Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Health & Wellness

Low Sperm Counts and Deformed Penises: The Chemical Industry Has a Hold on Your Reproductive Future

By Joshua Zaffos, Colorado Springs Independent. Posted June 26, 2008.


From car seats to condoms, nasty compounds have invaded our lives. Hormones are going haywire, and our human future is at risk.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

I am half the man my father is.

This disturbing fortune came to me about five years ago, but not from an odd relative or a sadistic girlfriend. Instead, this dinner-table diagnosis came from Theo (short for Theodora) Colborn, an internationally known scientist who has helped develop the field of research exploring how chemical compounds interfere with the hormones that guide human development.

Known as endocrine disruption, chemicals found in computer screens and car seats, shower curtains and shampoo, plastic water bottles and prophylactics are skewing our odds against cancers and causing developmental delays and reproductive roadblocks, including declining sperm counts.

So, when Colborn informed me of my inferior manhood, I took consolation in the fact that she was indicting my entire generation -- and her own -- for loading our natural environment, our workplaces and our homes with tens of thousands of chemical compounds without really having a clue about what we're doing. Our Stolen Future, the book Colborn co-authored in 1996, first delivered this bad news to the general public.

More than a decade later, scientists are still conducting experiments and measuring results, from cramped basement labs at universities to expansive high-country lakes in the wilderness. The hypotheses generally aren't questions of whether chemicals are pervading and persisting in the environment, but rather how severely they are stunting our development and health. The federal government has investigated these questions with timidity, if not contempt, operating a regulatory system practically beholden to the chemical industry.

With half of my manhood at stake and hopes for a better assessment in the future, I'm wondering how we can heed the warning signs and reverse our chemical course.

A day in my half-life

For years, I started off each day drinking coffee out of a metallic cup, likely coated with bisphenol-A, a chemical commonly used to line plastic bottles and other food and beverage cans and containers. Anyone who has lugged around a Nalgene bottle made of polycarbonate plastic, trying to save the Earth one paper cup at a time, has gotten his or her share of bisphenol-A, which leaches from containers into liquids to enter our bodies. A U.S. Centers for Disease Control study detected bisphenol-A in 93 percent of all Americans.

Inside us, bisphenol-A mimics estrogen, plugging into hormone receptors; this is endocrine disruption. In pregnant or breastfeeding mothers and young and prepubescent children, it can have critical impacts, rewiring our developmental profiles and opening up our risks for cancers and physical and behavioral abnormalities. Lab tests suggest that chronic, low-dose exposure to bisphenol-A -- like drinking out of a coated cup or polycarbonate bottle daily -- may cause women to have greater chances of breast cancer and polycystic ovary syndrome, a leading cause of infertility, and men to have increased odds of prostate cancer and reduced sperm counts.

That's a lot to think about during the day's first cup of coffee or sip of water. Now I try to stick to ceramic mugs and glasses.
As my body starts to properly caffeinate in the mornings, I usually sit in front of a laptop and do whatever it is writers do to put off writing -- checking e-mails and boxscores -- until I'm warmed up. As a computer warms up, particles inside start to fly and some catch a ride on dust. For years, I breathed in polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) from my laptop.

These compounds are flame-retardants, nearly universally used in couch cushions, televisions, cars and carpets. PBDEs have similar chemical structures to thyroid hormones, and, according to lab tests, they can lower our bodies' production of the real thing.

Over time, thyroid-hormone deficiencies can hurt metabolism. Hypothyroidism causes fatigue, depression, anxiety, hair loss and a waning libido. Women with low thyroid-hormone counts are five times more likely to have children with IQs that qualify them as mildly retarded, according to one study. A 2005 experiment found that a single low dose of a common PDBE given to rats in utero resulted in a class of hyperactive rodents with persistent low sperm counts.

Contemplating my future as a fat, bald, sad, edgy, dull and dim-witted bachelor isn't necessarily cause for perilous concern. Still, a generation's lacking aesthetics and sex drive is a wicked trade-off for the low combustion factors of our workspaces, living rooms and vehicles.

On the mornings when words don't flow from my fingertips, I know it's time to take a shower, an effective and healthy distraction. I used to have a vinyl shower curtain and wash with whatever shampoo was cheapest from the supermarket. Both those products generally contain phthalates (pronounced "tha-lates"), compounds that add flexibility and plasticity to fragrances and cosmetics and almost anything made out of vinyl, including children's toys and IV bags.

Phthalates are especially tenacious when it comes to tweaking with men's development, affecting androgen, as compared to estrogen, receptors. One of the first low-dose studies on phthalates, from 1999, found that exposure of pregnant female rats led to a dramatic increase in male offspring with sexual abnormalities.

For humans, studies show that as many as one in 125 newborn boys in the U.S. now arrives from the womb with a hypospadia, a condition in which the urethra does not properly extend to the end of the penis, necessitating surgery. Data suggests the incidence has doubled since the 1970s, and scientists believe phthalates or other endocrine-disrupting chemicals are responsible.

Recent research on phthalates by Rao Veeramachaneni of Colorado State University has used rabbits, which are better human surrogates than rats because they have infant and adolescent life stages; rodents basically start puberty once they're born. The results show rabbits with in utero exposure to one class of phthalate experienced a 43 percent drop in sperm count compared with healthy animals. Rabbits exposed to phthalates in utero or during adolescence had almost twice as many abnormal sperm as normal cases. These declines in sperm quality and quantity are among the signs of "testicular dysgenesis," which also includes increased rates of undescended testicles and, most severely, testicular cancer.

Yet another study, led by Shanna Swan of the University of Rochester, suggests prenatal exposure to phthalates correlates with shorter "anogenital distance" (the space from the anus to the testicles, less clinically known as the taint) and greater probability of improper testicular descent and smaller penile volume.

In other words, size does matter, just not necessarily the way we act like it does.

Beast of body burden

I can try to avoid plastic bottles and vinyl shower curtains. I can seek out a computer that doesn't use PBDEs; a number of companies have voluntarily phased them out. My few consumer actions are roughly equivalent to fending off an infectious disease with a Kleenex.

One reason is that the federal government doesn't do much to monitor or regulate chemical concentrations in the environment.

Congress passed the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in 1976, the same year I was born. Under the law, manufacturers register commercial chemicals and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency can test the safety of chemicals -- produced after 1979 -- and regulate their use. Or at least that's how it's supposed to work.

From 1979 to 2004, the EPA received more than 32,000 chemical applications, but agency personnel performed some level of review on fewer than one in eight cases. Eight out of every 10 applications are approved with no restrictions, often in less than three weeks. The agency has implemented restrictions on only five chemical classes, even though in the 1990s it reported that 16,000 compounds warranted concern because of their chemical structure or volume of use.

"TSCA really doesn't have the teeth to ban chemicals," says Sonya Lunder, senior analyst with Environmental Working Group, a D.C.-based watchdog organization. Another catch is something called bioaccumulation. Some chemicals persistently build up inside us, a tally called a body burden. Mothers pass theirs onto babies in utero and through breast milk. I inherit, so to say, the body burdens of animals every time I eat a cheeseburger or splurge on sushi. In 2001, a Canadian health official estimated the average person consumes about half a microgram of PBDEs every 10 days just through meat and dairy. When it comes to endocrine disruption, you are what you eat.

I have roughly 700 different synthetic chemicals in my body. That number probably won't be going down any time soon. Every single day, the United States produces or imports 42 billion pounds of chemicals, about 140 pounds for every American. I also am what I eat out of, and with, and around.

The same compounds that bioaccumulate in our bodies also linger in the environment. The heavy-duty pesticide DDT earned its notoriety -- and nearly worldwide prohibition -- because its lethal toxicity could kill off dozens of birds after an application. It is also a "persistent organic pollutant" that remains in the environment for a long time and can mimic estrogen and lead to birth defects. It's probably fair to call DDT the O.G. of endocrine-disrupting chemicals.

Bans on DDT and other persistent organic pollutants led to the engineering of the new class of chemicals we use today. It's obvious how they've improved our lifestyles, if not our lives. But studies suggest we have traded obvious poisons for insidious ones.

Pollution in the park

Situated in the ice-sculpted Colorado valley of Glacier Gorge, Mills Lake is considered one of the most stunning features in Rocky Mountain National Park. At nearly 10,000 feet and fed by snowmelt from the Continental Divide, Mills should be among the purest pools of mountain water in existence. But the presence of "intersex" rainbow trout, males with some very female characteristics, suggests otherwise.

This February, the National Park Service issued a report through its Western Airborne Contaminants Assessment Project (WACAP) detailing measurable levels of chemicals and heavy metals throughout "pristine" corners of our national parks.

"The transsexual fish was really something we hadn't anticipated," says Dixon Landers, a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency research scientist who participated in the WACAP.

Based on the project's findings, Landers says most parks' contaminant counts correlate with the local pollution measured in the surrounding snowpack. In Rocky Mountain National Park, that means mercury from power plants along the Front Range and chemicals from agricultural pesticides. Researchers also reported levels of persistent organic pollutants, including DDT, once again proving the compounds' lasting risks.

DDT, which hasn't been used in the U.S. since 1972, could plausibly be responsible for transsexual fish in the middle of the continent. Scientists also point out that airborne pollution moves around the world, so organic pesticides could be coming from countries that still use them. Then again, the project also detected levels of PBDEs in parks, suggesting another pathway.

In 2004, University of Colorado scientists surveyed fish in Fountain Creek, downstream of Colorado Springs' wastewater-treatment facilities, and found intersex flathead chubs and other sexual deformities.

Around the same time that James Dobson was raising questions over SpongeBob's sexual preferences, a much more serious case of sexual deviancy was brewing in his backyard stream.

The Fountain Creek results mirror earlier findings from around the state. The same researchers have identified intersex fish swimming below sewage plants in Boulder and Denver; they couldn't find a single male white sucker in the South Platte River downstream of the state capital. The scientists reported many more female than male fish, female fish with poor reproduction rates, stunted gonads in both sexes, and males producing vitellogenin, the main ingredient of yolks for offspring.

Concentrations of chemicals and steroid hormones, including synthetic estrogen used in birth control and synthetic testosterone used to bulk up livestock, are typically higher in streams below treatment plants because the contaminants accumulate at the facilities. That is one of the reasons for treatment, but the various processes used in most wastewater plants don't effectively remove many of these compounds.

A forthcoming study from the University of Colorado scientists and their colleagues has more specifically analyzed why the fish in these locations are suffering these maladies. The researchers report a "complex mixture of endocrine-active chemicals" in Boulder Creek, including bisphenol-A, steroid hormones and alkylphenols, which are estrogen-mimicking compounds used in air fresheners and laundry detergents, and as a spermicide on condoms, diaphragms and other contraceptives.

Other studies are advancing our understanding of chemicals' impacts on life. A group of Colorado State University researchers led by Thomas Borch, professor of environmental chemistry, is looking at measurable amounts of androgens and estrogens along the Cache la Poudre River, upstream and downstream of Fort Collins, to see what happens to the compounds over time.

"This particular study stands out because we've tried to address the question: What are the present compounds being broken down to?" Borch says. "It's beyond the fact that these could have endocrine-disrupting effects."

Borch refers to other research suggesting synthetic chemicals can impact animals' levels of pheromones, a class of hormones that cue behavioral responses in other members of a species.

"We're just being able to reliably detect these compounds," he adds.
Meanwhile, the mix of pharmaceuticals, including antibiotics and mood stabilizers, steroid hormones and other compounds passing through standard wastewater treatment processes -- and into drinking water supplies -- was the focus of a recent Associated Press investigation. A Senate committee has announced it will hold hearings on the topic.

A dangerous double standard

Congress, actually the U.S. House of Representatives, is investigating the federal government's regulatory behavior regarding chemicals. An ongoing inquiry should help reveal the extent of industry influence over recommended rules for synthetic compounds.

Rather than yielding a regulatory hammer, the EPA generally allows the chemical industry to set its own standards voluntarily and conduct its own evaluations on endocrine disruption and chemical impacts on children. In cases where chemicals have gone through formal reviews, the results haven't always panned out for public health and safety.

The Environmental Working Group recently exposed that the EPA had removed a government scientist from an external-review panel of deca-brominated diphenyl ester, one of the fire-retardant PBDEs, after the American Chemistry Council complained about her "appearance of bias."

Other PBDEs have been outlawed in the U.S. since 2004 because of their effects on human thyroid systems and brain development, and their rates of bioaccumulation; body burdens drop when we stop using these chemicals. The impacts of deca weren't as conclusive a few years ago, but recent studies show the compound can break down into other PBDEs and cause endocrine disruption.

Deborah Rice, an environmental toxicologist with the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention and a former EPA scientist, has testified, to her state Legislature, in favor of banning deca.

That was enough for the chemical industry to claim she was unqualified to serve as the deca panel chair. The EPA complied with the industry's complaint last summer, citing the "perception of a potential conflict of interest."

"The American Chemistry Council's strong support of science was the basis for its recent letter to the Environmental Protection Agency regarding a member of the agency's external peer-review panel for [PBDEs]," says Tiffany Harrington, a spokeswoman for the council. "The chairperson's pre-existing bias advocating the ban of deca-BDE is not consistent with the scientific standards of an independent peer review."

Even with an IQ possibly deflated by flame retardants, Rice's prior recommendations, based on peer-reviewed research, don't sound like "bias" to me. Meanwhile, 17 scientists with financial or other ties to the chemical industry currently serve on seven EPA review panels, according to the Environmental Working Group.

"There's a dangerous double standard coming out of the EPA about who is biased," Lunder says.

So far, these cases haven't warranted the agency to remove any panelists. The U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce is now gathering agency documents on the issue as part of another investigation into regulations on the use of bisphenol-A, specifically in children's products, and the chemical industry's possible manipulation of public opinion relating to chemical safety.

"The public depends on EPA peer-review panels to help ensure the products they use every day are safe," says Rep. John D. Dingell, D-Mich., the committee chair. "The EPA seems to have a backwards way of composing these panels. The EPA is disallowing scientists who have valid public-health concerns about products, while encouraging participation by so-called experts who are paid by the chemical industry."

In the midst of the congressional investigation, bisphenol-A has gotten another once-over, even if U.S. regulators aren't changing their stances. The Canadian government announced it will likely label bisphenol-A as a toxic compound. Wal-Mart declared it would remove baby products with the substance from its shelves in Canada and eventually the U.S. Nalgene stated it would remove bisphenol-A from its water-bottle products.

Perhaps most telling, officials at the U.S. National Toxicology Program released an April report that concluded the use of bisphenol-A, even at low levels, should cause "some concern" toward health risks for fetuses, babies and children. Despite the wave of scientifically informed reports and consumer actions, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, another agency with regulatory oversight over chemicals, claimed there was no reason for Americans to worry themselves over bisphenol-A.

The Environmental Working Group is pushing for TSCA reform and is also supporting private and local- and state-level efforts to more effectively regulate potentially harmful chemicals. Many computer companies no longer use PBDEs, partly a result of tougher chemical restrictions in Europe.

Corporations and academics are advocating for and following through on "green chemistry" practices, a comprehensive rethinking of manufacturing processes. Some cities are promoting their own pharmaceutical "takeback" programs, to limit the flushing of unused pills. The federal government's takeback guidelines are considered weak and confusing; in some cases, they encourage flushing pills to avoid drug abuse.

In February, the EPA announced it would try to eliminate a backlog of 8,000 untested chemicals through a new "computational toxicology" initiative. Robert Kavlock, director of the agency's National Center for Computational Toxicology, says the program will use molecular and cellular tests performed by automated robots, instead of animal testing in labs. Whereas a chemical review through animal-toxicology studies can take five years and cost between $5 million and $10 million, the computational program can test thousands of compounds at several concentrations in a single afternoon.

The breakthrough sounds encouraging, but critics question if molecular and cellular tests can capture health effects that impair entire organisms. Kavlock says the program's first phase will measure results against existing animal-toxicity data for chemicals to address that concern.

Global warning

During my conversation with CSU's Thomas Borch, I ask him to compare our understanding and acceptance of endocrine disruption with that of another subtle, global environmental epidemic: climate change. Borch says the analogy is apt, believing that the impacts of endocrine-disrupting chemicals we see today are comparable to the signs of global warming that people began to acknowledge in the 1990s. He recognizes this assessment might be conservative; some colleagues, Borch adds, would say the consequences of our society's chemical romance are already measurable and apparent, and they demand appropriate policy changes.

I started surfing through the evidence five years ago.

After first meeting Theo Colborn, I began spending time with her, asking lots of questions and reading whatever she handed me. I even worked for her for a short while, organizing files and sorting through research papers and reports.

Today, at 81, Colborn is sharp as a tack and president of TEDX, Inc., an acronym for The Endocrine Disruption Exchange that rhymes with a certain overnight-delivery company. The nonprofit research clearinghouse compiles and circulates peer-reviewed studies on low-dose chemical exposure, allows scientists to compare results, and helps the media and the public understand what we are doing to our planet and our bodies.

One day, while I was helping Colborn at her home, where a massive file cabinet piled high with draft studies and award plaques sits in her kitchen, she opened a drawer to find a report. Instead, she discovered a folder, filled with poetry. "Oh! You need to have this," she told me and pulled out a photocopy of a poem, which is frequently attributed to Goethe and closes with the oft-quoted couplet:

"Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now."

The inspirational verse on mind over matter is intriguing, coming from Colborn. Backed by decades of research and exchanges with fellow scientists, she firmly believes chemicals amassing in our bodies may not only outweigh, but be diminishing, our minds' capabilities.

The words are a testimony to the ideal that if we are willing to inform ourselves and commit to intelligent decisions about our use of chemicals, it's not too late to affect change and avert a global crisis.

Begin it now.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: toxins, reproductive health, endocrine disruptors, chemical industry, toxic products, fertility

Joshua Zaffos writes from Fort Collins, Colorado. His work has appeared in High Country News, The Denver Post, Fly Fisherman and Orion.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Health and Wellness! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Are you saying..?
Posted by: kwalla on Jun 26, 2008 1:47 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That my penis shouldn't have two heads?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Are you saying..? Posted by: Moira61
» double the Viagra Posted by: fomented
» RE: Are you saying..? Posted by: Luther Blissett
» Hey, kwalla, I can't tell from your name Posted by: Robert_Hoogenboom@leftfoot.com.au
Live far from the civilised West
Posted by: Bobsays on Jun 26, 2008 2:00 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And watch your erections soar like a B2 bomber. I lived for three years with a tribal people far away from the West. And was constantly horny and healthy. It was such a great experience: I was very fit, and because of the crap of the West, my sexual energy was in full force. It was amazing! It's never been the same since living in a city. It is really boring being around so many women who are so lost in their own worlds.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Ohh... Posted by: Moira61
» RE: cripes Posted by: kiel
» This has gotta be.... Posted by: morticia
Not Just a Pretty Face
Posted by: artie on Jun 26, 2008 4:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The warnings that you mention that the EPA inadequately - if at all - mention resounds also in "Not Just a Pretty Face," the book indicting the cosmetics industry.

We should learn from lead-poisoning's contribution to the decline of the Roman Empire ...
Bushaligula???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Headline is Sensationalistic
Posted by: drricklippin on Jun 26, 2008 4:38 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I agree that we need to continue to study endocrine impacts of synthetic chemicals publishing fearmomgering headlines about "deformed penises" is not worthy of AlterNet editorial

These are animal studies and they may or may not be relevant to humans.

The hormones that I worry about most are those ingested by naive patients prescribed by their physicians who have been duped by an irresponsible and greedy pharmaceutical industry.

So please spare the excessive fears of drinking beverages out of plastic containers. Just don't accomapany your beverage with a prescribed hormone.

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Headline is Sensationalistic Posted by: drricklippin
» Caps does not an argument make Posted by: Biflspud
» RE: Headline is Sensationalistic Posted by: SekhmetsatRa
» In the field... Posted by: fanny666
» Sensationalist yes, but. . . Posted by: SpiderWoman
» SENSATIONALISM SOLVES NOTHING! Posted by: drricklippin
Same old story
Posted by: markwardt on Jun 26, 2008 4:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I haven't checked completely but e.g. PBDEs are prohibited in the E.U. That shows it is possible
to replace and to restrict dangerous chemicals. The story that the oh so poor industry will suffer from such a wicked ban is a myth. The problem for the U.S. is the tight interdependence between industry und politics thet prevents you from progress with respect to ecology. We don't have it to that extent in Old Europe. Yet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Experiment Continues!
Posted by: williameon on Jun 26, 2008 5:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Recind 400+ Pollution laws!
Pump poison into the environment and the food supply wait to see what happens?
Chemicals, pesticides, fungicides, franken foods,
Terminator genes, Nuclear waste, radioactive isotopes, corn syrup, hydrogenated oil, PCBs, pollution, medications, sleeping pills, mood modifiers, chem-trails and rocket fuel.
Search for a cure instead of the cause of desease and what do you get?
Sickness,
Deformities!
Sick people
Sick children
sick babies!

A
Cancer,
Diabetes and obesity epidemic
To name a few
Oh!
My!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Asthma
Posted by: benzene on Jun 26, 2008 6:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What?

All of those words up above about federal dysregulation of chemicals and the deleterious side effects of those chemicals, and not one word about asthma?

Sure, hit people with the buzzwords: cancer, deformed, and penis, but ignore pervasive conditions that are already readily apparent and have been for years?

Wow, what journalistitude!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Asthma ... and other things Posted by: banshee413
» No, you don't understand Posted by: banshee413
"drinking coffee out of a metallic cup"
Posted by: war_on_tara on Jun 26, 2008 7:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm having trouble even picturing a "metallic" coffee cup. The several here are all ceramic; of course there may be problems from their being "Made in..." no, whaddaya know, Taiwan, Mexico and Thailand... not a "Made in China" in the bunch! Maybe I look at these things after all, before I buy them. Anyway, all these will BREAK if someone drops them.

But what does a "metallic" coffee cup look like? In the military I remember we had some kind of unbreakable plastic-ized coffee cups - substantial, but had a hollow sound if dropped, didn't break - & even those don't seem metallic in any way, but is that what he means?

(meant to make a new comment - not enough coffee!)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Researching reasons takes time
Posted by: warble on Jun 26, 2008 8:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But, it takes no time to dash on a perfume, breathe in nuclear dust, apply moisterizers, eat and drink chemical additives, frolic with plastics, and it takes no times to embrace the chemical world without even realizing it. The problem is that researching the causes of death and diseases takes a long time and lots of money. Even when you think you might have the cause, you can never be sure.You can still splash manly aftershave, breathe in its intoxicating fumes, and die of lung cancer or homonal disfunction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well, it will possibly lead to some regulation...
Posted by: phatkhat on Jun 26, 2008 8:10 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if men's penises may be deformed by these chemicals.

When the deleterious effects are seen in females, no one worries too much, but if it affects a penis...! Thank goodness men are starting to have something to worry about, too. Maybe we will get some relief from the toxic overload.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Gee... Posted by: Q30
» RE: Gee... Posted by: loxias
» RE: Gee... Posted by: jennyfox
» RE: Gee... Posted by: oceanwaves99999
» RE: Gee... Posted by: jennyfox
High time ... !
Posted by: stellabloo on Jun 26, 2008 8:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... altho this does not fall in the current "news" category, I am gathering that this is news to many of you?

Maybe Americans should sit up and take notice of the compounds that Canada and the EU are suddenly labelling as toxic or banning outright? Why are pthalates OK in the US but not in the EU? Maybe they know something you don't know?

As for accusations of fear-mongering, please note that the medical establishment makes SUBSTANTIAL cash treating all these new cancers. How about that ultimate in consumer hypocrisy, the Monsanto-sponsored Pink Ribbon Campaign - anyone see the teensiest problem with this concept?

The notion of sexually deformed fish isn't anything new either; typically it exists downstream from any large wastewater outfall. Present-day wastewater treatment does not remove persistent volatile organics, such as those found in cleaners and pharmaceuticals, most notoriously the estrogens in oral contraceptives. Yes, water does purify thru evaporation eventually, but most rivers have a LONG way to go before they reach the sea - hint hint.

While we're at it, I have a few other long-standing axes to grind: Why are carcinogenic flame-retardants mandated in everything EXCEPT cigarettes? Why are tobacco companies still allowed to add flame ACCELERANTS with such a long-standing history of accidental death or wildfire directly caused by their product? Did you know that tobacco companies sponsored the "Keep America Litter-free" campaign, with the condition that tobacco butts be EXEMPTED? That's right, it's perfectly legal to throw away your non-biodegradable, toxic, and flammable butts!

Also, while we're on the topic of health and stupid laws, how about some hype on the long-term effects of ALCOHOL? Say, vs. pot? Did you know that if all Americans suddenly drank responsibly, in moderation and only if of legal age, that alcohol sales would suddenly decline by 40%?

No, the US government is NOT interested in your health. Not at all, at all. After all, they don't have to pick up the bill for your health care, do they?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: High time ... ! Posted by: AvalonSeeker
Endocrine distruption = Weight Gain
Posted by: Gravitas on Jun 26, 2008 8:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great article, but it is too bad he didn't mention how these chemicals can cause weight gain, except incorporated in the fat, bald joke. Plug in bisphenol-A and childhood obesity into a search engine. There are several articles out there. I believe there is a certain type of genetically fat person that is healthy. But I also believe there are some people who have gained weight as a result of a harmful environmental factors. The pathway is chemicals = weight gain/metabolic disruption = heart disease,diabetes,cancer. Except all we focus on this society is the SYMPTOM - weight gain, instead of the real cause. That is like trying to cure measles by erasing spots. It is not surprizing when groups like the American Council of Science and Health, funded by the chemical companies point us to lifestyle. They are just deflecting the real issues to save themselves. Until we start looking beyond the whole calories in vs out baloney, the morality surrounding obesity will protect the chemical industry as wall as continue to fatten the wallets of the power-elite via the weight loss industry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Interview with Frederick Vom Saal, PhD (Feb. 1998)
Posted by: nochicagoboys on Jun 26, 2008 8:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do yourself a favor and read the linked interview with Frederick Vom Saal, PhD. The interview was conducted in February 1998 (yes, the dangers have been known at least since then) by Doug Hamilton, producer of Frontline's "Fooling With Nature." I've included an excerpt to peak your interest. The interview is totally revealing, and implicates the chemical processing industry, specifically Dow Chemical Corporation, a major producer of bisphenol-A (BPA), in attempting to cover-up Vom Saal's findings.

DH: So you're saying that the hormone that has the clearest link to breast cancer, the hormone that is responsible for sexual development in any animal or human, is found in plastics?

FvS: Absolutely. The plastic materials, if they are polycarbonates, are made with this chemical bisphenol-A. And you can think of polycarbonate as a house made of bricks. Essentially you take this brick, this building block, which is bisphenol-A, and you link it together with other bisphenol-A molecules. That's a polymerization reaction. The bisphenol-A is the monomer used to construct these plastic materials. When it's attached to another one, that forms a polymer. And unfortunately in the process of making these plastics not all of the bisphenol-A gets linked together. So you put your food or other material in the plastic and it absorbs the unreacted bisphenol-A into it. And now in your food is a sex hormone.

DH: And what are you finding to be the effect?

FvS: Okay, the chemical bisphenol-A passes out of the plastic or out of the dental sealant that's put on your child's teeth or out of the lining of cans, into the food or liquid that's in contact with the plastic. Now the important point about detection by instrumentation of the bisphenol-A is that, based on our research, the ability of the current instruments used to monitor for bisphenol-A in food is a much lower level of detection than what our animals are able to detect. It's a huge difference as a matter of fact. So that you can put food that you have in contact with plastic into a chemical analysis and say there is no plastic material there. We extract from that same food, put it into animals and we get a big effect. The animals are more sensitive to the chemicals than the machinery. So detection limits, where people say our machine didn't detect this, doesn't mean it's not there and doesn't mean that it won't damage your baby. We have shown that in our experiments.

DH: So the plastics we use in daily life, the baby bottles, the food containers, leach chemicals into the food at levels that cause effects in lab animals?

Click "interview" link, above, and read the total interview.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

BRAVE NEW WORLD: FACT OR FICTION???
Posted by: chiefwanadubie on Jun 26, 2008 9:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The required school reading list, in the '70s, included books such as A brave new world, 1984, Fahrenheit 451, Animal farm...I asked myself why, what is the purpose??? Were these books, the plans of diaobolical leaders, or were they a warning, of things to come??? Or, To prepare us??? or a failed attempt, to get us off of our ASSES, to stop it??? If science, and technology, destroys our ability to reproduce, than "A BRAVE NEW WORLD" IS EMINENT!!! Big brother is watching us, and controlling us with interactive, plasma flat screen T.V.s??? Are we not controlled by "SOMA"??? Are you ready for Ford baby factory??? And the end of the family??? America, has outlawed NATURE and legalized, evey man made poison imaginable!!! Was Star trek, warning us to prepare, for our own demise??? WILL GOD DESTROY THOSE WHO ARE DESTROYING THE EARTH???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If the author is so worried about chemical exposure
Posted by: Ayla87 on Jun 26, 2008 10:03 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why does he comsume caffine daily? Or is his heart not as important to him as his genitals so clearly are. (SOURCE)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Enough with the studies already
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Jun 26, 2008 10:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How many more years must we continue to "study" these and other issues that are affecting our collective health? Everyday we see the "affects" of these chemicals in our lives and those of the ones that we love. They show up as retardation, cancer, endocrine & thyroid issues etc., must we continue to let the "free market" operate recklessly until disaster happens? Or are we to continue to believe that the "free market" will police itself?

Hello, do we not have proof everyday about "free market" ideology run amok(S&L scandals, Randy Duke Cunnigham, our current $4.00 gas prices, oh yeah)? Yes, 100 years ago people still had cancers and other diseases, however, the rates at which these illnesses are occurring today are probably higher than they should be because of all of these assaults on our bodies. While some may justify and say that the rates are relative to the population, if you really pay attention Europeans don't necessarily have the same rates of disease that we have here in America.

As we are now facing issues of climate change maybe this yet something else to add to the list to concern ourselves with. Over the last 30 years there has been a "war on government" interference that has resulted in the dismantling of regulations designed to protect the public safety from all industries that are uncontrolled. This is a lesson that our grand-parents and parents learned that we have forgotten at our own peril.

Yes, better living thru chemistry at our own risk.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

not just penises
Posted by: cyr3n on Jun 26, 2008 10:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
birth control patches, pills, and rings lower a woman's libido. The effects may not be immediate but 3-5 years down the line it makes a huge difference.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: not just penises Posted by: MartianBachelor
Zero Population Growth -- Worldwide
Posted by: jmmartin on Jun 26, 2008 10:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Scary story. It's beginning to look like P. D. James was prescient when she wrote Children of Men, recently made into a fine film by Alfonso Cuaron.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Delightful rewards of capitalism and American ingenuity
Posted by: DesertStone on Jun 26, 2008 12:56 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Americans with their capitalist greed have managed to poison the whole planet yet still look down their noses at people who live simple lives insisting their ways are superior. Fifty years from now they’ll figure out how to build a house without polluting half the planet and giving ten people a fatal illness then they’ll pretend they invented the idea.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CommonDreamer
Posted by: CommonDreamer on Jun 26, 2008 8:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I bought a plastic coffeemaker a few years ago. Shortly I began to experience very bad headaches...the pain wrapped around my neck and got worse every day. Around the third month of owning this coffeemaker, I peered inside it, as I was going to pour vinegar into it to clean it, and I saw black mold, about the size of a nickel, in splotches. I threw the coffee maker out and got a perker. Headaches immediately got better. I can't say whether the plastic compounds or the mold - or both - were to blame. And I wonder if that type of plastic was a good environment in which mold could proliferate easily, due to its chemical composition. I will never know, but I am getting as far away from plastic as I can.

This article highlights the problems we are having with chemical living. The hippies were always right....recycle, use canning jars, use glass and ceramic wares for everything...simplify and eat things that are as close to their natural state as possible.

Capitalism with its exuberance has brought invention after invention - and many beautiful things....but sometimes we just need to leave things as they are...or recognize how the most common things (glass, etc.) were always the best anyway.

We have unwittingly filled our society with endocrine disruptors in the search for better living through chemicals. Now we need to re-empower the FDA and NIH to conduct studies that are needed - and to ban these substances as quickly as possible so we can get them out of our bloodstreams. This is a big part of better healthcare - not just healthcare reform, but fixing external problems such as these.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A couple of thoughts
Posted by: fanny666 on Jun 27, 2008 12:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do neuroendocrinology research at the University of Colorado, the building next door to the developmental endocrinology people cited in the article. Just thought I'd share some random, semi-coherent thoughts. I thought this was a pretty good article. Definitely sensationalist, but I guess that's just how everybody reports science.

By the way here are Links to the journal articles written by Dave Norris, the main endocrine-disruption guy at the U of Colorado- Boulder. In case you're interested.

They don't know what's causing the trans-sexual fish. "Chemicals" from the waste water plant is probably a safe bet, but for all we know it could be related to temperature. It's probably a combination of things, and human pollution is quite probably part of the story. Since a common finding just from the field work was that there were way more females than males, birth control pill residue in urine is a suspect. For example, on one day out, of 39 fish they took downstream of the Boulder WasteWater Treatment Plant, 29 were female and 4 were "intersex" (may be ovaries containing testicular tissue or an incompletely transformed testis). Although my personal feeling is that the Colorado press, which is very conservative and hates Boulder for being so liberal, ran with that story - SLUTTY BIRTH-CONTROL TAKING BOULDER FEMINISTS RUINING NATURE - for their own reasons. I do think the research is important, if only to improve how we treat waste water, which is going to continue to be a big deal for the human species. We have separate glassware that we use for solutions which include corticosterone, the main hormone we study. You can't wash it off the glass, even with soap, scrubbing, hot water, etc. They are very sticky molecules.

Many things "mimic estrogen" to one degree or another. yams and soybeans, for example.

The fact that bisphenol-A is found in 93% of Americans to me is a perverse type of GOOD news- there is no pathology shared by 93% of the population, and so it's probably pretty harmless at low doses. There is some evidence that it contributes to adipose tissue build-up (fat) and that it is bad for sperm ... in both cases, it might be because of effects on mitochondia in cells.

Anything that effects an endocrine system is bound to have pretty profound effects. Pretty much by definition, hormones are very sticky, hard-to-get-rid-of molecules, and they are transcription factors meaning that their job is to turn genes on and off.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A couple of thoughts Posted by: donnambirdlady
» RE: A couple of thoughts Posted by: fanny666
» RE: A couple of thoughts Posted by: oceanwaves99999
Nature always finds a way
Posted by: tomkara on Jun 28, 2008 12:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whether through disease, calamities, or the folly of mankind, our planet's explosive population must be curbed. Among mankind's follies is his unwise use of resources and polluting the planet with chemicals which cause reproductive harm (ironically aiding in population reduction, both his own and that of other species on which mankind depends). I personally favor mandatory human contraception after puberty plus voluntary sterilization programs with financial incentives at age 18. And tax credits for not having children. And extra taxes on those who do. We do not need 'zero population growth'. We need immediate substantial REDUCTION in population through natural attrition and vastly reduced reproduction. And of course, policies which require clean energy, clean food, holistic healthcare, and a political revolution favoring rational governance. Unfortunately, a crisis will almost certainly be required to change our present ways. Philip Wylie said as much. Europe knows as much. It took the horrors of fascism to give Europe a progressive edge.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Urban Myth #3
Posted by: Urban Myth #3 on Jun 28, 2008 10:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Very good Kwalla - I think your penis is allowed as many heads as it wants (or needs) - until, of course, you mention this to God.
The quaint 'taint' area is more commonly known as the peritonitis.
Logic and ages of health practice teach that any swab should go backward from the genitalia to the anus, thus reducing the risk of infection from two close yet mutually exclusive areas - clean undies might help some too! Whew - Have a nice day

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I think that's "Perineum" Posted by: fanny666
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement