PDA

View Full Version : "Body Burden" Tests


smartmouthwoman
10-25-2007, 08:04 AM
Interesting...

Tests reveal high chemical levels in kids' bodies

Story Highlights

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. See which household products contain industrial chemicals »
"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.

Dr. 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 1½ 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.
Dr. 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 than we do."

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.

Dr. 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."

DarkFantasy96
10-25-2007, 11:48 AM
This is scary. I hate to think about everything that gets into our bodies, whether or not we consciously put it there.

smartmouthwoman
10-25-2007, 12:30 PM
With ya on that one, DF. Can't help thinking our policies of importing stuff from countries who don't have regulations about how things are produced and us not following up by inspecting their goods is gonna come back and haunt us.

"Here, Tommy... play with this!"

"But Mommy, it tastes like lead!"

"Shaddup and play with your toy. I paid good money for that!"

Oldtimer
10-25-2007, 07:13 PM
Interesting...
Tests reveal high chemical levels in kids' bodies

What can I say. Yet another premature release of a scientific study. I say premature because no-one really knows what the results mean. I credit CNN with giving both sides of the story. Too often the media only emphasis the (potential) bad effects in order to frighten the populace.

We should never confuse data with knowledge. So, we now know that certain levels of chemicals have been found in children's bodies. As the report continues, there is no evidence of deterioration in their health. What are we supposed to do with the results? Do we ban all these substances? Perhaps this would be even more deleterious to our health.

A typical 1/2 hour TV news program, in my local area, gives between 5 and 7 things I should be frightened of. I limit myself to being afraid of only one item per day, so I ignore such studies and news reports.

smartmouthwoman
10-25-2007, 08:09 PM
What can I say. Yet another premature release of a scientific study. I say premature because no-one really knows what the results mean. I credit CNN with giving both sides of the story. Too often the media only emphasis the (potential) bad effects in order to frighten the populace.

We should never confuse data with knowledge. So, we now know that certain levels of chemicals have been found in children's bodies. As the report continues, there is no evidence of deterioration in their health. What are we supposed to do with the results? Do we ban all these substances? Perhaps this would be even more deleterious to our health.

A typical 1/2 hour TV news program, in my local area, gives between 5 and 7 things I should be frightened of. I limit myself to being afraid of only one item per day, so I ignore such studies and news reports.

I totally agree, OT. How many times have we been told something's good for us... then bad for us? Like coffee, for example... or red wine... or butter vs margarine. However, I thought this article was a little different. And like you said, tells both sides of the issue. What we choose to ingest is obviously our own decision. But to think it's possible for kids to absorb chemicals from seemingly harmless objects like a sofa is a new concern. And while I'm not gonna panic about the possibilities... admit I'm glad someone is looking into it. If something needs to be done about, I have faith science will point that out. Hell, it wasn't that many years ago we thought it was OK to pour used oil down the storm drains! There are laws prohibiting that now. But you gotta wonder how many barrels of oil were consumed by an unassuming population before 'they' decided it was gonna kill us if we kept it up!

I'm not scared... just thankful there are people out there worrying about that stuff for future generations.

;)
SMW

Foolsworth
10-26-2007, 09:03 PM
This is scary. I hate to think about everything that gets into our bodies, whether or not we consciously put it there.

There's a really good seldom seen movie starring Julianne Moore
called -- SAFE -- {1995} which addresses this very subject.
That indeed especially in most urban settings,or Big city's
the amount of Toxins just filtering and subsisting in the air
we breath could be scary.The really scary part,is not knowing
what to take seriously and what can be avoided.
Each of us have different tolerance levels.What can cause one
person to become sick,may not even phase another.It's a matter
of both psychological and past body immunity to certain chemicals
in our air.We can actually see the nasty stuff that blows out of a
dirty dump truck.It will be Bluish to black smoke.Maybe a white haze
of smoke.You can smell it in the air.Of course some noxious gases
are invisible and almost odorless.
One can also exacerbate psychologically the effects of inhalant
by going into a panic.There's often a fine line between what can
really make you sick and what you might avoid if knowing what
the warning signs are.
In the movie -- SAFE -- the ending is sad.
Because it leaves little hope for some who have developed almost
incurable paranoia over the wide range of Pollutants our civilized
society has managed to produce for our benefit,ironically.