Showing posts with label 1992-06. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1992-06. Show all posts

Monday, 31 March 2014

#291: An Old Problem, Mercury Pollution, Reappears In a Troublesome New Form

=======================Electronic Edition========================

RACHEL'S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #291
---June 24, 1992---
News and resources for environmental justice.
------
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org
==========
RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY
Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library.
Dioxinnz.com

========================Original Source========================

An old problem, mercury pollution of freshwater fish, re-emerged during the late 1980s in a form much more widespread and much more difficult to control than previously seen.

Federal and state governments have done little to attack the problem, partly because much of the bad news is recent, and partly because government policies created much of the problem in the first place.

Mercury contamination first became known in the U.S. in 1970 when big fish in the Great Lakes were discovered to be so laced with mercury that they were poisonous to humans. The source was thought to be industrial dumping of mercury directly into waterways.[1] After various industries reduced their mercury dumping into streams and lakes, pollution control officials assumed the problem was under control and basically went to sleep.

However, throughout the 1970s, Swedish researchers continued to report high mercury levels in fish taken from remote lakes, far from any industrial polluters. In the early 1980s, Minnesota officials began examining fish from remote lakes and they too found fish with dangerously high mercury concentrations. Then officials in Wisconsin and Michigan made similar discoveries. In the Canadian province of Ontario, researchers found high levels of mercury in 95% of all the lakes tested.[2]

Scientists assumed the source of the mercury was natural geologic deposits until recently when careful measurements of rainwater revealed that the mercury is coming from the atmosphere, carried to earth by rain. Mercury enters the atmosphere from two main sources: 65% from combustion of coal, and 25% from solid waste incineration.[3]

Recent measurements of mercury in the atmosphere over the oceans indicate that total mercury in the atmosphere has doubled since the 19th century. Nature moves mercury into the atmosphere by various means, such as volcanoes, but human sources are now three times as large as all other natural sources of mercury. That is, humans activities (chiefly burning coal and garbage) account for 75% of the mercury entering the atmosphere today, whereas all non-human sources account for only 25%. This new data has come as something of a shock to scientists, who had thought humans were a rather puny actor on this particular stage.

Economic projections by the Washington think tank, Resources for the Future, indicate that humans are likely to double their mercury releases during the next 50 years.[4] If that should occur, some scientists say freshwater fish in acidic waters everywhere will become toxic to humans.

The mercury in the atmosphere is 97% elemental mercury, but the mercury in fish is 95% to 99% methylmercury, which is elemental mercury with a carbon atom and three hydrogen atoms attached. Methylmercury is much more toxic than elemental mercury. Scientists now know that mercury becomes methylated when it enters a body of water, especially an acidic body of water, though the exact role of the acid is still unclear.

Big fish taken from acid waters are dangerous to humans already. And, as other sources of protein become more expensive or come to be regarded as unhealthful, such as red meat, eating fish becomes more popular. The combination of more mercury entering the atmosphere, increasing acidity of many waters because of acid precipation (rain, snow, and even acid fog), plus increasing consumption of freshwater fish adds up to a growing threat to humans.

Fish are relatively insensitive to mercury, so they can build up a level in their tissues that is toxic to humans and other fish eaters.

Mercury mainly attacks the central nervous system, chiefly the brain. In adults, the first symptoms of serious exposure are loss of sensation in the extremities of the hands and around the mouth. If exposure continues, an unsteady gait, slurred speech, tunnel vision (concentric constriction of vision), loss of hearing, convulsions, madness and death follow.

The effect of mercury on humans began to be understood during the 1970s. The Chisso Corporation dumped tons of mercury into Minamata Bay, a relatively small body of water in southern Japan, heavily contaminating local fish. Some 2900 humans were severely injured, a third of them killed outright. Recent court cases indicate that an additional 10,000 individuals were permanently harmed.[5] Based on studies of adults contaminated at Minamata in the period 1953-1968, the World Health Organization [WHO] in 1972 established 4300 nanograms per kilogram of body weight per day (ng/kg-day) as the dose that caused poisoning; they applied a "safety factor" of 10 and concluded that a "safe" dose would be 430 ng/kg-day.[6] (A nanogram is a billionth of a gram; a kilogram is 1000 grams or 2.2 pounds; a gram is 1/28th of an ounce.)

However, since that time, much new data has become available. In northern Iraq during the winter of 1971-72, some 6530 patients were admitted to hospital with mercury poisoning. The death of 459 of them was attributed to mercury. Careful follow-up studies of mercury levels in hair and blood of adults, children, and infants allowed medical researchers to establish that infants are 5 to 10 times more sensitive to mercury than adults are. Infants exposed before birth showed severe brain damage whereas their mothers had mild or no symptoms. The fetus is thought to be particularly sensitive during the first months of pregnancy when cell migration and cell division are occurring at a fast pace. Thus the WHO "safe" level is perilously close to a mercury level known to harm fetuses and infants.

Dr. Thomas Clarkson at University of Rochester points out that Iraqi infants exposed before birth showed symptoms when their pregnant mothers had daily intakes of 600 to 1100 nanograms per kilogram. Applying the standard "safety factor" of 10, Dr. Clarkson says the new "safe" dose should be 60 to 110 nanograms per kilogram.[7] Roughly 40% of the American people already eat enough freshwater fish to exceed a mercury intake of 60 ng/kg-day.

A careful survey of fish consumption (and therefore mercury intake) of 4864 Americans by the U.S. Department of Commerce showed that 0.1% of the American people (250,000 individuals) exceed the WHO "safe" dose of 430 ng/kg-day. But if we accept Clarkson's new "safe" dose, we can calculate that roughly 40% of the American people (100 million individuals) are today eating levels of mercury in fish that would have to be called unsafe.[8]

Is anyone really being affected? Humans who eat a lot of freshwater fish seem to be, and so do fish-eating birds and mammals. In 1978 a neurological study of 592 Cree Indian people from three bands living along James Bay in Quebec province revealed tremors, incoordination and abnormal reflexes were prevalent neurological abnormalities, and other major manifestations of mercury poisoning were seen occasionally, including astereognosis (loss of the ability to judge the form of an object by touch) and tunnel vision (concentric constriction of visual field).[9] Since that time, mercury in the blood of Cree people has been cut in half by modifying their traditional diet to reduce intake of freshwater fish, particularly big fish.

Ocean fish seem not so susceptible to mercury buildup in their tissues, perhaps because the oceans are not acidic. Freshwater fish are the problem.

Bass in the Florida Everglades have 4.4 parts per million of mercury; U.S. Food and Drug Administration forbids interstate shipment of fish containing more than 1 ppm mercury, and the state of Minnesota has set a "safe" level in fish at 0.16 ppm, the strictest standard of any state. Bass and other fish in the Everglades are definitely toxic enough to pose a real threat to predators such as ospreys, eagles and humans. Mercury has been confirmed as the cause of death in loons and panthers in the Everglades. Furthermore, mercury is suspected as an important cause of the reproductive failure being witnessed now among eagles, mink, otter and other wildlife in the Great Lakes.

The mercury problem is heavily damaging the sport fishing industry in at least 22 states and at least two Canadian provinces, where warnings have been issued against eating certain species of fish from certain waters. And, as we have seen, the problem shows every sign of growing worse.

Given that the problem is atmospheric and international, it is not one that states can completely solve alone, though each state could make strides by banning garbage incineration and phasing out the burning of coal. It will take an international accord to stem mercury poisoning. This will require leadership from the federal government, which so far has shown no interest.

Federal energy policy officially encourages coal-burning power plants and incineration of municipal trash, for generation of electricity. The Edison Electric Institute estimates it would cost $5 billion to capture mercury from the nation's coal-burning plants, and it might cost $10 to $30 million to fit an incinerator with mercury-capturing gear. (Coal combustion provides a double whammy, acidifying waters while releasing mercury.)

Against those costs, we must weigh loss of the sport fishing industry and damage to the central nervous systems of large numbers of Americans, especially infants and children.

--Peter Montague, Ph.D.

===============

[1] Janet Raloff, "Mercurial Risks From Acid's Reign," SCIENCE NEWS Vol. 139 (March 9, 1991), pgs. 152-156.

[2] Keith Schneider, "Ancient Hazards of Mercury Re-Emerge," NEW YORK TIMES August 26, 1991, pgs. A1, B5.

[3] F. Slemr and E. Langer, "Increase in global atmospheric concentrations of mercury inferred from measurements over the Atlantic Ocean," NATURE Vol. 355 (Jan. 30, 1992), pgs. 434-[437.]437.

[4] William D. Watson, Jr., "Economic considerations in controlling mercury pollution," in J. O. Nriagu, editor, THE BIOGEOCHEMISTRY OF MERCURY IN THE ENVIRONMENT (NY: Elsevier/North-Holland Biomedical Press, 1979), pgs. 41-77.

[5] David E. Sanger, "Japan and the Mercury-Poisoned Sea: A Reckoning That Won't Go Away," NEW YORK TIMES January 16, [1991,] pg. A3.

[6] Thomas William Clarkson, "Human Health Risks From Methylmercury in Fish," ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY Vol. 9 (1990), pgs. 957-961.

[7] Clarkson, cited above, pg. 958.

[8] William F. Fitzgerald and Thomas W. Clarkson, "Mercury and Monomethylmercury: Present and Future Concerns," ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES Vol. 96 (1991), pgs. 159-166.

[9] Gail E. McKeown-Eyssen and John Ruedy, "Prevalence of Neurological Abnormality in Cree Indians Exposed to Methylmercury in Northern Quebec," CLINICAL & INVESTIGATIVE MEDICINE Vol. 6, No. 3 (1983), pgs. 161-169.

Descriptor terms: mercury; mercury poisoning; resources for the future; chisso corporation; japan; world health organization; thomas clarkson; everglades; who; fish; wildlife; water pollution; minamata bay; drinking water;

#288: What We Must Do--Part 17: New Tools for Citizens: 'Bad Boy' Laws

=======================Electronic Edition========================

RACHEL'S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #288
---June 3, 1992---
News and resources for environmental justice.
------
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org
==========
RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY
Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library.
Dioxinnz.com

================== Original Source ==================

We reported last week#287 that a huge hazardous waste incinerator--the largest in the world--is being built nestled among homes and schools on the edge of the Ohio River in East Liverpool, Ohio. The owner of the furnace is an elusive company called WTI. The owner of the land is a public agency, the Columbiana County Port Authority. WTI applied for, and received, an incineration permit from the federal EPA [U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency]; issuance of the permit to WTI violated EPA's own rules, which require both the owner of the furnace AND THE OWNER OF THE LAND to apply jointly for a permit. When local activists pointed out this violation to EPA, the agency promptly placed the name of the landowner (the Port Authority) on the permit even though the landowner has never applied to become a party to the permit. EPA has no legal authority to issue an incinerator permit to someone who does not APPLY for a permit and the Port Authority definitely has not applied. In fact the Authority has appealed EPA's action, aggressively trying to stay off the permit.

If the Port Authority is enthusiastic about the WTI incinerator, why does the Authority not want its name on the permit? Hugh Kaufman, an EPA official who has investigated the WTI matter in detail, says he believes it may be because Ohio has a "bad boy law" on the books which requires a background check on anyone seeking a permit to handle wastes in Ohio. (See Ohio Revised Code, Section 3734.44.)

The history of Ohio's bad boy law is typical. In many locations around the U.S., the waste industry is mob controlled. In other locations, the industry is peppered with people who are crooked, incompetent and unreliable, or who lack expertise. To keep such people out of the waste business, the Ohio legislature in 1988 passed a bad boy law requiring a background check on anyone seeking a permit to handle waste in Ohio. The law lists 21 kinds of criminal offenses; anyone convicted of any of the 21 offenses can be denied a waste-handling permit. Furthermore, indications of unreliability, incompetence, or lack of expertise in the waste business are grounds for permit-denial under the law. It is conceivable that the Columbiana County Port Authority, after a background check, might be denied the right to hold an incineration permit in Ohio.

Ohio's bad boy law reportedly prevented Chemical Waste Management (Chem Waste), the largest U.S. hazardous waste hauler, from purchasing the WTI incinerator three years ago. We have documents signed by officials of Ohio state government, and the federal government, indicating that Chem Waste came very close to purchasing WTI in the spring of 1989. Government officials, who asked not to be identified, said Chem Waste backed out of the deal because of Ohio's bad boy law. Citizens were thus spared a fight with a company known for its wily, no-holds-barred style.

These events demonstrate the power of a bad boy law. In many locations around the U.S., such laws are being used by grass-roots activists to punish crooks, to protect the local environment, to build bridges between environmentalists and "good government" advocates, and to strengthen local democracy. Bad boy laws work.

A bad boy law is any ordinance that says companies or individuals convicted of certain crimes cannot get public contracts or licenses to do business in your town (or your county, or your state; there is even a federal bad boy law, described below).

Bad boy laws are being used successfully at the local level to keep convicted criminals from getting contracts to haul garbage. Sometimes this can cut the heart out of a landfill or incinerator proposal.

For example citizens of Palmer, Massachusetts passed a law saying no person or business entity could be awarded a contract or subcontract by the Town of Palmer if that person or business entity:
(a) had been convicted of bribing a public official of Palmer or "any other public entity" in the U.S.
(b) had been convicted of agreement or collusion in restraint of freedom of competition, or of agreement to fix prices; or
(c) had pleaded guilty to these crimes or had pleaded NOLO CONTENDERE [meaning a plea of "no contest," in which a person says, in effect, "I am not admitting guilt but I do not dispute the charges against me."]
The Palmer law contains language that prevents a business entity from doing business with Palmer if any of its affiliated companies are guilty of the prohibited conduct. In the Palmer law, companies are considered to be affiliated if one controls the other, if they share management or board of directors, or if one owns, or partially owns, the other.

The Palmer story reveals the many benefits of a campaign to pass a local bad boy law. Waste Management, Inc., wanted to build a regional landfill in Palmer. A local citizen's group, the Ware River Preservation Society (WRPS) proposed the bad boy law. WRPS leader Elizabeth Hancock says proposing the law generated good publicity for her group, and brought new members, donations, and better attendance at meetings.

Three local decision-makers opposed the law but that put them in the position of having to explain why they favored doing business with convicted criminals. Discussions surrounding the proposal brought out the dark side of Waste Management's history--a corporate record so outstanding that Greenpeace in late 1991 published the 285-page third edition of WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.: AN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES & OTHER MISDEEDS.[1] After the Palmer bad boy law was proposed, newspapers felt more secure discussing the seamier side of Waste Management's history.

Waste Management mounted a campaign attacking the proposed law. They hired a prominent local attorney and took out full-page newspaper ads denouncing the proposal. They extolled the virtues of their recycling programs, even though they were aiming to establish a large dump. But in the end, the ordinance passed. If Waste Management and its hundreds of subsidiaries can keep their noses clean for three years (something they have never done before), then they will become eligible to do business with the Town of Palmer.
There are four key points to consider when drafting your own local bad boy ordinance.

1. Mandatory action for defined violations; for example, the Minnesota Department of Transportation has regulations saying "a business MUST BE DEBARRED when one or more of the grounds set forth [in a different section of the regulations] are established at a hearing or opportunity for hearing...."

Debarment means disqualifying someone from receiving a contract with a public agency, or from serving as a subcontractor under such a contract.

The federal government has debarment regulations (see FEDERAL REGISTER Vol. 52, May 29, 1987, pgs. 20363-20369) which basically give government officials the right to debar people and companies that have been convicted of "any offense indicating a lack of business integrity or honesty which affects the present responsibility of a participant." The regulations then list various contract crimes.
Contract crimes generally include violations of state or federal antitrust laws, fraud, theft, embezzlement, bribery, forgery, misrepresentation, making false statements, falsification or destruction of records, or other criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public or private contract or subcontract.

The federal regulations give government officials some leeway in debarring convicted criminals. We favor giving government officials less discretion, since history shows that they tend to wink at contract crimes.

2) It is important that your ordinance require debarment of one business entity for crimes committed by all affiliated business entities. Otherwise, criminals will simply set up create new organizations when existing ones are convicted of crimes.

3) Your bad boy law should punish crimes during the recent past (3 to 7 years) not the distant past, to make the law more defensible and easier to enact.

4) At a minimum, your bad boy law should hold criminals responsible for "no contest" pleas as well as "guilty" pleas and convictions. It is even possible to write a law that debars companies and individuals when there is evidence of a crime, even if no one has been indicted or convicted.[2]

Bad boy laws can be used for debarment, but they can also be used to deny permits to companies trying to operate incinerators, landfills and transfer stations. The Ohio law, mentioned above, works this way. The federal Surface Mining and Control Act of 1977 [Section 510(c)] contains some of the strongest language:
WHERE... INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THE REGULATORY AUTHORITY INDICATES THAT ANY SURFACE COAL MINING OPERATION OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY THE APPLICANT IS CURRENTLY IN VIOLATION OF THIS ACT THE PERMIT SHALL NOT BE ISSUED UNTIL THE APPLICANT SUBMITS PROOF THAT SUCH VIOLATION HAS BEEN CORRECTED OR IS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING CORRECTED... AND NO PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED TO AN APPLICANT AFTER A FINDING BY THE REGULATORY AUTHORITY... THAT THE APPLICANT, OR THE OPERATED SPECIFIED IN THE APPLICATION, CONTROLS OR HAS CONTROLLED MINING OPERATIONS WITH A DEMONSTRATED PATTERN OF WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT.

In New Jersey last year a company called National Waste Disposal was permanently barred from the waste business; in this instance the concept of the bad boy law bled over into a related concept--taking away a convicted felon's right to do business at all, effectively canceling a company's corporate charter. [See RHWN #308#309#316.] We will write more about this tactic in future

The Citizens Clearinghouse for Hazardous Waste (CCHW) in Falls Church, Virginia, has been leading the campaign to help local groups pass (or enforce existing) bad boy laws.[2] For an excellent "fact pack" on bad boy laws for $3.50, contact them at (703) 237-2249.

--Peter Montague, Ph.D.

===============

[1] Charlie Cray and others, WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.: AN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES AND OTHER MISDEEDS (Washington, D.C.: Greenpeace, December, 1991.) $20.00 for citizen groups, $50.00 for for-profit companies, from: Greenpeace, 1436 U St., NW, Washington, DC 20009; phone (202) [462-1177.]462-1177.

[2] Ron Simon, "Legal Corner," EVERYONE'S BACKYARD (June, [1990),] pg. 6. EVERYONE'S BACKYARD is published by Citizens' Clearinghouse for Hazardous Waste (CCHW), P.O. Box 6806, Falls Church, VA 22040; telephone (703) 237-2249.

Descriptor terms: bad boy laws; wti; epa; port authority; hugh kaufman; oh; cwmi; cchw; enforcement; penalties;

Saturday, 29 March 2014

#290: Young Male Rats Are 'Demasculinized' and 'Feminized' By Low Doses of Dioxin

=======================Electronic Edition========================

RACHEL'S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #290
---June 17, 1992---
News and resources for environmental justice.
------
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org
==========
RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY
Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library.
Dioxinnz.com
=======================Original Source========================

Three new studies by researchers at University of Wisconsin reveal that very low doses of dioxin alter the sexual development of young male rats, causing demasculinization and feminization. [1,2,3]

Dr. Linda S. Birnbaum, a scientist with U.S. EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] calls the new studies "highly significant."[4] Birnbaum is one of the chief scientists conducting the EPA's formal reassessment of the toxicity of dioxin (see RHWN #269#270#275). As we reported earlier (RHWN #279), many scientists, including Birnbaum, now consider dioxin an "environmental hormone." The new Wisconsin studies support that view.

The Wisconsin researchers, led by Dr. Richard E. Peterson, showed that dioxin interferes with the sexual development of male rats exposed to dioxin before, and shortly after, birth. Pregnant female rats were given a single oral dose of dioxin on the 15th day of pregnancy; their male offspring showed reduced levels of male hormones in their blood and a variety of sexual aberrations that stayed with them as they matured. The young males are demasculinized and feminized by doses of dioxin too low to cause any measurable toxicity in the mother rat. The sexual changes in the young males are both physiological and behavioral, and last into adulthood.

Dioxin passes through the placenta and enters the fetus, so the rat fetuses received part of the mother's dose almost immediately. After birth, the baby rats continued to receive a small dose of dioxin through their mother's milk. Peterson says the baby rats received the bulk of their dose through milk. In rats and humans both, females rid their bodies of dioxin chiefly by excreting it in their milk. Dioxin is soluble in fats and oils, and milk is high in fat.

Dioxin is the common name for a family of 75 toxins, the most potent of which is TCDD [2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-P-dioxin]. The Wisconsin researchers used TCDD in their experiments.

Dioxin is not made intentionally for any industrial purpose, but is produced as a byproduct of the combustion of chlorine-containing wastes, the bleaching of paper, and the manufacture of some pesticides. The burning of municipal solid waste, and of many hazardous wastes, releases dioxin into the environment, as does paper manufacture. Government officials responsible for the quality of the environment in the Great Lakes have called for a phase-out of chlorine, to reduce dioxin levels in wildlife and humans around the Lakes. (See RHWN #284.)

In the Wisconsin experiments, young males whose mothers were given as little as 0.064 micrograms of dioxin per kilogram of body weight showed consistently reduced levels of male hormones, plus a variety of physical and behavioral changes, including:
--reduced testosterone levels and probably a reduced response to testosterone. Testosterone is a powerful hormone controlling various aspects of sexual development in males. 
--smaller accessory sex organs, including smaller testicles; 
--slower sexual maturation; 
--distinctly feminine-style regulation of one hormone related to testosterone production; 
--greater willingness to assume a receptive-female posture when approached by a sexually stimulated male.
These effects "strongly suggest, though do not conclusively prove, that TCDD impairs sexual differentiation in the CNS [central nervous system]," according to Peterson and co-workers. They go on to say that, "The present study provides the first evidence that TCDD impairs sexual differentiation of the CNS." Sexual differentiation--the full development of a female instead of a male, or vice versa--is affected by hormones circulating in the blood before and after birth.

Furthermore, these studies "strongly suggest" that "the demasculinization and feminization caused by IN UTERO and lactational TCDD exposure are irreversible," the Wisconsin researchers say. IN UTERO means "in the womb" and lactational means "from milk."

Other effects revealed by these studies include:
--Even the lowest dose tested (0.064 micrograms of dioxin per kilogram of the mother's body weight), yielded consistent reductions in a male offspring's daily sperm production. 
--The developing male reproductive system is more sensitive to the effects of this hormone-like toxicant [dioxin] that any other organ or organ-system studied. 
--the unborn or newborn is about 100 times more sensitive to dioxin than the sexually mature animal.
What do these studies mean for humans?
The Wisconsin researchers speculate, "Thus the findings from this study raise the possibility that TCDD could potentially affect sexually dimorphic behavior in man if exposure were to occur during fetal development." "Sexually dimorphic behavior" refers to the bodily and behavioral differences between men and women.

Peterson and co-workers point out that male rats typically inseminate a female rat with up to 10 times as many sperm as are typically needed to ensure impregnation. Humans, by contrast, typically release only about as many sperm as would be required for fertilization. "As a result," Peterson and his co-workers write, human reductions in sperm production "similar in magnitude to that in rats would be expected to reduce fertility in man." In other words, rats can continue to reproduce despite a reduction in sperm count because they produce an excess of sperm, but humans do not produce excess sperm so a reduction in human sperm count would likely reduce humans' ability to reproduce.[5]

"The real question is how general these effects are," Birnbaum says. Her EPA lab will repeat the Peterson studies with another strain of rats and eventually other species. And if these effects occur in another species? "I would get very concerned [about the potential human-health implications]," Birnbaum told SCIENCE 
NEWS reporter Janet Raloff.

At a public hearing on EPA's dioxin reassessment at EPA headquarters in Washington April 28, a representative of the American Paper Institute argued that only the study of humans can reveal anything meaningful about humans. Birnbaum responded somewhat testily, spelling out a dozen ways in which studies of rats and mice reveal useful information about dioxin's potential effects on humans.

June 10 at a Congressional hearing on dioxin in Washington, Assistant U.S. Surgeon General Barry L. Johnson, announced that a new study by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has found that workers exposed to high levels of dioxin have abnormally low levels of testosterone (male hormone) in their blood streams.[6] This finding is consistent with the rat studies of Peterson and co-workers. We have learned that this new NIOSH study was presented at a scientific meeting on June 10, but 

NIOSH sources have so far not released details of the new study to the general public.
At the Congressional hearing June 10, under questioning from Representative Ted Weiss (D-NY), Barry Johnson said that if it were faced with the Times Beach, Missouri, situation today, the U.S. Public Health Service would do exactly what it did 10 years ago, which is to evacuate people from their homes. He said the Times Beach evacuation was the appropriate response and would be repeated under similar circumstances today. Another official of U.S. Public Health Service, Vernon L. Houk, made headlines 14 months ago saying if he had the decision to make over again, he would not evacuate people from Times Beach. Times Beach is a town near St. Louis where an unscrupulous waste hauler spread dioxin-contaminated oil around as a dust suppressant in the 1970s. Horses and other animals became sick and died, and the Public Health Service evacuated the town in the early 1980s.

During the Congressional hearing Dr. Houk's views were further contradicted by the testimony of Dr. Marilyn Fingerhut of NIOSH, who studied the health of 5172 workers exposed to dioxin on the job. (See RHWN #219.) Dr. Houk made headlines a year ago when he said that, if dioxin causes cancer in humans at all, it is only "a weak carcinogen." (See RHWN #249.) Dr. Fingerhut contradicted this view, reporting that, among workers who had been exposed to dioxin for at least a year at least 20 years ago, there was 46% more cancer than among average U.S. males. During the hearing, Representative Weiss characterized Dr. Houk's views on dioxin as "quirky" and "cockamamie."

--Peter Montague, Ph.D.

===============

[1] Thomas A. Mably and others, "IN UTERO and Lactational Exposure of Male Rats to 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-P-dioxin. 1. Effects on Androgenic Status." TOXICOLOGY AND APPLIED PHARMACOLOGY Vol. 114 (May, 1992), pgs. 97-107.

[2] Thomas A. Mably and others, "IN UTERO and Lactational Exposure of Male Rats to 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-P-dioxin. 2. Effects on Sexual Behavior and the Regulation of Luteinizing Hormone Secretion in Adulthood." TOXICOLOGY AND APPLIED PHARMACOLOGY Vol. 114 (May, 1992), pgs. 108-117.

[3] Thomas A. Mably and others, "IN UTERO and Lactational Exposure of Male Rats to 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-P-dioxin. 3. Effects on Spermatogenesis and Reproductive Capability." TOXICOLOGY AND APPLIED PHARMACOLOGY Vol. 114 (May, 1992), pgs. [118-126.]118-126.

[4] J. Raloff, "Perinatal dioxin feminizes male rats," SCIENCE NEWS Vol. 141 (May 30, 1992), pg. 359.

[5] In unrelated studies, Congress's Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) reported several years ago that Americans in their prime reproductive years (ages 20 to 24) have experienced an increase in infertility in recent years. See "Reproductive Dysfunction in the Population," in U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH HAZARDS IN THE WORKPLACE [OTA-BA-266] (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1985), pgs. 341-364. At the time of this 1985 OTA report, low doses of dioxin were not known to interfere with reproductive systems of rats or humans.

[6] Barry L. Johnson, "Testimony... Before the Subcommittee on Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations, Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, June 10, [1992,"] pg. 8. Johnson is Assistant U.S. Surgeon General with the U.S. Public Health Service.

Descriptor terms: dioxin; sexual development; linda s. birnbaum; epa; environmental hormone; richard e. peterson; mother's milk; tcdd; wisconsin; male hormones; sexual differentiation; sperm count; niosh;