|
This page presents selected reports, studies, resources, and a collection of documentary videos regarding pollution in people. We update and add new content on a regular basis.
Panel Urges Action to Determine the Full Extent of Environmental Influences on Cancer
WASHINGTON, May 6 [2010] /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Even with the growing body of evidence linking
environmental exposures to cancer in recent years, a report released today by the President's Cancer Panel finds that the true burden of
environmentally-induced cancer is greatly underestimated. The Panel's report, "Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now,"
concludes that while environmental exposure is not a new front on the war on cancer, the grievous harm from this group of carcinogens has not been addressed
adequately by the National Cancer Program.
"There remains a great deal to be done to identify the many existing but unrecognized environmental carcinogens and eliminate those that are known from
our daily lives – our workplaces, schools and homes," said LaSalle D. Leffall, Jr., M.D., chair of the Panel. "The increasing number of known or
suspected environmental carcinogens compels us to action, even though we may currently lack irrefutable proof of harm," he added.
Key Findings
With nearly 80,000 chemicals on the market in the US, many of which are used by millions of Americans in their daily lives and are un- or under-studied and
largely unregulated, the report finds that exposure to potential environmental carcinogens is widespread. Yet, the public remains unaware of many of
these carcinogens as well as their own level of exposure, especially to many common environmental carcinogens such as radon, formaldehyde and benzene.
In addition to environmental carcinogens, the report found that while improved imaging technologies have facilitated great strides in diagnosing and
treating diseases, including cancer, some of these technologies also carry risks from increased radiation exposures. Many health care professionals, as
well as the public, are unaware of the radiation dose associated with various tests or the total radiation dose and related increased cancer risk individuals
may accumulate over a lifetime.
In addition, the report found that health care providers often fail to consider occupational and environmental factors when diagnosing patient illness.
Physicians and other medical professionals ask infrequently about patient workplace and home environments when taking a medical history, thereby missing
out on information that could be invaluable in discovering underlying causes of disease.
The report also recognizes the United States military as a major source of toxic occupational and environmental exposures
that can increase cancer risk. Information is available about some military activities that have directly or indirectly exposed military and
civilian personnel to carcinogens and contaminated soil and water in numerous locations in the United States and abroad, such
as radiation exposure due to nuclear weapons testing. Nearly 900 Superfund sites are abandoned military facilities or facilities that produced materials
and products for, or otherwise supported, military needs. In some cases, these contaminants have spread far beyond their points of origin because they
have been transported by wind currents or have leached into drinking water supplies.
The Panel concluded that Federal responses to the plight of affected individuals have been unsatisfactory, and that those affected lack knowledge
about the extent of their exposure or potential health problems they may face.
Recommendations
The Panel recommends concrete actions that government; industry; research, health care, and advocacy communities; and individuals can take to reduce cancer
risk related to environmental contaminants, excess radiation and other harmful exposures. Key recommendations include –
- Increase, broaden and improve research regarding environmental contaminants and human health.
- Raise consumer awareness of environmental cancer risks and improve understanding and reporting of known exposures.
- Increase awareness of environmental cancer risks and effects of exposure among health care providers.
- Enhance efforts to eliminate unnecessary radiation-emitting medical tests, and to ensure that radiation doses are as low as reasonably achievable without sacrificing quality.
- Aggressively address the toxic environmental exposures the US military has caused, and improve response to associated health problems among both military personnel and civilians.
- Additional recommendations that are underscored in the report include those related to the needs for a comprehensive and cohesive policy agenda on the issue, stronger regulation and safer alternatives to many currently used chemicals, among other highlights.
The Panel concluded, "Just as there are many opportunities for harmful environmental exposures, ample opportunities also exist for intervention,
change, and prevention to protect the health of current and future generations and reduce the national burden of cancer." [...] |
|
Chemicals from cosmetics, perfumes and other fragrances were detected along with dozens of other industrial compounds in the umbilical cords of African American, Asian and Latino infants
in the United States, according to a national study released Wednesday.
Laboratory tests paid for by the nonprofit Environmental Working Group and Rachel's Network found 232 chemicals and pollutants in the umbilical cords of the 10 babies tested in five
states between December 2007 and June 2008.
'Not a surprise'
"It is not a surprise because studies for many years have shown synthetic and industrial chemicals in humans, but it is particularly concerning that the developing fetus is being
exposed," said Megan Schwarzman, a family physician at San Francisco General Hospital and a research scientist in environmental public health at UC Berkeley. "This is a particularly
vulnerable time, and there is no reason for the chemicals to be there."
It was the 11th time the working group has conducted laboratory tests of human blood for chemicals in household and industrial products. Overall, the working group, which focuses
on environmental health issues, found 414 chemicals and pollutants in 186 people of all ages and races, including Caucasians.
The latest study was the first time newborns of minority mothers were exclusively tested.
Representatives of the study group admitted that the sample of newborns from California, Michigan, Florida, Massachusetts and Wisconsin was too small for them to draw any definitive
conclusions about race. The results are nevertheless likely to provide new ammunition in the effort to tighten regulations of consumer products and force cosmetic companies to list
their ingredients.
Seven of the 10 babies had in their umbilical cord blood synthetic musks known as Galaxolide and Tonalide, which are toxic to aquatic life and have been shown in preliminary studies
to cause hormonal changes.
The musk is used in scented soaps, perfumes and colognes, indicating the infants were contaminated by cosmetics their mothers used.
"It means the chemicals are crossing the placenta and getting into babies in the womb," said Stacy Malkan, a member of San Francisco's Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and the author
of "Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry."
Another chemical found in the umbilical cords was bisphenol A, or BPA, a synthetic estrogen used in plastics that has been linked to breast cancer and hormonal problems. A study
of Chinese factory workers released last month found an increased risk of sexual dysfunction from exposure to large amounts of the chemical.
It was the first time the synthetic musks and BPA were found in newborns.
Products used in flame retardants, rocket fuels, on frying pans and in computer circuit boards were found in the infants in addition to lead, mercury and known carcinogens,
according to the study.
Despite this stark evidence of contamination, cosmetics companies do not have to list synthetic chemicals in their products because fragrances are considered trade
secrets. [...] [Read More] | |
|
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
