Study: Widespread Chemical Contamination in Infants

Environmental issues are very difficult to handle properly. On the surface, it seems that taking a specifically addressed action on the undesired outcomes could solve the problem. This approach could work fine when the problem is encapsulated, which is not the case of the impact on the environment (by definition, environment is everything outside the capsule).

I am in no way advocating for laissez faire or deregulation. What I am concerned about is easygoing, shortsighted decision-making processes. Flame retardants were once part of this kind of solutions. They were once part of an intended protection. Now that solution has proven to be merely refinancing the problem.

There are lots of examples of sharp-shooting measures. Recycling is enthusiastically supported, even though the overall balance could be negative (I mean the case in which poor logistics leads to spend more energy in collecting, classifying and shipping recyclables than what can be saved from recycling).

RoHS seem to be all right, but let's look at the overall impact, at least with regard to the use of lead: Lead-based solders became banned by the EU by 2006 (although lead-acid batteries seem to be OK). Waste-processing workers in the EU are no longer exposed to the hazards of lead (at least when it comes from electronic devices). The problem of lead got automatically transferred to the workforce (mainly located in Asia), which now has to deal with higher soldering temperatures, and more toxic fumes.

Since many companies already had to redesign their manufacturing practices in order to comply with RoHS (which also banned bromine and BPA in flame retardants), a simple solution might be imposing the same regulations in the US. The impact on industry would surely be much lesser than that they already absorbed.

But an integral solution would be still missing; one that takes into account the big picture, and not just the headlines.

I think that we are facing a timing problem: The advances (whatever that means) in technology are too short-termed for any government to catch up, while environmental impact is too long-termed for them to be worth taking care of it. Media don't seem to understand any of those issues, but still manipulate the public opinion with statements like "perchlorate, a solid rocket fuel". Potassium perchlorate is an oxidant (not a fuel), and as such has been widely used (i.a.) for fireworks, as breath deodorant, and to deliver oxygen to breathing masks in aircraft. Had I to stick to the same criterion, I would characterize water as a chemical substance used to maintain nuclear reactions and to develop bacteriological weapons.

It is really alarming.

We are struck by global filling (Too many people)

and bad habits, addictions, dependency's etc.

The water care works just cant keep up with all the persistent / indestructible pollutants.

On the news tonight they had something about the effect of the result of makeup in our water resources.

The use of fragrance in detergent and soaps is over the top. Too much, and it's nasty. And people are using those air freshener things, spraying it on the furniture and in the air. It's not really regulated, I don't believe.

We seldom think of that stuff in the bloodstream. People are not aware how much stuff is absorbed through the skin. You buy cookware or clothes or shampoo, you expect it is safe to touch or put it on your skin!!

I read this article on nanotechnology today. I found it really disturbing. Nano nano to be the great solution everywhere and in everything - a fuel additive for godsake. No imaginable risks in that, surely. All kinds of apps where it will be breaking down in the environment, and then... A paragraph at the end glossing over the safety concerns. It'll prove to be safe, after we've spread it all over....

About the article:

1. No specific references
2. No mention of what levels of contaminants were found. (BTW, analytical detection levels continue to drop as a result of ongoing technological advances).

Talk about yer spin:

Besides BPA, substances detected for the first time in U.S. newborns included a toxic flame retardant chemical called tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA) that permeates computer circuit boards - [proof? References?]

and perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA), a member of the notorious Teflon chemical family [Notorious? How toxic is it? At what levels? References?]

What a nice, emotional article; intended ONLY to attempt to promote fear and outrage instead of eliciting reason, since absolutely no data was provided.

Mikerho,

A scientific publication has all the references: a report about a scientific study isn't expected to do that.

I think if you're going to debunk specifics in an article, you should do it with references, yourself.

It took me 15 minutes to find and assess references to answer the questions you raised.

1.There's a wiki on TBBPA; a major industrial use is in epoxy resins in circuit boards. I guess it "permeates" the boards more or less then. ?? the big deal???

TBBPA is toxic to aquatic organisms, otherwise the main health concern (say, for babies) is that it breaks down to BPA. If you want to quibble about how toxic is it, fine. Go get some references, back yourself up.

2. PFBA is optimistically considered less toxic than other perflorochemicals (see notoriety, below), at least in part because it is eliminated from the body in a matter of days vs years. In the drinking water, I guess the problem is you keep getting a refill.

Linked here, a toxicological study in pregnant mice that compares the reproductive toxicity of PFOA, a carcinogenic ("notorious" as in widely known, replicated in many studies, published...and to be phased-out by 2015) chemical used to manufacture "Teflon" PTFE, and others. PFBA on the other hand is clearly not so bad.. read it and see. Rat pups livers were enlarged on day one after birth, but after ten days without further exposure to PFBA their livers were back to normal!! Hurrah.

The original article made no quantitative or toxicological claims about the findings - it simply established that these contaminants are absorbed by the human mother and that detectable amounts pass from the mother to the developing fetus. Since reproductive toxicity is a serious issue for related chemicals, I guess it's an important point to make.

Just asking you to be fair... You may not give a damn about babies or chemicals in your water or whatever. But there's no need to ridicule those who do. .......

I was ready to give this a GA until the slur at the end. I changed my mind.

Hi artsmith,

I receive what you are saying. I am not opposed to doing what is necessary to keep our environment clean, especially when it has negative impact on the health of future generations.

My point was that the article was just someone's viewpoint. I'll concede that, due to the paper being an article and not a scientific paper, it does not need to have references. That is very convenient for the person writing the article; they can write anything they want, however true or untrue it may be.

In this instance they did not even cite the publication that their rhetoric was supposedly based on.

What were the concentrations of said contaminants? Was it in ppb? Ppt? Technology nowadays allows us to quantify down to ppt (parts per trillion).

PCBs have been a subject of concern in past years. One study shows, for the subjects tested, the average concentration of PCBs was 242.77 ng/g lipid. The units are comparable to ppb, though density of the lipid must be taken into account.

At what point does any foreign substance become toxic in the system?

By the way, I was not debunking any specifics in the article; I was only pointing out their lack of supporting evidence.

Mike

Hi Mikerho,

Fair enough to make the point that this is not a published peer-reviewed study - not yet anyway. I searched the PubMed database for the co-author who is named and found two articles but not this one - it is new and appears to be as yet unpublished.

Looking at the source and other stories presented, I have the impression this is a newswire sort of affair, to report new information as soon as it is available, and not waiting for publication. That is OK too - I'm sure no one pregnant wants to wait the year or so it takes for peer review. If there's any doubt, you want to take precautions just in case, and why not. For the rest of us, it's ok to caution not to jump to conclusions before the study has passed peer review. Fair enough.

Also fair enough to make the point that this is not a large-scale study with quantitative data on chemical concentrations.

But I think you are wrong to say that "no data" was presented. According to what I read, the cordblood of ten infants from lower income families was tested, and contaminants found in that sample are named. That's not "someone's viewpoint", that's data. Not the type you wanted, but data nonetheless.

Right away you can see that this is not the size of sample for a quantitative study. It is simply a preliminary study that establishes that there are measurable levels of contaminants that may be health concerns. In other words, it provides a scientific basis for the need to do quantitative and long term studies in populations at risk.

When it comes to environmental contaminants and health, the people most likely to be affected are those with least access to scientific resources. Providing a basis on which to apply for funds to do quantitative studies is a valuable contribution, IMHO.

The usual scare mongering from the usual suspects.