E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Kevork Djansezian / Getty Images
A playground at the Carson-Gore Academy of Environmental Sciences in Los Angeles. The $75.5-million elementary school, which was named after former Vice President Al Gore and pioneering environmentalist Rachel Carson, was built atop an environmentally contaminated piece of real estate. Construction crews replaced the toxic soil, which was poisoned by more than a dozen underground storage tanks, with clean fill.
A landmark Environmental Protection Agency report concluding that children exposed to toxic substances can develop learning disabilities, asthma and other health problems has been sidetracked indefinitely amid fierce opposition from the chemical industry.
America’s Children and the Environment, Third Edition, is a sobering analysis of the way in which pollutants build up in children’s developing bodies and the damage they can inflict.
The report is unpublished, but was posted on EPA’s website in draft form in March 2011, marked “Do not Quote or Cite.” The report, which is fiercely contested by the chemical industry, was referred to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), where it still languishes.
For the first time since the ACE series began in 2000, the draft cites extensive research linking common chemical pollutants to brain damage and nervous system disorders in fetuses and children.
It also raises troubling questions about the degree to which children are exposed to hazardous chemicals in air, drinking water and food, as well exposures in their indoor environments – including schools and day-care centers – and through contaminated lands.
In the making since 2008, the ACE report is based on peer-reviewed research and databases from federal agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration, Housing and Urban Development and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Public health officials view it as a source of one-stop shopping for the best information on what children and women of childbearing age are exposed to, how much of it remains in their bodies and what the health effects might be. Among the “health outcomes” listed as related to environmental exposures are childhood cancer, obesity, neurological disorders, respiratory problems and low birth weight.
The report cites hundreds of studies -- both human, epidemiological studies that show a correlation between exposure to certain chemical pollutants and negative health outcomes, and animal studies that demonstrate cause and effect. In some cases, the authors note, certain chemicals have been detected in children, but not enough is known about their effects to draw conclusions about safety.
In a section on perfluorochemicals (PFCs), for example, which are used to make nonstick coatings, and protect textiles and carpets from water, grease and soil, among other things, the draft notes that they are found in human breast milk.
The report said that “a growing number of human health studies” have found an association between prenatal exposure to PFCs and low birth weight, decreased head circumference and low birth length. It also stated that based on “emerging evidence suggests that exposure to some PFCs can have negative impacts on human thyroid function.”
Furthermore, it noted that animal studies produced similar results, although exposures were typically at higher levels than people are exposed to.
The EPA’s website still notes that the report will be published by the end of 2011. But after a public comment period that was marked by unusually harsh criticism from industry, additional peer review and input from other agencies, the report landed at OMB last March, where it has remained. No federal rule requires the OMB to review such a report before publication, but EPA spokeswoman Julia Valentine said the agency referred it to the OMB because its impact cuts across several federal agencies.
The spokeswoman said EPA had no idea when OMB would release it, allowing publication.
A spokeswoman for the White House Office of Management and Budget said she would not discuss the review process or give an estimated release date.
Some present and former EPA staffers, who asked not to be named for fear of losing their jobs, blamed the sidetracking of the report on heightened political pressure during the campaign season. The OMB has been slow to approve environmental regulations and other EPA reports throughout the Obama Administration — as it was under George W. Bush according to reports by the Center for Progressive Reform, a nonprofit consortium of scholars, doing research on health, safety and environmental issues, which generally advocate for stronger regulation and better enforcement of existing law.
“Why is it taking so long? One must ask the question,” said a former EPA researcher who works on children’s health issues. “It is an important document and it strikes me that it’s falling victim to politics.”
The EPA states that the report is intended, in part, to help policymakers identify and evaluate ways to minimize environmental impacts on children.
That’s an unwelcome prospect to the $674 billion chemical industry, which stands to lose business and face greater legal liability if the EPA or Congress bans certain substances mentioned in the report or sets standards reducing the levels of exposure that is considered safe.
Among other findings, the report links numerous substances to ADHD, including certain widely available pesticides; polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBS), which were banned in 1979 but are still present in products made before then and in the environment; certain polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), used as flame retardants; and methyl mercury, a toxic metal that accumulates in larger fish, such as tuna. The draft also cites children’s exposure to lead, particularly from aging lead water pipes, as a continuing problem (See previous coverage, Toxic Taps.)
Among the other widespread contaminants linked to learning disabilities is perchlorate, a component of rocket fuel , fireworks and other industrial products, which has polluted water around the country. The Department of Defense, which wants to avoid paying to clean it up, is alarmed by research showing that the chemical interferes with thyroid function and otherwise damages the nervous system, according to R. Thomas Zoeller, a biology professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and an expert on perchlorate.
Zoeller, who has served on EPA advisory panels studying the issue, said the Pentagon’s concern was evidenced by the Air Force’s hiring of two consultants – Richard Mavis and John DeSesso -- to help shape its response to the research. He noted that in 2009, after their consulting contract had ended, Mavis and DeSesso wrote a letter to the editor of Environmental Health Perspectives, a publication of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, attacking an EPA scientist’s study showing that perchlorate may damage the brain. “I don’t like my tax dollars going for one federal agency to refute the work done by scientists at EPA,” he said. The Defense Department and the Air Force declined to comment on the publication, but spokeswoman Melinda Morgan wrote that, “The DoD is aware that there are many differing opinions on the science related to perchlorate health effects,” and believes the current level permitted by EPA is safe.
One of the new sections of the report notes that children may be widely exposed to pollutants in schools and day-care centers. Among them are pesticides; lead; PCBs; asbestos, a mineral fiber long used as insulation and fire-proofing; phthalates, chemicals that are used to soften vinyl and as solvents and fixers, and are found in numerous consumer goods, among them: toys, perfumes, medical devices, shower curtains and detergents; and perfluorinated chemicals, which are used in non-stick and stain-proof products. The study notes that these substances are (variously) associated with asthma, cancer, reproductive toxicity and hormone disruption.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) , the chief industry trade group, has accused EPA of lacking objectivity and vilifying its products. It has filed dozens of pages of comments accusing the EPA of ignoring certain studies – including some funded by ACC itself — that would help businesses make the case that their products are safe. The ACC also contends that EPA has not included enough positive comments about the role of chemicals in society.
“ACC members apply the science of chemistry to make innovative products and services that make people’s lives better, healthier and safer,” wrote ACC senior toxicologist Richard A. Becker. … “The exclusive focus on exposure is particularly problematic as it may lead to the incorrect conclusion that exposure to chemicals (e.g. phthalates) at any level is not only cause for concern, but also a direct source of negative health effects.”
Becker also expressed the ACC’s contention that EPA was painting too bleak a picture of children’s health in America.
“It is troubling that the draft ACE report seems to make such little effort to provide a complete overall picture of child health in the United States,” Becker wrote. “For example, the draft report does not refer to The Health and Well-Being of Children: A Portrait of States and the Nation … which concludes the health and well-being of children in the U.S. is improving overall with 84.4% of children in the United States listed as being in excellent or very good health, an increase from 83% in 2003.” Other ACC members, representing manufacturers of BPA, phthalates and other substances, also weighed in against the report.
Nsedu Witherspoon, executive director of the Children’s Environmental Health Network and a member of the EPA Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee, which oversaw the report, called it a major accomplishment, reflecting the explosion of science since the first ACE was published. She also praised EPA chief Lisa Jackson for standing behind it.
Industry critics, Witherspoon said, “in many cases are the same ones out there trying to debunk the original research,” that the study cites.
Rena Steinzor, a professor at the University of Maryland School of Law, and president of the Center for Progressive Reform, said the ACE report need not have gone to OMB for review in the first place. Steinzor notes that Executive Order 12866 states that proposed significant regulations — generally defined as those that could cost more than $100 million — need be reviewed by OMB, but studies do not.
The Executive Order gives OMB up to 60 days to review such proposals — although it allows for extensions. In practice, OMB has missed numerous such deadlines. But the ACE report, which is not a proposed regulation, falls into a gray area.
“If it’s not a rule, I don’t know what it’s doing there,” Steinzor said. “And even if it were a rule, there would be a deadline and they’d be violating it.”
In an email statement to the Investigative Reporting Workshop, EPA spokeswoman Julia Valentine said, “The report was provided to OMB so that they could conduct an interagency review process to ensure accuracy and consistency.”
She noted that because the report addresses children's health, it includes issues that are the focus of many departments and agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services -- including the Centers for Disease Control, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Cancer Institute.
Steinzor, whose organization has studied OMB under numerous presidents, doesn’t buy it.
The report should be released now, she said, “ because to protect children adequately we need all the information we can get… I guess I understand why there was great anxiety and paranoia before the election … (but) why would you not do it now? It’s sad that things have gotten so polarized that we’re afraid to release scientific information.”
The Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University, is a nonprofit, professional newsroom that pairs experienced professional reporters and editors with graduate students, and co-publishes with mainstream media partners and nonprofit newsrooms. Sheila Kaplan is a fellow at Harvard University’s Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics.
More from Open Channel:
- Despite warnings, aging firefighting aircraft still flying -- and crashing
- Kitchen calamity: Reports of shattering cookware are on the rise
- Authorities establish timeline of gun purchases in Conn. school shooting
- Paula Broadwell won't face cyberstalking charges in Petraeus scandal
- New details emerge on private lives of school gunman and his mother
- Mom of suspected shooter, first to die, was avid gun enthusiast
- Rossen Reports: Furniture, TV tipovers threaten children
- North Korean progress on nuclear arms, missiles rattles US, allies
Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
Further proof corporate america owns BOTH parties!!!! And libs, PLEASE do not say 'But they own the republicans more'. That would be a self pleasing lie.
let me get this straight. This report was given to the WHITE HOUSE Office of management and budget and was pretty much buried right? So this is one we can squarely blame on Obama for ignoring Right? He can't blame it on Bush or Chaney or Hilary or anyone else??? Want to bet. He will claim he never saw the report and the undersecretary to the undersecretary will be fired. Obama will not take the blame for anything because you see even his poop don't stink. Good luck America.
This is clearly Nixon's fault!!! I can't believe you don't see it....
The left is so in LOVE they can't see the truth!!
So that leaves the Right in what, lust? Not saying you do not have a point, but when only half the problem is attacked, it leave that presenter with no argument, just bitter mumblings.
BOTH Parties in the Punch & Judy Show are Puppets to Big Money Corporations. The USA goes to war for Chemicals, be it Oil, Minerals or what have you. And BOTH Parties continue to fund these atrocities through the Congress. Who holds the Pursestrings of War?
Both Parties. Just as do both ignore the many dangers which Americans are forced to live with. Such as Chemicals affecting Children.
Peace
All politicians are also afraid of loss of jobs in their state: companies put out propaganda that if they have to "regulate" chemicals they will fire employees. They would still be making huge profits, but they scare everybody so that even those who normally are against pollution tend to cave in to these companies' demands.
The companies scare their employees, who make ads for the "other" candidate who is more "reasonable" about "regulation" (i.e., they won't regulate at all), and then people stupidly vote for the candidate promoted by the company.
Except that even in Ohio, this didn't entirely work either in 2008 or in 2012. And there is a growing anti-fracking number of citizens in Ohio. Not everybody in Ohio is from West Virginia.
Thank President Reagan for telling us that government is the problem, then handing us government by the corporations.
Well idiot, isn't this story proving Reagan right? What is the problem, the tooth fairy? It is Obama's administration that has buried this nimrod! THAT IS GOVERNMENT!
Politicians couldn't be bought if they weren't for sale. Put the blame where it belongs.
dls.... The rules clearly state you must be at least 10 years old and have the mental capacity of a frog to be here. You do not qualify!!! I officially ban you from posting.
dls is correct about Reagan saying government is the problem, although it was Nixon that started deregulating corporations. At the same time, the Democrats have also been in the pocket of the corporations too; both Parties need to get rid of the super-PACs.
you don't need a gun to kill or disable people, ask those in India about union-carbide! and the company leader didn't kill himself!
Yo Ron. There are cancer hot spots all over America. One such spot is in Centralia Il. There use to be a furnace plant there called Lear Ziegler. The famous Lear company owned it. They built small free standing gas heaters. They used lots of asbestos in them. Many people have died of cancer in the surrounding community. If you start to inquire about it you get the song and dance and bureaucratic shuffle. The EPA doesn't want the public to know about these toxic contamination sites. Or I should say the Big businesses don't want us to know. That's why the lobbyists get the big bucks.
The furnace plant had a waste water pond. It drained into a small creek. It's covered by asphalt now. I know exactly where it was. I wonder what we would find if we put a bore hole through to the bottom of the settling pit.
You have the head of the EPA Lisa Jackson using secret email accounts under the name Richard Windsor. You have the EPA conducting illegal human experiments, telling the test subject there is no danger from diesel exhaust. But then proclaiming that diesel exhaust (PM 2.5) is dangerous. The EPA is being sued over these illegal human experiments.
Where are the stories on this type of activity by the EPA? Why is the main stream media sweeping this under the rug?
Didn't Obama pledge to have the most transparent administration ever? So why email accounts under fictitious names? Why human experiments? Where is the outcry from the media?
Yo economy, you are correct. The federal government, in this case the EPA, doesn't want you to know how deep we are in it. Every trainman and locomotive engineer can tell you haw dangerous diesel fumes are. That is the reason why the Railroad Retirement is solvent. They make us work till your sixty. It used to be 65. It didn't matter if you had 35 years in. You worked until you reached the age requirment. Then you draw you RRB retirement. The problem with that is by the time you get old enough to retire you have been beat to death by rough track and improperly maintained locomotives. You sit in front of a wall full of high voltage equipment. Ever heard of Electro Magnetic lines of Flux? And let's not talk about the hearing loss from the train whistle. Then comes the silent killer Diesel fumes. We breath them constantly. We spend more time on the train than any other location. If we are stopped the fumes follow the breeze. Even with the windows closed it will suck in the air intakes. Constant exposure to Diesel fumes, hazardous chemical leaks, and rock dust from passing trains doesn't hurt you. CAN YOU HEAR THE SARCASM! We retire and very few of us last more than 10 years. All of the money we pay into the Railroad Retirement stays there. Our children get none of it. Our wives get half of what we make in retirement benefits. If I get $3,000 a month retirement she will get $1,500 when she gets to 60. If she dies the rest of the money I paid in the the federal government stays with them and my children get squat. What a scam.
We dont need the government to protect us from dangerous chemicals. Any informed consumer and figure out whether they want to the benefit of the chemical vs danager. Case in point BPA in infant products the US govenrments woiuld not ban their use. However, Parents were wanting nonBPA products for their babies that now it has spread and most baby bottels in your Walmart and Targets are nonBPA. Consumer demand plain and simple.
Or better still, let the babies decide for themselves. Maybe they want low birth weight and length, so they'll be nice and petite.
Rural,BPA affects us all. You can't open up a can of green beans without seeing the white plastic liner(full of BPA). In East St. Louis there is a large chemical burn plant. They bring in hazardous waste and put it in the incinerator. Everyone down wind from it are completely safe. CAN YOU HEAR THE SARCASM?
The people who run these companies don't care about our health and welfare. If you own a teflon pan you are endangering your health. Put a teflon pan on the stove and as an experiment leave it dry and turn up the flame. Put a parakeet in the same room. Do not turn on the vent. Close the door and come back with a shovel. You'll need it. The bird will be dead. Of course the non-stick pan company will say that you can't get a pan hot enough to make it outgas on the stove top. THIS IS A LIE! If you have COPD and you are around teflon pans you can put yourself in jeopardy. THIS IS A FACT! I removed every non-stick pan from my house and my 81 year old mothers house. She got mad. I then proved to her how dangerous they were. It's amazing how a video of a small bird dying will change a persons attitude. For all of you animal lovers I must apologize. Many animals are killed in the name of better life through chemistry. I just wanted to show my mother proof positive of how dangerous teflon pans could be. When I called the pan maker they told me i could not cause there pan to out gas on a stove top. They said their pans were safe as long as you followed their safety precautions. Unfortunately, people are not perfect. Everyone can make a mistake and scorch a pan. Everytime a teflon pan gets scorched it outgasses. If you have asthma, COPD, or any respitory ailments you can do permanent harm to yourself. If you are a healthy adult you can still hurt yourself. It's just that you won't notice the effects until later. If you don't believe me, go to a local pet mill and buy a cheap bird and try that simple test.
It's true the EPA is VERY selective and political, MTBE, a known carcinogen was polluting wells all over CA when I lived there. It took a SF conservative radio station months of squawking to finally get it banned. Meanwhile the wells are still contaminated.
What I am saying is informed consumers can create change without having to depend on the government. There will always be something someone will claim causes a health problem. Take farming the EPA now wants to prevent farmers from spreading manure in their fields to help fertilize them as they claim it is a violation under the Clean Water Act. So lets see if a farmer uses chemicals to fertilize they are bad farmers if they use manure they are polluting water. I guess we have to grow our crops without any fertilizer or fertile fields yeah I guess that is one way to fight obesity...no food.
bigdaddysdaug,
Are your sure your parakeet didn't die from carbon monoxide poisoning? That seems more likely than from the coating on the pan.
To test that out you would have to either use an electric stove to see if the bird survived or and then a non-coated pan on the flame to verify the bird died.
My point is that your experiment is not sufficient to show the coating causes the bird's death.
manure fertilized fields are the cause of E-coli contamination.. .. how else do you think lettuce and tomatos get Shyte on them??? and often from fields that are miles upstream from the produce farm... shyte runs downhill...
PS.. The "orgreenic" ceramic lined pans being sold on tv CLAIM that teflon is being phased out and will be banned in the next few years.. anyone know? PS a good seasoned cast Iron pan is the best non-stick ever.. just don't wash it with grease cutting soaps.. just a rinse. and back on the heat to sterilze.. or completly wipe with oil, and bake to harden the oil..
Telephone companies prefer teflon-coated wires because the squirrels won't eat them: because the teflon is poison, and the squirrels have better senses than we do.
As to carbon monoxide: people realize that simple candles or incense will cause carbon monoxide, enough to set off a detector, but not enough to kill a bird. It takes really dangerous chemicals to kill birds, who live outdoors with all kinds of challenges.
Elizabieth,
Are you saying that an open flame on a stove in a room with the door shut and the stove vent shut off won't generate enough carbon monoxide to kill a bird? Are you saying if the bird was killed that must be due to a really dangerous chemical and carbon monoxide is not such a chemical?
Think again.
SING AND DANCE SING AND DANCE!! What surprises you more? The big businesses lying about their poisoning us, or the politicians (in this case Osama Obama) covering it up for them. Money talks and BS walks. It's a cash cow.
Love it and hate it: Please don't confuse President Obama with Osama. But yes, all politicians dance. The trick is to make enough music so they dance to your tune.
isn't the EPA supposed to protect the people ?
a few years ago, Bushie's appointee to the EPA sliced and diced and cut and edited the report on the environment, and two days later goes to work for some big oil company with a huge salary for doing nothing in his new job. pretty strange, that "industry" controls the affairs of government, don't you think?
It's Obama's EPA now, this is completely on his watch.
It is Bushbama's Fault!
just corporate amerika showing it's greed at the expense of others!! nuf said.
WRONG! Just politicians showing their greed at the expense of others.
Again, politicians couldn't be bought if they weren't for sale. Put the blame where it belongs.
Corporate Amerika is what you have when Obama is done with his cronyism. Those evil corporations , as you put it, only provide goods and services that people want and need, and hire millions, and pay lots of federal, state, and local taxes to support you liberal deadbeats... Duh, can you say "jobs"?
Just another case of the ALMIGHTY DOLLAR being used to buy whoever it takes so corporations can make more ALMIGHTY DOLLARS. Never a concern for the normal person. It's ALWAYS all about the MONEY.
I wonder if the CEO's and executives of the chemical companies let their families use the products that they know are unsafe for use around humans?
Business serves their stock holders, politicians serve the people. Which group isn't doing it's job?
POLITICIANS!
Phil: I would only add the stock holders are getting the shaft from overpayed management. CEO even gets large payout when company goes bankrupt.
Stockholders can boot the boards of directors any time.... several already have...
It will be fine. We all just need to get used to our future generations having an extra ear growing out of their foreheads.
Or babies born without brains; tragic.
I hear politicians talking about preventive medicine and improving our mental health programs, but they don't have a clue what it's all about.
Prevention is not giving people more vaccines or medical tests; it's about improving our toxic environment.
I was diagnosed 20 years ago with chemical sensitivities. By some miracle, I found a medical doctor who has treated me with homeopathic medicine and I was able to keep working. Whenever I had been exposed to pesticides, herbacides, etc., I had extreme mental confusion, in addition to feeling very ill physically. I am convinced that if I hadn't had correct medical treatment (not allopathic medicines), I would have killed myself a long time ago.
The chemical industry and the oil industry are ruining our world, one dollar at a time. We will never solve the mental and physical health problems of the world until we control these two industries.
In addition, we need to start teaching health properly in our schools, start labeling our foods, and train doctors and nurses about alternative forms of medicines.
This is a perfect example of industry owning America. And Obama, spineless, and a corporate whore along with all the other politicians allow this to happen. Welcome to the United States of Corporate America.
Oh wait, But Obama is different. He really cares about the children. LOL!!! the new 99% are the lemmings that believe what politicians tell them. The new 1% is everyone else.
He doesn't seem to care about the 1.2 million a year that Planned Parenthood is murdering...
Waaaaaaa...
Planned Parent is not allowed to do that. However, don't let the facts get in the way of your prejudice.
Sidetraked...you mean husssssssed up.....SHHHHHHHHH..we dont want to tell the truth..That would be BAD FOR BUSINESS.......Remember PROFIT AT ANY COST THATS the American way..never mind if it harms or kills people..Thats no concern to the BOTTOM LINE......SHHHHHHHHHHHHH
You're a hysterical moron. Companies that misbehave pay the price... in lower stock values, and in bad PR, hurting sales. Yes, there are some that do, and get away with it... but demonizing all business because of a few bad ones is like saying all Democrats are inner city gang-banging cretins....
Not exactly political are we? "inner city gang-banging cretins...."
I wondered at the vote in 2012: after experiencing extreme drought caused by the jet stream not shifting at all over the summer, caused by half the arctic melting, I would have thought that those who depended on crops in the Great Plains would have noticed. Were they playing video games instead of watching their crops and the weather? Were they listening to Limbaugh and Fox instead of looking outside? Their votes looked like they didn't notice the conditions in their own back yards.
To not release this report seems to make one wonder if our elected officials did indeed hide these facts from us do to an election. Why is it hidden in the OMB? Doesn't make sense to most. To say that there are agencies under OMB that must review these findings goes back to the simple fact that there are too many agencies that fall under some other agency. Why not combine those who have similar responsibilities and fast track these kind of issues.
Let's face facts. every year new chemical compounds and drugs are developed for our use. Another fact is most of these there is no known way to get rid of them if need be. Sure the chemical industry is going to be against this report as it is damning to them and their products. Do you honestly think they are going to do or produce something that is safe and helpful for us, the consumer? Do they not produce things that is going to make them money? Bring out this report and let's get on with what needs to be done.
I read the article thoroughly. All it purports to show is a correlation between certain illnesses and certain chemicals. Having ready many reports over the last several years claiming correlations that were in fact at the level of random chance, I think it is very likely that the EPA was prepared to publish another report along those lines. But this time, the chemical industry caught them at it and the EPA will be forced to withdraw the report. Correlation is not causation, and the EPA has been caught several times in the past year using random chance level of correlation to justify their regulations. This sounds like another study faked up by the anti-chemical industry for the EPA purporting to show a relationship where none exists, but this time the EPA got caught.
You read the article thoroughly and you got that? Wow, there must have been a lot between the lines that I couldn't see.
Why isn't this against the law in "Free" America? Censorship, endangering the health of all people, Unconstitutional, and like a war crime...sounds like Asaad in Syria only because they are doing it For Profit its OK. Can't some Lawyer step up? Do we have NO ONE to protect us against death for profit?
In Syria there has just been a report of Asaad using Chemical warfare on a village. Not Sarin. Pesticide bombs. Making people lose vision, consciousness, severe breathing difficulties, vomiting & permenant damage to lungs and other body organs. But we let our country do it legally For Profit.
“Do Toxins Cause Autism?”
NY Times.
February 24, 2010
By Nicholas D. Kristof
“Autism was first identified in 1943 in an obscure medical journal. Since then it has become a frighteningly common affliction, with the CDC reporting recently that ASDs now affect almost 1% of all children in the United States.”
“[Autism and other developmental disorders] constitute a huge national health burden, and suspicions are growing that one culprit may be chemicals in the environment. An article in a forthcoming issue of a peer-reviewed medical journal, Current Opinion in Pediatrics, makes this explicit.” *
“The article cites “historically important, proof-of-concept studies that specifically link autism to environmental exposures experienced prenatally.” It adds that the “likelihood is high” that many chemicals “have potential to cause injury to the developing brain and to produce neurodevelopmental disorders.”
“The author is not a granola-munching crank but Dr. Philip J. Landrigan, professor of pediatrics at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York and chairman of the school’s department of preventive medicine. While his article is full of cautionary language, Dr. Landrigan told me that he is increasingly confident that autism and other ailments are, in part, the result of the impact of environmental chemicals on the brain as it is being formed.”
“The crux of this is brain development,” he said. “If babies are exposed in the womb or shortly after birth to chemicals that interfere with brain development, the consequences last a lifetime.”
“Concern about toxins in the environment used to be a fringe view. But alarm has moved into the medical mainstream.”
nytimes.com/2010/02/25/opinion/25kristof.html
*Landrigan PJ. “What causes autism? Exploring the environmental contribution.” Current Opinion in Pediatrics. April 2010; 22(2): 219-225.
Yes, Autism is a classic example. At least two causes of this increase is calling it 'autism spectrum disorder', and classifying more and more behaviors as autistic. In addition, there is now a monetary incentive to have children classified as autistic in the school system since they get additional federal funds. Once you start weeding out these social factors, the actual correlation of autism to any environmental chemical becomes the same as random chance, ie. none.
JohnSmith,
You have --no-- idea what you are talking about. The etiology and pathogenesis of autism is undoubtedly complex and multi-factorial (genetics and environment interplay in complex ways), but that is not what we are talking about here. The issue here is whether or not perinatal and early childhood exposures to subacute doses of multiple industrial chemicals can cause neurodevelopmental harm to children (including “subclinical” harm). This is a critically important issue. And of acute concern if you have young children as I do.
“Children are not little adults. Their organ systems, particularly the nervous system, are forming and are thus more susceptible to the effects of chemicals. ... The development of the human brain and the CNS begins in utero and continues through adolescence, following a precise and delicate step-by-step sequence involving complex neurobiological processes including the formation of the neural tube, cell proliferation, differentiation, migration and selection, synapse formation, development of neurochemical systems, cell pruning; and myelination. ... The long and complex development of the brain and nervous system leaves it susceptible to the adverse effects of chemical exposures. Even minor changes in the structure or function of the nervous system can have profound consequences for neurological, behavioral and related body functions.”
-Scientific Consensus Statement on Environmental Agents Associated with Neurodevelopmental Disorders. February 20, 2008.
healthyenvironmentforkids.ca/resources/scientific-consensus-statement-environmental-agents-associated-neurodevelopmental-disorder
The preceding paper was authored by some of the most nationally known medical scientists in the United States who are actually investigating the effects of industrial chemicals upon the neurodevelopmental health of infants and children (unlike you). The authors of this consensus paper include Philip Landrigan MD, Philippe Grandjean MD at Harvard, and Isaac Pessah PhD at the University Of California at Davis.
-------------------------------
Please read the paper and get back to me.
Well I'm not the original poster but I will get back to you on your fallacious statement to johnsmith: "you have --no-- idea what you are talking about."
Your next sentence states "The etiology and pathogenesis of autism is undoubtedly complex and multi-factorial (genetics and environment interplay in complex ways), but that is not what we are talking about here", then, you go on to support your premise "... industrial chemicals can cause neurodevelopmental harm to children"
Look up the red herring fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi#Red_herring
The argument you made may be valid, however it does not address the statement that johnsmith has no idea what he is talking about. You also did not address John's points about correlation and causation, nor the points about increasing number of symptoms being classified as autism spectrum disorders and the associated increase in funding which may further increase the numbers of cases of ASD.
I may agree with your statements, however you argument does not address the argument you pretend to refute.
ug1... You said, "I may agree with your statements, however you argument does not address the argument you pretend to refute." You are correct. I was rushing due to the holiday and my post was incomplete and frankly poorly constructed. I'll try to address the points in JohnSmith's post about autism etiology and prevalence (both complex and contrversial subjects) in a future post. But your criticism above is accurate.
Well done Koch brothers you have been able to buy off the party of "NO" and now they are the party of "YES master", again well done.
"Koch companies are involved in core industries such as the manufacturing, refining and distribution[1] of petroleum, chemicals, energy, fiber, intermediates and polymers, minerals, fertilizers, pulp and paper, chemical technology equipment........."
Republicans you should be proud of doing the work not of the American people but of the 1/2 of the 1% that enable you to continue. Let's all thank Gawd for Citizens United, and bow to our puppet-masters.
Did Obama replace any of the chemical industry executives that "W" appointed to run the EPA?
Excellent article!
The Safe Healthy Playing Fields Coalition would like to share a couple of MUST SEE YouTube video clips on the subject.
"Children, Synthetic Turf, and San Francisco Public Health Governance"
and "What's the Deal With Synthetic Turf Particles?"
Children used as political cannon fodder, then as target practice for murderous weapons, and finally for chemical experiments. Well at the very least they can be used for more than any politician elected to Congress.
Big Corps. and the NRA own our politicians. Damn the children. They cant write those fat checks to the superpacs.
So, your state and federal representative campaigned on being pro-life? I suggest we question them on committed they are to protecting the born and unborn from chemical poisoning. This report should have been brought up during every T.V. interview and debate.
Also the unborn: babies born without brains or other serious deformities.
It seems that the masters convinced the slaves that the health of slaves' children does not matter as long as the slaves have a job to do: making the masters even richer at the peril of the next generations of slaves.