#200: Sacrificing Citizens.

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

RACHEL'S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #200
---September 26, 1990---
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 most remarkable book has been published, entitled MULTIPLE EXPOSURES, and subtitled, CHRONICLES OF THE RADIATION AGE, by Catherine Caufield. As the subtitle implies, it is a history of the development of ionizing radiation since the discovery of X-rays by Wilhelm Roentgen in 1895 and of natural radioactivity by Henri Becquerel in 1896. The tone of the book is even-handed, factual and understated. Much of the book is based on interviews with important U.S. scientists and government officials, and on official government records. The book does not draw many conclusions; it tells what happened and what people said. Events are narrated in a dry, passionless voice, leaving the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. (In our text, below, page numbers inside parentheses refer to pages in Ms. Caufield's book.) In a sense, this is the story of a long trial-and-error process that extended over a 70-year period as industrialized nations, led by the U.S., experimented with ionizing radiation and its associated machines such as X-ray devices, atomic and H-bombs, medical isotopes for diagnostic and therapeutic use, and nuclear power plants to generate electricity. Sprinkled throughout this 70-year-long story are items of interest to toxics activists because so much of what's happening today has occurred before. The chemical industry is younger than the 70-year-old use of ionizing radiation. Things occurring today in the chemical industry may seem new to us, but similar things have occurred before. Here we will emphasize just a few events and offer just a few of the conclusions that can be drawn from this rich historical record.

X-ray Therapy

From the 1920s to the present, medical doctors have treated more than 100 ailments with X-ray therapy. Large numbers of people with relatively minor problems such as ringworm and acne have been subjected to high doses of powerful X-rays. Birthmarks, bursitis, and sinusitis have been treated by X-rays. Many women have had their ovaries irradiated as a treatment for depression. Excessive bleeding during menstruation has sometimes been treated by irradiating the uterus.."

All across the U.S. in the '20s and '30s, entrepreneurs started installing X-ray machines and irradiating the public. Beauty shops started using Xrays to remove unwanted facial and body hair: hit with enough ionizing radiation, hair falls out. The biggest operation was the Tricho Institute, founded by Albert Geyser, a New York physician. Geyser leased X-ray machines to beauty parlors and offered two-week training courses. Two physicians gave this summary of Tricho's results in 1947:

"As the years passed, cases of radiodermatitis [skin ailments due to radiation], horrible burns, painful ulcerations, and cancer resulting from the Tricho system of treatment were observed by dermatologists in all sections of the country... the number of cases of x-ray burns, cancer and death resulting from the treatments administered by the Tricho Institute must have run into the thousands. It is impossible to obtain or estimate the actual number because the cases were not recorded." (pg. 16)

Between 1947 and 1960, doctors irradiated the scalps of 10,000 children in Israel, and an equal number in New York City, who were infected with ringworm. The idea was to irradiate the children until their hair fell out, so the ringworm could be treated more efficiently. (pg. 141)

Studies published in 1974 and 1977 showed that these children had six times as much thyroid cancer as a control group, as well as an excessive number of brain cancers and leukemias.

Throughout the '70s, other studies showed that people exposed to X-rays for back ailments had a leukemia death rate 10 times higher than normal and a lung cancer rate twice normal. Women sterilized by radiation to curb menstrual bleeding were the subject of five separate studies; all five found excessive leukemias, as well as an unusually high incidence of cancer of the intestines and other organs that had been inadvertently irradiated during treatment.

As recently as 1973, a survey of dermatologists in the U.S. revealed that 44% still used X-rays at least once a week to treat conditions such as acne, eczema, psoriasis, and disfiguring scar tissue.

The conclusions to be drawn?

1: The medical community has been slow to catch on to the dangers of ionizing radiation. Suggestions of danger have been met with skepticism, indifference, hostility and ridicule by medical scientists and practitioners.

2: Publicity by newspapers, not action by government officials, has been the usual means for curbing excessive and dangerous exposures to radiation. For example, the Tricho Institute's operation was shut down by adverse publicity, not by government action.

3: The regulatory system has lagged behind the problems by years, and there is substantial evidence that the system is lagging behind the available evidence today. People who want to protect themselves and their children cannot rely solely on regulatory officials to do their thinking for them.

4: A lot of people have to be hurt before regulators begin to regulate. The rule has been consistent: Until there are a large number of victims, every new technology is assumed safe. In fact, Lauriston Taylor, the head of the National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP) [the agency then responsible for setting radiation standards within the U.S.] in 1948 said it explicitly: "I see no alternative but to assume that the operation is safe until it is proven to be unsafe. It is recognized that in order to demonstrate an unsafe condition you may have to sacrifice someone. This does not seem fair on the one hand, yet I see no alternative. You certainly cannot penalize research and industry merely on the suspicion of someone who doesn't know, by assuming that all installations are unsafe until proven safe." (pg. 67)

Radioactive Fallout from Bombs

Operation Crossroads involved two A-bomb explosions on Bikini atoll in the South Pacific, one in the air (July 1, 1946) and one under the sea (July 25, 1946). Quite unexpectedly, the undersea explosion heavily contaminated all the U.S. Navy ships carrying more than 40,000 troops participating in the operation. In 1948 David Bradley, a U.S. Army doctor who had participated in Crossroads, published his diary of what he had seen and experienced at Bikini, under the title No Place to Hide. The book stayed on the Best Seller list for 10 weeks and began to give radiation a bad name.

Advocates of nuclear weapons were alarmed at the impact Bradley's book had on the public. They developed a public relations counter-attack with three main themes: (a) radiation is natural; (b) the public is protected from it by high safety standards administered by well-trained scientists; and (c) fear of radiation is more dangerous than radiation itself. (pg. 102). The campaign continued for several years; in 1950 our government published the first nuclear-age civil defense manual, called How to Survive the Atomic Bomb. The author, Richard Gerstell (another Crossroads participant), told his readers, "You can easily protect yourself" from radiation, and he said that "much of the danger from radioactivity is mental." Gerstell concluded that radiation is "much the same as sunlight," that in ordinary doses it presents no danger, and that the experts have things under control. (pg. 103)

President Eisenhower himself encouraged the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to exploit the public's ignorance on atomic matters. After meeting with Eisenhower on May 27, 1953, to discuss the problem of bad publicity from radioactive fallout, AEC chairman Gordon Dean, wrote in his diary, "The President says 'Keep them confused as to fission and fusion.'" (pg. 118)

[To be continued.]

Get: Catherine Caufield, MULTIPLE EXPOSURES, CHRONICLES OF THE RADIATION AGE (NY: Harper & Row, 1989).

--Peter Montague, Ph.D.

Descriptor terms: catherine caufield; radiation; exposure; x-ray therapy; nuclear weapons; health effects; skin disorders; radiodermatitis; children; thyroid cancers; brain cancer; leukemia; studies; reproductive disorders; intestinal cancer; ethics; ncrp; nuclear weapons; richard gerstell; federal government;

#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;

#417: Big-Picture Organizing--Part 1: Some Good News amid the Bad

=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #417
---November 24, 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========================

First the Good News

Since 1975, grass-roots action at the local level has brought important successes. It was grass-roots action that killed the civilian nuclear power industry in the U.S., principally by making radioactive waste disposal difficult and therefore expensive, and by turning every nuclear power plant into a fight and therefore into a public relations nightmare for its electric-utility owner.

Grass-roots action at the local level crippled the municipal solid waste incinerator industry. Since 1985, 70 incinerators were built, but during the same period at least 280 incinerators were killed. [1]The municipal incinerator industry is on the ropes.

Grass-roots action killed expansion of the industry that buries hazardous wastes in shallow pits in the ground. Since BFI opened the appropriately-named "Last Chance" dump in Colorado in 1991, no new hazardous waste dumps have even been proposed. (After getting a license for its "Last Chance" dump, BFI abandoned the hazardous waste dump business entirely.)

Most importantly, grass-roots action forced the International Joint Commission (IJC) to recommend an entirely new philosophy of chemical regulation --one that assumes chemicals are harmful until proven safe, and one based on the principle of precautionary action. The precautionary principle says that, to avoid irreparable harm to the environment and to human health, wherever it is acknowledged that a practice (or substance) could cause harm, even without conclusive scientific proof that it has caused harm or does cause harm, the practice (or emissions of the substance) should be prevented and eliminated. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1994 rejected the IJC's recommendations, but the handwriting is on the wall now, officially.) [2]

And Now the Bad

Despite these important successes, chemicals released into the environment are still decimating wildlife, making people sick, and killing people. In this sense, despite thousands of successes in local battles, grass-roots activists are losing the war.

Consider these facts:

** The incidence rates for 5 kinds of cancers are decreasing, but the incidence rates for 19 kinds of cancer are steadily increasing. The death rates for 12 kinds of cancer are dropping, but the deaths rates for 12 other cancers continue to rise. [3] Among the fastest-growing is breast cancer. In 1960, a woman's chance of getting breast cancer was 1 in 20; today it is 1 in 9, moving toward 1 in 8.

** Increasingly, couples in their prime child-bearing years are sterile; this may be due in part to a 53% decline in sperm count that has been documented among men in all industrialized countries over the past 50 years, a decline that is apparently continuing. [4]

** Ectopic pregnancy rates have quadrupled in the last 20 years. [5] An ectopic pregnancy is one that occurs outside the uterus, in one of the fallopian tubes; if not treated, such a pregnancy is fatal to the mother. Even when treated properly, it can result in sterility.

** The prevalence of endometriosis (a painful disease of the tissues lining the uterus, which often results in sterility) is steadily increasing and now afflicts somewhere between 5 and 9 million American women; [6]

** Immune system disorders (such as asthma and diabetes) are increasing. In 1990 the JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (JAMA) observed that death rates from asthma have been increasing in the U.S., Canada, England, France, Denmark and Germany. [7] Other sources report increasing death rates from asthma in Wales and Australia. [8] In the U.S., the increase has been rapid. Asthma death rates increased 31% between 1980 and 1987 (from 1.3 per 100,000 population to 1.7 per 100,000). The biggest increase occurred among children between the ages of 5 and 15.

The prevalence of asthma is also increasing, especially among young children. Among children ages 6 to 11, the prevalence of asthma increased from 4.8% in 1971-74 to 7.6% in 1976-1980, a 58% increase in a short period. More recent studies indicate that the increases are continuing.

Another immune system disease, diabetes, is also increasing rapidly in the U.S. The prevalence of IDDM (insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, also called Type I diabetes) doubled between 1964 and 1981. [9] A 1993 study says, "[W]e are undergoing an epidemic of IDDM with the rapid increase in the number of cases seen recently." [10]

** The prevalence of nervous system disorders (Lou Gehrig's disease, and Parkinson's disease) is increasing; [11]

** A new disease has emerged called "multiple chemical sensitivity," characterized by extreme sensitivity to low levels of various chemicals, sometimes including odors from new carpets, perfumes, and the fragrances in commercial products such as waxes and detergents. Paints and solvents can set off an allergic-type reaction. Symptoms of MCS range in severity from an itchy rash to coma. An estimated 10% to 15% of the U.S. population now suffers from this disease in one form or another, and the prevalence appears to be rising. [12]

** Birth defect rates are steadily increasing. The federal Centers for Disease Control in 1990 summarized the trends in 38 types of birth defects; they found 29 increasing, 2 decreasing, and 7 remaining unchanged. [13]

** Eight studies of air pollution in U.S. cities have now shown that fine particles (the invisible soot emitted by incinerators, automobiles, power plants and heating units) are presently killing about 60,000 Americans each year. [14] More than a dozen studies have, in one way or another, confirmed this relationship. Furthermore, there appears to be no threshold, no level below which effects disappear. This means that people are being killed by air pollution levels well within existing federal standards.

** In 1990, the American Public Health Association (APHA) estimated that each year 50,000 to 70,000 Americans die of diseases developed from toxic exposures on the job. Furthermore, APHA estimated that 350,000 new cases of occupational disease develop each year from toxic exposures. [15]

Good News Amid the Bad

It seems clear that the opportunity is ripe, and steadily growing, for a major political organizing campaign with health as the centerpiece. Everyone cares about their health and the health of their children. A health-centered organizing campaign offers a clear entryway into the much larger question, "What has gone wrong with America?" Addressing this question would require what we call "Big-Picture Organizing."

[To be continued.] #419

 --Peter Montague

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

[1] Ellen Connett, "Since the 1980's a Minimum of 280 Proposals to Build Municipal Waste Incinerators in the U.S. Have Been Defeated or Abandoned," WASTE NOT #283 [from: Work On Waste, U.S.A., 82 Judson St., Canton, N.Y. 13617: phone 315/379-9200] (July 1994), pg. 1. The 280 figure is an underestimate; several incinerators have been defeated since July 1994, according to Ellen Connett, personal communication to Maria Pellerano November 22, 1994.

[2] See Peter Montague, "Our Greatest Accomplishment: Grass-roots Action has Forced a Major Shift in Thinking," THE WORKBOOK [from: Southwest Research and Information Center, P.O. Box 4524, Albuquerque, N.M. 87106; phone 505/ 262-1862.] Vol. 19, No. 2 (Summer 1994), pgs. 86-90.

[3] Incidence rate means occurrence of cancer per 100,000 population, age-adjusted; death rate means deaths from cancer per 100,000 population, age-adjusted. The 5 cancers with decreasing incidence are mouth and pharynx; uterus; stomach; cervix; and esophagus. The 18 cancers with increasing incidence are: colon/rectum; larynx; testicles; bladder; Hodgkin's; childhood cancers; leukemia; thyroid; liver; pancreas; ovaries; lung; skin; female breast; prostate; kidney; brain; non-Hodgkin's lymphoma; and multiple myeloma. Death rates are dropping for mouth and pharynx; uterus; stomach; cervix; colon/rectum; larynx; testicles; bladder; Hodgkin's; childhood cancers; leukemia; and thyroid. Death rates are increasing for esophagus; liver; pancreas; ovaries; lung; skin; female breast; prostate; kidney; brain; non-Hodgkin's lymphoma; and multiple myeloma. Source of information: Barry A. Miller and others, editors, CANCER STATISTICS REVIEW 1973-1990 [National Institutes of Health Publication No. 93-2789] (Bethesda, Md.: National Cancer Institute, 1993), Table I-3, pg. I.[27].

[4] Increasing infertility among Americans in their prime reproductive years is discussed in Appendix A, "Reproductive Dysfunction in the Population," pgs. 341-346, in Office of Technology Assessment, REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH HAZARDS IN THE WORKPLACE [OTA-BA-266] (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, December, 1985).

[5] Increases in ectopic pregnancies are documented in MMWR [Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report] CDC SURVEILLANCE SUMMARIES Vol. 39 No. SS-4 (December, 1990), pgs. 9-19.

[6] David E. Larson, editor, MAYO CLINIC FAMILY HEALTH BOOK (N.Y.: William Morrow, 1990), pgs. 1101-1102. Sherry E. Rier and others, "Endometriosis in Rhesus Monkeys (Macaca mulatta) Following Chronic Exposure to 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-P-dioxin," FUNDAMEN-TAL AND APPLIED TOXICOLOGY Vol. 21 (1993), pgs. 433-441.

[7] A. Sonia Buist and William M. Vollmer, "Reflections on the Rise in Asthma Morbidity and Mortality," JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION October 3, 1990, pgs. 1719-1720. Kevin B. Weiss and Diana K. Wagener, "Changing Patterns of Asthma Mortality," JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION Vol. 264 (1990), pgs. 1683-1687.

[8] Peter J. Gergen and others, "National Survey of the Prevalence of Asthma Among Children in the United States, 1976 to 1980," PEDIATRICS Vol. 81 (1988), pgs. 1-7.

[9] National Diabetes Data Group, DIABETES IN AMERICA [NIH Publication No. 85-1468] (no place of publication [Bethesda, Md.?]: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Arthritis, Diabetes, and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, August 1985), Table 2, pgs. VI-4, VI-5.

[10] Ingrid Libman and others, "How Many People in the U.S. Have IDDM [insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus]?" DIABETES CARE Vol. 16, No. 5 [May 1993], pgs. 841-842.

[11] Increases in Parkinson's disease and in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease) are documented in Office of Technology Assessment, NEUROTOXICITY; IDENTIFYING AND CONTROLLING POISONS OF THE NERVOUS SYSTEM [OTA-BA-436] (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, April, 1990); see Figures 2-2 and 2-3 on pg. 55.

[12] See Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, National Research Council, MULTIPLE CHEMICAL SENSITIVITIES (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1992). Multiple chemical sensitivity afflicts 10% to 15% of the American public, and appears to be increasing, says Bette Hileman, "Multiple Chemical Sensitivity," C&EN [Chemical & Engineering News] Vol. 69 No. 29 (July 22, 1991), pg. 34. This emerging disease has been subject of two excellent book-length studies: In 1990 the New Jersey Department of Health published a report by Nicholas Ashford and Claudia Miller, CHEMICAL SENSITIVITY, which is distributed by National Center for Environmental Health Strategies (NCEHS), 1100 Rural Ave., Voorhees, NJ 08043; phone (609) 429-5358. $17.00. See also Nicholas Ashford and Claudia Miller, CHEMICAL EXPOSURES: LOW LEVELS AND HIGH STAKES (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1990).

[13] Larry D. Edmonds and others, "Temporal Trends in the Prevalence of Congenital Malformations at 
Birth Based on the Birth Defects Monitoring Program, United States, 1979-1987," MMWR [Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report] CDC SURVEILLANCE SUMMARIES Vol. 39, No. SS-4 (December 1990), pg. 22.

[14] Seven studies are reviewed by Joel Schwartz, "Particulate Air Pollution and Daily Mortality: A Synthesis," PUBLIC HEALTH REVIEWS 1991/1992 Vol. 19 (1992), pgs. 39-60. The 8th is Douglas Dockery and others, "An Association Between Air Pollution and Mortality in Six U.S. Cities," NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE Vol. 329 (1993), pgs. 1753-1759; see also pgs. 1807-1808. The 60,000 figure is taken from "Air Pollution in Typical U.S. Cities Increases Death Risk," press release dated May 13, 1991, from the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Mass. describing findings later reported in Joel Schwartz and Douglas W. Dockery, "Increased Mortality in Philadelphia Associated With Daily Air Pollution Concentrations," AMERICAN REVIEW OF RESPIRATORY DISEASE Vol. 145 (1992), pgs. 600-604. Two million deaths occur in the U.S. each year; according to Schwartz and Dockery, fine particles account for 3%.

[15] Philip J. Landrigan, "Commentary: Environmental Disease--A Preventable Epidemic," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH Vol. 82 (July 1992), pgs. 941-943.

Descriptor terms: grass-roots citizen action; civilian nuclear power; municipal solid waste incineration; msw; landfilling; dumps; hazardous waste; ijc; regulation; reverse onus; burden of proof; precautionary principle; principle of precationary action; wildlife; human health; morbidity; mortality; studies; statistics; cancer; breast cancer; sterility; reproductive disorders; ectopic pregnancies; tubal pregnancies; endometriosis; immune system disorders; diabetes mellitus; type I diabetes; asthma; nervous system disorders; lou gehrig's disease; amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; parkinson's disease; multiple chemical sensitivity; mcs; birth defects; air pollution; fine particles; apha; american public health association; occupational safety and health;

#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

#432: Two More Studies Show Human Sperm Loss

=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #432
---March 9, 1995---
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 ==================

Two new studies have found that sperm count in men has declined precipitously over the past 20 years. [1] Sperm count is the number of sperm in each cubic centimeter of semen. The NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE reported last month that sperm count has declined 33% during the past 20 years among a study-population of 1351 healthy, fertile men in Paris, France. A briefer report in the BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL last summer found that, comparing men of similar ages, sperm count in 3729 Scottish men had declined 41% among those born in 1969 compared to those born in 1941.

In 1992, a historical analysis of 62 separate sperm-count studies, by Elisabeth Carlsen, concluded that sperm count among men throughout the industrialized world has declined by about 50% during the past 50 years. [2] In 1994 this finding was challenged by researchers who said that it might have been caused by Carlsen's erroneous choice of statistical methods, not by an actual decline in sperm count. [3] The two new studies appear to confirm the conclusion than an actual decline in sperm count has occurred and is occurring.

No one knows what is causing the apparent decline in sperm count among men. It is still possible that the decline is not real, that it results from some unknown hidden bias in the 64 studies that have been conducted so far. For example, these 64 studies may have examined men who are not typical of the general population. And various factors that influence sperm count may not have been fully accounted for. [4]On the other hand, it is entirely possible that the decline IS real. As Carlsen and her co-workers said in 1994, defending their 1992 conclusion, "The most cautious conclusion that can be drawn from the existing data is that semen quality has declined significantly between 1940 and 1990." Even if the decline is real, no one knows for sure what might be causing it. Various hypotheses have been suggested.

The hypothesis getting the most attention is this one: something --perhaps hormone-mimicking chemicals in the mother's blood --is affecting male children before they are born. This hypothesis suggests that male children are being born with fewer Sertoli cells --the cells which, after puberty, cause the production of sperm. Reduced numbers of Sertoli cells (and reduced sperm count) have been observed in the male offspring of estrogen-exposed pregnant rats. [5]

New Studies: Paris

The study-group in Paris consisted of 1351 healthy men who had donated sperm to a sperm bank maintained by a hospital, starting in 1973. Each of the men had fathered at least one child. One percent of the men were farmers and 16 percent were manual laborers; 40 percent were classified as "technicians" and 38 percent as "executives." From 1973 to 1992, their average (mean) sperm count declined at the rate of 2.1 percent per year, from 89 million per cubic centimeter (cc) to 60 million per cc. During the same period, the proportion of motile sperm (sperm able to swim) declined at a rate of 0.6 percent per year, and the proportion of "normal" sperm (compared to misshapen sperm) declined at the rate of 0.5 percent per year. In sum, the quantity and quality of sperm declined simultaneously.

This study answers some of the concerns of some of the critics of Carlsen's 1992 study. Those critics charged that abstinence from sex causes an increase in sperm numbers and a decrease in sperm with good motility and Carlsen could not control for that. The Paris study took into account the length of abstinence before samples were taken. It also controlled for age, and for year of birth. The decline in sperm quantity and quality, linked to year of birth, was still observable after controlling for length of abstinence and age.

Among the Paris group, a subgroup of 382 men in a narrow age range (28 to 37 years) was chosen for special analysis; they had all reported a similar period of abstinence (3 to 4 days). Among this group, there was a clear decline in sperm count from 1973 to 1992: from 101 million per cc to 50 million per cc, a reduction by half. The average 30-year-old born in 1945 would have a count of 102 million per cc; the average 30-year-old born in 1962 would have a count of 51 million.

"We conclude that there has been a true decline in the quality of semen during the past 20 years, since the characteristics of semen from a fertile man of a given age in 1992 were significantly poorer than those of a fertile man of the same age in 1973," the French researchers said.

New Studies: Scotland

The researchers in Scotland completed their study in response to criticism of Carlsen's 1992 historical analysis of 62 sperm-count studies, showing a 50% reduction in 50 years. They had records for 3729 semen donors born between 1940 and 1969 and they examined these by statistical techniques chosen to avoid the (controversial) criticisms that had been leveled at Carlsen's work. They found an apparent decline in sperm count from 128 million per cc (in men born in the 1940s) to 75 million in men born in the late 1960s, a 41% loss. "Thus we do not accept that the evidence for a fall in sperm concentrations is unconvincing," they concluded.

Several researchers have noted that the decline in sperm quality (count, motility and normal shape) coincides with an increasing incidence of abnormalities of the male genital tract, including testicular cancer and cryptorchidism (undescended testicles) in various countries. [6] Such abnormalities have doubled in frequency during the past 30 years in many parts of the world. [7] In Scotland, for example, testicular cancer has doubled since 1960 and is striking a younger population (ages 15 to 44) every year. The cause of these increasing abnormalities remains a mystery.

One clue that may tie all the threads of evidence together is the record of what happened to the sons of women who were given a synthetic hormone, diethylstilbestrol (DES), during the 1950s and 1960s. About a million American women were given DES as a "morning after" pill to reduce the likelihood of pregnancy. Their sons have shown an increase in genital tract abnormalities, AND reduced sperm count.

There is confirming data from animal experiments as well. Pregnant female rats given a single, very low, dose of dioxin on the 15th day of gestation, produce male offspring that have genital tract abnormalities (particularly undescended testicles) and that have a low sperm count after they mature. [8] Dioxin does much of its toxic work by acting as an estrogen-like hormone.

Thus, although it remains a hypothesis that estrogen-mimicking chemicals are causing the observed changes in the male reproductive tract, it is a hypothesis that is being taken very seriously by a large number of scientists world-wide; they are working aggressively to confirm its truth or falsehood.

It is, after all, an important matter for the future of the human species. The reported sperm loss appears to be occurring world-wide. The report in February in the NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE ends this way: "The significant decline in the concentration of sperm during the past 20 years in the Paris area may be related to an interaction of the age of the [sperm] donors and the chronologic period [in which they are living] that in turn could implicate factors affecting all the inhabitants of an area, such as the water supply or environmental pollution."

--Peter Montague

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

[1] Jacques Auger and others, "Decline in Semen Quality Among Fertile Men in Paris During the Past 20 years," NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE Vol. 332, No. 5 (February 2, 1995), pgs. 281-285. And: D. Stewart Irvine, "Falling sperm quality," BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL Vol. 309 (August 13, 1994), pg. 476.

[2] Elisabeth Carlsen and others, "Evidence for decreasing quality of semen during past 50 years," BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL Vol. 305 (1992), pgs. 609-613.

[3] Peter Bromwich and others, "Decline in sperm counts: an artefact of changed reference range of 'normal'?" BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL Vol. 309 (July 2, 1994), pgs. 19-22. Elisabeth Carlsen and some of her co-workers responded that Bromwich's analysis was "based on wrong assumptions" and "failed to give any empirical reference that might support [Bromwich's] assertion of differential selection." See Niels Keiding and others, "Importance of empirical evidence," BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL Vol. 309 (July 2, 1994), pg. 22.

[4] Richard J. Sherins, "Are Semen Quality and Male Fertility Changing?" NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE Vol 332 No. 5 (Feb. 2, 1995), says that studies conducted so far have not properly controlled for differences in age, abstinence before semen analysis, ejaculatory frequency, and the number of samples analyzed per person, all of which can effect sperm count. Another author who has registered skepticism of the 1992 findings is Stephen Farrow, "Falling sperm quality: fact or fiction?" BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL Vol. 309, No. 6946 (July 2, 1994), pgs. 1-2.

[5] A. Giwercman and N.E. Skakkebaek, "The human testis--an organ at risk?" INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ANDROLOGY Vol. 15 (1992), pgs. 373-175. And: Richard M. Sharpe and Niels E. Skakkebaek, "Are oestrogens involved in falling sperm counts and disorders of the male reproductive tract?" THE LANCET Vol. 341 (May 29, 1993), pgs. 1392-1395. And: R. M. Sharpe, " Declining sperm counts in men --is there an endocrine cause?" JOURNAL OF ENDOCRINOLOGY, Vol. 136 (1993), pgs. 357-360.

[6] A. Giwercman, cited above in note 5; and see Peter Boyle and others, "Changes in Testicular Cancer in Scotland," EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER AND CLINICAL ONCOLOGY Vol. 23 (1987), pgs. 827-830. And: A. Giwercman and others, "Evidence for increasing evidence of abnormalities of the human testis: a review," ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES Vol. 101, Supplement 2 (1993), pgs. 65-71.

[7] See Sharpe and Skakkebaek, cited above in note 5.

Descriptor terms: sperm loss; fertility; human health; human reproduction; reproductive system; new england journal of medicine; british medical journal; scotland; france; sperm quality; sperm quantity; semen quality; hormones; estrogen;

#432a: Two More Studies Show Human Sperm Loss

=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #432
---March 9, 1995---
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========================

Two new studies have found that sperm count in men has declined precipitously over the past 20 years. [1] Sperm count is the number of sperm in each cubic centimeter of semen. The NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE reported last month that sperm count has declined 33% during the past 20 years among a study-population of 1351 healthy, fertile men in Paris, France. A briefer report in the BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL last summer found that, comparing men of similar ages, sperm count in 3729 Scottish men had declined 41% among those born in 1969 compared to those born in 1941.

In 1992, a historical analysis of 62 separate sperm-count studies, by Elisabeth Carlsen, concluded that sperm count among men throughout the industrialized world has declined by about 50% during the past 50 years. [2] In 1994 this finding was challenged by researchers who said that it might have been caused by Carlsen's erroneous choice of statistical methods, not by an actual decline in sperm count. [3] The two new studies appear to confirm the conclusion than an actual decline in sperm count has occurred and is occurring.

No one knows what is causing the apparent decline in sperm count among men. It is still possible that the decline is not real, that it results from some unknown hidden bias in the 64 studies that have been conducted so far. For example, these 64 studies may have examined men who are not typical of the general population. And various factors that influence sperm count may not have been fully accounted for. [4]On the other hand, it is entirely possible that the decline IS real. As Carlsen and her co-workers said in 1994, defending their 1992 conclusion, "The most cautious conclusion that can be drawn from the existing data is that semen quality has declined significantly between 1940 and 1990." Even if the decline is real, no one knows for sure what might be causing it. Various hypotheses have been suggested.

The hypothesis getting the most attention is this one: something --perhaps hormone-mimicking chemicals in the mother's blood --is affecting male children before they are born. This hypothesis suggests that male children are being born with fewer Sertoli cells --the cells which, after puberty, cause the production of sperm. Reduced numbers of Sertoli cells (and reduced sperm count) have been observed in the male offspring of estrogen-exposed pregnant rats. [5]

New Studies: Paris

The study-group in Paris consisted of 1351 healthy men who had donated sperm to a sperm bank maintained by a hospital, starting in 1973. Each of the men had fathered at least one child. One percent of the men were farmers and 16 percent were manual laborers; 40 percent were classified as "technicians" and 38 percent as "executives." From 1973 to 1992, their average (mean) sperm count declined at the rate of 2.1 percent per year, from 89 million per cubic centimeter (cc) to 60 million per cc. During the same period, the proportion of motile sperm (sperm able to swim) declined at a rate of 0.6 percent per year, and the proportion of "normal" sperm (compared to misshapen sperm) declined at the rate of 0.5 percent per year. In sum, the quantity and quality of sperm declined simultaneously.

This study answers some of the concerns of some of the critics of Carlsen's 1992 study. Those critics charged that abstinence from sex causes an increase in sperm numbers and a decrease in sperm with good motility and Carlsen could not control for that. The Paris study took into account the length of abstinence before samples were taken. It also controlled for age, and for year of birth. The decline in sperm quantity and quality, linked to year of birth, was still observable after controlling for length of abstinence and age.

Among the Paris group, a subgroup of 382 men in a narrow age range (28 to 37 years) was chosen for special analysis; they had all reported a similar period of abstinence (3 to 4 days). Among this group, there was a clear decline in sperm count from 1973 to 1992: from 101 million per cc to 50 million per cc, a reduction by half. The average 30-year-old born in 1945 would have a count of 102 million per cc; the average 30-year-old born in 1962 would have a count of 51 million.

"We conclude that there has been a true decline in the quality of semen during the past 20 years, since the characteristics of semen from a fertile man of a given age in 1992 were significantly poorer than those of a fertile man of the same age in 1973," the French researchers said.

New Studies: Scotland

The researchers in Scotland completed their study in response to criticism of Carlsen's 1992 historical analysis of 62 sperm-count studies, showing a 50% reduction in 50 years. They had records for 3729 semen donors born between 1940 and 1969 and they examined these by statistical techniques chosen to avoid the (controversial) criticisms that had been leveled at Carlsen's work. They found an apparent decline in sperm count from 128 million per cc (in men born in the 1940s) to 75 million in men born in the late 1960s, a 41% loss. "Thus we do not accept that the evidence for a fall in sperm concentrations is unconvincing," they concluded.

Several researchers have noted that the decline in sperm quality (count, motility and normal shape) coincides with an increasing incidence of abnormalities of the male genital tract, including testicular cancer and cryptorchidism (undescended testicles) in various countries. [6] Such abnormalities have doubled in frequency during the past 30 years in many parts of the world. [7] In Scotland, for example, testicular cancer has doubled since 1960 and is striking a younger population (ages 15 to 44) every year. The cause of these increasing abnormalities remains a mystery.

One clue that may tie all the threads of evidence together is the record of what happened to the sons of women who were given a synthetic hormone, diethylstilbestrol (DES), during the 1950s and 1960s. About a million American women were given DES as a "morning after" pill to reduce the likelihood of pregnancy. Their sons have shown an increase in genital tract abnormalities, AND reduced sperm count.

There is confirming data from animal experiments as well. Pregnant female rats given a single, very low, dose of dioxin on the 15th day of gestation, produce male offspring that have genital tract abnormalities (particularly undescended testicles) and that have a low sperm count after they mature. [8] Dioxin does much of its toxic work by acting as an estrogen-like hormone.

Thus, although it remains a hypothesis that estrogen-mimicking chemicals are causing the observed changes in the male reproductive tract, it is a hypothesis that is being taken very seriously by a large number of scientists world-wide; they are working aggressively to confirm its truth or falsehood.

It is, after all, an important matter for the future of the human species. The reported sperm loss appears to be occurring world-wide. The report in February in the NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE ends this way: "The significant decline in the concentration of sperm during the past 20 years in the Paris area may be related to an interaction of the age of the [sperm] donors and the chronologic period [in which they are living] that in turn could implicate factors affecting all the inhabitants of an area, such as the water supply or environmental pollution."

--Peter Montague

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

[1] Jacques Auger and others, "Decline in Semen Quality Among Fertile Men in Paris During the Past 20 years," NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE Vol. 332, No. 5 (February 2, 1995), pgs. 281-285. And: D. Stewart Irvine, "Falling sperm quality," BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL Vol. 309 (August 13, 1994), pg. 476.

[2] Elisabeth Carlsen and others, "Evidence for decreasing quality of semen during past 50 years," BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL Vol. 305 (1992), pgs. 609-613.

[3] Peter Bromwich and others, "Decline in sperm counts: an artefact of changed reference range of 'normal'?" BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL Vol. 309 (July 2, 1994), pgs. 19-22. Elisabeth Carlsen and some of her co-workers responded that Bromwich's analysis was "based on wrong assumptions" and "failed to give any empirical reference that might support [Bromwich's] assertion of differential selection." See Niels Keiding and others, "Importance of empirical evidence," BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL Vol. 309 (July 2, 1994), pg. 22.

[4] Richard J. Sherins, "Are Semen Quality and Male Fertility Changing?" NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE Vol 332 No. 5 (Feb. 2, 1995), says that studies conducted so far have not properly controlled for differences in age, abstinence before semen analysis, ejaculatory frequency, and the number of samples analyzed per person, all of which can effect sperm count. Another author who has registered skepticism of the 1992 findings is Stephen Farrow, "Falling sperm quality: fact or fiction?" BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL Vol. 309, No. 6946 (July 2, 1994), pgs. 1-2.

[5] A. Giwercman and N.E. Skakkebaek, "The human testis--an organ at risk?" INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ANDROLOGY Vol. 15 (1992), pgs. 373-175. And: Richard M. Sharpe and Niels E. Skakkebaek, "Are oestrogens involved in falling sperm counts and disorders of the male reproductive tract?" THE LANCET Vol. 341 (May 29, 1993), pgs. 1392-1395. And: R. M. Sharpe, " Declining sperm counts in men --is there an endocrine cause?" JOURNAL OF ENDOCRINOLOGY, Vol. 136 (1993), pgs. 357-360.

[6] A. Giwercman, cited above in note 5; and see Peter Boyle and others, "Changes in Testicular Cancer in Scotland," EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER AND CLINICAL ONCOLOGY Vol. 23 (1987), pgs. 827-830. And: A. Giwercman and others, "Evidence for increasing evidence of abnormalities of the human testis: a review," ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES Vol. 101, Supplement 2 (1993), pgs. 65-71.

[7] See Sharpe and Skakkebaek, cited above in note 5.

Descriptor terms: sperm loss; fertility; human health; human reproduction; reproductive system; new england journal of medicine; british medical journal; scotland; france; sperm quality; sperm quantity; semen quality; hormones; estrogen;