Diary of Unknown Symptoms

Mystery of the Internal Vibration

Entry for May 17, 2006

1147918462-sc-210

Body Burden — The Pollution in Newborns

Tests show 287 industrial chemicals in 10 newborn babies

A benchmark investigation of industrial chemicals, pollutants and pesticides in umbilical cord blood. Environmental Working Group, July 14, 2005

In the month leading up to a baby’s birth, the umbilical cord pulses with the equivalent of at least 300 quarts of blood each day, pumped back and forth from the nutrient- and oxygen-rich placenta to the rapidly growing child cradled in a sac of amniotic fluid. This cord is a lifeline between mother and baby, bearing nutrients that sustain life and propel growth.

Not long ago scientists thought that the placenta shielded cord blood — and the developing baby — from most chemicals and pollutants in the environment. But now we know that at this critical time when organs, vessels, membranes and systems are knit together from single cells to finished form in a span of weeks, the umbilical cord carries not only the building blocks of life, but also a steady stream of industrial chemicals, pollutants and pesticides that cross the placenta as readily as residues from cigarettes and alcohol. This is the human “body burden” — the pollution in people that permeates everyone in the world, including babies in the womb.

In a study spearheaded by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) in collaboration with Commonweal, researchers at two major laboratories found an average of 200 industrial chemicals and pollutants in umbilical cord blood from 10 babies born in August and September of 2004 in U.S. hospitals. Tests revealed a total of 287 chemicals in the group. The umbilical cord blood of these 10 children, collected by Red Cross after the cord was cut, harbored pesticides, consumer product ingredients, and wastes from burning coal, gasoline, and garbage.

This study represents the first reported cord blood tests for 261 of the targeted chemicals and the first reported detections in cord blood for 209 compounds. Among them are eight perfluorochemicals used as stain and oil repellants in fast food packaging, clothes and textiles — including the Teflon chemical PFOA, recently characterized as a likely human carcinogen by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board — dozens of widely used brominated flame retardants and their toxic by-products; and numerous pesticides.

Of the 287 chemicals we detected in umbilical cord blood, we know that 180 cause cancer in humans or animals, 217 are toxic to the brain and nervous system, and 208 cause birth defects or abnormal development in animal tests. The dangers of pre- or post-natal exposure to this complex mixture of carcinogens, developmental toxins and neurotoxins have never been studied.

Chemical exposures in the womb or during infancy can be dramatically more harmful than exposures later in life. Substantial scientific evidence demonstrates that children face amplified risks from their body burden of pollution; the findings are particularly strong for many of the chemicals found in this study, including mercury, PCBs and dioxins. Children’s vulnerability derives from both rapid development and incomplete defense systems:

A developing child’s chemical exposures are greater pound-for-pound than those of adults. An immature, porous blood-brain barrier allows greater chemical exposures to the developing brain. Children have lower levels of some chemical-binding proteins, allowing more of a chemical to reach “target organs.”
A baby’s organs and systems are rapidly developing, and thus are often more vulnerable to damage from chemical exposure. Systems that detoxify and excrete industrial chemicals are not fully developed. The longer future life span of a child compared to an adult allows more time for adverse effects to arise.
The 10 children in this study were chosen randomly, from among 2004’s summer season of live births from mothers in Red Cross’ volunteer, national cord blood collection program. They were not chosen because their parents work in the chemical industry or because they were known to bear problems from chemical exposures in the womb. Nevertheless, each baby was born polluted with a broad array of contaminants.

U.S. industries manufacture and import approximately 75,000 chemicals, 3,000 of them at over a million pounds per year. Health officials do not know how many of these chemicals pollute fetal blood and what the health consequences of in utero exposures may be.

Had we tested for a broader array of chemicals, we would almost certainly have detected far more than 287. But testing umbilical cord blood for industrial chemicals is technically challenging. Chemical manufacturers are not required to divulge to the public or government health officials methods to detect their chemicals in humans. Few labs are equipped with the machines and expertise to run the tests or the funding to develop the methods. Laboratories have yet to develop methods to test human tissues for the vast majority of chemicals on the market, and the few tests that labs are able to conduct are expensive. Laboratory costs for the cord blood analyses reported here were $10,000 per sample.

A developing baby depends on adults for protection, nutrition, and, ultimately, survival. As a society we have a responsibility to ensure that babies do not enter this world pre-polluted, with 200 industrial chemicals in their blood. Decades-old bans on a handful of chemicals like PCBs, lead gas additives, DDT and other pesticides have led to significant declines in people’s blood levels of these pollutants. But good news like this is hard to find for other chemicals.

The Toxic Substances Control Act, the 1976 federal law meant to ensure the safety of commercial chemicals, essentially deemed 63,000 existing chemicals “safe as used” the day the law was passed, through mandated, en masse approval for use with no safety scrutiny. It forces the government to approve new chemicals within 90 days of a company’s application at an average pace of seven per day. It has not been improved for nearly 30 years — longer than any other major environmental or public health statute — and does nothing to reduce or ensure the safety of exposure to pollution in the womb.

Because the Toxic Substances Control Act fails to mandate safety studies, the government has initiated a number of voluntary programs to gather more information about chemicals, most notably the high production volume (HPV) chemical screening program. But these efforts have been largely ineffective at reducing human exposures to chemicals. They are no substitute for a clear statutory requirement to protect children from the toxic effects of chemical exposure.

In light of the findings in this study and a substantial body of supporting science on the toxicity of early life exposures to industrial chemicals, we strongly urge that federal laws and policies be reformed to ensure that children are protected from chemicals, and that to the maximum extent possible, exposures to industrial chemicals before birth be eliminated. The sooner society takes action, the sooner we can reduce or end pollution in the womb.

Advertisements

May 17, 2006 Posted by | Health | , , , | Leave a comment

Entry for April 23, 2006

“You get cancer by being exposed to this whole range of chemicals, often at critical periods of your development, and over a long period of time. “

Still shocked from watching Wendy Mesley’s report,  my wife and I do some more research on the toxins and carcinogens in our everyday lives. With us having a new born baby we both agree that we should be careful about the things we use and we start googling…

When our baby started on rice cereal we looked at all of the different brands and every single one had all kinds of additives. We wanted something that was just rice and nothing else but couldn’t find anything on the shelves. Because we couldn’t find anything, we decided to check at Loblaws and we they sold  their own brand of organic rice cereal. Perfect!

My wife made the decision before our daughter was born to use cloth diapers instead of disposable. We don’t make a lot of money so the cost savings were enough to justify it. As she did more and more research, she read about the danger of disposable diapers.

Chemicals in Disposables

Since your baby will spend so much time in diapers, let’s take a closer look at disposable diapers. On the market since the early 60’s, the disposable diaper changed from a plastic diaper with a lot of paper fluff to a diaper constructed of a waterproof plastic outer layer, an absorbent pad with super absorbent chemicals, and an inner liner. The super absorbent chemical, sodium polyacrylate, absorbs and holds fluids in the diaper. This chemical has been linked to toxic shock syndrome, can cause allergic reactions, and is lethal to cats if inhaled. Death has occurred from ingestion of just 5 grams of this chemical. Pediatric journals contain reports of this chemical sticking to babies genitals. When the baby’s skin gets wet, this super absorber can poll fluids form baby’s skin. Dioxin, the most toxic of all cancer-linked chemicals, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is a byproduct of bleaching paper. Even in the smallest detectable quantities, dioxin has been known to cause liver disease, immune system suppression, and genetic damage in lab animals. Dyes found in some disposables are known to damage the central nervous system, kidneys, and liver. The Food & Drug Administration (FDA) received reports that fragrances caused headaches, dizziness, and rashes. Problems reported to the Consumer Protection Agency include chemical burns, noxious chemical and insecticide odors, reports of babies pulling disposables apart and putting pieces of plastic into their noses and mouth, choking on tab papers and linings, plastic melting onto the skin, and ink staining the skin. Plastic tabs can also tear skin, and disposables may contain wood splinters.

In 1987, the Sunday Democrat and Chronicle published news about the new Pampers Ultra. The new gel they used caused severe skin irritations, oozing blood from perineum and scrotal tissues, fever, vomiting, and staph infections in babies. Employees in Pampers factories suffered from tiredness, female organ problems, slow-healing wounds and weight loss. According to the Journal of Pediatrics, 54% of one-month old babies using disposable diapers had rashes, 16% had severe rashes. A survey of Procter & Gamble’s own studies show that the incidence of diaper rash increases from 7.1 percent to 61 percent with the increased use of throwaway diapers, great for manufacturers of diaper rash medicines. Widespread diaper rash is a fairly new phenomenon that surfaced along with disposable diapers. Reasons for more rashes include allergies to chemicals, lack of air, higher temperatures because plastic retains body heat, and babies are probably changed less often because they feel dry when wet.

In her research, she came across a brand called “Nature Clean” mentioned on the baby boards as a safe alternative for cleaning products. She recognizes the name from shopping at Sobey’s so we’ll check the next time we go there. She also comes across a web site that is a “Guide to Less Toxic Products” from Nova Scotia. It lists the toxic description of everyday products and suggests alternatives.

We did our normal shopping today at Sobey’s and discover they don’t have much in the way of organics so we agree to make the extra trip to Loblaws for the organic rice cereal. My wife goes into the store and I wait in the car. She calls me from inside the store and says they have everything you can imagine in terms of organics and that I should come in too. I put the baby in the stoller and head inside. It’s ORGANIC EVERYTING! Shampoo, toothpaste, deodorant and cleaning products.

I’ve decided not to go too crazy with this organic stuff but I’m concerned about the long term exposure. I’m impressed so I buy Jason shampoo and organic toothpaste. I still have my other deodorant at home so I won’t switch to organic until I’m finished. My wife buys some organic baby shampoo and laundry detergent.

Who knows if it will make a difference but I feel really good about it.

April 27, 2006 Posted by | Health | , , , , , | Leave a comment

   

%d bloggers like this: