fairfield, where the Fairfield Country Day School, a private boys

>school, plans to install a synthetic turf field, two neighborhood

>groups -- Preserve Our District and Fairfielders Protecting Land and

>Neighborhoods -- have filed notices to try to stop the town from

>issuing a inland wetland permit, claiming that the chemicals from the

>rubber pellets could harm the environment and potentially contaminate

>groundwater, said Joel Z. Green, a lawyer for both groups.

>

>A lawyer for the school, John F. Fallon, defended the school's

>actions, saying officials there had consulted with several experts on

>the field's safety.

>

>Annette Jacobson, the conservation administrator for the Town of

>Fairfield, said a report she prepared found no indication that the

>turf would adversely affect wetlands or water sources. Another hearing

>on the wetland permit was scheduled for 7:30 p.m. Monday at Osborne

>Hill Elementary School.

>

>While saying there is no need for panic, the Connecticut attorney

>general, Richard Blumenthal, is asking the state to spend $200,000 so

>the state Agricultural Experiment Station can study the issue further.

> " There are some serious unknowns, as far as potential heath risk, " he

>said. " Certainly there is a need for more study and research. "

>

>Dr. Philip J. Landrigan, a professor of pediatrics and the chairman of

>preventive medicine at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York,

>agreed that there should be a moratorium on new fields, and said that

>tests should be done on the skin, urine and blood of children before

>and after they play on them. He also said the turf poses other

>dangers, besides the exposure to chemicals.

>

> " On hot summer days, temperatures as high as 130 and 140 degrees have

>been recorded a couple of feet above the surface of these fields, " he

>said.

>

>Several medical journals have reported that athletes who fall on

>synthetic turf are more likely to sustain skin burns that put them at

>risk of staph infections, Dr. Landrigan said.

>

>Liam Taylor and his mother are proceeding with caution. This year, he

>is on the soccer team at the Hopkins School in New Haven, which does

>not have a synthetic turf field, and his mother refuses to let him

>play at any school that does have one.

>

> " My job is to protect my son, " she said. " Now that there is evidence

>of out-gassing, he will not be exposed until the fields are proven

>safe. "

>

>Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

>

>Return to Table of Contents

>

>:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

:::::::::

>

>USA Today, Oct. 29, 2007

>[Printer-friendly version]

>

>GLOBAL WARMING MAY HIT KIDS HARDER, PEDIATRICS GROUP SAYS

>

>By Marilyn Elias, USA TODAY

>

>Global warming is likely to disproportionately harm the health of

>children, and politicians should launch " aggressive policies " to curb

>climate change, the American Academy of Pediatrics said today. In the

>first major report about the unique effects of global warming on

>kids, U.S. pediatricians also were advised to " educate " elected

>officials about the coming dangers.

>

>There's evidence that children are likely to suffer more than adults

>from climate change, says the report's lead author, Katherine Shea, a

>pediatrician and adjunct public health professor at the University of

>North Carolina-Chapel Hill.

>

> " We already have change, and certain bad things are going to happen no

>matter what we do, " Shea says. " But we can prevent things from getting

>even worse. We don't have the luxury of waiting. "

>

>More greenhouse gases and a warming Earth will leave children

>particularly vulnerable in several ways, the report says:

>

>** Air pollution does more damage to children's lungs, causing asthma

>and respiratory ailments, because their lungs are still developing,

>they breathe at a higher rate than adults and are outdoors more.

>

>** Waterborne infections, such as diarrhea and other gastrointestinal

>problems, hit children especially hard. These infections rise sharply

>with more rain, which is expected as the climate warms.

>

>** As mosquitoes are able to move to higher ground, the malaria zone

>is expanding. Kids are especially vulnerable; 75% of malaria deaths

>occur in children younger than 5.

>

>The report briefly mentions that mass migrations are expected as

>regions become uninhabitable. " Children fare very poorly in these

>major population shifts, " says Irwin Redlener, director of the

>National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University and

>president of the Children's Health Fund. " They're more fragile

>medically and nutritionally, " says Redlener, who wasn't involved with

>the report. " They're less resilient, less likely to survive. "

>

>No matter what the risks, the pediatrics academy shouldn't be sending

>its members out to lobby, argues Janice Crouse, director of a think

>tank affiliated with Concerned Women for America, a conservative

>public policy group. " Let them issue a scientific report, and people

>can judge whether it has validity. For a scientific group to use

>children as a means of advancing a political agenda is beyond the

>pale, " she says.

>

>Julie Gerberding, director of the federal Centers for Disease Control

>and Prevention, briefed a Senate committee on the health risks of

>global warming last week. She mentioned increasing asthma, malaria and

>waterborne diseases but not children's vulnerability.

>

>The Associated Press reported that Gerberding's speech was

> " eviscerated " by the White House, but CDC spokesman Tom Skinner denied

>it, adding that Gerberding said everything she wanted to say without

>constraint.

>

> " This is not a political issue, it's a public health issue, " Shea

>says. " If we know the health of children and future children is

>threatened, we have an obligation to act. "

>

>Return to Table of Contents

>

>:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

:::::::::

>

>Science News, Oct. 20, 2007

>[Printer-friendly version]

>

>TROUBLING MEATY 'ESTROGEN'

>

>By Janet Raloff

>

>Women take note. Researchers find that a chemical that forms in

>overcooked meat, especially charred portions, is a potent mimic of

>estrogen, the primary female sex hormone. That's anything but

>appetizing, since studies have linked a higher lifetime cumulative

>exposure to estrogen in women with an elevated risk of breast cancer.

>

>Indeed, the new finding offers a " biologically plausible " explanation

>for why diets rich in red meats might elevate breast-cancer risk,

>notes Nigel J. Gooderham of Imperial College London.

>

>At the very high temperatures reached during frying and charbroiling,

>natural constituents of meats can undergo chemical reactions that

>generate carcinogens known as heterocyclic amines (see Carcinogens in

>the Diet). Because these compounds all have very long, unwieldy

>chemical monikers, most scientists refer to them by their

>abbreviations, such as IQ, MeIQ, MeIQx, and PhIP.

>

>Of the nearly two dozen different heterocyclic amines that can form,

>PhIP dominates. It sometimes accumulates in amounts 10 to 50 times

>higher than that of any other member of this toxic chemical family,

>Gooderham says. Moreover, he adds, although heterocyclic amines

>normally cause liver tumors in exposed animals, PhIP is different: " It

>causes breast cancer in female rats, prostate cancer in male rats, and

>colon cancer in both. " These are the same cancers that in people are

>associated with eating a lot of cooked meats.

>

>However, the means by which such foods might induce cancer has

>remained somewhat elusive. So, building on his team's earlier work,

>Gooderham decided to probe what the heterocyclic amine did in rat

>pituitary cells. These cells make prolactin -- another female sex

>hormone -- but only when triggered by the presence of estrogen.

>Prolactin, like estrogen, fuels the growth of many breast cancers.

>

>In their new test-tube study, Gooderham and coauthor Saundra N. Lauber

>show that upon exposure to PhIP, pituitary cells not only make

>progesterone, but also secrete it. If these cells do the same thing

>when they're part of the body, those secretions would circulate to

>other organs -- including the breast.

>

>But " what was startling, " Gooderham told Science News Online, is that

>it took just trace quantities of the heterocyclic amine to spur

>prolactin production. " PhIP was incredibly potent, " he says, able to

>trigger progesterone production at concentrations comparable to what

>might be found circulating in the blood of people who had eaten a

>couple of well-done burgers.

>

>The toxicologist cautions that there's a big gap between observing an

>effect in isolated cells growing in a test-tube and showing that the

>same holds true in people.

>

>However, even if PhIP does operate similarly in people, he says that's

>no reason to give up grilled meat. Certain cooking techniques, such as

>flipping hamburgers frequently, can limit the formation of

>heterocyclic amines. Moreover, earlier work by the Imperial College

>team showed that dining on certain members of the mustard family

>appear to detoxify much of the PhIP that might have inadvertently been

>consumed as part of a meal.

>

>The human link

>

>Three recent epidemiological studies support concerns about the

>consumption of grilled meats.

>

>In the first, Harvard Medical School researchers compared the diets of

>more than 90,000 premenopausal U.S. nurses. Over a 12-year period,

>1,021 of the relatively young women developed invasive breast cancers.

>The more red meat a woman ate, the higher was her risk of developing

>invasive breast cancer, Eunyoung Cho and her colleagues reported in

>the Archives of Internal Medicine last November. The increased risk

>was restricted, however, only to those types of breast cancers that

>are fueled by estrogen or progesterone.

>

>Overall, women who ate the most red meat -- typically 1.5 servings or

>more per day -- faced nearly double the invasive breast-cancer risk of

>those eating little red meat each week.

>

>Related findings emerged in the April 10 British Journal of Cancer.

>There, researchers at the University of Leeds reported data from a

>long-running study of more than 35,000 women in the United Kingdom who

>ranged in age from roughly 35 to 70. Regardless of the volunteers'

>age, Janet E. Cade's team found, those who consumed the most meat had

>the highest risk of breast cancer.

>

>Shortly thereafter, Susan E. Steck of the University of South

>Carolina's school of public health and her colleagues linked meat

>consumption yet again with increased cancer risk, but only in the

>older segment of the women they investigated. By comparing the diets

>of 1,500 women with breast cancer to those of 1,550 cancerfree women,

>the scientists showed that postmenopausal women consuming the most

>grilled, barbecued, and smoked meats faced the highest breast-cancer

>risk.

>

>These data support accumulating evidence that a penchant for well-done

>meats can hike a woman's breast-cancer risk, Steck and her colleagues

>concluded in the May Epidemiology.

>

>PhIP fighters

>

>Such findings have been percolating out of the epidemiology community

>for years. Nearly a decade ago, for instance, National Cancer

>Institute scientists reported finding that women who consistently ate

>their meat very well done -- with a crispy, blackened crust -- faced a

>substantially elevated breast-cancer risk when compared to those who

>routinely ate rare- or medium-cooked meats.

>

>However, even well-done meats without char can contain heterocyclic

>amines, chemical analyses by others later showed. The compounds'

>presence appears to correlate best with how meat is cooked, not merely

>with how brown its interior ended up (SN: 11/28/98, p. 341).

>

>At high temperatures, the simple sugar glucose, together with

>creatinine -- a muscle-breakdown product, and additional free amino

>acids, can all interact within beef, chicken, and other meats to form

>heterocyclic amines. In contrast, low-temperature cooking or a quick

>searing may generate none of the carcinogens.

>

>Because there's no way to tell visually, by taste, or by smell whether

>PhIP and its toxic kin lace cooked meat, food chemists have been

>lobbying commercial and home chefs to reduce the heat they use to cook

>meats -- or to turn meats frequently to keep the surfaces closest to

>the heat source from getting too hot.

>

>The significance of this was driven home to Gooderham several years

>ago when just such tactics spoiled an experiment he was launching to

>test whether Brussels sprouts and broccoli could help detoxify PhIP.

> " I bought 30 kilograms of prime Aberdeen angus lean beef, " he recalls.

> " Then we ground it up and I gave it to a professional cook to turn

>into burgers and cook. " Professional cooks tend to move meats around

>quite a bit, he found. The result: His expensive, chef-prepared meat

>contained almost no PhIP.

>

>In the end, he says, " I sacked the cook, bought another 30 kilos of

>meat and prepared the burgers myself. It was a costly lesson. "

>

>Once restarted, however, that study yielded encouraging data.

>

>One way the body detoxifies and sheds toxic chemicals is to link them

>to what amounts to a sugar molecule. Consumption of certain members of

>the mustard (Brassica) family, such as broccoli and Brussels sprouts

>(both members of the B. oleracea species) -- can encourage this

>process. So Gooderham's team fed 250 grams (roughly half a pound) each

>of broccoli and Brussels sprouts each day to 20 men for almost 2

>weeks. On the 12th day, the men each got a cooked-meat meal containing

>4.9 micrograms of PhIP.

>

>Compared to similar trial periods when their diets had been Brassica-

>free, the volunteers excreted up to 40 percent more PhIP in urine, the

>researchers reported in Carcinogenesis.

>

>Experimental data suggest that two brews may also help detoxify

>heterocyclic amines. In test-tube studies, white tea largely prevented

>DNA damage from the heterocyclic amine IQ (SN: 4/15/00, p. 251), and

>in mice, extracts of beer tackled MeIQx and Trp-P-2 (see Beer's Well

>Done Benefit).

>

>The best strategy of all, most toxicologists say, is to prevent

>formation of heterocyclic amines in the first place. In addition to

>frequently turning meat on the grill or fry pan, partially cooking

>meats in a microwave prior to grilling will limit the toxic chemicals'

>formation. So will mixing in a little potato starch to ground beef

>before grilling (see How Carbs Can Make Burgers Safer) or marinating

>meats with a heavily sugared oil-and-vinegar sauce (SN: 4/24/99, p.

>264).

>

>References:

>

>Cho, E., et al. 2006. Red meat intake and risk of breast cancer among

>premenopausal women. Archives of Internal Medicine 166(Nov.

>13):2253-2259. Abstract available at http://archinte.ama-as

>sn.org/cgi/content/short/166/20/2253.

>

>Felton, J.S., et al. 1995. Reduction of heterocyclic aromatic amine

>mutagens/carcinogens in fried beef patties by microwave pretreatment.

>Available at http://www.llnl.gov/str/pdfs/UCRL-JC-116450.pdf.

>

>Gooderham, N.J., et al. 2007. Mechanisms of action of the carcinogenic

>heterocyclic amine PhIP. Toxicology Letters 168(Feb. 5):269-277.

>Abstract available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.20

>06.10.022.

>

>Lauber, S.N., and N.J. Gooderham. 2007. The cooked meat-derived

>genotoxic carcinogen 2-amino-3-methylimidazo[4,5-b]pyridine has potent

>hormone-like activity: Mechanistic support for a role in breast

>cancer. Cancer Research 67(Oct. 1):9597-9602. Abstract available at h

>ttp://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/67/19/9597.

>

>Murray, S.,... and N.J. Gooderham. 2001. Effect of cruciferous

>vegetable consumption on heterocyclic aromatic amine metabolism in

>man. Carcinogenesis 22(September):1413-1420. Available at http:/

>/carcin.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/22/9/1413.

>

>Steck, S.E., et al. 2007. Cooked meat and risk of breast cancer --

>Lifetime versus recent dietary intake. Epidemiology 18(May):373-382.

>Abstract available at http://www.epidem.com/pt/r

>e/epidemiology/abstract.00001648-200705000-00016.htm.

>

>Taylor, E.F., et al. 2007. Meat consumption and risk of breast cancer

>in the UK Women's Cohort Study. British Journal of Cancer 96(April

>10):1139-1146. Available at http://www.nature.com/bjc/jour

>nal/v96/n7/full/6603689a.html.

>

>Walters, D.G.... N.J. Gooderham, et al. 2004. Cruciferous vegetable

>consumption alters the metabolism of the dietary carcinogen 2-amino-1-

>methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-b]pyridine (PhIP) in humans. Carcinogenesis

>25(September):1659-1669. Available at http://carcin.oxfordjourn

>als.org/cgi/content/full/25/9/1659.

>

>Further Readings:

>

>Raloff, J. 2007. Concerns over genistein, part II -- Beyond the heart.

>Science News Online (July 7). Available at http://www.scie

>ncenews.org/articles/20070707/food.asp.

>

>______. 2007. Concerns over genistein, part I -- The heart of the

>issue. Science News Online (June 16). Available at

>http://www.sciencene ws.org/articles/20070616/food.asp.

>

>______. 2006. Pesticides mimic estrogen in shellfish. Science News

>170(Dec. 16):397. Available to rs at http://www.scien

>cenews.org/articles/20061216/note12.asp.

>

>______. 2006. No-stick chemicals can mimic estrogen. Science News

>170(Dec. 2):366. Available to rs at http://www.scie

>ncenews.org/articles/20061202/note16.asp.

>

>______. 2006. Meat poses exaggerated cancer risk for some people.

>Science News Online (March 25). Available at http://www.scien

>cenews.org/articles/20060325/food.asp.

>

>______. 2005. Beer's well done benefit. Science News Online (March 5).

>Available at http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050305/food.asp.

>

>______. 2005. Carcinogens in the diet. Science News Online (Feb. 19).

>Available at http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050219/food.asp.

>

>______. 2004. How carbs can make burgers safer. Science News Online

>(Dec. 4). Available at http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20041

>204/food.asp.

>

>______. 2004. Uranium, the newest 'hormone'. Science News 166(Nov.

>13):318. Available to rs at http://www.sciencenews.or

>g/articles/20041113/note14.asp.

>

>______. 2001. Fire retardant catfish? Science News Online (Dec. 8).

>Available at http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20011208/food.asp.

>

>______. 1999. Well-done research. Science News 155(April 24):264-266.

>Available at http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc99/4_24_99/b

>ob1.htm.

>

>______. 1998. Very hot grills may inflame cancer risks. Science News

>154(Nov. 28):341. Available at http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/s

>n_arc98/11_28_98/fob3.htm.

>

>______. 1996. Another meaty link to cancer. Science News 149(June

>8):365. Available at http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/pdfs/da

>ta/1996/149-23/14923-13.pdf.

>

>______. 1996. 'Estrogen' pairings can increase potency. Science News

>149(June 8):356. Available at http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/

>pdfs/data/1996/149-23/14923-03.pdf.

>

>______. 1995. Beyond estrogens: Why unmasking hormone-mimicking

>pollutants proves so challenging. Science News 148(July 15):44.

>Available at http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/pdfs/data/1

>995/148-03/14803-15.pdf.

>

>______. 1994. Meaty carcinogens: A risk to the cook? Science News

>146(Aug. 13):103.

>

>______. 1994. Not so hot hot dogs? Science News 145(April 23):264-269.

>

>______. 1994. How cooked meat may inflame the heart. Science News

>145(March 12):165.

>

>______. 1994. The gender benders. Science News 145(Jan. 8):24.

>Available at http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_edpik/ls_7.htm.

>

>Smith-Roe, S.L., et al. 2006. Induction of aberrant crypt foci in DNA

>mismatch repair-deficient mice by the food-borne carcinogen 2-amino-1-

>methyl-6-phenylimidazo [4,5-b] pyridine (PhIP). Cancer Letters.

>244(Nov. 28):79-85. Abstract available at http://dx.doi.org/10.101

>6/j.canlet.2005.12.002.

>

>______. 2006. Mlh1-dependent responses to 2-amino-1-methyl-6-

>phenylimidazo [4,5-b] pyridine (PhIP), a food-borne carcinogen.

>(Abstract # 514). Toxicologist 90(March):105.

>

>______. 2006. Mlh1-dependent suppression of specific mutations induced

>in vivo by the food-borne carcinogen 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo

>[4,5-b] pyridine (PhIP). Mutation Research/Fundamental and Molecular

>Mechanisms of Mutagenesis 594(Feb. 22):101-112. Abstract available at

>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2005.08.011.

>

>Sources:

>

>Janet E. Cade

>UK Women's Cohort Study Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics

>30/32 Hyde Terrace

>The University of Leeds

>Leeds LS2 9LN

>United Kingdom

>

>Eunyoung Cho

>Channing Laboratory

>Department of Medicine

>Harvard Medical School

>181 Longwood Avenue

>Boston, MA 02115

>

>Nigel J. Gooderham

>Biomolecular Medicine

>Imperial College London

>Sir Alexander Fleming Building

>London SW7 2AZ

>United Kingdom

>

>Susan Elizabeth Steck

>Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics

>Statewide Cancer Prevention and Control Program

>Arnold School of Public Health

>University of South Carolina

>2221 Devine Street, Room 231

>Columbia, SC 29208

>

>Copyright 2007 Science Service

>

>Return to Table of Contents

>

>:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

:::::::::::::::::::::

>

> Rachel's Democracy & Health News (formerly Rachel's Environment &

> Health News) highlights the connections between issues that are

> often considered separately or not at all.

>

> The natural world is deteriorating and human health is declining

> because those who make the important decisions aren't the ones who

> bear the brunt. Our purpose is to connect the dots between human

> health, the destruction of nature, the decline of community, the

> rise of economic insecurity and inequalities, growing stress among

> workers and families, and the crippling legacies of patriarchy,

> intolerance, and racial injustice that allow us to be divided and

> therefore ruled by the few.

>

> In a democracy, there are no more fundamental questions than, " Who

> gets to decide? " And, " How do the few control the many, and what

> might be done about it? "

>

> As you come across stories that might help people connect the dots,

> please Email them to us at dhn.

>

> Rachel's Democracy & Health News is published as often as

> necessary to provide readers with up-to-date coverage of the

> subject.

>

> Editors:

> Peter Montague - peter

> Tim Montague - tim

>

>:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

:::::::::::::::::::::

>

> To start your own free Email subscription to Rachel's Democracy

> & Health News send any Email to: rachel-.

>

> In response, you will receive an Email asking you to confirm that

> you want to .

>

> To , send any Email to: rachel-.

>

>:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

:::::::::::::::::::::

>

>Environmental Research Foundation

>P.O. Box 160, New Brunswick, N.J. 08903

>dhn

>:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

:::::::::::::::::::::

>

 

******

Kraig and Shirley Carroll ... in the woods of SE Kentucky

http://www.thehavens.com/

thehavens

606-376-3363

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.859 / Virus Database: 585 - Release 2/14/05