#485: The State Of Humanity

=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #485
March 14, 1996
News and resources for environmental justice.
==========
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.clark.net
==========
RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library. Dioxinnz.com
========================Original Source========================

The recent outpouring of hefty "feel good" books has not let up. Last year the book world was buzzing about Gregg Easterbrook's 700-page A MOMENT ON THE EARTH, which tried to make the case that most of our environmental problems have already been solved. Close analysis revealed that Easterbrook's optimism was based on errors, selective omissions, and deliberate misinformation. [1] (See, for example, REHW #437.)

Now comes Julian Simon, a professor at University of Maryland with an even rosier view of the human prospect.

Simon's new book, THE STATE OF HUMANITY, concludes that, "We have in our hands now--actually, in our libraries--the technology to feed, clothe, and supply energy to an ever-growing population for the next seven billion years. Most amazing is that most of this specific body of knowledge was developed within just the past two centuries or so, though it rests on basic knowledge that had accumulated for millennia, of course.

"Indeed, the last necessary additions to this body of technology --nuclear fission and space travel --occurred decades ago. Even if no new knowledge were ever invented after those advances, we would be able to go on increasing our population forever, while improving our standard of living and our control over our environment."[2,pg.26]

As you can probably tell from this quotation, Simon is the Crazy Eddie of "feel good," and his latest book is nearly 700 pages of optimism for the human prospect, including optimism for the natural environment.

The book is divided into 58 chapters written by 67 authors, crammed with charts, graphs and tables. It is an information storehouse of prodigious proportions, particularly historical information. When I began reading it, I thought, "What a treasure! This is like finding a huge bag full of $100 bills!" However, as I read deeper into the book, I began to discover that much of the treasure is counterfeit, and many of the optimistic conclusions are bogus. Worse, most readers may not be able to distinguish what's real from what's fake.

Still the book has some value. It reminds us again and again of the real progress that humans made between 1750 and 1950. Infant mortality decreased dramatically, working conditions improved for tens of millions of people, technology opened up vast opportunities for travel, education and enjoyment of life for huge numbers. Diet improved, life expectancy increased, opportunity expanded. Democracy and freedom spread. These things are true, and it is worthwhile reflecting on the real progress humans have made.

However Simon is so determined to accentuate the positive that he ignores almost completely the serious negative counter currents that give our own age its bitter-sweet tinge: 

** We live in an age of perpetual wars, with anywhere from 20 to 30 major wars going on simultaneously around the globe. More than 90% of the people killed in these wars are civilians, [3] largely in developing nations supplied with modern weaponry by the rich nations ($36 billion worth of armaments in 1992 alone [4]). At a cost of less than half their military expenditures, developing countries could initiate basic health services and clinical care that would save 10 million lives each year. [4] For their part, the rich nations spend on armaments each year an amount equivalent to the total income of the world's poorest 2 billion people. [4] In describing historical trends, Simon hardly mentions the increase in wars, the buildup of armaments, and the anti-life priorities, all clearly major byproducts of modernity. Simon merely predicts (pg. 654) that war will be less likely in the future as "land becomes less important relative to other assets"--a prediction that seems dubious at best because human population is growing and the amount of available land is not.

** Humans now appropriate 25% of earth's total net primary production (NPP). [5] Net primary production is the amount of energy captured in photosynthesis by primary producers (blue-green plants that photosynthesize, thus turning carbon dioxide and water into carbohydrates) minus the energy used in their own growth and reproduction. NPP is thus the basic food resource for everything on earth that is not capable of photosynthesis. Humans are now thought to be using for their own purposes 25% of global NPP and 40% of NPP on the land. If this estimate is correct, it means that 2 more population doublings (which will occur in about 80 years), will leave nothing for any species besides humans--a prospect that must give pause to even those with a totally human-centered world-view. Simon simply ignores this trend. (Simon sees us migrating into outer space on nuclear-powered rockets after we have filled this planet. Interestingly, Gregg Easterbrook imagined the same "escape hatch" for a humanity that can't seem to prevent itself from fouling its own nest.)

** In the developed world, human health is declining. On this topic, Simon includes a surprising amount of bad news in an essay titled "Trends in Health in the U.S. Population: 1957-1989," by Eileen M. Crimmins and Dominique G. Ingegneri:

In 1957, the U.S. government initiated the National Health Interview Survey; each year some 100,000 non-institutionalized individuals in 40,000 households are surveyed. Two measures of health have been taken consistently since 1957: "limitation of activity" and "restricted activity days." Both are measures of the prevalence of ill health.

"Limitation of activity" is a measure of long-term disability, disability that is due to chronic conditions and diseases and usually has lasted at least 3 months. A person is limited in activity when he or she has difficulty performing his or her usual activity, or the activity that is normal for his or her age group. (pg. 73)

"Restricted activity days" is designed to measure short-term disability. The respondent is asked how many days during the past two weeks he or she had to cut down on normal activity because of health. Because restricted activity can be due to either acute conditions, like colds and sore throats, or chronic conditions, like heart disease, it is an indicator of the level of both acute and chronic illness. (pg. 73)

Among the whole U.S. population during the period 1957 to 1989, "activity limitation" has increased 43%. Between 1961 and 1989, the number of "restricted activity days" increased 28%. These measures indicate substantial increases in both chronic and acute ill health among Americans during the last 30 years.

Crimmins and Ingegneri note that, "...other empirical work has tended to confirm the idea that the health of the population has deteriorated in the United States in recent years. Findings of this nature have been reported in a large number of studies based on National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data like those presented here. These include studies of health change at all ages, as well as studies concentrating on segments of the population including children, the working-age population, and parts of the older population. Examination of health or disability change using other data, such as the decennial [every 10 year] census and the Current Population Survey, have reached similar conclusions for the working age population." (pg. 77)

Health deterioration has also been investigated in a variety of other countries where mortality is low and continuing to decline. Surveys have shown deteriorating health in Canada during the 1970s, Australia during the 1980s, Great Britain from the 1970s through the mid-1980s, and Japan from the 1950s through the 1980s. (pg. 77)

Simon's book offers only one hypothesis for this decline in health throughout the developed world: more frail people are being kept alive. This hypothesis is perhaps attractive to Simon and his colleagues at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C.,, where economic Darwinism ("only the fittest survive") is still a popular idea. But alternative hypotheses are certainly possible: the modern "junk food" diet that is so common among young people may be partly responsible, combined with a lack of exercise. In addition, chemical exposures, which are certainly occurring, seem to be degrading the immune systems of humans, giving rise to increased infections and autoimmune disorders such as asthma, arthritis and diabetes. Simon ignores these factors. (See REHW #318, #374, #414, #417, for example.)

To maintain his ever-optimistic view, Simon relies upon the same techniques Easterbrook employed: misinformation, specious comparisons, and selective omissions.

Misinformation: For example, Simon says, "Fear is rampant about rapid rates of species extinction. The fear has little or no basis." (pg. 15) But the evidence from the fossil record is that extinctions are occurring today 10 to 100 times faster than natural background (pre-human) rates of extinction, and in some regions the rate is 1000 times background. (See REHW #441.) There IS genuine cause for concern.

Selective omissions and specious comparisons: For example, Simon says, "The Great Lakes are not dead; instead they offer better sport fishing than ever." (pg. 22) First, no one ever said the Great Lakes were dead. Second, in some of the Lakes (Michigan and Erie, for example) sport fishing is only able to thrive because governments stock the Lakes with hatchery-bred fish each year. Literally hundreds of studies have shown that fish, birds, and mammals in the lakes have had their reproductive systems damaged by chemical contamination. (See REHW #263, #264.) Third, each year state and provincial governments in the U.S. and Canada issue book-length catalogs listing coves and bays throughout the Great Lakes where it is not safe to eat the fish. Fourth, there is substantial evidence that humans who often eat fish from the Great Lakes give birth to children who are stunted physically and mentally. (See REHW #411.)

Yes, humans made important progress between 1750 and 1950. Is the progress continuing? The record is clearly mixed. Good news today is nearly always accompanied by real side-effects that are genuinely bad. If we continue on our present path, does the future look rosy? Simon thinks so, but, like Gregg Easterbrook before him, to maintain this rose-colored view he is forced to ignore or dismiss important trends, ask and answer irrelevant ("straw man") questions, and make specious comparisons. It is probably very rewarding to write "feel good" books, but the way these fellows do it is intellectually dishonest.

 --Peter Montague
===============
[1] Gregg Easterbrook, A MOMENT ON THE EARTH (New York: Viking Penguin, 1995)

[2] Julian L. Simon, editor, THE STATE OF HUMANITY (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers, 1995).

[3] United Nations Development Programme, HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 1995 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), pg. 13.

[4] Ruth Leger Sivard, WORLD MILITARY AND SOCIAL EXPENDITURES 1993. 15TH EDITION. (Washington, D.C.: World Priorities [P.O. Box 25140, Washington, DC 20007], 1993, pg. 5.

[5] Peter M. Vitousek, and others. "Human Appropriation of the Products of Photosynthesis," BIOSCIENCE Vol. 36 No. 6 (June, 1986), pgs. 368-373. "Appropriation" includes direct use by humans (food, fuel, fiber, timber) plus the reduction from potential NPP due to alteration of ecosystems caused by humans. The latter includes desertification, deforestation, paving over, and human conversion to less productive systems (such as agriculture).

Descriptor terms: overviews; global environmental problems; human health; juliam simon; gregg easterbrook; war; population growth; land use; loss of species; great lakes; endocrine disruptors;

#380: Frogs and Philosophy

=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL'S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #380
---March 10, 1994---
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========================

The decline of frog populations world-wide has stirred dispute in the media. Like other environmental problems beset with uncertainties, the simultaneous disappearance of frog populations from every continent offers the media a vehicle for venting philosophical views, environmental and anti-environmental. (Just as the anti-environmentalists now have their own funders, they also have their own favorite media and writers.)

The NEW YORK TIMES pins frog loss on ozone depletion and resultant increases in ultraviolet sunlight striking the Earth. [1] At the other end of the philosophical spectrum, Boyce Rensberger, an anti-environmentalists' favorite with the WASHINGTON POST, suggests that environmentalists caused the frog loss when they forced government to ban a pesticide that formerly controlled a fungus that is now running rampant worldwide, killing off frog populations. [2]

The ozone layer in the stratosphere--6 to 30 miles above the earth's surface--filters out deadly ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Many chemicals, but chiefly DuPont's chlorofluorocarbons, diminish Earth's ozone shield, allowing increased ultraviolet light to strike the Earth. The TIMES reported studies showing that ultraviolet light is increasing on parts of the Earth and that reproduction of some frogs and toads is diminished by exposure to ultraviolet light. Rensberger responded with a theory of his own.

For some time now, Rensberger and the WASHINGTON POST have been selling the idea that ozone depletion, although real, has never harmed anyone or anything and is getting better all the time. Rensberger puts his name on stories carrying headlines such as "After 2000, Outlook for the Ozone Layer Looks Good" and "Decline of Ozone-Harming Chemicals Suggests Atmosphere May Heal Itself." [3] And he writes things like, "In fact, researchers say, the problem [of ozone loss] appears to be heading toward solution before they can find any solid evidence that serious harm was or is being done." Blaming frog loss on ozone appears to ruffle Rensberger's philosophical feathers.

Rensberger's theory that the ozone layer will fix itself before anyone or anything is hurt is more wishful thinking than science reporting. Rensberger himself says that the ozone "holes" over the North and South poles will not go away until the year 2050 at the earliest. Even this prediction is optimistic because it assumes worldwide compliance with the Montreal Protocol, a 1987 international agreement to stop using DuPont's ozone-destroying chlorofluorocarbons in cooling systems. A few countries, such as China, India, Indonesia, and those of the former Soviet Union --representing 47% of the world's population --have said they can't afford to comply with the Protocols. Whether they will or not remains to be seen.

Even if everyone phases out chlorofluorocarbons right on schedule, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is sticking with its April, 1991, estimate of the skin cancers that ozone loss will cause. During the next 50 years, EPA says, ozone loss will cause 12 million skin cancers in the U.S. and 200,000 deaths. 

Worldwide, a billion (a thousand million) skin cancers are expected to result from ozone loss, including 17 million deaths, over the next 50 years.

Rensberger's new theory on frog loss seems philosophically consistent with the anti-environmental perspective, but more than a little implausible all the same. HOMO SAPIENS --modern humans --have been on Earth for 60,000 years. [4] Most chemical pesticides have been around for 50 years or less. Frogs have successfully inhabited the Earth for at least 200 million years. [5] Rensberger's theory, that during the past two decades frogs somehow became dependent on human pesticides for their survival, is --to put it politely --pretty silly.

The scientific concern about frog disappearances emerged during the First World Congress of Herpetology at Cambridge, England in 1989. Herpetology is the study of reptiles (snakes, lizards, turtles) and amphibians (salamanders, toads and frogs).

At the Congress, in the hallways and during coffee breaks, scientists compared notes and realized that in Colorado and Costa Rica, in Australia and Africa, frogs are disappearing. Whole species being studied in the '60s and '70s simply disappeared during the '80s.

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) by 1991 organized a Declining Amphibian Populations Task Force (DAPTF), located at Oregon State University in Corvallis. Late last year the Task Force published, THE STATUS OF AMPHIBIAN POPULATIONS; A COMPILATION AND ANALYSIS. This authoritative report leaves little doubt that amphibians--particularly frogs--are disappearing from locations all over the globe, though the full dimensions of the problem of course remain sketchy.

What's responsible for the declines? 

Journalists like simple answers and perhaps scientists do too. But there seem to be multiple complex causes for the loss of amphibians worldwide. The DAPTF lists the following:

1) "The overwhelmingly reported cause of declines is habitat destruction, disturbance and fragmentation," says the DAPTF status report. In other words, condominiums, parking lots, and shopping malls are the culprit reported most often. Humans are wrecking wildlife habitat in a frenzy of what the anti-environmental movement calls "development."

2) A close second is pollution --pesticides, acid rain, and other chemical contamination.

3) Third is the introduction of non-native species of predatory fish, which disturb the ecological balance of lakes and streams.

4) Drought and flood --both of which seem to be increasing, worldwide, perhaps in response to global warming (see RHWN #300 AND #301) 
--are taking their toll on amphibian populations.

5) Eutrophication of ponds (excessive growth of plants, which depletes oxygen in the water) caused by the modern farming practice of over-fertilizing, contributes.

In the last three years, two new causes, perhaps related, have been suggested.

6) The immune systems of some populations of frogs and toads have somehow been damaged, perhaps by chemical contaminants, perhaps in combination with extremes of weather and temperature. [6] Animals with damaged immune systems may fall prey to bacteria and viruses that they might otherwise withstand.

7) And most recently Robert Stebbins, emeritus professor of zoology at University of California at Berkeley, has suggested that amphibian population declines may be caused by environmental pollutants that mimic estrogens and disrupt the endocrine and immune systems of amphibians. Stebbins presented his views in a paper at the Second World Congress of Herpetology in Adelaide, Australia in January and they will appear again in this month's issue of FROGLOG, the journal of the DAPTF in Corvallis. [7] Stebbins will examine his hypothesis further in a chapter of his new book, A NATURAL HISTORY OF AMPHIBIANS, to be published this year by Princeton University Press, he said in an interview. He wonders aloud whether frogs aren't particularly susceptible to damage by hormone-mimicking, endocrine-disrupting chemicals for some or all of the following reasons:

1) Most or all hormone-mimicking chemicals are soluble in fat;

2) Frogs absorb environmental chemicals through their highly permeable skin, as well as via digestion;

3) The change from tadpole to frog may release toxins that have been stored in fat;

4) When emerging from hibernation to breed, amphibians draw heavily on fat reserves, which may release fat-stored toxins;

5) Females draw upon fat reserves to create the yolk of their eggs, perhaps again releasing fat-stored toxins into their systems.

6) The dramatic physical change from tadpole to frog is hormone-driven and thus could be susceptible to interference by environmental pollutants (xenoestrogens, or xenobiotics) that mimic hormones.

7) During the change from tadpole to frog, the creature stops eating, stressing its whole system.

Of course no one knows what's really going on in nature. Scientists produce fragments of information, then try to see patterns among the fragments. What patterns a reporter sees depends upon where he or she stands on one basic question that separates environmentalists from anti-environmentalists: can humans continue to rearrange and contaminate ecosystems everywhere without ultimately destroying the ability of the Earth to support human life? Those with an abiding faith might answer, "Humans are not threatening anything serious. Even if frogs ARE disappearing, we'll simply learn to live without them. All is well."

Environmentalists, on the other hand, are likely to stand with biologist Rachel Carson who in SILENT SPRING (1962) wrote,

"...[T]he new chemicals come from laboratories in an endless stream; almost 500 annually find their way into actual use in the United States alone. The figure is staggering and its implications are not easily grasped --500 new chemicals to which the bodies of men and animals are required somehow to adapt each year, chemicals totally outside the limits of biologic experience.

"These sprays, dusts, and aerosols are now applied almost universally to farms, gardens, forests and homes. Can anyone believe it is possible to lay down such a barrage of poisons on the surface of the earth without making it unfit for all life?"

--Peter Montague, Ph.D.

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

[1] Carol Kaesuk Yoon, "Thinning Ozone Layer Implicated in Decline of Frogs and Toads," NEW YORK TIMES March 1, 1994, pg. C4, citing J.B Kerr and C.T. McElroy, "Evidence for Large Upward Trends of Ultraviolet-B radiation Linked to Ozone Depletion," SCIENCE Vol. 262 (November 12, 1993), pgs. 1032-1034. See also Mario Blumthaler and Walter Ambach, "Indication of Increasing Solar Ultraviolet-B Radiation Flux in Alpine Regions," SCIENCE Vol. 248 (April 13, 1990), pgs. 206-208.

[2] Boyce Rensberger, "Sunlight and Fungus As Amphibian Hazards," WASHINGTON POST March 7, 1994, pg. A3.

[3] Boyce Rensberger, "After 2000, Outlook for the Ozone Layer Looks Good," WASHINGTON POST April 15, 1993, pg. A1. And: Boyce Rensberger, "Decline of Ozone-Harming Chemicals Suggests Atmosphere May Heal Itself," WASHINGTON POST Aug. 26, 1993, pg. A10.

[4] Bernard G. Campbell, HUMANKIND EMERGING. SIXTH EDITION. (New York: HarperCollins, 1992), pg. 438.

[5] Emily Yoffe, "Silence of the Frogs," NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE December 13, 1992, pgs. 36-38, 64, 66, 76.

[6] C. Carey, "Hypothesis Concerning the Disappearance of Boreal Toads from the Mountains of Colorado," CONSERVATION BIOLOGY Vol. 7 No. 2 (1993), pgs. 355-362.

[7] Loralei Saylor, "The Endocrine Connection," FROGLOG No. 9 (March, 1994). FROGLOG is published by the Declining Amphibian Populations Task Force of the The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) at 200 S.W. 35th Street, Corvallis, Oregon 97333; telephone (503) 754-4578.

Descriptor terms: anti-environmental movement; wise use; frogs; amphibians; toads; pesticides; fungi; fish; species loss; ozone depletion; ultraviolet light; solar radiation; Washington post; international union for the conservation of nature; iucn; declining amphibian populations task force; daptf; robert stebbins; boyce rensberger; immune disorders; endocrine disruptors; hormones; estrogens; estrogen; fat; reproductive health; reproduction; rachel carson; silent spring;

#441: New Perspectives on Loss of Species

=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #441
---May 11, 1995---
News and resources for environmental justice.
==========
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.clark.net
==========
RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library. Dioxinnz.com
========================Original Source========================

New research on loss of species indicates that extinctions are occurring now at a rate 100 to 1000 times as fast as "natural background" rates of extinction. [1] The "natural background" is the rate of extinction measurable in the fossil record of life before humans appeared on the scene. In some regions, the rate today is 10,000 times as fast as the natural rate. Extinction is nothing new; it has been going on since life first emerged on Earth, perhaps 3 billion years ago. What is new is the speed with which extinctions are now occurring.

The most recent estimate of the "background" rate of extinctions indicates that one species is lost per year out of each 1 million to 10 million species in existence. (No one knows how many species exist. About 1.4 million species have been named and cataloged; Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson says his best guess is that somewhere between 5 and 30 million species exist.) [2]

A recent conservative (meaning on the low side; not exaggerated) estimate of the present rate of species loss suggests that we are losing one species per year for every 10,000 species on Earth. Thus the present extinction rate is 100 to 1000 times as fast as the historical "background" rate.

Extinctions are particularly important problems because they are permanent and cannot be reversed once they occur. When a species is lost, all of the genetic information that it contained is lost as well. If a species has valuable characteristics --like the bread mold that gave us penicillin --its loss is particularly important to humans. But, in a crucial way, all species are important. We do not know what holds the web of life together. It is as if we were flying in an airplane and periodically reaching down, pulling a component out of the control panel, and tossing it out the window. Anyone can see that such a plane will very likely not remain airborne. It is the same with biodiversity --the loss of component parts weakens the whole structure in ways that we cannot understand or appreciate. We just know that loss of species cannot be good for the system, or for us.

Why are we losing species so fast? A recent look at the loss of amphibians (frogs, toads, and salamanders) reveals many complex reasons. [3]

There are 5130 species of amphibians on Earth today. [4] Amphibians have been on the Earth for well over 100 million years --1000 times as long as HOMO SAPIENS has been around. [5] In other words, humans in their modern form have been on Earth only one-tenth of one-percent of the time that amphibians have been here. Amphibians managed to live through the stressful time when the dinosaurs went extinct, 65 million years ago. Clearly, amphibians are survivors.

Since about 1970, however, there has been accumulating evidence that amphibians are declining and disappearing in places as diverse as North America, Central and South America, Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia. [6]

The rate of amphibian extinctions has been estimated as follows: there are about 4000 species of frogs and toads; only 5 are thought to have become extinct between the 19th century and the 1960s. But in the past 25 years, herpetologists have observed drastic population declines and disappearances of many more species. They believe that 89 amphibian species are now at risk of extinction. [7] Other species have not been seen in recent years, but it is not known whether this is due to natural fluctuations of population or is a sign of trouble. [8]

Why has the rate of amphibian extinctions increased so rapidly this century and especially within the last 30 years? Specialists writing in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN and elsewhere list the following reasons: [9]

1) Amphibians are born of eggs laid in water, eggs not protected by a leathery or hard shell. Thus amphibians start "sampling" the environment as soon as life begins.

2) During early life (egg and larval stages), they live in the water; during later stages, they live partly in water and partly on land. Thus they "sample" a spectrum of environments as their lives progress.

3) Amphibians have a permeable, exposed skin, not covered by thick scales, hair or feathers. They breathe (respire) through their thin, moist skin, again "sampling" the environment and whatever pollutants it may contain. Because they are "cold blooded" (having no internal thermostat), they move in and out of sunlight to avoid extremes of heat and cold.

4) Habitat loss: The U.S. originally contained between 148 and 185 million acres of wetlands; during the 1950s to 1970s, about 10% of these wetlands were drained. Currently an estimated 107 million acres, or between 58% and 72% of the nation's original wetlands, remain in the continental U.S. Nearly 300,000 acres of wetlands are lost per year. [10] Amphibians depend upon wetlands for life. [Solution: protect wetlands.]

5) Habitat fragmentation. Amphibians live in local colonies. When one colony's habitat is damaged, it might migrate to a new location if conditions are right. But habitats have been fragmented --cut up by human developments --so that migration to new habitat is made difficult or impossible. [Solution: Stop building new roads. Stop clearcutting forests. Learn to live within reasonable limits. Plan our land uses on the assumption that other species have a right to exist and that humans are diminished when other species decline.]

6) Introduction of exotic species for recreational fishing. Exotic species may outcompete indigenous species for food and breeding sites or may prey upon the indigenous species. In the U.S., introduced species such as rainbow trout, golden trout, brook charr, and largemouth bass eat eggs, larvae and adult amphibians. [Solution: minimize introduction of exotic species. The stocking of rivers and lakes with hatchery-bred fish gives the false impression that all is well, so we could give ourselves a much-needed reality check by abandoning this practice. Amphibian declines offer a second good reason to abandon this practice.]

7) Global climate change. Normally, the Earth's ozone shield filters out the sun's deadly ultraviolet radiation. In the last 30 years, humans have depleted the ozone shield by chemical contamination, thus increasing the amount of ultraviolet radiation striking the surface of the Earth. Field experiments by biologists in Oregon showed that the eggs of certain species of amphibians are killed by increased exposure to ultraviolet light. They concluded, "Clearly, amphibian eggs in wild populations were dying from exposure to ultraviolet-B radiation." [11][Solution: aggressively ban all ozone depleters including CFCs, HCFCs and methyl bromide, and attempt to shut down the black market in such products.]

8) These same scientists note that certain bacteria and fungi have been known to decimate amphibian populations. One particular fungus is carried by fish raised in hatcheries; when the fish are released, the fungus may harm local amphibian populations. [12] These scientists speculate that, because ultraviolet light is known to harm the immune system of many animals, ozone depletion may be harming the immune systems of amphibians, diminishing their defenses against bacteria and fungi. [Solution: see No. 7, above.]

9) Acid rain, snow, and fog: acidity itself seems to harm growth and development of amphibians; it also releases aluminum from the soil which then harms growth and development of amphibians. [13] [Solution: phase out coal-burning power plants and replace them with solar-hydrogen systems.]

10) Agricultural contaminants: In the western U.S., agriculture uses 80-90% of available water. Recently, 31 of 50 states, plus the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, have reported concerns about groundwater contamination by pesticides; there are few data on the effects of pesticides on amphibians. Recent studies at the Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge showed that irrigation drainwater was either lethal to, or caused significant malformation of, developing frog embryos. The study concluded that poor water quality (elevated pH [8.0 to 10.4] and un-ionized ammonia) and/or pesticides may be contributing to the decline of indigenous frog populations. [14] [Solution: help chemical-dependent farmers adopt organic farming techniques; this means revising the institutional framework of agriculture, including loan policies of private and public lenders, as well as turning much of the Agricultural Extension Service on its head.]

11) Overharvesting of frogs for human food: The importance of frog legs as a food item in France has apparently been linked to a marked decline in native frogs in Europe, India, and Bangladesh. [15] The demand for frog legs in France is tremendous: the French eat 3,000 to 4,000 metric tons of them a year. Some 20,000 frogs must be sacrificed in order to supply a single metric ton of legs. [16]

12) Certain industrial chemicals can mimic the activity of naturally occurring hormones. Examination of birds, fish and reptiles indicates that these substances can have drastic consequences, such as a reduction in sperm count and the alteration of male genitalia. [17][Solution: Ban and phase out chlorine as an industrial feedstock. Adopt the principle of "reverse onus," which says that new chemicals shall be assumed dangerous until they are shown to be compatible with natural systems.] (See RHWN #378.)

At the most immediate, practical, monetary level, it makes no sense to ignore the decline and disappearance of species. From the perspective of humans, amphibians represent a storehouse of pharmaceutical products waiting to be tapped fully. Hundreds of chemical secretions have been isolated from amphibian skin, and scientists are just beginning to learn how valuable these substances may be. Some of these compounds are already used as painkillers and in treatment of victims of traumas ranging from burns to heart attacks. It is clearly in our own interests to stop the destruction of amphibians, and of all other creatures great and small. [18]

 --Peter Montague

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

[1] Stuart Pimm, "Seeds of Our Own destruction," NEW SCIENTIST Vol. 146, No. 1972 (April 8, 1995), pgs. 31-35.

[2] E.O. Wilson, "The Current State of Biodiversity," in E.O. Wilson and Frances M. Peter, editors, BIODIVERSITY (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1988), pgs. 3-18.

[3] Andrew R. Blaustein and David B. Wake, "The Puzzle of Declining Amphibian Populations," SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN Vol. 272, No. 4 (April 1995), pgs. 52-57.

[4] Andrew R. Blaustein, "Chicken Little or Nero's Fiddle? A Perspective on Declining Amphibian Populations," HERPETOLOGICA Vol. 50, No. 1 (March 1994), pgs. 85-97.

[5] David B. Wake, "Declining Amphibian Populations," SCIENCE Vol. 253 (August 23, 1991), pg. 860.

[6] Andrew R. Blaustein and David B. Wake, "Declining Amphibian Populations: A Global Phenomenon," TREE Vol. 5, No. 7 (July 1990), pgs. 203-204.

[7] Pimm, cited above, pg. 35.

[8] Joseph H.K. Pechmann and others, "Declining Amphibian Populations: The Problem of Separating Human Impacts From Natural Fluctuations," SCIENCE Vol. 253 (August 23, 1991), pgs. 892-895.

[9] Blaustein and Wake, cited above in note 3.

[10] Robin Boyer and Christian E. Grue, "The Need for Water Quality Criteria for Frogs," ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES Vol. 103, No. 4 (April 1995), pgs. 352-357.

[11] Blaustein and Wake, cited above in note 3, pg. 55, referring to Andrew R. Blaustein and others, "UV repair and resistance to solar UV-B in amphibian eggs: A link to population declines?" PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Vol. 91 (March 1994), pgs. 1791-1795.

[12] Andrew R. Blaustein and others, "Pathogenic Fungus Contributes to Amphibian Losses in the Pacific Northwest," BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION Vol. 67 (1994), pgs. 251-254.

[13] Boyer and Grue, cited above, pg. 353.

[14] Boyer and Grue, cited above, pg. 354.

[15] Blaustein and Wake, cited above in note 6, pg. 204.

[16] Blaustein and Wake, cited above in note 3, pg. 56.

[17] Blaustein and Wake, cited above in note 3, pg. 56.

[18] Blaustein and Wake, cited above in note 3, pg. 56.

Descriptor terms: species loss; habitat destruction; habitat fragmentation; endocrine disrupters; deforestation; clearcutting; frog legs; france; agriculture; pesticides; fertilizers; acid precipitation; immune system disorders; bacteria; fungi; fish; exotic species; ozone depletion; cfcs; hcfcs; methyl bromide; global climate change; atmosphere; ultraviolet light; hormones; reverse onus; water pollution; water quality criteria;

#462: Killing Science

=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #462
---October 5, 1995---
News and resources for environmental justice.
==========
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.clark.net
==========
RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library. Dioxinnz.com
========================Original Source========================

Last week Congress permanently closed down its scientific research arm, the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). Although we did not agree with the recommendations of every report that OTA produced during its 23 years of policy analysis, we know that the death of OTA will be an immeasurably great loss to the nation's ability to get the facts straight. The so-called conservatives in this Congress claim to favor public policies based on "good science," yet they are hacking away the infrastructure of laboratories and institutes that, for decades, has done the nation's scientific work. Next on the chopping block is the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST, formerly the National Bureau of Standards), which designs standardized testing and measurement protocols that are relied upon by scientists and engineers throughout the world. This Congress is moving us steadily back toward the dark ages.

On the chopping block as we go to press is the university-based program of basic research within the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The NIEHS Superfund Basic Research Program, now in its ninth year, provides funding to 17 programs at 60 universities and institutions around the country, studying the human health effects of hazardous chemicals in the environment, especially those found at leaking waste dumps.

Congress has already reduced the appropriation for this program, which makes up barely 1% of the Superfund toxic waste cleanup effort. But now the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Hazardous Materials, chaired by Rep. Michael Oxley of Ohio's 4th District, is refusing to reauthorize the program entirely, thus killing it dead. Mr. Oxley's position is that Superfund money should only be used for cleanup, not for any "extraneous" uses like determining how clean our cleanups need to be, and why. Like other so-called "conservatives" who claim they want policies based on "good science," Mr. Oxley reveals his true intentions as he prevents any "good science" from being funded and carried out.

Looking at some of last year's research highlights produced by the Superfund research program, one can appreciate Mr. Oxley's fear of what good science will reveal: [1]

** Researchers determined the dose-response relationship for benzene down to doses as low as those received by ordinary people. Millions of Americans are exposed to small amounts of benzene when, for example, they pump their own gasoline. These benzene experiments strongly suggest that a cancer risk from benzene is present even at very low doses. With millions of people exposed to benzene every day, it seems important to know that benzene really does cause cancer.

** Other investigations demonstrated for the first time in laboratory animals that benzene exposure, which has been associated with leukemia and aplastic anemia in humans and animals, is also mutagenic; that is, it causes inheritable genetic changes which can affect the next generation, the next after that, and so on.

** Researchers showed that several biological markers (subtle observable changes in a person) can be used to detect probable chromium exposure in humans living near places where chromium wastes have been dumped. Researchers studied Jersey City, N.J., and surrounding Hudson County where corporate polluters dumped chromium wastes on the ground for decades. Such research should make it easier to sue corporate polluters for exposure to toxics.

** Researchers developed a test to detect a single molecule of a cancer-associated chromosomal rearrangement in the presence of DNA from a million normal human cells. This work offers the possibility of very sensitive detection of the ability of chemicals to cause chromosomal rearrangements as an indicator of their cancer-causing potential.

** Researchers are studying the neurological and immune-system effects of drinking water containing mercury compounds. Early results indicate that even a small dose of methyl-mercury, such as 5 ppm [parts per million] in drinking water, impairs neurological, endocrine (hormone), and immune-system functions in animals. This corresponds to a daily consumption of 0.3 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) of body weight which is smaller than the "safe" dose of 0.48 mg/kg body weight indicated by the World Health Organization. In other words, mercury is even more dangerous than formerly believed.

** A large epidemiologic study examined the respiratory disease hazards of susceptible individuals living near toxic waste sites and industrial facilities. Analysis of interim data has provided important information on the association between asthma status (active or inactive) and exposure to irritants --active asthmatics have been found to suffer an adverse effect on lung function resulting from irritant chemical exposure (after adjustment for smoking). Asthma is increasing each year in the U.S. population, and annual production of toxic chemicals is increasing as well. Could these two trends be related? It would be important to know.

** Researchers demonstrated a high degree of correspondence between laboratory and field-test results of immune-system toxicity in dogs exposed to industrial PCBs [polychlorinated biphenyls]. Not only have these studies clarified effects of PCBs on the immune system, but they have sparked a number of spin-off studies involving the thyroid, lymphocyte (white blood cell) development, and brain function. These studies help clarify how PCBs affect behavior, physiology, and response to infectious disease, in addition to environmentally-induced threats such as cancer. Efforts to date have provided a key step in validating laboratory immune-system toxicity observations with field studies of animal health.

** In a study comparing effects of perinatal (near the time of birth) vs. adult exposure to PCBs, researchers have found that toxic effects on the brain occur in completely opposite ways. In adults, ortho-PCBs reduce brain dopamine levels while dioxin-like coplanar-PCBs have no such effect. (Dopamine is an important natural chemical in the brain.) However, following perinatal exposure, dioxin-like PCBs elevate brain dopamine concentrations and alter the behavior of exposed female offspring while ortho-PCBs reduce brain dopamine concentrations. Thus, PCB exposures have opposite effects, depending on the age at exposure and the type of PCBs to which the organism is exposed. These results suggest that PCBs may not only directly affect nerve function, but may also alter steroid hormone function during a baby's development.

** Some of the most interesting and important Superfund research involves the role of estrogens and estrogen-like chemicals that seem to interfere with the reproductive system of fish, birds, and mammals, probably including humans. Estrogens are female sex hormones.

A study of sea gulls on Santa Barbara Island, not far from Los Angeles, in 1977 revealed bizarre gull behavior: female gulls were pairing up and sharing nests. In 1981, bird toxicologist Michael Fry published a study showing that, by injecting a small amount of DDT into bird eggs, he could produce hermaphroditic male birds --that is, male birds with the sex organs of both a male and a female. Fry's work met with skepticism back in 1981, but in the subsequent decade wildlife experts worldwide reported declining birth rates, hermaphroditic offspring, lowered sperm counts, and deformities of the testicles of fish, panthers, alligators, and other animals in polluted habitats. [2]Timothy Gross, a wildlife endocrinologist (hormone specialist) at the University of Florida in Gainesville, says, "If you look at people, the same pollutants are in our bodies. What is a safe level? We don't know. But I'd be a pretty naive scientist to conclude there couldn't be the same effects in humans." [3]

The possible effects of estrogen-like chemicals on humans are now thought to include prostate cancer and testicular cancer [4]in men, and perhaps breast cancer in women. [5] Prostate cancer has been steadily increasing in the U.S. in recent years, especially among older men; it strikes 244,000 men each year in the U.S., and kills about 40,000. Breast cancer strikes 183,000 American women each year and kills about 46,240. One out of every 8 women gets breast cancer, and one out of every 7 men gets prostate cancer. Because men with undeveloped testes, and castrated men, rarely develop prostate cancer, researchers began to suspect that sex hormones circulating in the blood might affect prostate cancer. "The evidence has since been stacking up to form an alarming picture that paints estrogen [female sex hormone] and testosterone [male sex hormone] as cancer culprits," says a recent issue of ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES, [4]published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [NIEHS], a staid scientific organization that does not use the word "alarming" lightly. Estrogens and estrogen-mimicking industrial chemicals in the environment have now been shown to alter testosterone levels in men. Thus the wildlife research supported by Superfund money has begun to pay off with a better understanding of major killer diseases. "We're relying on Superfund money for research," says wildlife-and-hormone specialist Timothy Gross at University of Florida. "And who knows what will happen to that? Congress now has a vendetta against lots of this environmental research," he says. [3]

Indeed, people calling themselves "conservatives" in Congress are determined to cut off the funding for this line of research. In their mind, the only good science is no science. Without federal funding, this research will cease because the private sector has no interest in showing how industrial discharges may be contributing to the nation's steadily-rising burden of cancer, diabetes, birth defects, endometriosis, and infertility.

Now a Congressman from Ohio is leading the charge to kill this important health research program. Mr. Oxley might change his mind if he received letters or phone calls from people in his district, who hold the power to end his political career. In addition, calls from outside his district might help, too. Mr. Oxley represents 11 counties (Allen, Auglaize, Crawford, Hancock, Hardin, Knox, Logan, Marion, Morrow, Richland and Wyandot), with the district's four most populous cities being Lima, Mansfield, Marion, and Findlay (Mr. Oxley's home town). His phone number in D.C. is: (202) 225-2676; fax: (202) 226-1160. Mail: 2233 Rayburn Building, Washington, D.C. 20515.

 --Peter Montague

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

[1] Highlights of Superfund research can be found on the World Wide Web at http://www.niehs.nih.gov/sbrp/1994-hig.htm.

[2] Recent work on estrogen-like chemicals and wildlife appears in "Wildlife Development," ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES Vol. 103, Supplement 4 (May, 1995).

[3] Gross quoted in Amanda Spake, "Is the modern world giving us cancer?" HEALTH (October, 1995), pg. 55.

[4] Renee Twombly, "Assault on the Male," ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES Vol. 103, No. 9 (September, 1995), pgs. 802-805.

[5] Devra Lee Davis and H. Leon Bradlow, "Can Environmental Estrogens Cause Breast Cancer?" SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN Vol. 273, No. 4 (October, 1995), pgs. 166-172.

Descriptor terms: research funding; superfund; congress; science; ota; benzene; chromium; congressman michael oxley; cancer; mercury; asthma; hazardous wastes; pcbs; dogs; estrogens; hormones; immune system; nervous system; endocrine system; endocrine disruptors; wildlife; hermaphroditism; fish; gulls; birds; panthers; alligators; prostate cancer; testicular cancer; breast cancer; morbidity statistics; mortality statistics; testosterone; niehs

#487: Our Stolen Future--Part 2

=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #487
March 28, 1996
News and resources for environmental justice.
==========
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.clark.net
========== RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library. Dioxinnz.com
================== Original Source ==================

Humans and other animals (fish, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and mammals) all have three great internal networks that coordinate growth, development, and behavior:

** the nervous system (brain, spinal cord, and peripheral nerves);

** the immune system (a myriad of specialized cells and tissues that protect us against bacteria, viruses, and cancers); and

** the endocrine system, which controls and coordinates the body by sending chemical messages (hormones) through the blood stream, turning on and off various functions throughout the body.

The human body is more than a mere collection of 50 trillion individual cells because our cells work together. Working together requires coordination, which requires communication.

Nerves are just one avenue of communication--the one employed for rapid, discrete messages, such as a quick instruction to a hand, to move away from a hot stove. A large part of the body's internal communication and control is carried out via the bloodstream, where hormones and other chemical messengers move about, carrying signals that not only govern sex and reproduction but also coordinate organs and tissues that work together to keep the body functioning properly.

Hormones --chemical messengers --began to be understood early in this century. Nobel prizes were awarded for the discovery of insulin in 1923, and for work on sex hormones in 1939. The best-known hormones are estrogen (the main female sex hormone) and testosterone (the main male sex hormone) but by 1987 more than 100 hormones had been identified in humans and higher mammals. [1]

The endocrine (hormone) system plays an important role starting early in life's beginnings. It is the endocrine system that controls development of the embryo. The embryo begins as a single fertilized egg cell, which divides again and again, creating new cells; these cells in turn "differentiate" into different kinds of cells, thus creating a brain, eyes, fingers, genitalia, and so forth. All of these processes are controlled by hormones.

In 1950, researchers at Syracuse University exposed young roosters to DDT and showed that their testicles only grew to 18 percent of normal size. [2] The researchers concluded, "These findings suggest that DDT may exert an estrogen-like action..."

A 1963 study in the JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE showed that cysts and cancers developed in mice treated with estrogen as newborns. In that 1963 study, author Thelma Dunn warned that her work showed "the vulnerability of the immature animal to the harmful effects of exposure to a naturally occurring hormone." [3]

The following year, in 1964, two authors writing in the JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE reported changes in vaginal tissues in mice after exposure to estrogen shortly after birth. They warned, "We feel that abnormal hormonal environments during early postnatal (and antenatal) life should not be underestimated as to their possible contribution to abnormal changes of neoplastic [cancer] significance later in life." [4]

These early warnings were ignored. From about 1940 onward, roughly 1000 new chemicals were introduced into commercial channels each year (a practice that continues today). No one asked whether any of these chemicals might exert an estrogen-like effect or might in some other way disrupt the chemical-messaging system on which we all depend for health and well-being. Still today, no one in any official capacity is asking.

Starting in the 1950s, papers began to appear in scientific journals showing declines in wildlife populations, resulting from exposures to certain pesticides. Reports of odd behavior began to appear as well --pairs of female gulls (so-called "gay gulls") sharing nests; pairs of terns (birds on the Great Lakes) failing to sit on their eggs, neglecting to defend their nests against predators. Alligators with penises so small they couldn't reproduce. As time passed, hundreds of such studies accumulated from many parts of the world.

However, it wasn't until 1991 that some scientists began to see a pattern in these studies. In July of that year, Theo Colborn, a biologist with the World Wildlife Fund, invited a group of 20 scientists to discuss their research. To their surprise, the scientists all agreed that, in their individual research, they were seeing evidence that industrial chemicals in the environment were harming the endocrine systems of fish, birds and mammals. They issued a consensus document, now known as the Wingspread statement (see REHW #263, #264), which began, [5]"We are certain of the following:

"A large number of man-made chemicals that have been released into the environment, as well as a few natural ones, have the potential to disrupt the endocrine system of animals, including humans. Among these are the persistent, bioaccumulative, organohalogen compounds that include some pesticides (fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides) and industrial chemicals, other synthetic products, and some metals." [An organohalogen is a chemical that contains carbon attached to a halogen such as chlorine; there are now 15,000 chlorine-containing organic compounds in commercial use.]

The Wingspread statement went on,

"Many wildlife populations are already affected by these compounds. The impacts include thyroid dysfunction [impaired or abnormal functioning] in birds and fish; decreased fertility in birds, fish, shellfish, and mammals; decreased hatching success in birds, fish and turtles; gross birth deformities in birds, fish and turtles; metabolic abnormalities [impaired or abnormal use of energy, manufacture of tissue, or handling of resulting wastes] in birds, fish, and mammals; behavioral abnormalities in birds; demasculinization and feminization in male fish, birds, and mammals; defeminization and masculinization of female fish and birds; and compromised [impaired] immune systems in birds and mammals." This was the first time anyone had ever put two and two together and had concluded that industrial chemicals are interfering with hormones in wildlife and, by analogy, probably in humans.

Since 1991, the journals have continued to swell with new studies showing how industrial chemicals, in low concentrations, can disrupt hormone messages.

In some instances, industrial chemicals behave like (mimic) hormones, fooling the body into responding as if natural hormones are present when in fact they are not, thus sending fake messages. In other instances, industrial chemicals block (partially or fully) the action of natural hormones, thus interfering in the receipt of messages. In other instances, industrial chemicals block the production of hormones, thus preventing the sending of messages. In still other instances, industrial chemicals interfere with the body's normal ability to break down and eliminate hormones, thus resulting in too many messages being present simultaneously and for too long.

No matter where you live today --whether in New York City, or on a remote island in the Arctic Ocean, anyone willing to put up the $2000 for testing will find more than 250 synthetic industrial chemicals in their body. [6]DDT was first reported in human milk in 1951 and by the early 1980s, 192 different industrial chemicals (pesticides, solvents, etc.) were measurable in mothers' milk. [7]

These industrial chemicals are routinely present in our tissues at levels measured in parts per billion (or, in extreme instances, parts per million). On the other hand, naturally-occurring hormones often do their work at levels that are measured in parts per trillion, one thousand times lower than parts per billion and a million times lower that parts per million. [8]

Furthermore, there is evidence that industrial chemicals at exceedingly low levels can combine together to produce additive effects. Dr. Ana Soto at Tufts University combined 10 hormone disrupters, each at one-tenth of the dose required to produce a minimal response; she found that the combination produced a response. [9] Thus combinations of chemicals must be taken into account when we try to learn how much "effective exposure" we are getting to hormone-disrupting chemicals.

Is there any evidence that humans have been harmed? Yes, there is. The medical profession exposed millions of women to drugs called thalidomide and DES (diethylstilbestrol) before it was learned that birth defects might result from such exposures. The DES exposures, particularly, provided compelling evidence that humans respond to hormone-disrupting chemicals the way other mammals do. Studies of humans exposed to PCBs (a class of hormone-disrupting industrial chemicals) shown mental and physical stunting. (See REHW #295, #372.) (We will review additional human evidence in future issues.)

OUR STOLEN FUTURE, Theo Colborn's new book, [5]presents evidence and hypotheses pointing toward a variety of effects in humans: reduced sperm count; increases in cancer of the prostate, testicles, and female breast; diminished intelligence; reduced capacity to pay attention; increased aggression and violence. Are these things all proven? They are not. Are they plausible enough and important enough to warrant thoughtful preventive action by prudent people? They definitely are.

What lessons can we learn from all this? Many. But they will to wait. For the next two weeks, we will focus on the institution that allowed our future to be stolen --indeed, made it all but certain that our future would be stolen. Stay tuned.

                                                                    
 --Peter Montague

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

[1] Anthony W. Norman and Gerald Litwack, HORMONES (San Diego, Ca.: Academic Press, 1987), pg. xi. And see Appendix A.

[2] H. Burlington and V.F. Lindeman, "Effects of DDT on Testes and Secondary Sex Characters of White Leghorn Cockerels," Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine Vol. 74 (1950), pgs. 48-51. Even earlier, the sexual development of mice had been disrupted by exposure to estrogen: R. Greene and others, "Experimental Intersexuality: The Paradoxical Effects of Estrogens on the Sexual Development of the Female Rat," ANATOMICAL RECORD Vol. 74 No. 4 (1939), pgs. 429-438. And: R. Greene and others, "Experimental Intersexuality: Modification of Sexual Development of the White Rat With a Synthetic Estrogen," PROCEEDINGS OF THE SOCIETY FOR EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE Vol. 41 (1939), pgs. 169-170.

[3] T. Dunn and A. Green, "Cysts of the Epididymis, Cancer of the Cervix, Granular Cell Myoblastoma, and Other Lesions After Estrogen Injection in Newborn Mice," JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE Vol. 31 (1963), pgs. 425-438.

[4] N. Takasugi and H. Bern, "Tissue Changes in Mice with Persistent Vaginal Cornification Induced by Early Postnatal Treatment With Estrogen," JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE Vol. 33 (1964), pgs. 855-864.

[5] Theo Colborn, Dianne Dumanoski and John Peterson Myers, OUR STOLEN FUTURE (N.Y.: Dutton, 1996), pgs. 251-260 reprints the Wingspread statement.

[6] J.S. Stanley, [Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Mo.], BROAD SCAN ANALYSIS OF HUMAN ADIPOSE TISSUE. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. VOLUME 1. FINAL REPORT. [EPA/560/5-86/035] (Springfield, Va: National Technical Information Service [NTIS No. PB 87-177218/REB]. See also VOLUME II, NTIS No. PB 87-177226. And see: Kristin Bryan and Theo Colborn, "Organochlorine Endocrine Disruptors in Human Tissue," in Theo Colborn and Coralie Clement, editors, CHEMICALLY-INDUCED ALTERATIONS IN SEXUAL AND FUNCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: THE WILDLIFE/HUMAN CONNECTION [Advances in Modern Environmental Toxicology Vol. XXI] (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Scientific Publishing Co., 1992), pgs. 365-394.

[7] E.P. Laug and others, "Occurrence of DDT in Human Milk," ARCHIVES OF INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE Vol. 3 (1951), pgs. 245-246. And see: Edo D. Pellizzari and others, "Purgeable Organic Compounds in Mother's Milk." BULLETIN OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND TOXICOLOGY Vol. 28 (1982), pgs. 322-328, reporting 192 different industrial chemicals in samples of human milk from New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Louisiana.

[8] In their Appendix A, Norman and Litwack, cited above in note 1, list the levels at which naturally-occurring hormones are present in human blood. Many occur in the low parts per trillion range.

[9] Soto's work is reported in Paul Cotton, "Environmental Estrogenic Agents Area of Concern [sic]," JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION Vol. 271, No. 6 (February 9, 1994), pgs. 414-415.

Descriptor terms: our stolen future; theo colborn; john peterson myers; dianne dumanoski; nervous system; immune system; endocrine system; hormones; development; embryo; estrogen; endocrine disrupters; wingspread statement; pesticides; thyroid disease; infertility; wildlife; fish; birds; mammals; synergism; additive effects; ana soto; book reviews;