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The report is unpublished, but was posted on EPA’s website in draft form in March 2011, marked “Do not Quote or Cite.”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:
Investigative Reporting Workshop....
Story line...Please government, save our children from the acts of greedy uncaring corporations.
The law that governs toxic chemicals - The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) - was passed in 1976. This law does not require chemical manufacturers to prove that their product does not cause harm - in fact, it shifts the burden of proof the consumer, requiring him to show that it DOES cause harm.
This law was poorly constructed at the outset and it is now (nearly 40 years later) woefully out of date. It needs to be updated and it needs to force chemical manufacturers to prove that their products do not cause harm. We shouldn't have to worry that using a non-stick skillet is going to make us sick, or standing in a steaming shower next to a plastic shower curtain is releasing chemicals into the air, or when we sit down on our sofa the flame retardants in the fabric mix with dust and become airborne and we breathe it in while we're watching football.
We need to demand action on this - for ourselves, our families, our pets, and our planet.
I am a mechanical engineer, not chemical but, I think that the nonstick cookware is the worst thing you can use and is something that you can immediately and easily change to limit chemical exposures. Think about it, your heating up a plastic material, it releases agents into your food, and then you eat it. Teflon is a plastic. Get a CHINA made nonstick cookware set and you need to wonder how much more TFE's the things releasing. A company I use to work for had problems with a supplier we used in china and the materials it was using, this is a little non-related, but they use the bottom of the barrel stuff for everything, so there is no telling WHAT chemicals are really in the coatings.
storyline, we have a federal agency that wants to do its job which is to protect us, but our corrupt bought and paid for politicians block them from doing their job
do you homework- non stick cooking pans are bad for you, as is non stick cooking spray along with most, if not all, plastics- especially in the microwave. We're just scratching the surface here. You need to NOT rely on the Govt informing you about this stuff- should they, absolutely yes since we pay their salaries, but you have to do you own homework to protect your family. And remember......most big pharma companies that we know of today were once chemical companies or divisions of chemical companies....
The irony is that if the chemical corporations would develop safer alternatives they could actually make more money. I'm not the only one I know who would be willing to pay more for a safer product. This is all myopic short-term gain thinking. I have to blame our business schools who seem to preach short-term gain that only benefits the stock holders over long-term investment that could benefit all.
They always say things like the "chemical industry" or the "chemical corporations" instead of who owns them. We know the DuPont family owns a large part of the chemical industry, but who else? Which of these foundation families are making these decisions? show their faces. show their names. The people who control our destiny while president after president either are part of it, like bush, or just let it happen like Obama. The last president that opposed the people behind the chemical and weapon corporations was JFK. and we all know what they did to him and other family.
The Constitution should be re-written, starting out, "We the Corporations of the United States...."
People clearly don't matter.
Heck of a job, Party of No.
It runs down both sides of the political spectrum Moron Maybe you should ask more questions before showing the world how stupid you are
Do the conclusions of this report suprise anyone? No. Do you recall the saying about chitting in you own bed??? If we removed all the modern day conveniences and move back into the cave (oh, and get rid of that phone) we may not die from pollution, but many more would die from disease and all the other hazzards we would enounter while living like a caveman. That being said, I, personally, choose to live responsibly and support using present day products, but made in as safe a way as possible, accepting that losses will happen. Everything in moderation...Who said that?
This statement actually made me laugh:
Why would Morgan prefer to believe that if she is aware there are contrary opinions? Is she a scientist? Is she privy to some information other than her understanding that she needs to show allegiance to her employer?
The study should be immediately released and allowed to be peer reviewed, not buried away at industry request.
Biomimicry is the answer. http://www.hulu.com/watch/112599#i0,p1,d0
You have to understand how the chemical industry works. They mix and match, cook and process compounds to produce useful chemicals but in the process the produce many byproducts (toxic waste). So they then try to find uses for these byproducts. Many times they are successful and make a useful product, but often these products are not the safest or even the best thing for the intended use. But the fact that they've turn toxic waste (that would have cost a lot of money to dispose of) into a profitable product they're able to sell it cheaply. Then you have the byproducts that are toxic yet useless, They can pay to dispose of them or add them to other chemical compounds as "inactive ingredients". Knowing what I know about the Chemical Industry is one of the reasons I am wary of "Fracking" because they inject a "proprietary" chemical mix into the ground to help release natural gas. The problem is that they call the "Proprietary mix" a trade secret so they don't have to tell us what it contains. This means they can take 5 gallons of chemicals that work as a fracking compound and add 50 gallons of some toxic waste and just call it all fracking compound so that instead of paying for fracking compound, they turn a profit from pumping fracking compound into the ground. This will come out in time but these folks will have retired with their billions and will be untouchable. And the companies will get sued but there won't be enough money left to cleanup these toxins or pay the victims.
Actually, some ethical chemists could not wait for the government to come up with a solution. They have formed a group of their own which publishes guidelines on how to develop chemicals that are environmentally safe. All we need to do is get the government to back them, not the industry. What a shame that the industry itself would not take the initiative on this. Don't they know people will stop using their products when they find out what's in them and what it does to their children?
Another prime example of "He who has the gold, makes the rules"; Then we wonder why these young kids go on shooting sprees. The EPA is right up there with the NRA in my opinion and the politicians are in their pockets.
As is always the case, "money talks and Sh-t walks," again.....
It's apparent that large U.S. corporations have more say about the distribution of relevant information than the public taxpayer/parent does in this country. To be able to CONTROL the flow of pertinent information MEANT for us citizens should be against the law. Especially if that information has everything to do with our children's health and safety. Is it any wonder then, why our Congress has a rating lower than whale crap? RELEASE THE INFORMATION.....NOW!
so when are you people going to start communicating with a hollow log and a stick?....But even that method may contain chemicals ( some are naturally occurring you know ) so best just stay in the basement.
Take a stand against ALL chemicals people !!.....turn off your computer now !!!!
Thank you NBCNews for posting an article that actually has investigative reporting! Kudos to you. I hope to see more in the future.
chemicals have been around children in schools for generations. People have gotten used to the items made from these chemicals and won't change... Instead of complaining why don't you just quit buying items made by these companies? Oh yeah easier to complain than do without I forgot...
Where is the outrage about the chemicals that are hurting our kids like the outrage over guns?
Oh I guess hurting someone slowly is OK.
You can be outraged but, only corporations are protected in this nation. They get a free pass by this government to rob, steal and kill citizens of this nation and there is no way for the citizens to retaliate or get retribution from these rogue corporations.
All that the American public can do is complain.
The law only works for corporations and they are ineffective at protecting the citizens of this country.
All that they care for is money and greed.
Their presence is hurting more than helping individuals and the only time that they show up at your door is when you owe them money.
There are soo.... many games being played on the underpriviledged as well.
For instance many minorities who own homes in cities all across this nation pay a higher price for everything.
i.e.
PROPERTY TAXES, GAS, INSURANCE. ELECTRICITY, FOOD, and ON and ON and ON.
While those in the majority, move to the outskirts of these cities and pay little to nothing for all of these products/services and they earn more income for the most part.
It needs to be a lawsuit against governments nationwide for these illegal acts carried out against minorities of all types as well as those who are in the majority who cannot afford to live on the outskirts of all of these cities.
This place is sooooo...... screwed up..... and unfair from sooo.... ,many different angles that most of us in the minority do not want to be a part of this and don't want any part of this screwed up way of thought!!!!!
What an absolutely silly comment. This is a perfect example of how government makes it possible to accomplish together what is impossible to accomplish as an individual. Do you actually expect that each individual can even understand all of the potential chemical dangers to themselves and their families by themselves?
Why am I not at all surprised that the big Wall Street "1%" Corporations would blocked the release of any report that might possibly show how uncaring about the safety and health of children those Corporations really are....
Glad you mentioned the guns. Now throw in the horrible crimes committed by teens over the last several decades. The unthinkable things they have done to their own parents, their siblings, their peers, to total strangers in the form of flash mobs... killing friends who angered them and mutilating their bodies and stuffing them into barrels and burning them.
Evil crimes that sicken us have been committed over the last decades by people who did not grow up in my generation. Food additives, chemically treated EVERYTHING, that even government agencies are admitting affect the undeveloped brains of growing children, that contaminate the water supply... THAT ARE NOT ALLOWED IN SOME COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD THE WAY THEY ARE IN THE U.S.
Why can't even idiots realize that the savagery of gun violence can be related to mental health issues traced back to what we are allowing to be put into our food and water supply?
When I was a kid we used to run behind the fog trucks spraying for mosquito's. Our parents would yell at us but that just made us watch out for them when the trucks came around. :)
On weekends and during the summer months a group of neighborhood kids would play in the woods surrounded by DuPont and Grace Chemical. We had a club house and we would catch and eat fish from the river where we also swam. Speaking of water...we would also boil the river water to drink and wash up.
I'm 60 now. Most of those friends are still alive and kicking.
What was the difference then and now? No EPA!
We can't allow the guvmint to enforce more job killing regulations on the job creators. Just because little Timmy has an I.Q. of 73 and little sally has three nipples and hair loss, doesn't mean that they was affected by the toxic waste dump out back. They pays us good money to dump their "dirt" in the back 40 and they've told us it's perfectly safe, just like asbestos.
Besides the glow at night attracts wildlife which makes for some good hunting. The rats is getting a little big though. This is the third dog I've lost to them this month.
Didn't you read the article??? Your benevolent govt was one of the polluters... save me from Liberal idiots that can't read and refuse to think.... now, I'm all for an open/honest debate on the issue... do certain pollutants have the effect stated by the study, and if so who's doing the polluting.... but not a witch hunt to further bash businesses....
The bottom line here is this.
Money talks and bull@!$%# walks. We the 99% have once again been sold out by our own government. Wish I had that kind of money to piss away.
Fed Up
Yes I read the article AND I understand that our "benevolent" government was a polluter but they were the end user, NOT the producer. Save us all from right wing nut jobs that seek to protect the corporations at the expense of the public.
If the study left anything to debate the "benevolent" corporations wouldn't be lobbying so hard to have it shut down.
1/2
“Children are not little adults. Their organ systems, particularly the nervous system, are forming and are thus more susceptible to the effects of chemicals.”
-Scientific Consensus Statement on Environmental Agents Associated with Neurodevelopmental Disorders.
February 20, 2008
2/2
“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 famous medical scientists in the United States who are investigating Children's Environmental Health including Philip Landrigan MD, Philippe Grandjean MD at Harvard, and Isaac Pessah PhD at the University Of California at Davis.
The first paragraph speaks volumes. And those many "Monsters" the head of the NRA, Wayne LaPierre, says are walking the streets and need to be "put away" before they commit crimes using those guns which are the only solution to gun violence (his argument, not mine). I watched LaPierre on MTP this week, and saw and heard nothing but insanity chasing itself down the rabbit hole emitting from his pie hole. Nothing but blaming everyone and everything else but guns in gun violence.
The Chemical Industries, Pharma, Petro and Industrial Material Manufacturers, rule by ownership of Our Elected Officials, and have a stake in nearly every regulation being watered down, as well as insuring little repercussion to themselves or the businesses that bring in Trillion$of Dollar$ to their coffers. Any study that shows a correlation between heavy metals, or any other substance they produce, being inherently dangerous to metabolic, mental, or physical function are quashed and falsely discredited, pronto.
We are fortunate to have the EPA in place in order to put the only occasional brake to this runaway disaster. But it is proving to be way too little, way too late.
These myriad chemically-related afflictions which have been diagnosed in recent decades as 'syndromes' are bantered about with further chemicals prescribed to 'treat' them, all the while increasing profits of, guess who, the Chemical Companies. How many Superfund Sites have been determined, yet inadequately attended to? At What cost??
We are seeing more graphic and disastrous episodes rearing their ugly heads resultant of the cover up which is Our Chemical Nightmare. Mental and Physical Health issues continue to surface with no apparent causes being determined officially, while Man continues to lay claim to its ability to approach God-like knowledge over its domain while ignoring responsible solutions time and time again.
And neither God Nor Guns, nor those responsible, are going to fix it. Or allow disclosure that would harm the Bottom Line.
Further and Further Down The Rabbit Hole We Go...
Please see #4.2 thru #4.6
Peace
I can only think of what the previous presidential "family values" and right to "life" candidate said he would do with the EPA that obviously does reasearch aiding in protecting familys and their right to life with values and standards of health...
You must be referring to "Mitt".
He would have sold it to the highest bidder or China after gutting any last semblance of integrity.
When are the American people going to stand up in mass and demand that the people getting paid to protect us DO THEIR JOBS!!!
I guess it will never happen. These same Americans are screaming about getting guns 30 round magazines off the market, yet they refuse to scream about the poisons being pumped into every single child in America. Kind of stupid if you ask me.
LOL.. contradict yourself much... Americans are screaming about the POISON LEAD SLUGS being pumped into kids at schools from 30 round mags.. IT'S ONE ISSUE... needless illness and death of our youth.. the keys to our future...
Ever asked yourself why things like this are only an issue in America? Never heard anybody else raising a stink about this. Why is that?
Shipwrecked : answer to your question :
Because you live in america, listen to american news and are completely clueless as to what is discussed in foreign media.
You have to wonder sometimes if we have been slowly poisoning ourselves for at least a couple generations now. There are some interesting maladies that seem to have become more common in our society. Brain related stuff like learning disabilities, Autism, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, etc. as well as frequent depressive disorders and personality disorders. Then you have allergies, asthma, obesity and other disorders.
Some evidence suggests that many of these thing have been on the rise, but there is also speculation that it is just getting diagnosed more than in the past. I think it may likely be a combination of the two. Some things we have pretty good historical data on like obesity for example. It is crystal clear Americans are getting fatter. The question is, why are these things occurring more frequently? We have gotten rid of a lot of things that we know are bad fore us like lead paint, leaded gas, asbestos, PCBs, DDT and other such chemicals and materials. Some of these things still linger in our environments and traces of them can be found in our bodies. But we also continue to grow the list of chemicals, many of which simply don't occur in nature, that permeate everyday living.
I think we often forget that our bodies and brains work on chemistry. These are processes that have evolved over tens of thousands of years. Then as we introduce new chemicals into the mix, we really don't understand just how our bodies respond to this. Maybe processes get disrupted and maybe at times we end up with new waste products our bodies have to deal with. We know already through the long list of things we have tried to eliminate from our lives were thought to be just fine for decades before we discovered just how much danger they presented to us. With the every growing list of chemicals that are now all over every aspect of our lives, it only seems likely that as time goes by, we will find many of the things we trusted have been slowly killing us.
Wonder how many governmental pockets have been well lined by these corporations. The EPA is supposed to be the watch dog keeping us safe but instead they mouth whatever they are told to say by the government and to hell with the public.
A Farm Bill Only Monsanto Could Love
The EPA is a communist part of the democratic government and its only goal is to destroy America. I must be disbanded.
Hasn't anyone noticed that the cancer rates are going UP, not down? People really need to become more aware of their own health, and the products that they buy including Processed Foods. YOU ARE WHAT YOU EAT!
It does not take a scientist, to look at a Box of processed foods, and when you see all these "chemicals" listed in the ingredients section, PUT IT BACK ON THE SHELF. Processed foods are killing Americans. Cheap and Fast is not necessarily BETTER. Make it yourself with fresh ingredients, and KNOW what you are eating. Look at a pack of gum or Soda, and you will see a list of ingredients. Aspartame is a big one. Have you ever googled Aspartame, or Fluoride? It might surprise you with the results of these CHEMICALS. Yes they are chemicals, they are not natural substances.
Wake up people, the Chemical and Big Pharma can only get US if we let them..........Don't buy their products and start being more aware of what you are putting into your mouth.
No more gummint regulation! We cannot allow saving lives and protecting health to interfere with profits!
Especially when gubment was one of the ones cited as doing the polluting....
fixed it for ya.....
"The developing human brain is understood today to be exquisitely susceptible to injury caused by toxic chemicals in the environment."
-Philip J. Landrigan MD, MSc.
Ethel Wise Professor of Pediatrics and Professor of Preventive Medicine; Director, Children’s Environmental Health Center; Mount Sinai School of Medicine, NYC.
“What’s getting into our children?”
WebMD
by Philip J. Landrigan MD.
August 13, 2009
blogs.webmd.com/health-ehome/2009/08/whats-getting-into-our-children.html
For those who do not know who Philip Landrigan is…
Philip J. Landrigan MD, MSc, is an epidemiologist, scientist, and professor of pediatrics and preventive medicine at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in NYC. Dr. Landrigan is world famous for his work in the critically important field of Children’s Environmental Health. Landrigan received the Herbert Needleman Award for Scientific Contributions and Advocacy on Behalf of Children from the American Public Health Association in 1995; the Children's Environmental Health Champion Award from the EPA in 2006; and the Stephen Smith Medal for Lifetime Achievement in Public Health from the New York Academy of Medicine in 2009.
Dr. Landrigan’s landmark studies in the early 1970s of children exposed to lead near a lead ore smelter in El Paso, Texas were among the first to show that lead can cause brain damage to children at levels too low to cause clinically evident signs and symptoms – a phenomenon now termed “subclinical toxicity.” This work was critical in persuading the EPA to remove lead from gasoline and paint, actions that resulted in a 95% decline in lead poisoning in US children.
See also: Grandjean P, Landrigan PJ. Developmental neurotoxicity of industrial chemicals - A silent pandemic. The Lancet. 368(9553): 2167 – 2178. November 2006.
1/2
“The human brain is a precious and vulnerable organ. And because optimal brain function depends on the integrity of the organ, even limited damage may have serious consequences,” says Philippe Grandjean , adjunct professor at Harvard School of Public Health and the study’s lead author.
One out of every six children has a developmental disability, usually involving the nervous system. Treating NDDs is difficult and costly to both families and society. In recent decades, a gathering amount of evidence has linked industrial chemicals to NDDs. Lead, for example, was the first chemical identified as having toxic effects to early brain development, though its neurotoxicity to adults had been known for centuries.
A developing brain is much more susceptible to the toxic effects of chemicals than an adult brain. During development, the brain undergoes a highly complex series of processes at different stages. An interference—for example, from toxic substances—that disrupts those processes, can have permanent consequences. That vulnerability lasts from fetal development through infancy and childhood to adolescence. Research has shown that environmental toxicants, such as lead or mercury, at low levels of exposure can have subclinical effects—not clinically visible, but still important adverse effects, such as decreases in intelligence or changes in behavior."
-Harvard School of Public Health
Press Release: Nov 07, 2006
Grandjean P, Landrigan PJ. Developmental neurotoxicity of industrial chemicals - A silent pandemic. The Lancet. 368(9553): 2167 – 2178. November 2006. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17174709
2/2
"Fetal and early childhood exposures to industrial chemicals in the environment can damage the developing brain and can lead to neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs)—attention deficit disorder (ADHD), and mental retardation. Still, there has been insufficient research done to identify the individual chemicals that can cause injury to the developing brains of children.
In a new review study, published online in The Lancet on November 8, 2006 researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health and the Mount Sinai School of Medicine found that 202 industrial chemicals have the capacity to damage the human brain, and they conclude that chemical pollution may have harmed the brains of millions of children worldwide. The authors conclude further that the toxic effects of industrial chemicals on children have generally been overlooked.
To protect children against industrial chemicals that can injure the developing brain, the researchers urge a precautionary approach for chemical testing and control. Such an approach is beginning to be applied in the European Union. It puts in place strong regulations, which could later be relaxed, if the hazard were less than anticipated, instead of current regulations that require a high level of proof. At present in the U.S., requirements for toxicity testing of chemicals are minimal.
“The human brain is a precious and vulnerable organ. And because optimal brain function depends on the integrity of the organ, even limited damage may have serious consequences,” says Philippe Grandjean , adjunct professor at Harvard School of Public Health and the study’s lead author."
-Harvard School of Public Health
Press Release: Nov 07, 2006
Grandjean P, Landrigan PJ. Developmental neurotoxicity of industrial chemicals - A silent pandemic. The Lancet. 368(9553): 2167 – 2178. November 2006. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17174709
Thank You, John.
You're welcome. :-)
BTW... the Harvard press release quoted above describing Grandjean & Landrigan's paper "Developmental neurotoxicity of industrial chemicals - A silent pandemic" published in The Lancet can be found at...
The thing lacking in all of these studies that launch knee jerk reactions of "we have to pass legislation to save the children" is what differences are there now from 30, 40, 50 years ago, etc. How much more prevalent are each of the pollutants/chemicals than they were. THEN, and only then should we be having a discussion.
We know there are chemical dangers and since we've had some dangers over the last half century that were probably less (because as profits grow so will the amount of chemicals), we should be allowed to keep polluting and endangering our species. You probably don't have children...
So, 40-60 years ago the general public was duped into believing that smoking cigarettes was NOT bad for you- turns out in the 80's we find all secret documents, etc outlining what they knew way back when.
Now technology is helping educate on the dangers present in food, products and we should not take action? We should just throw our hands up in the air and complain as to why our predecessors did nothing to prevent this?
Sorry, beginning with my generation (gen x; 30-50 year olds) are NOT GOING TO LET THIS HAPPEN.
WakeUp: Here Here! Come on Gen X - LET'S GO!
Its time time to take on the massive corporations that are making huge profits off of our backs while poisoning us all!
To Wake Up People: 30, 40 and 50 years ago we did not know these chemicals were dangerous, as few, if any, studies were made of them. 50 years ago we did not know that cigarette smoking caused lung cancer, so your argument is full of holes.
MILee
Bullcrap. I'm 54 years old and the American Lung Association was campaigning against cigarettes and saying they caused cancer for as long as I can remember. It was the Tobacco industry and people like Jesse Helms who kept the industry from having to admit what they were doing. We DO KNOW what these chemicals do and there is an ever-expanding body of evidence that the industry wants to suppress, just like big Tobacco did for generations. Time to get off the pot and start taking action BEFORE the next generation suffers the effects of this idiocy.
The problem you have is that all government is political. Back in 1970s, the EPA was started with good intentions. Initially, they did good things that resulted in the Charles River and other places being cleaned up. Then, in the 1980s, the socialists realized environmentalism would be a great way to take over the country. After all, who would argue with the government doing something for your benefit. But, now they've gone way to far and have lost all credibility. When you have a the EPA denying a drilling permit because an occasional boat 70 miles away traveling in the ocean could cause damage to a village of 300 people, that's going way too far. When you have the FDA dictating to schools what they can and cannot serve for school meals and take away lunches prepared by a parent for their child, that is going way too far.
When you have a President who actually campaigns on shutting down whole industries in this country, you'd be a damn naive fool to believe anything that comes out of the administration and a bigger naive fool if you think people are just going to roll over and play dead when Uncle Sam targets your livelihood.
Everyone knows (or should know) that all you have to do is follow the money. So, when you have a study financed by the government, then the bell should ring in your head that it's likely to be slanted in the government's favor, and you'd again be a damn fool if you think that the government is actually looking for the real facts. The same can be said for industry studies. So, what's a person to do? Use your brains and experience to wade through the BS.
Wow...you made it in just under the wire for the dumbest assertion of the year. Good job.
Obviously you've missed the passage of Obamacare and the near passage of Cap and Tax... both designed to take over sectors of the economy... Cap and Tax is the direct result of bogus science being used to make a gas we exhale every day a "pollutant" that needs to be paid for by industry.... duh, plants use it.... anybody on the left ever take science in school???
Well, I know who didn't.
Try putting a plastic bag over your head for 10 or 15 minutes to get a good idea how beneficial CO2 can be...you might just get to see first hand why it's considered a pollutant.
I'm 61 years old.
Someone find me an old pack of cigarettes from the 1950's or early 1960's, and have the tobacco in them analyzed and compared to the tobacco in cigarettes today.
I just want to know if the cigarettes my Dad smoked when I was a child contained over 580 different chemicals and fillers in each one like they do today.
Every male in my family smoked back then and on family reunions they sat in the house talking and laughing and smoking and I never remember having to cough my lungs out or my clothes stinking like they do today when I walk through a room where someone has lit a cigarette.
Maybe the tobacco companies shot themselves in the foot when they introduced all those additives to stretch the product for profit and make them addictive.
we grew up sliding back and forth across the naugahyde seats as our parents smoked cigarettes in the front.. I rember ashes flying in my eyes coming from my dad.. while on the way home to play with lawn darts, shrinky dinks in the oven, burning fuel pellets in my steam engine. smashing caps with a hammer... riding bikes without helmets.. all around town. slopping mosqueto repellent all over to play hide n seek after dark, . back then nothing was dangerous... but we've learned a few things since then.. no teenager should have an embarrassing cowlick because of split head after crashing an all metal petal car down basement stairs..
While much of the information is already known, the report should not be buried.
Guns kill a lot of people every year in the U.S., but compare that to cancer rates that could be avoided with safer products, and the numbers are also too many. Cancer is also very costly; the politicians are willing to spend that kind of money because they won't write a law requiring safe chemicals?
My husband has cancer. Don't you think I would like to know the effects of products we have used?
Skin absorbs a greater percentage of chemicals than ingesting a food, because the liver breaks down more chemicals than the skin does. That is why there are many medications delivered in "patch" form: these medicines are put on the skin because it absorbs so well. How many medicines, make-up, vinyl hairspray, or cleaning substances say not to ingest, call a poison control center immediately if ingested, but have no warnings about the skin?
Who has buried this report, and who is their boss? This is an article that our President needs to see. It is another reason that I disagree with Pres. Obama about super-PACs: there is always some corporation that is paid back. Time to write a law that stops corporations from being "people."
Once again the Big Guns (pun seriously intended) are trying to silence the truth and cause harm to our kids. Shame on the politicians for bowing to the will of Industry with fists full of money.
nothing changes when you allow overpaid greedy asses to monitor our health and welfare because it's common knowledge money talks and public safety is no concern when the buck changes hands! nobody's health is more important than corporate health especially when they know the mistake {haha look at all that money just for destroying the lives of children} kids dont make money adults that are supposed to practice responsibility do for corporations and it costs money to make corrections
It wasn't industry shutting it down... sounded like it was the Dept of Defense... as in oooops they've found our toxic waste dumps and they're gubment dumps!!!
The chemical industry is out of control.
so are the kids.
Don't look now America but the Chemical Industry just bought off your Congressmen and Senators and put your children in danger. We get the government we deserve. Our congress has an approval rating of around 12 % yet we have many members with 20 and 30 yrs. seniority. How can this be??? As I said we get the Government we deserve.
We need less regulations and government oversight, corporations will always do the right thing... for there shareholders
We need better regulations (laws) as said earlier. The corporations are in it for the money and their shareholders are also. Government is designed to protect the citizens. Trusting a corporation to self regulate is about as brilliant as expecting Wall Street financial corporations and big banks to self regulate. They were doing the "right thing" when they bundled toxic assets. Their "right thing" is always putting profit FIRST. It was a disgrace, their lack of shame....
I live several miles from St. Louis, Michigan where Michigan Chemical- Velsico had a plant. They went bankrupt after several massive poisionings of animal feed and various other environmentally sensative interactions. The entire U.S. east coast food supply was affected, people were poisioned, tens of thousands of animals were killed and buried in mass burial sites. The cleanup has, as nearly as I have been able to add up, so far cost $500.M for the mess they left behind. The actual site of the plant has yet to be sealed, chemicals are migrating through the ground water into the St. Louis water supply wells, and were going into the river before it was excavated a couple of years ago. (A massive project running $100.s of Millions.) They have found radioactive and highly toxic materials in local burn pits, our landfills. and that chemicals they couldn't dispose of economically were actually spread on the county roads. Employees also died from exposure to the environmental chemicals on site, and the affect on our present populations are unknown into the future. (Then we can talk about a corporations half an hour from us, Dow Chemical in Midland, Mi., where the current new item is dioxin poisoning of our river and the lands surrounding the plants. We can only wonder what else is contaminated and the effect upon all our bodies. Don't tell us about the good people of the chemical industry, they are focused upon profits and need to be carefully monitored. They are more than willing to exchange dead and deformed children for increases in profit. If you want to see the effects of profit maximization in the chemical industry, come to Central Michigan. (Release the report and clamp down hard- not doing so will be death and likely DNA damage forever in our bodies.) We were sacrificed for marginal increases in profit that occurred years ago, and you are being sacrificed for marginal increases in industry profit today- bring the report out now. The debate that will come with it will help protect us. That would at least give us a fighting chance for survival.
2nd Amendment rights now include chemical weapons; the right of the people to bear arms includes all available weapons without restrictions. Freedom for the armed; if you have a problem with diseased children and birth defects, don't expect to tax the wealthy for their medicaid bills, better yet lobby your local government and sheriff to oppose restrictions on background checks preventing violent people getting concealed weapon permits for assault rifles, and your problem child will be shortly solved thanks to the NRA. The new Jesus for a capitalist America has an offshore bank account and an arsenal of assault rifles to make sure you don't take his money from him.
Something insane about this country that protests for right-to-life and engages in protecting as a right technologies of death and destruction.
You do realise what the word "had" means don't you?
Sure, I realize it means that the American public was had by the corporate shills.
Nor do those chemicals stay in one place. Anything around the Great Lakes will end up polluting everything in all the downstream Great Lakes. Dioxin quantities sufficient to cause serious reproductive organ defects, cancers, and endometriosis are in such small parts per billion that any dumped in Michigan can destroy the health of millions of people.
I know that there are those who think foreign relations are all a one-sided conversation, but those Great Lakes border another country, and they tend to notice when their people get sick (since they have universal health care that tracks patient records over time), and it tends to piss them off. So, a huge dump in Michigan can cause relations with Canada to sour... maybe that is why there is actually some money for clean-up in this case.
I've heard of coal slag heaps polluting ground water with arsenic, mercury, and uranium; and right now there is quite a bit of fracking pumping toxic chemicals into Pennsylvania and Ohio. North Dakota has noticed that extra chemicals that aren't pumped back into the ground from fracking are dumped on the side of the road.
When is enough enough?
I worked in a lab back in the late 1970s/early 1980s that analyzed samples from the Velsicol plant, including samples of the stuff that killed the clean-up workers. The site of the former laboratory is now a health food/health products store.
"Velsicol Chemicals" is the correct spelling, a couple of posts here have omitted the "L" at the end of the company name.
When are people going to wake up and realize this is all intentional? It's not by accident. Sure, money plays a big role, but the attack on our health through chemicals (how about what you guys are spraying the in air you fools??), GMO foods, flouridating our water supply (as well as all the other lovely stuff in there) and the reliance on pharmaceutical drugs are slowly killing us. It's depopulation! Wake up people! Open your friggin eyes! They prey on our addiction to conveniences and on our media implanted fears. God forbid you should have to scrub a frying pan! You may not be able to get foods out of season! Feelin down? Take a pill! A little headache? Take a pill! They create the problems than offer the solutions that are worse than the original problem they created. And they rake it in hand over fist on both ends! We all get sicker, weaker, more compliant, produce fewer children, and get so wrapped up in the mental health issues from our bodies so filled with toxins that we can't possibly do anything but plop ourselves down in front of some screen to stare at more things to program our minds into thinking they way things going are not only ok, but great! Sickening.
Oh, but these things make our lives better!
And yet... we keep living longer.... guess hysterical rhetoric is all you know, and actual data is quite beyond your comprehension....
I'm not so sure that the baby boomers will live longer, and that is the object, to shorten life. Our parents' generation had much less pollution in their systems, and fewer health problems.
My husband won't be living until old age; he is a non-smoker who has colon cancer. Fed Up: you won't be using the word "hysterical" when it happens in your own family, to you or your children.
Exactly right. My mom, the picture of health until a very rare cancer where NO treatment worked got to her. She walked every day, did tai chi every single day, drank green tea in almost as copious the amounts as I do, never smoked, had alcohol maybe 2X a year (one serving each time...she just didn't like it), ate lots of green vegetables, rarely had dairy (which has been linked to problems). You get the idea. She died at 54 in 2010, which is why I'm writing on an internet blog instead of doing things with her right now...
In a couple of decades we will be saying that certain amount of environmental pollution is actually good for you, helping your natural immune system operating properly. Caves were very polluted as well - imagine all the smoke pollution, burnt meat pollution, bat droppings pollution, rock paint pollution, and so on...
Too true, Max, and the average human lifespan in that era was less than 30 years.
Jan, as you can see from this chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy, life expectancy of the earliest cave men was actually a bit longer (33 years) than that of people in early 20th century, and it had nothing to do with environmental pollution in the caves. Given the rigors of cave men life, I doubt most modern men would last 33 years under those circumstances.
Instead of being worried about minuscule amounts of pollutants still found in our air and water we should make sure all Americans have health insurance. We spend billions of dollars trying to remove ultra low levels of contaminants from the environment while people are dying because they have no health coverage.
Hey if they have no work ethic or citizenship, they're not worth health insurance.... (kids and truly disabled humans excluded)...
Understandably, people are outraged at the deaths of children by gun fire. What I would like to know is where is the out pouring of anger at these reports of 'our' governments purposeful inaction of dangers that injure and kill our children by the thousands? Where is congress pontificating about chemicals in childrens bodies and their most basic food, breast milk? When will the president demand, on t.v., that chemicals destroying babies be banned? When will the citizens of this country realise that our problems are centered in D.C. and state capitols and not in our gun safes? Finally, when will the study be done to see how much damage is done to growing childrens social and mental progress by the infestation of deadly chemicals in our water, air, and food?
Apparently it's only a big deal if a group of people are killed in one place at one time. Yes, what happened in that school is horrible. But so are all the deaths and illnesses from contaminated medicines from one compounding pharmacy. The only thing that seems to matter anymore is short-term profits. Who cares if you're sending out something dangerous or running the company to the ground?
So say, if 1.2 million babies a year were murdered, it would be bad?? Well, let's go hang everyone that works at Planned Parenthood!!! Stop murdering children and perhaps we'll take your hysterics about the so-called effects of chemicals on kids seriously...
1. Planned Parenthood does not do abortions, according to law. And your data is wrong.
2. As soon as they are born, you want to kill them? How nice. The Holy Innocents of Bethlehem were two to three years old when they were murdered by Herod; that is what we are talking about: killing those babies who are born. But...
3. Back to 1: a friend of my daughter gave birth to a baby that had no brain, caused by pollution. There are a lot of cases like that in the U.S. So, why are you deflecting the argument to talk about something unrelated?
FedUp bases his estimation of your/my degree of paranoia and hysteria on his level of ignorance and made up facts.
Take that to The Bank!
You people need to put your faith and trust in the big corporations. They know what's best for you. Not some socialist government agency. The big chemical corporations only have
profitser your well being in mind.Yeah because governments have never committed genocide, or raped and pillaged, or confiscated wealth, or kept people in poverty... corporations may have committed illegal acts, but I don't know of a single one that created Gulags and concentration camps and murdered millions.. I'll take corporations over govt any day...
Maybe you should read you history a little better. Start with the coal companies and move on from there.
the OSHA safety violations alone speak for the coal industry cruelty and concern only for profits..
you need to learn history,, guess you never heard of Boulder, Co. it was a company town, as an employee, you had to live in the company town, pay the company landlord rent, you had entertainment in the company theater, dined at the company resaurant, you had to shop at the company store, at company set prices, with company money... a complete corporate community.. no alcohol. company prohibition...
oh yeah, i forgot, died under company working conditions, at company set pay rates... ect..
now, that you've had a chance to read about Corporate history... move to current events and CHINA... ever hear of a "sweat shop"? well they are corporate "work camps" usually locked to prevent workers from leaving early, but often die behind such doors in a fire.. the atrocitys are horrid.. especially WITHOUT government oversight to prevent GULAG and concentracent camp level of living and working conditions..
again. LEARN before positing a complete contradiction of factual history...
Jim, you forgot Bangladesh, where the 9-story tall sweat shop locked its doors so that employees could not steal the garments, and the fire recently killed hundreds of these employees. Think Walmart, Faded Glory brand. It makes me sick thinking about it.
Action is only taken when the chemical spill happens in your back yard. Sadly we are only a reactionary people, not proactive in any way, shape, or fashion.
I live about 1 mile from a landfill in Wisconsin. Once one landfill was built, another came along across the street. The state version of the EPA, Wisconsin DNR, told the landfill owners that they needed to provide well testing to everyone who lives within a 1.5 mile area, primarily those who share the same aquifier that the landfill was build NEXT TO.... The landfill sent out cards to residents in our area for the first five years asking if they wanted their wells tested. What the residents didn't know and only came to light years later is they picked only 5 of the 120 wells to test, and then did not release the list of carcinogens that had leached into the groundwater (This was released accidentally). The landfill applied for and was denied the opportunity to spread out over another 100 acres (town hall meeting). What the people in this area did NOT know, was that the DNR approved that the landfill could expand UP and that did not require another town hall meeting. Same footprint, only higher. The landfill was scheduled to close by 2015. Now with the ability to go UP and accept more garbage from Chicago, the landfill will close in 2030.
Bottom line, it is really the corporations who are getting the benefit, not the people. People get screwed everyday.
It has been well known and documented for years that scented fabric softeners scented detergents and the scented fabric sprays are a cause of many many health problems. And yet people continue to purchase and use them as well as contaminate neighborhoods through venting when drying clothes---smoke is another problem with countless fire pits sold as cheap "ambience" effecting many many children and adults as well. These are two pollutants with chemicals that effect everyone that could easily be removed from the environment--but they won't.
Wood smoke is much less of a problem than the dryer sheets and what-not. I go for as little scent as possible, and when I do use something with scent, it is biodegradable, and uses natural compounds only. I have dryer sheets right now (to cut down on static, as I am in the Canadian prairies and in winter, it is just ridiculous) that are 100% biodegradable and the only scent comes from the natural oil essences of oranges and lemons. It's just a hint of scent, nothing much. I HATE the scent that you get when you walk past someone's house and their dryer has been on and you get blasted with the dryer sheets. It's over-powering.
once again fascism at work in the USA>>>rules/laws by and for the corporations fostered by their handmaidens>>certain factions in the US Congress...folks should realize that the US is held hostage by the petrochemical industry...if the government will do nothing to harness and control these companies, then it is up to the consumer to use his wallet...oh, by the way, looks like environmental chemical pollution plays a major role in autism--big surprise, ha...
I remember being told by employees at our local chemical plants, St. Louis and Midland, Mi., that you could eat the stuff they made and be perfectly safe. I had friends, family and customers at these plants. Later on we learned that they were making and distributing Agent Orange, PBB, dioxins and a host of other "produccts" that even today still affect us adversely in many ways. They were following the capitalistic corporate model of supply and demand, but the economic model they follow failed to weigh our welfare against their profits. The owners were not living here, so they did not factor in the value of their lives and then discounted ours. Chemical plants are far too dangerous to humanity to go on without extensive regulation. They are dangerous, and the deaths, deformities, cancers, DNA damage, effects on farm products- and those going to consumers worldwide, degraded land, lost wages and economic value will go on for centuries if not forever. We can in no way justify not heavily regulating the chemical industry. They have proven for over a century that they are totally incapable of selfregulating their actions in our interests. They are corporations that base their decisions on short term capitalistic models which leave out the actual cost to us of interacting with their products and manufacturing plants. They can not be trusted to act in our best interest, and need heavy regulation and constant review. Failing to do this would and has already adversely affected all our bodies, and those of our descendants forever. We need to monitor and regulate chemical companies. They are corporations, who place profit maximization as a paramount goal. Profit maximization does not take into affect our health and future health. Bring out the report, and the information that it contains. We are in danger and need the protection that it would generate.
Randy, the hidden rich who own all these things only want three things for us. they want us to be born, to suffer (work for them) and to die (before we collect too much pension money).
George, it's refreshing to here that summarized so well. This does seem to be a characteristic which periodically crops up amongst the self-styled alphas of the world- usually followed by revolution and bloodshed.
Even if those alphas have all of us cowed, there are other more volatile countries where they practice the same things that will not stand for it forever. The trouble with the born, suffer, die model is that many are too sick to work after being exposed to those chemicals in childhood. And nobody will want to build a grand estate on the ruins of a chemical desert: the land will be simply wasted forever. Dioxin is not biodegradable.
Had this been an actual emergency, you would have been told. NOT! Plastics are bad, many chemicals, and products sold have never been tested. Millions of substance's and containers need inspected, but there are only two inspectors. Yet congressmen have large staff and a harem of interns to do all the work they are payed and expected to know about. What gets me is they have these huge reports that they don't know what is in them and they vote on them. Does it surprise me they are incompetent or corrupt? NO!
and your chemical free means of communication consists of what?.......a stick and a hollow log?....
I have been instructed in tribal communications. However, I am not opposed to technology, only the inept fools who value it over nature. P.S. Do you know how many plant and animal extracts have been lost to extinction? How many safety concerns and detrimental damage that are ignored only for profit? Plastics the problems have long been known and almost nothing has been done. Pacific and Atlantic Oceans have huge deposits of plastics, which are now in almost the complete seafood chain. Do I believe scientific BS? F... NO
It is appalling that the chemical industry or fears of same in political considerations has managed to usher this vital report into a black hole stall of governance. It is now time to release the report. In addition, I have identified my after X-mass shopping mission - replacing my non-stick cookware!
Maybe if we take the filthy CEO's of these companies and their best lobbyists and cut their legs if with a rusty hacksaw maybe we can persuade them to stop poisoning us and our children, just a thought.
Humans really are a stupid breed when you come right down to it. Think about this for one second, we now have medical patches that can deliver medicine directly into the blood stream. The medicine seeps into the blood by wearing the patch on ones arm or leg. So I ask you, if that is capable of doing that then what happens when we put other chemicals on our skin? What happens with the roll on deodorant or skin cream or after shave lotion when it seeps into our blood via the skin? What happens to the hair spray or shampoo we use, what effect do these things have on the body? Has anyone done any studies on this I wonder?
To my knowledge, kind of. There is one specific family/group of chemicals that is used quite often in almost every product you have mentioned, including make-up, sun screens, and other health/hygiene related products. Studies conducted within the last 5 years have shown that the chemicals I'm talking about can act on the human body in much the same way that regular hormones do, more specifically they mimic the hormone estrogen.
Now I'm no expert- I only remember reading about these studies in a health magazine. But take a minute to think about this: Since before you were born, mom and dad both have used similar products. Then, while you were a bun in the oven, mom continued to use these products. And finally you were born, not only to use the same products, but to be exposed to a whole world full of chemicals- but back to our main topic here.
So, for the entirety of your life (as a man I assume, no joke intended) you have basically had this additional estrogen floating around in your body- hell we scrub our 'boys' with some of these products. Now, you take this knowledge and cross reference to the effects of hormonal imbalance & increased estrogen in the male body throughout all phases of a man's life and what do you get? Prostate cancer, premature balding, smaller muscles, decreased sex drive, smaller sex organs, premature ejaculation, depression & behavioral problems, sleep disruption, and a whole host of other nasty things, including the possibility that these chemicals in some way, may effect sexual orientation in/during puberty.
So, is there any question as to why these chemical companies trying to protect themselves from these studies? Shouldn't be, because these are the kinds of problems that have been increasing for years, and it really shouldn't be a surprise that many of these problems tend to be un-natural for the greater majority of the population.
SNAPPA, you are correct, if you wouldnt eat it, you probably shouldnt put it on your skin, either. Sunscreen, yeah, lets rub toxic stuff on our skin in order to prevent cancer??? RIGHT! How 'bout covering up, or avoiding being in the sun during the midday hours... much better idea. Not to mention sunscreen blocks your body's ability to produce vitaminD. Most shampoos and such have horrible ingredients, SLS's and petroleum by-products are just the tip of that iceberg. Fortunately, for those smart enough to look for them (at health food stores, not Wal-Mart) non-toxic alternatives do exist.
RuneDragon: There might be some notice of the problem, because it affects baby boys (born with "teeny weenies") and men.
However, these estrogen-receptor chemicals also affect all girls and women: the reproductive organ problem in women are an epidemic. Endometriosis is common. Women's livers have more trouble cleaning out these chemicals, because of the monthly cycle causes a production of endometrial cells (that line the uterus), and those cells produce estrogen, which the liver then has to filter out. This is why women become drunk on half the alcohol that a man would need to be drunk, because the liver is already filtering out those hormones. But it also means that women's bodies have more trouble filtering out the pollutants. Many women's immune systems go into overdrive, causing auto-immune syndromes and pain conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue, etc. Endometriosis causes terrible pain in many women: you wouldn't want to torture an enemy with that pain, but all of that is considered "business as usual" by our politicians.
The Endometriosis Association proved in a double-blind study that dioxin causes endometriosis. They did not initiate animal testing, but some monkeys that had a double-blind test for something else were given laparoscopies to see what was in their abdomens. Every monkey that had been exposed to dioxin 10 years earlier had severe endometriosis. One monkey died of endometriosis, which can surround and strangle the intestines or bowel with scar tissue, or cause appendicitis or other serious problems if it travels to other parts of the body. This study has also been buried. The Endometriosis Association has more information.
Griping here does no one any good. If you truly want to do something then contact your congressman. If enough people bitch then they can't ignore it. Also start a petition at whitehouse.gov.
I've done it and it does work.
I've tried to sign some of those petitions; the site often has broken links. But certainly there should be a petition that people sign.
These comments show a growing dissatisfaction with HOW our government handles problems that affect citizens. It isn't the structure of government; it's the corrupt politicians who have sold their souls to the devil corporations for the assurance of a permanent cushy job taxpayers are financing. Until we rid ourselves of these leeches, reports such as this will continue to be shelved and corporate profits will continue to rise.
Yeah! Because "devil corporations" don't do anything... except provide goods and services that people need and want... and hire millions... and pay lots of taxes to support all you eco-nazi deadbeats....
Go Eat Spam, Pal.
Sounds like the chaw dribblin' jug swillin, meth head, trailer dwellin' cons are upset.
This is another shameful episode of Big Business pushing around our government. Shameful! The EPA goes to the trouble to produce an exhaustively researched, important report--one of immense relevance to the health of the American people--and then doesn't have the guts to publish it because the chemical industry doesn't like it? Wow. Now the EPA gives us this line that the report needs "an interagency review." Yea--a review that won't ever really happen, and so this report will languish until people forget about it or it becomes outdated. This the EPA's--and OMB's--cop out: The people running those agencies can pretend that they haven't caved to the chemical industry because the study is being "reviewed.' Sad. Pathetic. And we don't want any studies sponsored by the chemical industry--they are influenced by industry money and so lack credibility, just as drug studies sponsored by drug companies lack credibility.
Does anyone doubt that our cancer epidemic is directly related to the massive number of chemicals in our environment? It's hard to believe taht the Toxic Control Substances Act apparently allows companies to produce any and all chemicals WITHOUT having to show that they are not harmful to humans. What a scandalous piece of legislation. So the burden is on consumers? Once a chemical product is established and making big money for corporations, it's nearly impossible to get rid of it unless people start dying on the street.
This is sadly evocative of the government's weak attempts to regulate tobacco and cigarette smoking. The industry spent 30 years and many tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars lying to the American people, telling us that cigarettes were not addictive and in fact perfectly safe. Profits or people? Sadly, we know the answer.
nice rant starz, are you sure the epa is telling the truth? why because they are part of the government that is trying to HELP us. sorry but i dont think so. i dont trust anything the gov says. all they want is more control over us.
Starz,
How can you know a report is "exhaustively researched, important report--one of immense relevance to the health of the American people" if you haven't seen it?
Is there a cancer epidemic? I thought the data shows cancer is declining, if the data is adjusted for the fact that people are living longer.
It is impossible to show a chemical does no harm. Would you really ban introduction of any new chemicals?
Lung cancer caused by cigarettes is declining because people smoke less. However, all other cancers are on a sharp increase. And people are not living longer; we've had to revise these figures downward.
Elizabeth,
Deaths due to lung cancer have decreased, as you said, due to less smoking.
According to the National Cancer Institute at the National Institues Of Health and the report found here (http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/newsfromnci/2012/ReportNationRelease2012) overall cancer deaths have also decreased significantly - by about 25% for men and 10% for women by my estimate from the graph in the repoert.
Interestingly the National Cancer Institute idnetifies increasing obesity as the primary risk to future improvement as statged below:
"For more than 30 years, excess weight, insufficient physical activity, and an unhealthy diet have been second only to tobacco as preventable causes of disease and death in the United States. However, since the 1960s, tobacco use has declined by a third while obesity rates have doubled, significantly impacting the relative contributions of these factors to the disease burden. Excess weight and lack of sufficient physical activity have been linked to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, and arthritis, as well as many cancers."
As Pogo said "We have found the enemy and he is us".
Obama set the policy for this EPA. Abortion is the only answer to stopping kids from coming in contact with chemicals. It seems like the earth is made of chemicals, so Obama must eliminate kids.
No, just stupid cons.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc