Study: Toxins found in newborns

[MrBishop]

By CHRISTINE STAPLETON
Cox News Service
Thursday, July 14, 2005 WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — In a benchmark study released today, researchers found an average of 200 industrial compounds, pollutants and other chemicals in the umbilical cord blood of newborns, including seven dangerous pesticides — some banned in the U.S. more than 30 years ago.

The report, "Body Burden — The Pollution in Newborns," by the Washington, D.C.-based Environmental Working Group, detected 287 chemicals in the umbilical cord blood of 10 newborns. Of those chemicals, 76 cause cancer in humans or animals, 94 are toxic to the brain and nervous system and 79 cause birth defects or abnormal development in animal tests.

The findings are especially important in Florida, where farmers use more pesticides per acre than any other state.

"What's most startling is that we have such a wide range of compounds in us the moment we are born," said Tim Kropp, senior toxicologist for the project. "Babies don't use any consumer products, they don't work in a factory and yet they're already starting off with a load of these chemicals."

Among the most pervasive pesticides found: 4,4'-DDE a contaminant and by-product of DDT, banned in the U.S. in 1972 but still used in other parts of the world to control mosquitoes; hexachlorobenzene, a fungicide widely used on wheat until 1965 when chemical giants Bayer and Dow voluntarily discontinued production of the likely carcinogen; and Dieldrin, routinely used on corn and cotton until banned in 1974 except for treatment of termites.

Scarier yet

 

[unclehobart]

Wern't we just talking about how 1/3 of medical studies are horseshit?

 

[MrBishop]

Wern't we just talking about how 1/3 of medical studies are horseshit?

Yup...but there's a difference between actual test results and what you make of those results...the theorums based on them.

If what they're doing is just testing blood samples from umbilicii and finding trace samples of nasty substances like lead...then they found lead.

IF they start theorising that this lead is increasing the number of homosexuals in North American societies...that's a possibly erronious conclusion. The study might be called horseshit but it doesn't stop the initial test results from being dead on though.

The fact that they're finding substances in this blood that's been off the market for 30+ years (in some cases, before the mother herself was even born) means that despite the fact that the substances have been banned, they must've come from somewhere and still be around

Water-pollution (dumping), water-table pollution(bad land-fill/storage procedures), eating animals or fish which have ingested these chemicals (see first two) etc...are pretty much the only way that those chemicals could've gotten into the mother's body and then into the child's. Unless the chemicals have survived generationally. Grandmother to daughter to grandaughter. That last one is a bit of a stretch.

This study says a lot about how we can't just dump stuff, bury it, burn it or toss it overboard and then close our eyes and forget about it.

 

[MrBishop]

PFOA, the chemical used to make such non-stick products as Teflon, is present in the blood of 95 percent of all Americans

Besides the pesticides, chemicals from two widely used household products — Teflon and Scotchgard — were found in every baby tested. PFOS, the active ingredient in the stain-repellent Scotchgard, does not break down in the environment and has a strong tendency to accumulate in humans. While PFOS has not been found conclusively to be toxic to humans, lab tests have shown it can cause birth defects and deaths in laboratory animals given high doses

mind you..it is a small sample size

In the Environmental Working Group study, the cord blood from 10 randomly selected, healthy babies born in August and September 2004 in U.S. hospitals was collected by the American National Red Cross as part of the organization's volunteer cord blood collection program. The costs of the testing — $10,000 per sample — and the lack of laboratories equipped to perform the testing prevented the organization from testing more samples.

 

[unclehobart]

I'm just wondering how many of these dozens of chemicals really do cause cancer and are truly neurotoxic to humans since they aren't allowed to do real studies on humans. Everything is based upon injecting tons of various solutions into lab rats.

*injects 2 cc's of sachharin into a rats butt every 6 hours for 3 months and voila!... cancerous tumors* ... imagine that. I suspect that if you inject anything of sufficient quantity and concentration into living tissue that it will eventually go past the breaking point and start to go abberant on you. Even brown sugar becomes positively toxic under sufficient concentration.

 

[MrBishop]

Even brown sugar becomes positively toxic under sufficient concentration.

Actually...it becomes Molasses under sufficient concentration , then rum if distilled correctly.

Gotta love sugar-cane

Where were we...oh yes.

People worry about pregnant women who smoke because of the potential danger to which thay are exposing their babies. Ditto for alcohol and a bevy of other drugs which we know the foetus is being exposed to, and how. Now, a pregnant woman who doesn't smoke, doesn't drink and eats her four food groups is still giving her child a dose of several chemicals including chemicals designed to kill (herbicides and pesticides).

This doesn't disturb you?

 

[Gato_Solo]

People worry about pregnant women who smoke because of the potential danger to which thay are exposing their babies. Ditto for alcohol and a bevy of other drugs which we know the foetus is being exposed to, and how. Now, a pregnant woman who doesn't smoke, doesn't drink and eats her four food groups is still giving her child a dose of several chemicals including chemicals designed to kill (herbicides and pesticides).

This doesn't disturb you?

Not really. We live in an environment that has these things in it. Period. Since the sample size was from healthy babies, we can assume that the quantity isn't great enough to cause harm. Go back to what unc said about testing, and you'll get the picture.

 

[unclehobart]

Actually...it becomes Molasses under sufficient concentration , then rum if distilled correctly.

Gotta love sugar-cane

Where were we...oh yes.

People worry about pregnant women who smoke because of the potential danger to which thay are exposing their babies. Ditto for alcohol and a bevy of other drugs which we know the foetus is being exposed to, and how. Now, a pregnant woman who doesn't smoke, doesn't drink and eats her four food groups is still giving her child a dose of several chemicals including chemicals designed to kill (herbicides and pesticides).

This doesn't disturb you?

Not really. Such chemicals are absolutely everywhere. I'm not shocked for anything to turn up anywhere. We can clean up all of our collective western acts to nil pollution and yet continue to slide into the mire because there will always be the collective concentrations leaking into the bioshpere from crap factories in Africa, Asia, and South America. Theres too many people and far too much rapid technical advancement in too short of a time. We deserve some of our arrogance thrust back upon us. I say 'bring on a plague' and wipe out 90% of us... for the rebirth of man will be so much better for it.

 

[chcr]

I say 'bring on a plague' and wipe out 90% of us... for the rebirth of man will be so much better for it.

The real problem with that (other than the smell) is making sure you're part of the 10%.

 

[MrBishop]

Not really. We live in an environment that has these things in it. Period. Since the sample size was from healthy babies, we can assume that the quantity isn't great enough to cause harm. Go back to what unc said about testing, and you'll get the picture.

I would think that they picked healthy babies so as not to skew the results of taint their own sample size. If they'd picked 10 babies born with Spinabifida or MS etc... everyone would say "See...they didn't check babies who were born healthy"

The main problem with the chemicals found in the blood-stream of newborn babies is a two-parter.

a) We don't know the long term effect of these chemicals, or the cumulative effect. The majority are not naturally occuring, but man-made.
b) There will be a cumulative effect. These babies got the dosage through the placenta, which means from the mother. They will get it through their mother's milk, through the water that their food and cereals are cooked in, through the food itself. Ad nauseum.

I go back to the increased incidents of cancer and asthma over the past few decades and wonder to myself... what are we overlooking?

Can we do something about it? Maybe.
Should we? Certainly. Beats looking the other way like our fathers and forefathers.

As for "the collective concentrations leaking into the bioshpere from crap factories in Africa, Asia, and South America" ... isn't that a big part of what the Kyoto protocol and last week's G8 meeting was about? Curbing pollution from emerging industrial nations?

 

[Uki Chick]

No matter what, there will always be toxins of sort in what we eat, the air we breathe, etc. There is no way to control it. Pesticides were used in our parents times as well and most of us turned out just fine. More and more I see women smoking during pregnancy. Their doctors told them they could. We unfortunately can't control some of the things that they find in these tests. We just learn to live with them.

 

[MrBishop]

No matter what, there will always be toxins of sort in what we eat, the air we breathe, etc. There is no way to control it. Pesticides were used in our parents times as well and most of us turned out just fine. .

We control it by reducing it. Like the ban on insecticides and herbicides currently in place in Montreal. The pesticides used in our parent's time is working its way into the water-table...and into our diets. The stuff we use today will find its way into our children's diets or our grandchildren's.

More and more I see women smoking during pregnancy. Their doctors told them they could..

Mostly because the stresses on the body from quitting might be worst than the actual smoking itself.

We unfortunately can't control some of the things that they find in these tests. We just learn to live with them.

...or die with them.

 

[unclehobart]

The real problem with that (other than the smell) is making sure you're part of the 10%.

Hell no.. I don't wanna live. Thats too much hole digging. Everywhere would smell like New Jersey for years.

 

[chcr]

Hell no.. I don't wanna live. Thats too much hole digging. Everywhere would smell like New Jersey for years.

On a strangely related note...
New Jersey, huh?

Note that my sister and brother-in-law live in this area.

 

[unclehobart]

As for "the collective concentrations leaking into the bioshpere from crap factories in Africa, Asia, and South America" ... isn't that a big part of what the Kyoto protocol and last week's G8 meeting was about? Curbing pollution from emerging industrial nations?

Utter horsehit (Kyoto, not you). Kyoto is such an effing joke it isn't funny. China, Africa, and South America won't have to do jack. They are allowed to keep on keeping on.

One of the main reasons as to why the United States has not ratified the treaty is because there is a lack of participation in the developing world. The United States is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases but developing countries, which are quickly increasing their burning of fossil fuels for energy, are predicted to surpass the amount of greenhouse emissions released by the United States. China, Brazil, and India are expected to surpass the United States emissions within 25 to 30 years. The way that the treaty is designed, fourteen out of twenty of the top emitting countries would not have to limit their emissions. By not requiring these countries to reduce their emissions, it would damage any attempts by other countries to reduce their emissions (Mathews 215-216).

http://www-pub.naz.edu:9000/~nanatoli/us.htm

 

[unclehobart]

I'm on the fence as to how much goo to let into the water table. The average lifespan has skyrocketed in dramatic fashion over the last century. We've only had decent standards for water over the last 30 years... so theres no telling how much more that would expand lifespans. I'm not sure I want a longer life. Its only adding years at the end. I'm already going to live to 90. I'm not sure I want to stretch it to 105 unless they come up with some kind of therapy to prevent senility.

 

[MrBishop]

I'm on the fence as to how much goo to let into the water table. The average lifespan has skyrocketed in dramatic fashion over the last century. We've only had decent standards for water over the last 30 years... so theres no telling how much more that would expand lifespans. I'm not sure I want a longer life. Its only adding years at the end. I'm already going to live to 90. I'm not sure I want to stretch it to 105 unless they come up with some kind of therapy to prevent senility.

It's not all at the end... people who are 40,50,60 now are acting younger every day because they're also healthier. Look at what an average 40 year old can do now vs. one from 40 years ago.

We're adding 'life' to both sides. As for senility...they're working on it, though stem-cell research is somewhat hobbled right now.

 

[catocom]

I think we ought to inject the newborns with more toxins,
you know....to build up their immune system.

Shit if a kid was totally sterile at birth, they'd have no immune system.

 

[Professur]

I'm on the fence as to how much goo to let into the water table. The average lifespan has skyrocketed in dramatic fashion over the last century. We've only had decent standards for water over the last 30 years... so theres no telling how much more that would expand lifespans. I'm not sure I want a longer life. Its only adding years at the end. I'm already going to live to 90. I'm not sure I want to stretch it to 105 unless they come up with some kind of therapy to prevent senility.

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/050411_aubrey_interview.html
http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/050714_aging_mice.html

'Kin ah shoot 'em nahw, Dill'n? 'Kin ah?

 

[Gato_Solo]

I would think that they picked healthy babies so as not to skew the results of taint their own sample size. If they'd picked 10 babies born with Spinabifida or MS etc... everyone would say "See...they didn't check babies who were born healthy"

Not my point at all. I was only pointing out that the babies are healthy.

The main problem with the chemicals found in the blood-stream of newborn babies is a two-parter.

a) We don't know the long term effect of these chemicals, or the cumulative effect. The majority are not naturally occuring, but man-made.
b) There will be a cumulative effect. These babies got the dosage through the placenta, which means from the mother. They will get it through their mother's milk, through the water that their food and cereals are cooked in, through the food itself. Ad nauseum.

We didn't know the long-term effect of these chemicals when they were being used in the first place. DDT was banned in what year?

I go back to the increased incidents of cancer and asthma over the past few decades and wonder to myself... what are we overlooking?

What we're overlooking is the fact that we cannot do chemical testing on human beings. Even if they volunteer. It's not just unethical...it's the law.

Before you get into a lather, I am not advocating experimentation on human beings...even though some of us may actually deserve it. It's not my call.

Can we do something about it? Maybe.
Should we? Certainly. Beats looking the other way like our fathers and forefathers.

Our fathers and forefathers didn't look the other way. They just didn't know any better. Don't confuse ignorance with apathy.

As for "the collective concentrations leaking into the bioshpere from crap factories in Africa, Asia, and South America" ... isn't that a big part of what the Kyoto protocol and last week's G8 meeting was about? Curbing pollution from emerging industrial nations?

Utter horsehit (Kyoto, not you). Kyoto is such an effing joke it isn't funny. China, Africa, and South America won't have to do jack. They are allowed to keep on keeping on.

Sums it up quite nicely...