#371: Chemicals And Health--Part 3

=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL'S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #371 
---January 6, 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========================

Several studies of industrial dumps and contaminated water supplies during the last decade have reported adverse health effects among exposed human populations. [1] The principal health findings include:

** Significantly reduced stature (height) for a given age among children who lived near Love Canal, the chemical waste dump in Niagara Falls, N.Y., compared to a control group of children living further from the dump. [2]

** A higher prevalence of birth defects and liver disease among persons living near a thorium waste disposal site in Wayne, New Jersey, compared to persons living further away from the site. [3] (Thorium is a naturally-occurring radioactive element processed on this site by a private firm under contract to the old Atomic Energy Commission, now called the Department of Energy.)

** Low birth weight and birth defects in California children born in census tracts having waste disposal sites. [4]

** Enlargement of the liver (hepatomegaly) and abnormal liver function tests reported in residents exposed to solvents from a toxic waste dump in Hardemann County, Tenn. [5]

** Dermatitis, respiratory irritation, neurologic symptoms and pancreatic cancer at 7 waste disposal sites. [6]

** Significantly elevated rates of illness, including chronic kidney disease, stroke, hypertension [high blood pressure], heart disease, anemia, and skin cancer in a population exposed to toxic metals (cadmium and lead) from mine wastes in Galena, Kansas. [7]

** Leukemia (cancer of the blood-forming cells) among a group of children drinking water contaminated with industrial solvents in Woburn, Mass. In addition, a study of 4936 pregnancies and 5018 residents of Woburn aged 18 or younger revealed significant positive associations between intake of contaminated water and birth defects of the central nervous system, eye, ear, and face (e.g., cleft palate), as well as abnormalities of the chromosomes. [8]

** In Lowell, Mass., a group of 1049 people living 1200 feet from a large chemical waste dump was higher in self-reported complaints of wheezing, shortness of breath, cough, and persistent colds; irregular heart beat; constant fatigue and bowel dysfunction, compared to people living 2 and 3 times as far from the dump. [9] This study examined the possibility of recall bias (people selectively remembering health problems, or chemical exposures) and concluded that recall bias did not explain the findings.

** In Hamilton, Ontario, a study of people who lived and/or worked near an industrial dump revealed significantly elevated rates of the following conditions: bronchitis; difficulty breathing; cough; skin rash; arthritis; heart problems (angina [chest pain], and heart attacks); muscle weakness in arms and legs; tremors, cramps, and spasms; headaches; dizziness; lethargy; balance problems; and mood symptoms (anxiety, depression, insomnia, irritability, and restlessness) compared to populations living further from the site. [10] Recall bias was examined and rejected as the source of these problems.

** A survey of 2039 persons in 606 households living near the Stringfellow Acid Pits in Riverside County, California revealed significantly elevated rates for the following conditions: ear infections; bronchitis; asthma; angina [chest pain]; skin rashes; blurred vision; pain in the ears; daily cough for more than a month; nausea; frequent diarrhea; unsteady gait; and frequent urination. [11] Recall bias was examined and rejected as the cause of these problems.

** In Tucson, Arizona, a study of 707 children born with heart defects revealed that 35% of them were born to parents living in a part of the city where the water supply was contaminated with industrial solvents (trichloroethylene [TCE], and dichloroethylene). The rate of birth defects of the heart was three times as high among people drinking the contaminated water, compared to people in Tucson not drinking contaminated water.[12]

** A study of 296 women experiencing a spontaneous abortion during the first 27 weeks of pregnancy, compared to 1391 women having live births, revealed an association between spontaneous abortion and drinking water contaminants (detectable levels of mercury, or high levels of arsenic, potassium and silica). [13]

** Residents of Bynum, North Carolina, drinking raw river water contaminated by industrial and agricultural chemicals, have developed cancers 2.4 to 2.6 times more often than expected. [14]

To summarize: Epidemiological studies cannot prove a cause and effect relationship. Nevertheless, available information indicates that hazardous waste dumps can harm, and have harmed, humans living nearby. Likewise, contaminated water supplies have harmed people.

The problem of waste dumps is continuing to grow. As the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences said in 1991, "A limited number of epidemiologic studies indicate that increased rates of birth defects, spontaneous abortion, neurologic impairment, and cancer have occurred in some residential populations exposed to hazardous wastes. We are concerned that other populations at risk might not have been adequately identified." And the Council said, "Millions of tons of hazardous materials are slowly migrating into groundwater in areas where they could pose problems in the future, even though current risks could be negligible." [15]

There is a move afoot now in Washington, and in the mass media, to divert attention away from the problem of toxic wastes. The goal seems to be to cut funding for the federal Superfund program of toxic waste cleanup. It seems clear that such a move, if successful, will result in increased health costs for the American people.

                                                                         
--Peter Montague, Ph.D.

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

[1] For a review of several studies, see Arthur C. Upton, Theodore Kneip and Paolo Toniolo, "Public Health Aspects of Toxic Chemical Disposal Sites," ANNUAL REVIEW OF PUBLIC HEALTH Vol. 10 (1989), pgs. 1-25.

[2] Beverly Paigen, Lynn R. Goldman, Mary M. Magnant, Joseph H. Highland, and A.T. Steegman, Jr., "Growth of Children Living Near the Hazardous Waste Site, Love Canal," HUMAN BIOLOGY Vol. 59 (June 1987), pgs. 489-508. See also, Lynn R. Goldman and others, "Low Birth Weight, Prematurity and Birth Defects in Children Living Near the Hazardous Waste Site, Love Canal," HAZARDOUS WASTE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, Vol. 2 (1985), pgs. 209-223; see also Beverly Paigen and others, "Prevalence of Health Problems in Children Living Near Love Canal," HAZARDOUS WASTE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, Vol. 2 (1985), pgs. 23-43. And see: Nicholas J. Vianna and Adele K. Polan, "Incidence of Low Birth Weight Among Love Canal Residents," SCIENCE Vol. 226 No. 4679 (December 7, 1984), pgs. 1217-1219.

[3] G. Reza Najem and Lisa K. Voyce, "Health Effects of a Thorium Waste Disposal Site," AMERICAN 
JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH Vol. 80 (April 1990), pgs. 478-480.

[4] Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, U.S. Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, CALIFORNIA: BIRTH DEFECTS STUDY (Atlanta, Ga.: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1990). See also: Gary M. Shaw and others, "Congenital Malformations and Birthweight in Areas with Potential Environmental Contamination," ARCHIVES OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Vol. 47 (March/April 1992), pgs. 147-154, which showed increased risk of malformations of the heart and circulatory system (though not a risk of low birthweight) among children born to California mothers residing in census tracts having waste disposal sites.

[5] Channing R. Meyer, "Liver Dysfunction in Residents Exposed to Leachate from a Toxic Waste Dump," ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES Vol. 48 (1983), pgs. 9-13.

[6] Barry L. Johnson, "Testimony by Barry L. Johnson, Ph.D., Assistant Surgeon General, Assistant Administrator, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR], Before the Subcommittee on Superfund, Recycling, and Solid Waste Management, United States Senate, May 6, 1993," pg. 10, citing various studies by ATSDR.

[7] John S. Neuberger and others, "Health Problems in Galena, Kansas: A Heavy Metal Mining Superfund Site," THE SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT Vol. 94 (1990), pgs. 261-272.

[8] J. Cutler and others, "Childhood Leukemia in Woburn, Massachusetts," PUBLIC HEALTH REPORTS Vol. 101 (1988), pgs. 201-205. See also V.S. Byers, "Association between clinical symptoms and lymphocyte abnormalities in a population with chronic domestic exposure to industrial solvent contaminated domestic water supply and a high incidence of leukaemia." CANCER IMMUNOLOGY AND IMMUNOTHERAPY, Vol. 27 (1988), pgs. 77-81; and: S. W. Lagakos and others, "An Analysis of Contaminated Well Water and Health Effects in Woburn, Massachusetts," JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION Vol. 81 (1986), pgs. 583-196. Because none of the chemicals in Woburn water were previously known to cause leukemia, the leukemia association was questioned; see B. MacMahon, "Comment on the Article, 'An Analysis of Contaminated Well Water and Health Effects in Woburn, Massachusetts,'" JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION Vol. 81 (1986), pgs. 597-599.

[9] David Ozonoff and others, "Health Problems Reported by Residents of a Neighborhood Contaminated by a Hazardous Waste Facility," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL MEDICINE, Vol. 11 (1987), pgs. 581-597.

[10] Clyde Hertzman and others, "Upper Ottawa Street Landfill Site Health Study," ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES Vol. 75 (1987), pgs. 173-195.

[11] Dean B. Baker and others, "A Health Study of Two Communites [sic] Near the Stringfellow Waste Disposal Site," ARCHIVES OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Vol. 43 (Sept./Oct., 1988), pgs. 325-334.

[12] Stanley J. Goldberg and others, "An Association of Human Congenital Cardiac Malformations and Drinking Water Contaminants," JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY Vol. 16, No. 1 (July, 1990), pgs. 155-164. See also: Cleo P. Loeber Mary J. C. Hendrix, Steven Diez De Pinos, and Stanley J. Goldberg, "Trichloroethylene: A Cardiac Teratogen in Developing Chick Embryos," PEDIATRIC RESEARCH Vol. 24 (1988): pgs 740-744. And: Brenda V. Dawson, Paula D. Johnson, Stanley J. Goldberg, and Judith B. Ulreich, "Cardiac Teratogenesis of Trichloroethylene and Dichloroethylene in a Mammalian Model," JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY Vol. 16 (November 1, 1990), pgs. 1304-1309.

[13] Ann Aschengrau and others, "Quality of Community Drinking Water and the Occurrence of Spontaneous Abortion," ARCHIVES OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Vol. 44 (September/October 1989), pgs. 283-290.

[14] J. Scott Osborne III, Carl M. Shy, and Berton H. Kaplan, "Epidemiologic Analysis of a Reported Cancer Cluster in a Small Rural Population," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY Vol. 132, No.[1] (July 1990), pgs. S87-S95.

[15] Anthony B. Miller and others, ENVIRONMENTAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, VOLUME 1: PUBLIC HEALTH AND HAZARDOUS WASTES (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1991), pgs. 10, 257.

Descriptor terms: hazardous waste disposal; landfilling; morbidity; mortality; studies; children; growth; love canal; niagara falls; ny; birth defects; liver disease; thorium; wayne; nj; aec; doe; low birth weight; ca; liver disease; hepatomegaly; solvents; hardemann county; tn; dermatitis; neurologic disease; pancreatic cancer; kidney disease; stroke; hypertension; high blood pressure; heart disease; circulatory disease; anemia; skin cancer; cadmium; lead; galena; ks; leukemia; woburn; ma; eye; ear; cns; central nervous system; cleft palate; chromosomes; lowell; respiratory disease; colds; fatigue; cough; bowel disorders; recall bias; hamilton; ontario; cn; bronchitis; skin rash; arthritis; angina; heart attack; tremors; cramps; spasms; headache; dizziness; lethargy; anxiety; depression; incomnia; irritability; restlessness; stringfellow acid pits; asthma; nausea; diarrhea; urination; tucson; az; heart defects; trichloroethylene; dichloroethylene; tce; spontaneous abortion; reproduction; mercury; arsenic; potassium; epidemiology; nrs; nas;

#437: Rush Limbaugh with Book Learning

=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #437
---April 13, 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========================

Until recently, there were only three camps in the environmental movement. Now some journalists are trying to start a fourth camp.

The original three camps are distinguished by where they place blame for environmental problems: The first says the general public is at fault. The second blames powerful economic and social institutions, chiefly in the "private sector." The third camp blames government.

People in the first camp want to solve environmental problems by recycling newspapers, planting trees, and putting a brick in their toilet tank to reduce water use.

The second camp wants the public to recognize that there really is no "private sector" because all "private" industrial decisions have profound impacts on public health and well being. They want the public involved in decisions about technology.

A third camp blames government. They favor eliminating weak laws, poor regulations, inept officials, and ineffective agency structures. [1]

Now a fourth camp is trying to emerge. This camp says the sources of environmental distress lie somewhere in the murky past, but solutions are staring us right in the face; however, we can't reach these solutions because environmentalists in the first three camps are so negative, so focused on doom-saying, so cynically intent on making money by frightening the public through direct mail appeals.

This new, fourth camp has just published its manifesto, calling itself "ecorealism." Ecorealism is upbeat, positive, buoyantly optimistic. Its basic premise is that most environmental problems either don't exist or would soon disappear if environmentalists would just stop exaggerating.

The ecorealists' manifesto is Gregg Easterbook's 745-page encyclopedia of feel-good optimism, called A MOMENT ON THE EARTH. [2] 

Here is a sampling:

** Human population is not a problem, if you just take the long view of it (pg. 491);

** Genetic engineering is more natural than soccer fields and rock concerts (because nature engages in genetic engineering itself [cross-pollination, for example] but nature never made a soccer field without human help) (pg. 419);

** No research has ever shown that industrial chlorine releases cause any public health or general ecological harm (pg. 414);

** New landfills, incinerators, and factories usually do not have emission problems (pg. 467);

** In the western world, the age of pollution is nearly over, because by the year 2004 society will have "almost painlessly" adopted a zero discharge philosophy (pgs. xvi, 206, 256, 648);

** Whatever industry's stance may have been in the past, today industry's attitude is "respectful environmental behavior" (pg. 623);

** Nature makes far worse environmental problems than people do (pgs. xvii, 21, 145);

** No one in the general public has ever been harmed by radiation associated with nuclear power reactors (pg. 493) and humans are not exceptionally sensitive to radiation exposure (pg. 506);

** Radioactive waste disposal is not really a problem because even at the WIPP site in southern New Mexico, built to hold long-lived transuranic military wastes, most of the radioactivity will have disappeared within 300 years (pg. 514);

** There is no ozone hole over the north pole (pg. 539);

** Toxic waste isn't an important problem because the National Academy of Sciences in a 1991 report said there is "no clear relationship between proximity to toxic wastes and cancer;" (pg. 604);

** Environmental problems developed in the old days, back when "government was tucked snugly in bed 

with industry" but times have changed (pg. 372);

** Chemicals are, today, assumed to be dangerous, and the burden of proof is on the manufacturers of chemicals to prove safety before new chemicals can be introduced into commerce (pg. 231);

** Most forms of cancer are in decline (pg. 246);

** Dioxin is in the same chemical family as table salt (pg. 414); the largest study of dioxin and human health found only a "slight" increase in cancer (pg. 235); dioxin is natural, caused mainly by forest fires (pg. 238); and, anyway, new emissions of dioxin have already been "nearly eliminated" (pg. 238).

I'll stop here because the catalog of optimism goes on and on, but the drift is clear to everyone.

Unfortunately, most of the ecorealists' platform is simply wrong. Let's examine some of its assertions.

** According to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has been "reassessing" dioxin for the past 4 years, at least half of the dioxin sources in the U.S. have not been identified (REHW #390, #391), so Gregg Easterbrook cannot know that new sources of exposure have been eliminated. EPA says forest fires are a minor source of dioxin and even that minor source may be caused not by nature but by industrial releases of chlorine settling onto the leaves of trees. The largest study of dioxin and human health found a 46% increased hazard of cancer among workers whose exposure lasted at least a year and began at least 20 years ago (thus allowing the cancer latency period to run its course); 46% is not a "slight" increase by any reasonable person's reckoning (RHWN #219, #270, #290, #353). True, dioxin is a chlorinated chemical, and so is table salt, but dioxin is only in the "same family" as table salt in the sense that an AK-47 and a pea shooter are in the "same family" --both can be used as weapons to hurt people.

** The incidence rates of 14 out of 16 types of cancer are increasing, not decreasing. The death rates for 8 of 16 types of cancer are increasing. (See RHWN #385.) Easterbrook is wrong when he says most forms of cancer are in decline.

** Today in the U.S., new chemicals are introduced at the will of the manufacturer, and it is up to the public to prove that they cause harm before a chemical can even be regulated, much less banned. Mr. Easterbrook has it backwards.

** What the National Academy of Sciences actually said about toxic wastes and human health was this: "A limited number of epidemiologic studies indicate that increased rates of birth defects, spontaneous abortion, neurologic impairment, and cancer have occurred in some residential populations exposed to hazardous wastes. We are concerned that other populations at risk might not have been adequately identified." And the Council said, "Millions of tons of hazardous materials are slowly migrating into groundwater in areas where they could pose problems in the future, even though current risks could be negligible." (RHWN #272, #371)

** No ozone hole over the north pole? In 1993, Canadian scientists reported measuring 35% more ultraviolat light on the ground in Toronto, due to a large hole in the ozone layer over the north pole. [3]

** Most WIPP radioactive wastes gone in 300 years? The WIPP radioactive waste dump in New Mexico is slated to hold, at a minimum, one ton of plutonium-239 with a half-life of 24,400 years. Plutonium is one of the two or three most potent carcinogens around. According to the government's environmental impact statement, WIPP may eventually hold up to 44 tons of plutonium. It will take 10 half-lives, or 240,400 years (far longer than HOMO SAPIENS has walked the earth), for this plutonium to decay away, not 300 years.

** No one ever harmed by nuclear power reactors? The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), the industry-dominated standards-setting body for the nuclear industry worldwide, estimates that nuclear reactors in the U.S. (annually producing 80 gigawatt-years of power) cause 4000 deaths and 2500 serious genetic defects each year in future populations. (REWH #200, #201, #202) The 

U.S. National Academy of Sciences estimates that the true number is 50% greater than the ICRP's estimate. Long after the reactors have been shut down, this damage will continue year after year for aeons into the future as radioactive gases waft into the air from uranium mill tailings piles, and other radioactive wastes. Just because the deaths will not occur today does not mean nuclear energy is "clean." Dead is dead, and immoral is immoral, today and tomorrow.

** Humans are insignificant compared to nature's damage? True for hurricanes and earthquakes. But for long-term distribution of toxic chemicals and certain key nutrients into the environment, humans surpassed nature some decades ago. For example, each year humans inject twice as much arsenic into the atmosphere as nature does, seven times as much cadmium, and 17 times as much lead. Measured by the elements that nature moves into the oceans via river discharges, we humans mobilize (through mining) 13 times as much iron as nature does each year, 36 times as much phosphorous, and 110 times as much tin. Nature mobilizes 63 million tons of nitrogen each year, but humans (through fertilizer and fossil fuel combustion) mobilize 215 million tons. Yes, nature is large and sturdy, but in several important respects, human activities have already dwarfed natural processes. (REWH #155).

Gregg Easterbrook reserves special treatment for the main problem that drives the grass-roots environmental movement: health damage from toxic chemicals. He begins by sneering at the first scientist who reported harm to the children living near Love Canal, Dr. Beverly Paigen. Easterbrook says "Paigen essentially assumed that if a Love Canal resident stated that a health condition was caused by toxic wastes, it must be so." (pg. 605) With that, Easterbrook dismisses health problems among children living near Love Canal and lays the foundation for his claim that toxic chemicals aren't a serious problem. But anyone who reads Paigen's work can see that she did not rely merely on peoples' claims that toxic waste had harmed them. Using objective measures, Paigen and others clearly revealed a pattern of harm to children and wildlife near Love Canal. At least six peer-reviewed studies have indicated harm to living things near Love Canal (RHWN #104, #276, #371). Easterbrook's account is disgracefully distorted and false.

Gregg Easterbrook has been an environmental writer for NEWSWEEK for several years. He has traveled the world, gleaning first-hand information reported in this book. He has read hundreds of scientific studies, and he spent 5 years preparing his manuscript. Yet he feels compelled to support his case by omissions, distortions, and fabrications. As a consequence, none of the book seems trustworthy, or even worth reading. Easterbrook comes across as a sophisticated Rush Limbaugh. What a sad waste of a talented writer.

 --Peter Montague

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

[1] Sylvia N. Tesh, "Causal Debates in Environmentalism," JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY (Autumn 1994), pgs. 298-309.

[2] Gregg Easterbrook, A MOMENT ON THE EARTH (New York: Viking Penguin, 1995); $27.95 but not worth it.

[3] J.B. Kerr and C.T. McElroy, "Evidence for Large Upward Trends of Ultraviolet-B Radiation Linked to Ozone Depletion," SCIENCE, Vol. 262 (Nov. 12, 1993), pgs. 1032-1034.

Descriptor terms: environmentalists; environmental movement; environmentalism; public policy; journalism; ecorealism; population; genetic engineering; chlorine; landfilling; incineration; natural disasters; radioactivity; radiation; radioactive waste; military wastes; ozone depletion; toxic waste dumps; superfund; onus; reverse onus; dioxin; epa; dioxin reassessment; cancer; plutonium; wipp; waste isolation polit plant; icrp; uranium; metals; nutrients; beverly paigen; love canal; wildlife; gregg easterbrook;

#104: The Children of Love Canal.

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

RACHEL'S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #104
---November 21, 1988---
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========================

Love Canal, in Niagara County, New York, is the place where the modern toxics movement began. In 1896, William Love dug a canal nearly two miles long, hoping to connect the upper and lower Niagara River. The canal was abandoned before it ever carried traffic. In 1942, a chemical company began using the abandoned canal as a dump, burying 19,000 cubic yards of toxics in the long trench. Some time after 1953, ownership of the land was transferred to the Niagara Falls Board of Education, which built a school on top of the dump. In 1977, tests revealed toxic chemicals seeping into the basements of homes near the canal. At first it was mysterious and frightening; as it became better understood is became even more frightening. Two hundred and forty eight different chemicals were identified, 30 of them embryotoxins or fetotoxins, and 18 suspected teratogens. At least 34 of them cause cancer. FOR 100 OF THE 248 CHEMICALS, NO TOXICOLOGICAL DATA WHATEVER COULD BE FOUND. In 1978 the state of New York found a high rate of miscarriages among families in the first tier of homes fronting on the canal; authorities declared a health emergency, closed the school on top of the dump, and evacuated 235 families. The following year New York state authorities evacuated families with pregnant women, or with children under 2 years of age, from the southern half of the Love Canal neighborhood, which was considered most heavily contaminated. In May, 1980 the federal government offered evacuation to everyone in Love Canal.

(We state these facts as if they had a life of their own, as if governments did these things spontaneously, without urging from anyone. Nothing could be further from the truth. The story of Love Canal is one of massive citizen struggle, and of victory against tremendous odds. But that is a story for another time.)

Later in 1980, health researchers began formal studies of the children living within a few hundred yards of Love Canal. They also studied the outcomes of pregnancies. Their results, published in 1985, show the dangers of doing health studies in what had become a political war zone, but they also show the dangers of exposing children to even low levels of modern chemicals.

The levels of a few chemicals were measured in homes; the levels were 1% or less of the allowable occupational standards. Of course occupational standards are not set to protect the general public; they are set to protect young, healthy males in the prime of life. The general public contains large numbers of people who do not fit the profile of employed males: many old people, many children, many people with chronic illnesses, with allergies, with poor diets, and so forth. This is why, for the general public, occupational standards are entirely inappropriate as a measure of acceptable exposure.

In any case, despite living in Love Canal, the population under study was not exposed to huge levels of exotic chemicals; however they WERE exposed to more than the average, and they suffered the consequences.

Two different studies of the children of Love Canal reveal ill effects among those who lived near the Canal vs. those who lived further away. The authors point out correctly that the disease patterns they observe do not prove that Love Canal caused the harm. However, reading these studies will definitely convince you that, if you can, you'd be better off avoiding contact with a wide range of organic solvents and chlorinated hydrocarbons.

Two groups of people were studied: 239 children born to mothers exposed to Love Canal chemicals while pregnant, and 707 controls (children from the same city whose families were similar to the Love Canal families in every respect expect where they lived). The two groups were specifically matched for socioeconomic status, smoking, alcohol consumption, and medication taken during pregnancy.

Unfortunately, the study was begun too late to include the 235 families who were the first to be evacuated from Love Canal. Those families COULD have been studied if New York State or the federal government had been willing to spend the money to find the families and interview them, but the resources were not available. In addition, children who had died were excluded from the study. For these reasons, it is very likely that the study underestimates the true effect of living near Love Canal. Nevertheless, the study shows that low birth weight babies were 2.3 times as likely to occur among homeowners living near Love Canal, compared to the control group (11.1% vs. 4.8%). Serious birth defects were twice as likely to occur among those living near the Canal (12.1% vs. 6.2%).

The study of childrens' health involved 523 Love Canal children and 440 control children from the same city matched in every respect except where they lived.

The study found seizures 2.5 times as prevalent among Love Canal kids as among controls; learning disabilities were 1.5 times as prevalent; hyperactivity was almost 3 times as prevalent; eye irritation was twice as prevalent; skin rashes occurred twice as often; abdominal pain was twice as prevalent; incontinence occurred three times as often. Thus by seven health measures, living near Love Canal is associated with ill health among children.

Behind these studies lies a political drama of Kafkaesque dimensions. Health researchers at Love Canal who disagreed with the New York State Health Department were demoted, transferred, or harassed. The Health Department undertook studies which are still today totally secret; what they studied, and how, has never been revealed. One tantalizing piece of information appeared in SCIENCE magazine (Vol. 212 [1981], pgs. 1404-1407) showing that lung cancer among Love Canal men was up 70% compared to the average of New York State (excluding NY City), and among Love Canal women it's up 100%. Yet the state still today refuses to publish its data. The message is crystal clear: chemical exposures of the general public by American industry give rise to sick children, but also to state suppression of scientific data, and to loss of rights by those who ask too many questions.

Bev Paigen, the chief health researcher at Love Canal, will tell you one of the most important lessons is this: citizens need their own access to resources and expertise. With control over their own experts, citizens have a chance of learning what's happening and what they must do; without it, citizens can be duped by the state. Hats off to Bev Paigen, a gentle warrior for children and for the truth.

For further information, see: Lynn R. Goldman and others, "Low Birth Weight, Prematurity and Birth Defects in Children Living Near the Hazardous Waste Site, Love Canal," HAZARDOUS WASTE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, Vol. 2 (1985), pgs. 209-223; see also Beverly Paigen and others, "Prevalence of Health Problems in Children Living Near Love Canal," HAZARDOUS WASTE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, Vol. 2 (1985), pgs. 23-43. An even-handed discussion of the political attacks on the health researchers by New York state authorities appears in Beverly Paigen's "Controversy at Love Canal," originally published in THE HASTINGS CENTER REPORT (June, 1982), from the Institute of Society, Ethics, and the Life Sciences in Hastings-on-Hudson, NY; we have been unable to locate the Institute, but reprints are still available from Dr. Paigen who is a research biologist with the Bruce Lyon Laboratory, Children's Hospital Medical Center, 7474 East 52nd St., Oakland, CA 94609; phone (415) 428-3524.

--Peter Montague, Ph.D.

Descriptor terms: love canal; niagara county; public health; studies; seizures; learning disabilities; hyperactivity; eye irritation; skin rashes; lung cancer;

#127a: Counties With Superfund Dumps Also Have Excessive Cancers.

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

RACHEL'S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #127
---May 2, 1989---
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========================

A new study by federal EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) personnel reveals excessive cancer deaths in counties that have Superfund dumps (which we call "Superfund counties"), compared to counties that do not have such dumps ("non Superfund counties"). Counties that have Superfund dumps have excessive deaths from cancers of the lung, bladder, esophagus, stomach, large intestine, and rectum among white males; the same counties have excessive deaths from cancers of the lung, breast, bladder, stomach, large intestine and rectum among white females.

The study was conducted by two staff members at the EPA Health Effects Research Laboratory in Research Triangle, NC, and by a professor at the University of Miami School of Medicine in Miami, FL.

The study team used EPA data to identify 593 Superfund dump sites where there was laboratory-confirmed evidence of chemical contamination of groundwater supplies and where there was no alternate public water supply (in other words, where groundwater was the sole source of drinking water). The selected 593 dumps are located in 339 counties in 49 states. The study team used National Cancer Institute data on deaths among white males and females, 1970-1979, for 13 types of cancers to make the comparisons.

The excess cancers became apparent when the Superfund counties were compared to all non-Superfund counties, nationwide. The study team tried to match Superfund counties with other individual counties selected to have the same size white population over age 64, the same percent in-migration (people moving into the county during the study period), same median family income, and the same percentage of workers employed in manufacturing. However, 64 Superfund counties were unique (e.g., Los Angeles County, CA; Kings County, NY; Harris County, TX), so they abandoned the effort to find matching counties.

The study team then looked at geographical regions to see if they could identify a national patterns of disease. In EPA region 1 (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont) they compared 23 counties with Superfund sites vs. 44 counties without Superfund sites; in the counties with Superfund sites they found increased deaths from female breast cancer. In EPA region 2 (New York and New Jersey) they compared 40 Superfund counties vs. 43 non-Superfund counties and they found no excessive cancer deaths in the Superfund counties, compared to the non-Superfund counties; in EPA region 3 (Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia) the team studied 11 Superfund counties vs. 83 nonSuperfund counties and they found excessive deaths from bladder cancer in females, cancer of the large intestine among males and females, and cancer of the rectum in males; in the remaining EPA regions, 4-10, (which include all the rest of the U.S. except Alaska) they studied 241 Superfund counties vs. 2500 non-Superfund counties and they found excessive deaths from lung cancer in males and females, female breast cancer, and bladder, esophagal, and rectum cancer among males.

[We note that an earlier study of New Jersey, using different techniques, identified several cancers that occurred at excessive rates in municipalities having Superfund dumps, compared to municipalities lacking Superfund dumps. See G. Reza Najem and others, "Clusters of Cancer Mortality in New Jersey Municipalities; With Special Reference to Chemical Toxic Waste Disposal Sites and Per Capita Income." INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, Vol. 14, No. 4 (1985), pgs. 528-537.]

EPA region 3 (Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia) is the only geographical area where deaths from cancers of the gastrointestinal tract occurred among both men and women.

The researchers point out that their study does not prove that the Superfund dumps caused the observed patterns of disease. They note, for example, that the excess cancer deaths in Superfund counties may have occurred not because of direct contamination from the dumps, but because companies that produced the wastes may also have contaminated local food supplies, local air, and local water directly by emitting chemicals into the local environment. Another possibility is the Superfund dumps are located in heavily industrialized areas, or may be located in areas that differ from non-Superfund-site locations in other important but unknown ways. (Our experience with Superfund sites indicates that they tend to be located in sparsely populated rural areas, not heavily-industrialized urban areas. --Editors)

Get: Jack Griffith and others. "Cancer Mortality in U.S. Counties with Hazardous Waste Sites and Ground Water Pollution." ARCHIVES OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Vol. 44, No. 2 (March/April, 1989), pgs. 69-74. Free reprints available from: Jack Griffith, Ph.D., USEPA, Health Effects Research Laboratory (MD-55A), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.

--Peter Montague, Ph.D.

Descriptor terms: cancer; health effects; superfund; landfilling; landfills; leaks; studies; epa; drinking water; water pollution; groundwater; gender; male; female; race; white; exposure

#276: Was Anyone Harmed At Love Canal? (sexual behavior)

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

RACHEL'S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #276
---March 11, 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========================

Not long ago at a conference for science writers, a distinguished health reporter from the WASHINGTON POST stood at the podium and told the audience, "The weight of the evidence showed no effects at Love Canal." No one in the audience raised a hand to say, "Wait a minute--what about the published studies that showed health damage to the children?" The audience accepted without question the claim that no one had been harmed at Love Canal.

Evidently none of the 100 scientists and journalists in the room--including the gentleman at the podium--knew about any of the five separate studies, two of them by the New York Department of Health[1,2] and three by independent scientists,[3,4,5] showing that children at Love Canal suffered an excessive number of major and minor birth defects, chronic illnesses, and stunted growth. It was a shocking revelation of ignorance among science writers and scientists, and an impressive demonstration of how easily we ignore history.

Love Canal is a trench in the ground nearly two miles long, named for William Love who began digging in 1896. He hoped to carry barge traffic from the upper to the lower Niagara River, providing a way for ships to bypass Niagara Falls. For various reasons, Mr. Love's canal was never completed. Starting in 1942, the canal was filled with nearly 21,000 tons (42 million pounds) of benzene, toluene, chloroform, trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, hexane, xylenes and leftovers from the manufacture of pesticides, such as hexachlorocyclohexane (Lindane) and hexachlorocyclopentadiene (used in the manufacture of Mirex and Kepone). As of 1980, U.S. government scientists had identified 248 individual chemicals in the Love Canal dump--a typical stew of refined petroleum products and chlorinated hydrocarbons.

In 1953, when the canal couldn't hold any more toxic waste, dirt was piled over it, and the land was sold to the local government for $1.00. The local government then built a school on top of the dump.

By 1977 chemicals could be detected in neighborhood creeks, sewer lines, and soil, in sump pumps in the basements of homes, and in the indoor air of those same homes. Chemicals had moved through the soil and seeped through basement walls. Pesticide residues bubbled up on the school playground.

It wasn't the health department that discovered the problem. It was young mothers talking to other young mothers about miscarriages, still births, and birth defects in their babies. One young woman named Lois Gibbs watched her children come down with one illness after another--rashes, serious breathing difficulties, near-fatal blood disorders. She screwed up her courage and started knocking on her neighbors' doors, asking if anything similar was happening in their families. An informal tally showed roughly half the babies born in homes near Love Canal during a 2-year period were born with birth defects. This finally got the state health department's attention and in 1978 the department published its first study[1] showing an unusually high number of miscarriages among Love Canal women. New York state then began to evacuate 325 families.

Subsequently state health department researchers Nicholas Vianna and Adele Polan[2] studied families living along areas called swales--natural depressions in the ground that tended to carry more water than average and thus provided pathways for chemicals seeping away from the toxic canal. They examined birth weights of infants born to families along the swales during 1940-1978. They found a significant excess of low-birth-weight babies born during the time when dumping was occurring (1940-1953). No such excess was evident for later years.

Low birth weight is not a trivial matter. Low weight at birth is associated with a lifetime of other problems--chronic diseases and learning disabilities. Lynn R. Goldman[4] studied a larger population--all the residents of single-family homes in the entire Love Canal neighborhood, an area three times as large as that studied by Vianna and Polan. They found an excess of low-birth-weight babies born during the period 1963-1980, with a prevalence of 16 percent low birth-weight along the swales and 10 percent in the non-swale areas, compared to 4.8% in a control area further away.

Beverly Paigen and others conducted a general health survey with interviewers inquiring about physician-diagnosed complaints of the parents of 523 Love Canal and 440 control children. They found a significant excess of seizures, learning disabilities, hyperactivity, eye irritation, skin rashes, abdominal pain, and incontinence in Love Canal children.[5] (See RHWN #104.)

The same researchers measured factors related to physical growth of 493 Love Canal children and 428 control children using technicians (who were unaware of the children's place of residence) to conduct the measurements.[3] Of the Love Canal children, the 172 who were born there and had spent at least 75% of their lives there were significantly shorter for their age than were the control children. Female children from Love Canal began to menstruate an average of 8 months later than the control children, though this difference was not statistically significant (meaning, it could be due to chance variation). The physical differences could not be explained by chronic illnesses, race, height of parents, socioeconomic status, nutrition, stress, or birth weight. Because children who were born at Love Canal and lived there longer had a more pronounced reduction in their growth (compared to children who lived there less time), which scientists would term a "dose-response relationship," the researchers concluded that exposure to chemicals was the most likely cause of the growth retardation.

Taken together, these studies leave little doubt that living near Love Canal had negative effects on reproduction, development, growth and health of children.[6] Researchers from the National Academy of Sciences recently reviewed these studies and validated their conclusions.[7]

Studies of a population of wild rodents at Love Canal[8] also revealed significant effects on growth and longevity. Rowley and others studied the natural population of voles in area I immediately adjacent to the dump, in area II close to the dump, and area III about one kilometer (0.6 miles) away. Voles are small mouse-like mammals. The average life expectancy after weaning for voles in areas I and II was 23.6 and 29.2 days, respectively, compared to 48.8 days for the control animals in area III. Liver and adrenal gland weights among female voles, and seminal vesicle weights in males, were significantly reduced in area I compared to area III. Chlorinated hydrocarbons such as hexachlorocyclohexane were measurable in voles from area I and II but not from Area III.

The 42 million pounds of chemicals have never been removed from Love Canal. Instead, a clay "cap" was placed over the dump to try to keep rain out, to reduce the tendency for the chemicals to move through the soil. Surface soils were scraped away and placed in another "capped" chemical dump. Now Governor Mario Cuomo has given his personal approval to a plan to move poor families back into homes near Love Canal. Evidently, the purpose of the plan is to broadcast a message across America, a message developed by the chemical industry and sanctioned by leading politicians of both parties: "Love Canal is safe even though it was never cleaned up. Chemical dumps are something our children can live with." If the evident ignorance of science writers and scientists is any indication, the plan is working.

--Peter Montague, Ph.D.

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

[1] New York State Office of Public Health, and Governor's Love Canal Interagency Task Force. LOVE CANAL: PUBLIC HEALTH TIME BOMB. Albany, NY: New York State Office of Public Health, 1978.

[2] Nicholas J. Vianna and Adele K. Polan, "Incidence of Low Birth Weight Among Love Canal Residents," SCIENCE Vol. 226 No. 4679 (December 7, 1984), pgs. 1217-1219.

[3] Beverly Paigen and others, "Growth of Children Living Near the Hazardous Waste Site, Love Canal," HUMAN BIOLOGY Vol. [59] (June, 1987), pgs. 489-508.

[4] Lynn R. Goldman and others, "Low Birth Weight, Prematurity and Birth Defects in Children Living Near the Hazardous Waste Site, Love Canal." HAZARDOUS WASTE & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Vol. 2 No. 2 (1985), pgs. 209-223.

[5] Beverly Paigen and others, "Prevalence of Health Problems in Children Living Near Love Canal," HAZARDOUS WASTE & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Vol. 2 No. 1 (1985), pgs. 23-43.

[6] Beverly Paigen and Lynn R. Goldman, "Lessons from Love Canal, New York, U.S.A: The role of the public and the use of birth weights, growth, and indigenous wildlife to evaluate health risk," in J.B. Andelman and D.W. Underhill, editors, HEALTH EFFECTS FROM HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES (Chelsea, MI: Lewis, 1987), pgs. 177-192.

[7] Anthony B. Miller and others, ENVIRONMENTAL EPIDEMIOLOGY VOL. 1; PUBLIC HEALTH AND HAZARDOUS WASTES (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1991).

[8] M.H. Rowley and others, "Use of small mammals (voles) to assess a hazardous waste site at Love Canal, Niagara Falls, New York," ARCHIVES OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND TOXICOLOGY Vol. 12 (1983), pgs. 383-397.

Descriptor terms: love canal; health; lois gibbs; birth defects; low-birth weight; relocation; landfilling; remedial action;

#149: Some Chemicals Worth Banning (PCB) (dioxin)

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

RACHEL'S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #149
---October 3, 1989---
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 chemical industry is out of control and is destroying the planet earth as a place suitable for habitation by humans and other complex forms of life. This is not an exaggeration.

Consider these facts:

The production of organic chemicals has been increasing for 44 years at a steady 6.5% per year. Any quantity that increases by a constant fraction of the whole (in this case 6.5%) in a constant time period (in this case, one year) is growing exponentially.

Once you know something is growing exponentially, you immediately know some important things about it.[1] For example, to learn how quickly it is doubling, you divide the rate of growth (6.5%) into 70; thus the annual output of organic chemicals by U.S. industry is doubling every 10.7 years, which we will round off to 11 years.

Love Canal was discovered 11 years ago. So we know that the annual chemical production by American industry today is twice as large as it was in 1978 when Love Canal first came to light.

Another interesting characteristic of things that are growing exponentially is that, during one doubling-time (in this case 11 years), the total output equals the total output during all previous time. Thus during the period since Love Canal was discovered (the period 1978-1989), American industry has produced an amount of chemicals equal in size to the total quantity of chemicals produced during all of history prior to 1978. And during the next 11 years, 1989-2000, industry will again produce an amount of chemicals equal to all the chemicals produced prior to 1989.

Another way to look at something that is growing exponentially is to calculate how much it will grow during one average human lifetime (70 years). Something growing at 6.5% (actually 6.57%) per year will grow by a factor of 100 during one human lifetime. Thus a child born today reaching the end of its normal life span could expect the American chemical industry to be putting out 100 times as much chemicals per year as it is putting out today.

We have never met anyone who believes that the earth could sustain a chemical industry 100 times as large as the American chemical industry is today. AND THESE FIGURES DO NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT GROWTH IN THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY ABROAD.

Industrial chemicals have now spread everywhere. For example, the scientific journal, ANNALS OF THE NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES in 1977 (the year before Love Canal was discovered) published some surprising data about the occurrence of industrial chemicals in the umbilical cords of newborn babies in America. Chemicals measurable in the umbilical cord blood of newborns in 1977 included carbon tetrachloride (a carcinogen and a mutagen), acetone, dichloromethane, chloroform (a carcinogen, and a possible teratogen), benzene (a carcinogen and a mutagen), styrene (a mutagen), trimethylbenzene, dichlorobenzene, dimethylethylbenzene, and methyl propyl ketone. More were not found because more were not looked for. Some of these chemicals are found at greater concentrations in the blood of newborn babies than they are in the mothers', showing that some industrial chemicals cross the placenta and accumulate in the fetus during the first 9 months of its growth in the womb. The authors of this study say correctly, "...the fetus is routinely exposed to [industrial chemicals] during the critical stages of development. The impact of such exposure is unknown."[2]

It is unusual for doctors and scientists to study these matters. After Love Canal was discovered, the New York State Health Department looked at birth weights of human babies born to families whose homes fronted directly on the canal. Among those families living directly next to the canal (or to swales [ditches], which carried chemicals away from the canal), the incidence of low-birth weight infants was 50% higher (12% vs. 8%) than in a control-group of families living elsewhere in the town. The NY State Health Department attributed these effects to chemical exposures of the mothers.[3]

Other studies have shown that low birth weight, which is very easy to study since all you need to look at is birth certificates, is strongly associated with severe birth defects, which are very expensive to study because you need a doctor's examination for at least the first five years of a child's life to see if a birth defect has become apparent; not all birth defects are apparent at birth. Somewhere between 1/6 and 1/3 of severe birth defects are obvious at birth; the remainder become clear during the first five years of a child's life. Four percent of American children are now born with "severe" birth defects and another 11% have "moderate but not trivial" birth defects.[4]

Industry is conducting chemical experiments on our children before they are born; after they are born, the experiment accelerates. Our water supplies are widely contaminated at low levels.[5] The blood of adults contains hundreds of industrial chemicals. We will never have the resources to study the effects of each chemical, much less the effect of combinations of chemicals. The only hope is to reduce chemical exposures. THIS WILL REQUIRE US TO PRUNE THE SIZE OF THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY. This generation of Americans is going to have to learn to undo what our parents have done.

The thinning of the earth's ozone layer offers us an opportunity to learn how to manage the banning of chemicals because banning chemicals is a social activity we need to get good at quickly. 

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are not the only chemicals destroying the ozone layer. Good candidates for a total ban are Halon-1211 and Halon-1301, which are growing in the atmosphere at an astonishing 12% per year and which deplete ozone even more efficiently than chlorine.[6] Other excellent choices for a rapid phaseout would be methyl chloroform and carbon tetrachloride, both of which must disappear from use if we are to stabilize the levels of ozone in the earth's stratosphere.[7] Next in line for the ax might be a series of industrial compounds known to cause birth defects in humans: 1,3-butadiene, carbaryl, carbon disulfide, chloroprene, dinitrotoluene, epichlorhydrin, ethylene oxide, ethylene thiourea, glycidyl ethers, glycol ethers, and monohalomethanes.[8] It's long past time to stem the tide of toxics flowing over us all. SIXTY THOUSAND AMERICANS DIE EACH YEAR FROM BIRTH DEFECTS.[9]

Obviously, not all chemicals can be banned, but in almost every case production can be cut back. This will require scheduled reductions with verification by outside parties. We must learn from international weapons treaties: independent verification is the key to success.

--Peter Montague, Ph.D.

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

[1] We have written a short report (available for $4.00) called "How Big Could This Problem Become?--Ways for Journalists and Environmentalists to Project Future Growth," which tells you how to use a $12 Radio Shack pocket calculator to learn the characteristics of things that grow exponentially. This is useful because most things in the modern world are growing exponentially, including human population, energy use, automobiles, chemicals, habitat destruction, and so forth.

[2] John Laseter and Betty Dowty, "Association of Biorefractories in Drinking Water and Body Burden in People," ANNALS OF THE NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, Vol. 298 (1977), pgs. 547-556.

[3] Nicholas Vianna and Adele Polan, "Incidence of Low Birth Weight Among Love Canal Residents," SCIENCE Vol. 226 (Dec. 7, [1984),] pgs. 1217-1219.

[4] Roberta Christianson and others, "Incidence of Congenital Anomalies among White and Black Live Births with Long-Term Follow-Up," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH Vol.
[71] (December, 1981), pgs. 1333-1341.

[5] H.F. Kraybill, "Global Distribution of Carcinogenic Pollutants in Water," ANNALS OF THE NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Vol. 298 (1977), pgs. 80-89.

[6]"Rising Bromine Levels Threaten Ozone Layer," C&EN [CHEMICAL & ENGINEERING NEWS] Aug. 22, 1989, pg. 6.

[7] Pamela Zurer, "U.S. Seeks Tighter Rules on Ozone Protection," C&EN [CHEMICAL & ENGINEERING NEWS] May 1, 1989, pgs. 8-9.

[8] U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH HAZARDS IN THE WORKPLACE (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Dec., 1985), pg. 67.
[9] U.S. Congress (cited above), pg. 351.

Rachel search terms: bans; chemical production statistics; chemical industry; developmental disorders; birth defects; teratogens; mutagens; carcinogens; ozone depletion; atmosphere; stratosphere.

Descriptor terms: chemical industry; love canal; ny; nydoh; carbon tetrachloride; carcingens; benzene; acetone; chloroform; styrene; methyl propyl ketone; birth defects; cfcs; butadiene; carbaryl; carbon disulfide; ethylene oxide; ethers; ozone depletion; udmh;

#144: Thanks to Monsanto... (dioxin)

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

RACHEL'S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #144
---August 29, 1989---
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========================

This is a modern tale about how everything is connected to everything else in the environment. It begins in 1929 when the Monsanto Corporation started selling PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls). PCBs are oily liquids that are very stable (they don't change their characteristics) even when they get hot, and they don't conduct electricity but they do conduct heat. Therefore, they make good insulators in electrical transformers and capacitors. They have also been used as hydraulic fluid, and in metal finishing. They are found in electrical systems and other components of automobiles (which is one reason junked cars and "car fluff" may be quite hazardous to your health). For a time, carbonless carbon paper was made with PCBs.

Then scientists in the 1970s studying damage to wildlife from DDT realized that there was something else causing the same problems as DDT, and soon they identified PCBs as the culprit. It turns out that PCBs interfere with birds' reproductive systems just the way DDT does--they cause egg shells to become thin, so the eggs get crushed when the mother sits on them, and they never hatch. Other evidence about hazards from PCBs came to light and in 1976 Congress banned PCB production--the only chemical Congress itself has ever banned.

Nevertheless, Monsanto had sold a lot of PCBs before Congress cut them off at the knees; as a result, there are 1.2 million tons (2.4 billion pounds) of PCBs loose somewhere in the world. Remember, they are very stable compounds (that was the reason for their commercial success), so they don't degrade or disappear easily.

Now a recent series of studies has begun to discuss the whereabouts of all the world's PCBs. Sixty-five percent of them are still in use in electrical equipment that will be getting old and ready for replacement during the '90s, or are in landfills. Twenty percent have already reached the oceans. Eleven percent are in terrestrial soils and sediments; 4% have been incinerated or otherwise degraded.

Eighty-five percent of the world's PCBs are held within developed countries, fifteen percent exist in developing countries.

PCBs have a broad range of unpleasant effects. They accumulate in fatty tissues of living things (birds, fish, people, etc.) and they readily pass through the walls of cells. Cells are the tiny bags of fluid of which every living thing is built. For example, a typical human is constructed of 50 trillion cells. Chemicals that can pass through the walls of cells can cause all sorts of mischief, and PCBs are no exception. PCBs can cause cancer and they can promote cancer (that is, other chemicals when combined with PCBs develop the ability to cause cancer). PCBs also cause birth defects in humans and animals. PCBs damage the human immune system (and probably the immune systems of other creatures as well). PCBs also cause hypertension (high blood pressure) and they cause strokes in humans. Women who ate fish from the Great lakes mildly polluted with PCBs (at or below legal limits) bore children with small heads and who suffer from significant learning and behavioral defects. (See RHWN #61.)

PCBs enter the ocean by two routes--by deposition from the atmosphere (when it rains) and by drainage from rivers. Atmospheric deposition is by far the largest source; 98% of the PCBs entering the ocean arrive as air pollution, only 2% arrive via river water.

Because PCBs can become airborne when they are released into the environment, they have spread everywhere on earth. Recent studies in sparsely populated areas of Canada (northern Saskatchewan, Ontario, and New Brunswick) have revealed that rainfall now carries 17 parts per trillion (ppt) of PCBs. As a matter of law, the Ontario government allows only 1 ppt of PCBs to be discharged into the environment, but it has been difficult to get a court injunction against rainfall.

Between 1969 and 1984 the levels of PCBs in arctic polar bears quadrupled. At the current rate of increase, by the year 2005 (16 years from now) the average polar bear will have 50 parts per million (ppm) PCBs in their fatty tissue (adipose tissue) and then polar bears will meet the EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) criteria for being classified as a hazardous waste.

Some species of cetaceans (the whale family) already far exceed polar bears in PCB concentrations. Killers whales from the deep ocean have 410 ppm PCBs in their blubber, and blue-white dolphins off the coast of Europe have 833 ppm. Thus these creatures must definitely now be classified as hazardous wastes by EPA criteria.

The upper layer of water in the oceans plays an important role in this story. The upper 50 micrometers of water (called the microlayer) concentrates pollutants from atmospheric deposition (rain), terrestrial runoff (rivers) and sewage disposal. (The dot over the letter i in this newletter measures 400 micrometers in diameter, so 50 micrometers is 1/8 of the diameter of the dot over an i.) In the microlayer, the uppermost surface of the ocean, pollutants are found at concentrations 10 to 100 times greater than the average concentration in ocean water. Plankton are the tiny creatures that form the bottom-most level of all ocean food chains. They carry out photosynthesis, using energy from sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water into plants, which are then eaten by creatures that are eaten by other creatures, and so forth. Plankton live in the microlayer because that's where there's most sunlight for photosynthesis. Therefore they absorb the concentrated pollutants. Then when they are eaten, they pass the pollutants to the next creature, which passes them on to the next creature and so on. Because PCBs are soluble in fat, they are retained in the bodies of fish and mammals and at each step in the food chain, the concentration of PCBs increases. Animals at the top of an oceanic food chain (like whales) will have a concentration of PCBs in their bodies 10 million times greater than the concentration in plankton at the bottom of the chain. (This is called biomagnification or bioconcentration, and it is the reason why dilution is no solution to pollution.)

The next-to-last chapter in our unfolding story is that marine mammals (seals, porpoises, whales, etc.) have a genetic predisposition to reproductive failure caused by PCBs. This is simply bad luck. PCBs happen to act like hormones in marine mammals, interfering with their ability to reproduce.

Joseph Cummins, Associate Professor of Genetics at University of Western Ontario, writing in the journal, THE ECOLOGIST, says that if even as little as 15% more of the world's stock of PCBs gets into the oceans, "the extinction of marine mammals would be inevitable." He says, "The consequence of failing to control PCB releases to the oceans will be the extinction of marine mammals and the chemical fouling of the ocean fisheries, rendering them unsuitable for use by humans." Dr. Cummins believes that the "developed" world can manage its PCB stocks sensibly. (We note that he does not offer a basis for this belief.) However, he is concerned that the developing world hasn't the financial resources to control the PCBs now in use in its domain. He therefore suggests that Monsanto should purchase back all its PCBs from wherever they are located in the developing world, to avoid PCB-induced calamity for all the world's oceans in the coming decades.

For its part, Monsanto makes no apology for its behavior. It continues to operate very profitably, introducing new chemicals into use at every opportunity. And that concludes our modern tale.

Get: Joseph Cummins, "Extinction: The PCB Threat to Marine Mammals," THE ECOLOGIST Vol. 18 (1988), pgs. 193-195. And while you're thinking about it, why not send a note of thanks to our friends at Monsanto who have done so much to make the modern world the kind of place it is today: 800 North Lindbergh Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63141-7843. Or phone them at (314) 694-1000.

--Peter Montague, Ph.D.

Descriptor terms: oceans; pcbs; water pollution; air pollution; wildlife; fish; marine mammals; biomagnification; extinction; species loss; developing countries; monsanto; global environmental problems;