=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL’S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #346
—July 15, 1993—
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
==========
The Back issues and Index
are available
here.
The official RACHEL archive is here.
It’s updated constantly.
To subscribe, send E-mail to rachel-
weekly-
request@world.std.com
with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It’s free.
===Previous Issue==========================================Next Issue===
DETOXIFYING DIOXIN AND EVERYTHING ELSE
Keith Schneider has struck again. Schneider, a reporter for the
NEW YORK TIMES, has recently made himself famous by
single-handedly creating a false new nontoxic image for the
powerful poison, dioxin. Schneider has spent a couple of years
improving dioxin’s public image, and during that time he has
overlooked or ignored the work of hundreds of scientists who have
been studying dioxin with great care, many of whom have
discovered previously-unknown toxic effects of dioxin on
wildlife, laboratory animals, and humans–effects produced by
astonishingly small exposures. Five years ago, dioxin was known
chiefly for its breathtaking power to cause cancer in rats, mice,
hamsters and guinea pigs. None of that has changed. But today
dioxin is implicated in human cancers as well, and in diabetes,
reduced sperm count in men, and in birth defects. Dioxin is now
known to mimic, or interfere with, sex hormones, and thus to
disrupt sexual differentiation and development in fish, birds,
and mammals, most likely including humans.[1] As a result, bad
news about dioxin is continuing to accumulate.
But not according to Keith Schneider. In August, 1991, Schneider
asserted that exposure to dioxin “is now considered by some
experts to be no more risky than spending a week in the sun.” He
did not name any experts. Schneider’s ability to detoxify dioxin
regardless of the scientific evidence earned him a featured place
in a long article in the June issue of AMERICAN JOURNALISM
REVIEW, called “See No Evil,” in which it is revealed that no
scientist ever told Schneider dioxin was as safe as sunshine–he
and his editors at the TIMES simply made it up.[2] “We wanted to
have a big splash with it [the dioxin story],” Schneider told
author Vicki Monks. “We felt that the media coverage of this
environmental issue needed to be reassessed. We need to be a lot
smarter because not everything is a disaster,” Schneider said.
Recently Schneider has broadened his horizons. He’s now working
to detoxify all industrial chemicals. In a recent article in a
new industrial/environmental magazine called ECO, Schneider
argues as follows:[3]
(a) Because of fear and panic spread by the environmental
movement for 20 years, the U.S. is now spending $140 billion per
year “making sure that toxic chemicals are not present at levels
exceeding a few parts per billion….”;
(b) This money is being wasted because it has not reduced the
cancer rate in the U.S. Besides, there is no need for such
programs because “there is no cancer epidemic,” Schneider asserts.
(c) However, this “evidence” (as Schneider calls it) does not
stop environmental leaders from “painting many chemical compounds
as potential causes of cancer.” Why do they do this? To attract
donations, of course.
Even if we ignore the tortured logic of this argument,[4]
Schneider seems not to have a grasp of basic cancer facts. He
says flatly, “According to federal health studies, the incidence
of cancer in most age groups has been steady over the past two
decades.” This is simply not true. It is not even close to true.
During the past 35 years (the period of time for which the
National Cancer Institute has data), the incidence of colon
cancer has increased 24 percent; larynx cancer has increased 57
percent; cancer of the testicles has increased 97 percent;
bladder cancer has increased 52 percent; childhood cancer (all
types) has increased 28 percent; skin cancer has increased 283
percent; lung cancers have increased 257 percent; lymphomas have
increased 153 percent; kidney cancer had increased 101 percent;
prostate cancer has increased 97 percent; breast cancer has
increased 58 percent. Taken together, the incidence of all types
of cancer has increased 42 percent during the period. Omitting
lung cancer, the incidence of all other cancers has increased 27
percent during the period.[5]
The incidence of all cancers besides lung cancer, taken together,
is increasing at about 0.8 percent each year, year after year.
These are age-adjusted figures, so they are not affected by the
aging trend in the American population. The incidence of cancer
is increasing steadily, relentlessly and, for those who are
stricken by it, devastatingly. Often, when life-saving treatment
is available, it is painful, disfiguring, protracted, and
exceedingly costly.
What causes cancer according to Schneider? “High-fat,
high-calorie diets, smokin, [sic] and drinking alcohol are the
major sources of cancer,” he says.
Smokin does cause cancer, lots of it. And it represents a
stunning failure of public policy–tobacco companies have been
getting away with murder for years. Alcohol is clearly
implicated in cancer, too, though the cause-and-effect
relationship is not straightforward, as we shall see.
Do high calorie diets cause cancer? They cause body fat, but do
they cause cancer? Not that we have heard.
And does fat in the diet cause cancer? Among scientists, the
popularity of this theory is waning.
No cancer is being studied more aggressively than cancer of the
female breast. This is true because thousands of angry woman
have banded together and pressed effectively to break loose $200
million in federal funds to study the causes of breast cancer.
And what is being learned?
Fascinating new reports in SCIENCE NEWS and SCIENCE describe a
dozen pathbreaking research initiatives.[6] The ’80s theory that
dietary fat causes breast cancer is defunct.
Many lines of research are pointing toward one causal factor:
dozens of different technologies that increase exposure of women
to estrogen and estrogen-like chemicals in the environment. Some
chemicals in the environment mimic estrogen: the pesticides DDT,
heptachlor, and atrazine, for example, and some products of
combustion–some polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), for
example; and some industrial chemicals such as PCBs
(polychlorinated biphenyls), BPA (bis-phenyl-A, found in
polycarbonate plastics), and nonylphenol (found in polystyrene
plastics) all mimic estrogens.
Then there are the chemicals that affect the way the human body
metabolizes (breaks down) naturally occurring estrogens, such as
estradiol: paradoxically, dioxin, cigarette smoke, and
indole-3-carbinol (found in cabbage and broccoli), all seem to
have a desirable effect on estradiol metabolism; alcohol, and the
combustion product benz[a]pyrene have a negative effect. None of
these effects are well-understood, but they need to be.
Strong light at night, and magnetic fields, can both increase the
estrogen levels in a woman’s blood stream. They both seem to
affect the pineal gland in the center of the brain. The pineal
gland produces the hormone melatonin which seems to fight breast
cancer by reducing estrogen levels in the blood. Alcohol raises
estrogen levels in the blood of premenopausal women, perhaps by
diminishing melatonin.
The point is that scientists do not know what causes 60 to 70
percent of all breast cancers. They do know there is an epidemic
of breast cancer occurring and that chemical contamination from
many sources–pesticides, automobile exhausts, industrial
solvents, plastics, incinerator emissions–all seem to contribute.
Logic says that human exposure to a mixture of thousands of
poorly-understood, biologically-active chemicals seems certain,
sooner or later, to take a toll on us. Prudence and common-sense
precaution demand MORE control of chemicals, not LESS.
Since the mid-19th century, the corporation has replaced the
church as the dominant social organization of our time. In the
past 50 years, this trend has given rise to technologies that are
increasingly at odds with human health and sustainability. The
conflict between sustainability and corporate-driven behavior
(and the technologies such behaviors produce) is becoming more
obvious to a growing number of people each passing day. A
talented writer like Keith Schneider could help a troubled nation
think through these difficult issues if he would but deny himself
the pleasure of answers that are satisfyingly simple but wrong.
Schneider has been a star reporter since his material first began
appearing in the TIMES in January, 1988, and deservedly so. But
his work on chemicals this past year seems destined to end his
career as a serious writer. If this keeps up, he will find
himself parked in a flack job as “vice-president for corporate
communications” at some major chemical conglomerate in Delaware
or Missouri or Michigan.
Indeed, perhaps that is the point.
–Peter Montague, Ph.D.
[2] Vicki Monks, “See No Evil,” AMERICAN JOURNALISM REVIEW (June
1993), pgs. 18-25.
The body of every American carries a burden of toxic chemicals
that far exceeds “a few parts per billion.” Women’s breast milk
contains many toxins at levels that exceed a few parts per
billion. Most of the fruits and vegetables we eat every day, and
most of the meats, contain toxins at levels that exceed “a few
parts per billion.”
Descriptor terms: keith schneider; ny times; new york times;
dioxin; studies; toxicity; laboratory animals; wildlife; human
health; diabetes; reduced sperm count; reproductive toxicity;
reproductive toxicology; sexual differentiation; developmental
disorders; sexual development; breast cancer; causes of cancer;
carcinogens; estrogens; sex gormones; xenoestrogens; pesticides;
ddt; heptachlor; atrazine; pahs; polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons; pcbs; bpa; bis-phenyl-a; nonylphenol; polystyreme;
polycarbonates; plastics; estradiol; cigarettes; tobacco;
indole-3-carbinol; cannage; broccoli; alcohol; light; pineal
gland; melatonin; magnetic fields; magnetism;