Body Burden -- Human Contamination


by theroyprocess
Tags: body, burden, contamination, human
theroyprocess
theroyprocess is offline
#1
Jan24-04, 09:28 PM
P: 141
BODY BURDEN -- HUMAN CONTAMINATION

In a study led by Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, in collaboration with the Environmental Working Group and Commonweal, researchers at two major laboratories found an average of 91 industrial compounds, pollutants, and other chemicals in the blood and urine of nine volunteers, with a total of 167 chemicals found in the group. Like most of us, the people tested do not work with chemicals on the job and do not live near an industrial facility.

Scientists refer to this contamination as a person’s body burden. Of the 167 chemicals found, 76 cause cancer in humans or animals, 94 are toxic to the brain and nervous system, and 79 cause birth defects or abnormal development. The dangers of exposure to these chemicals in combination has never been studied....

http://www.ewg.org/reports/bodyburden/es.php
Phys.Org News Partner Physics news on Phys.org
The hemihelix: Scientists discover a new shape using rubber bands (w/ video)
Mapping the road to quantum gravity
Chameleon crystals could enable active camouflage (w/ video)
russ_watters
russ_watters is online now
#2
Jan25-04, 10:45 PM
Mentor
P: 22,008
www.dilbert.com
theroyprocess
theroyprocess is offline
#3
Jan26-04, 07:49 AM
P: 141
Tell us Russ...are you an "ice baby"?

Managers Disciplined in Nuclear Hazing

By DUNCAN MANSFIELD
Associated Press 01-23-04 2154EST

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news...VA-Hazing.html

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - Four managers at a nuclear power plant were
suspended and a fifth was warned for a hazing ritual in which a worker was thrown
into an ice condenser safety system designed to prevent a core meltdown, the
Tennessee Valley Authority said Friday.

In addition, eight contractor employees were either fired, suspended,
demoted or transferred for their involvement in the April 24 incident at the
Sequoyah Nuclear Plant near Chattanooga, the TVA inspector general's office said.

TVA, the country's largest public utility, released a 25-page inspector
general's report on the incident Friday under a Freedom of Information request
from The Associated Press and other media. TVA erased all names in the report.

Nearly 2,000 baskets containing boron-laced ice ring the top of the building
containing Sequoyah's reactor core. The ice is supposed to cool any steam
released during an accident, condense it into water and reduce the threat of a
containment rupture. Boron is added because it ha a high capacity to absorb
radiation.

On April 24, an employee who was bruised when two other workers flipped her
into a basket reported the hazing to medical personnel.

The investigation, prompted by a single complaint, found the ``initiation''
practice ``was common and had been going on since the 1980s.''

As many as 200 employees may have been subjected to the hazing, witnesses
told investigators. Several witnesses said ``the practice was so widespread
management must have known,'' although the report contained denials from some
managers.

``One of the first things you learned about a nuclear plant was becoming an
'icebaby,''' one witness told investigators.

``Icebaby'' T-shirts showing ``people in a basket'' even were sold at a
workers' co-op.

TVA issued a statement Friday saying the federal utility ``does not condone
this type of behavior'' and had ``taken action to reinforce that this type of
behavior is unacceptable and will not be tolerated in the workplace.''

TVA, which provides elctricity to 8.3 million people in Tennessee, Kentucky,
Georgia, Virginia, North Carolina, Mississippi and Alabama, operates two ice
condenser nuclear stations - the twin-reactor Sequoyah plant and the
single-reactor Watts Bar Nuclear Plant near Spring City, Tenn.



01/23/04 21:54 EST



* See also: NucNews Links and Archives (by date) at http://nucnews.net * (Posted for educational and research purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107) *

theroyprocess
theroyprocess is offline
#4
Jan26-04, 12:34 PM
P: 141

Body Burden -- Human Contamination


http://www.sundayherald.com/print37667

Sunday Herald - 26 October 2003
Revealed: UK mums’ milk second most toxic in world
Survey shows chemicals from everyday products are ‘poisoning’ breast milk
By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Toxic contamination of mothers’ breast milk in Britain is among the highest in the world, a new survey by scientists has revealed.
Concentrations of chemical flame retardants, suspected of damaging brain development and causing cancer, are higher in the UK than in Germany, Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Canada. Scientists say the levels are “a real cause for concern”, while environmentalists describe them as “shocking” and “extremely worrying”.

The revelation comes as the European Commission prepares to water down its plan for regulating the 30,000 manufactured chemicals to which people are exposed in everyday consumer products. New controls to be published this week will be seriously weakened because of opposition from the chemical industry, backed by the British, German and French governments.

Scientists from Lancaster University tested the breast milk of 52 mothers in Lancaster and London for a group of chemicals known as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), widely used in clothing, furniture and plastics to make them less flammable.

Some PBDEs were found in every sample, the highest being 68.6 nanograms per gram of fat and the average 6.6ng. These are much higher levels than every other country where comparable surveys have been done, except for the United States, which is by far the biggest user of PBDEs.

The toxic effects of PBDEs are poorly understood, though there is evidence from animal studies that they could impair learning, memory and behaviour, as well as trigger liver cancer. Scientists point out that they are structurally similar to PCBs, which have long been regarded as potential carcinogens and as a threat to reproductive and immune systems.

“We don’t know how PBDEs affect human health,” Kevin Jones, professor of environmental chemistry at Lancaster University, told the Sunday Herald. “But we do know that they are accumulating in our bodies and we suspect that they might be as toxic as PCBs. ”

He suggested that the high levels his team found in breast milk could come from the large amounts of PBDEs used in consumer products in Britain to comply with the country’s stringent fire precautions. His study is the first to investigate levels in British breast milk, and it is due to be published in a scientific journal within the next few months.

The marketing and use of two types of PBDEs will be banned by the European Commission from next August . But companies are switching to a third type not covered by the ban, but which scientists fear could be just as harmful.

Environmental groups say the new evidence about PBDEs strengthens the need for the European Commission to introduce a tough set of rules on hazardous chemicals this week. But leaked drafts of the latest EC proposals suggest that several of its key provisions will be abandoned.

The new regulations, known as Reach, will require much less safety information to be provided on two-thirds of the chemicals in use, as well as enabling companies to remain anonymous. Industry will only have to prove that chemicals are subject to “adequate control”, even if safer alternatives are available.

Recent research shows that many chemicals with potential health effects can be detected in a wide range of ordinary household items. Nonylphenols and phthalates, for example, have been found in Disney and Mothercare children’s pyjamas as well as in Woolworths bath ducks.

Earlier this month, the Food Standards Agency warned that a cancer-causing chemical called semicarbazide was migrating into food from the plastic seals on the lids of jars. Last month, the Sunday Herald disclosed that baby toys, nappies, clothes and plastics were contaminated with tin compounds known as organotins.

Now the discovery of PBDE flame retardants in breast milk has set more alarm bells ringing.

“It is extremely worrying,” said Duncan McLaren, the chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland. He accused the British government of blocking agreement on the new European safety rules. “Given these shocking findings it is high time ministers stood up to the lobbying of chemical corporations and protected people from exposure to toxic threats.”

Another environmental group, WWF Scotland, is this week planning to release the results of blood tests it carried out for chemicals on 12 volunteers, including two MSPs, Sarah Boyack and Christine Grahame. Some of them may have tested positive for PBDEs.

“We cannot reveal individual results but the recent concerns over flame retardants mean that we will be looking particularly closely at these results,” said Dr Richard Dixon, head of policy at WWF Scotland.

“The European proposals to control chemicals are crucial to reducing the threat from the chemical soup we all live in. Until recently the UK supported radical reform of the laws on chemicals, so it is doubly disgraceful that Tony Blair has tried to water down the new testing system.”

The British Prime Minister wrote to EC President Romano Prodi in September, complaining that the proposed Reach chemical regulations were “a long way from being the fast, simple and cost- efficient procedure that was promised”. The letter was also signed by the French President, Jacques Chirac, and German Chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder.

The chemical industry also protested that the EC proposals would cost billions of euros and could put thousands out of work. As a result, EC environment commissioner Margot Wallström was forced to rewrite large chunks of the draft legislation, which she is due to publish on Wednesday.

But on Tuesday, thousands of protest postcards will be handed in to the EC office in Edinburgh by FoE Scotland.

The government’s environmental agencies also seem anxious to ensure that the rules remain strong.

The Scottish Environment Protection Agency stressed that “prevention rather than cure is always a better option”, while Scottish Natural Heritage said that if the current Reach scheme was unworkable, other options should be explored.

The Scottish Executive, however, gave nothing away. Deputy environment minister, Allan Wilson, said: “We will study the proposals carefully to assess how well they balance environmental and health objectives with our desire to see a competitive and innovative chemicals industry.”

The new regulations are likely to be broadly welcomed by the Chemicals Industries Association (CIA), though it still wants further changes. “The commission has completed half the job in reducing the scope of the proposals,” said CIA director general, Judith Hackitt.

The new regulations will then go to the European parliament for comments. Environmentalists are hoping MEPs will be more receptive to their lobbying .

“Unless the European parliament strengthens this legislation it will not do anything to protect human health and the environment,” said Mark Strutt of Greenpeace. “The fight to get legislation that protects ordinary people from daily exposure to hazardous chemicals is just about to begin.”
russ_watters
russ_watters is online now
#5
Jan28-04, 03:50 PM
Mentor
P: 22,008
http://www.nbc10.com/health/2477977/detail.html
The research, published in this week's [9/2003] issue of the journal The Lancet, said deaths attributed to tobacco use are about equal in both groups. It estimates 4.8 million people died worldwide in 2000 from smoking-related diseases.
theroyprocess
theroyprocess is offline
#6
Feb4-04, 09:03 AM
P: 141
Russ should know some basic law. People "choose" to smoke tobacco
mostly because their peer group smokes. However the strontium 90
in baby teeth and its health effects, cancers, immune diseases, and
the huge costs for medical treatment...are not chosen by its victims.
It's called MURDER !
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An unexpected rise in strontium-90 in US deciduous teeth in the 1990s

Joseph J. Mangano, , a, Jay M. Gould, b, 1, Ernest J. Sternglass, c, 2, Janette D. Sherman, d, 3 and William McDonnell, e, 4

a Radiation and Public Health Project, 786 Carroll Street, #9, Brooklyn, NY 11215, USA
b Radiation and Public Health Project, 302 West 86th Street, #11B, New York, NY 10024, USA
c Radiation and Public Health Project, 4601 Fifth Avenue #824, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA
d P.O. Box 4605, Alexandria, VA 22303, USA
e Radiation and Public Health Project, P.O. Box 60, Unionville, NY 10988, USA

Received 3 March 2003; revised 14 March 2003; accepted 11 July 2003. ; Available online 5 September 2003.

Abstract
For several decades, the United States has been without an ongoing program measuring levels of fission products in the body. Strontium-90 (Sr-90) concentrations in 2089 deciduous (baby) teeth, mostly from persons living near nuclear power reactors, reveal that average levels rose 48.5% for persons born in the late 1990s compared to those born in the late 1980s. This trend represents the first sustained increase since the early 1960s, before atmospheric weapons tests were banned. The trend was consistent for each of the five states for which at least 130 teeth are available. The highest averages were found in southeastern Pennsylvania, and the lowest in California (San Francisco and Sacramento), neither of which is near an operating nuclear reactor. In each state studied, the average Sr-90 concentration is highest in counties situated closest to nuclear reactors. It is likely that, 40 years after large-scale atmospheric atomic bomb tests ended, much of the current in-body radioactivity represents nuclear reactor emissions.

Author Keywords: Radiation; Strontium-90; Nuclear reactors; Deciduous teeth (baby teeth)


Corresponding author: Tel.: +1-718-857-9825; fax: +1-718-857-4986

1 Tel.: +1-212-496-6787; fax: +1-212-362-0348.

2 Tel./fax: +1-412-681-6251.

3 Tel.: +1-703-329-8223; fax: +1-703-960-0396.

4 Tel.: +1-845-726-3355.
Njorl
Njorl is offline
#7
Feb4-04, 09:27 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 875
You have some logic problems. You seem to be saying strontium-90 is a flame retardant which is distributed by nuclear reactors. I know you don't mean that, but your method of arguing implies you do.

Back to flame retardant. People do choose it. They elect governments that appoint regulators who set standards. Sure, there is a lot of corruption, but if you don't like it, make your own clothes. People have decided, directly or indirectly, for better or worse, that the risks from the chemicals are lower than the risks from fire. I think if we look at the life-years lost due to flame retardant chemicals versus the life-years saved by them, they are probably a net benefit.

Society does not always make the right choices - heroin was a non-addictive replacement for morphine, crib bumpers to prevent head injuries strangled infants to death - but these are never matters of elimination of risk. They are matters of choosing which risk to live with.

Njorl
theroyprocess
theroyprocess is offline
#8
Feb5-04, 08:16 AM
P: 141
Njorl.

And when they tell you...you have cancer...will you "choose" to let them
pump you full of toxic chemo 'therapy' and more radiation? Just think of
it as 'sunshine' killing all the bad cancers cells!
Njorl
Njorl is offline
#9
Feb5-04, 11:33 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 875
Are you capable of formulating a logical response?
russ_watters
russ_watters is online now
#10
Feb5-04, 03:32 PM
Mentor
P: 22,008
Originally posted by theroyprocess
Njorl.

And when they tell you...you have cancer...will you "choose" to let them
pump you full of toxic chemo 'therapy' and more radiation? Just think of
it as 'sunshine' killing all the bad cancers cells!
Wait, are you saying that if you get cancer you'll reject chemotherapy in favor of death? Lol, well I guess I can't say you've gone off the deep end - too late for that.
theroyprocess
theroyprocess is offline
#11
Feb6-04, 10:11 AM
P: 141
Russ,

You should read Linus Paulings book "THE WAR ON CANCER" if it is still
in print, which dispels mainstream treatments. There are better alternatives.
russ_watters
russ_watters is online now
#12
Feb6-04, 11:46 AM
Mentor
P: 22,008
Originally posted by theroyprocess
You should read Linus Paulings book "THE WAR ON CANCER" if it is still
in print, which dispels mainstream treatments. There are better alternatives.
You're a fascinating person, theroyprocess.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
how many watts does the human body use Biology 28
The frequency of the human body is? Biology 22
Why does the human body need iron? Biology 6
Power of the Human Body Biology 3
human body levers General Physics 4