|
| Author | Topic: Health & Food |
| Scientists Warn of Toxins in Fish |
posted 11/22/04 10:15 AM
Health - AP Scientists Warn of Toxins in Fish Sat Nov 20, 2:27 PM ET Health - AP By MORT ROSENBLUM, AP Special Correspondent SETE, France - Each day at 4 p.m., the trawlers come back, alive with giant bass, mackerel and squirming eels, at the end of a food chain that links family dinner tables to poisons in the sea. Besides mercury which can damage the brains of fetuses and young children and can affect healthy adults, there are PCBs, dioxins and flame retardants with unknown long-term effects. It is the same from ancient Mediterranean towns like Sete to big city docks in Asia, America's Gulf ports, or harbors in seemingly pristine Nordic waters. Industrial waste permeates every ocean. Although rich in omega-3 fatty acids vital to the heart and brain, many fish contain toxins that build up over time in the human body. And as this paradox worsens, scientists express alarm at what they call inadequate government warnings, lax attitudes toward fishing industries, and insufficient data to assess the risks. The problem is that authorities are caught between wanting to inform the public while not damaging consumer confidence in a healthy food source, says Sandrine Blanchemanche, a sociologist with France's prestigious National Institute for Agronomic Studies. "People overreact to these things, so you have to be careful," she said. "You don't want large numbers giving up the benefits of fish while you damage the whole fishing sector for no reason." But marine biologists, toxicologists and physicians interviewed by The Associated Press on three continents share an all but unanimous view: better public knowledge is essential. Jane Hightower, a San Francisco internist whose 2002 study of mercury in her patients brought the issue to wide public attention, said she is still uncovering what she calls shocking new evidence. "We are just starting to realize as physicians the effects of this chemical soup we live in," she told The AP. "We really have to ask, why are we poisoning ourselves?" She called some areas especially troubling because of contamination trapped by ocean currents. "The Mediterranean is a toilet that no one has bothered to flush," Hightower said. The crisis transcends borders. Three-quarters of fish eaten in America and Europe are imported, often from countries with no controls. Authorities on both sides of the Atlantic make only minimal spot checks. "Pollution is a worldwide problem, and our fish comes from around the world," said Kate Mahaffey, toxins expert at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (news - web sites). "No one is immune." With contaminants in fish, she warned, "there is a very narrow range between levels with no effects, subtle effects and severe effects." At its extreme, Mahaffey said, mercury poisoning causes an illness similar to cerebral palsy. "As we find out more and more about mercury, we see health effects that have not been taken into account," she said. Studies continue into the impact of PCBs and dioxins, she added. "We just don't know." Specialists accuse commercial fishing interests of minimizing the threat and using their political clout to oppose broader studies or warning labels. Industry associations routinely reject such charges. But most of the world's catch comes from independent small fishermen and trawlers which easily evade international control. "Information is scarce, and there is little interest in getting more," said Sergi Tudela, a Worldwide Fund for Wildlife (WWF) fisheries expert based in Barcelona, Spain. Governments tend to be more preoccupied with protecting national quotas against efforts to curb catches and preserve fish stocks, and are reluctant to spend the large sums necessary to test adequate samples in open waters. Even when data is convincing, experts say, action falls short. Despite the clear risk from such long-lived large fish as swordfish, shark and types of tuna, public warnings are often not spelled out. Smaller fish rich in fat can also be hazardous, although they are seldom flagged. Norwegian researchers say Baltic Sea herring carry up to 10 times as much contaminant as salmon. A growing trend toward fish-farming adds new dangers, according to the specialists. Some European operators still feed Baltic herring and other suspect cheap fish to farmed salmon, they say. Most experts laud the work of the EPA's Mahaffey who in April published a study of 1,709 American women. She found blood mercury concentrations were seven times higher among women who ate at least nine fish or shellfish meals a month than among those who ate no seafood at all. Mahaffey calculated that more than 300,000 babies born each year in the United States "may have been exposed in utero" to methyl mercury concentrations higher than those considered to be without increased risk of adverse neurodevelopmental effects." Hightower likened the fight to post alerts at fish counters and on some canned tuna to the controversy over warning labels on tobacco. "These conflict of interest issues have been with us forever," she said. "It always comes down to science versus industry. People have a right to know and the right to ignore. That is informed consent." California's Proposition 65 enforces labeling of potential risks, but warnings are less clear in other states and absent entirely in most other countries. The European Union (news - web sites) offers guidelines to consumers on a complex Web site, but policy is left to its 25 member states. Britain and France, among others, set recommendations. But none posts warnings. There's far too little data on which to base advisories, said Daniel Cossa, senior marine scientist at Ifremer, the official French agency for oceanic studies. In a 1994 paper, he demonstrated that methyl mercury has permeated the world's oceans and that 5 percent of it ended up in fish. About half of the mercury occurs naturally, he said. But the rest, along with PCBs and dioxins, comes from factories and other dumping. He urged governments to keep a closer watch. A decade later, Cossa said in an interview that very little monitoring is done. "It is a matter of resources," he said. "We don't have them." Last April, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (news - web sites) finally coordinated its warnings on fish with more stringent EPA guidelines. But Vas Aposhian, a University of Arizona toxicologist, quit the FDA (news - web sites)'s advisory panel, charging that its advisories fell short of the risk and that not enough controls were in place. "The FDA is falling down on its job of protecting young women and children," he said from Tucson. He said FDA inspectors spot-check only a tiny sampling of fish imported into the United States. Twenty percent of seafood consumed in America is canned tuna, a cheap source of protein, Aposhian said. He said some panel members wanted albacore tuna on the list of fish to avoid but industry pressure blocked them. Instead, the FDA sanctioned six ounces a week of albacore. After the FDA announced its new guidelines, Richard Wiles of the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy and investigative organization, told the San Francisco Chronicle: "If American women follow the FDA's advice and eat a can of albacore tuna a week, a bad situation will be made far, far worse." In Europe, other specialists offered a similar analysis, noting that a salade nicoise or a tuna sandwich were common campus fare. David Acheson, FDA director of food safety, told the AP, "We have to make decisions with data and resources we have, and we do a lot." But, he added, "As a scientist, I would love to have more data." The FDA warns consumers off shark, swordfish, king mackerel and tilefish. It advises no more than 12 ounces a week, or two average meals, of fish low in mercury, including salmon, light canned tuna, pollock (in fish sticks) and shrimp. In Brussels, EU spokeswoman Catherine Bunyan echoed Acheson's remarks. Although authorities regard fish safety as vital and checks are made, she said, all food must be monitored with limited resources. She noted recent warnings by the EU's Rapid Alert System, including cadmium found in swordfish from Indonesia and high levels of mercury in swordfish from Ghana. Environmentalists argue that rather than demonstrating a security network, such cases suggest many more tainted fish enter the EU undetected. Dangerous pockets of pollution go unnoticed, said WWF's Marek Esmark in Norway. Fish is too important to be cut from diets, she said, but consumers must know their risks. "Eat your fish," she concluded, "but insist on labeling." WWF's Sergi Tudela wishes the industry would help scientists restore confidence in their catch, but said small fleets don't take the long view. "It'd be nice if they checked for contaminants, but that's not the real world. That's science fiction." In Sete, the conflicts are apparent along the ancient docks. Trawler crews rush to pile their fish into bins for "la criee," a colorful old-style fish auction. "Nothing is wrong with our fish — it's all perfectly healthy," said Tony Courtesol, skipper of the 170-ton Antoine Rachel, summarizing the view of a dozen fishermen interviewed. But Claude Alzieu, a specialist in pollutants at Sete's Ifremer station, took a different view. "I'm ready to believe what the fishermen say," he put it, "but we should really know for sure. Even if it were sure, it is normal to keep checking. The truth is we just don't have enough evidence." http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041120/ap_on_he_me/poisons_in_the_seas_1 Scientists face the fact of Mars methane |
|
Male Fish Growing Eggs Found in Potomac (Moderator) |
posted 12/21/04 12:56 AM
Science - AP Male Fish Growing Eggs Found in Potomac Mon Dec 20, 8:55 PM ET Science - AP SHARPSBURG, Md. - Male fish that are growing eggs have been found in the Potomac River near Sharpsburg, a sign that a little-understood type of pollution is spreading downstream from West Virginia, a federal scientist says. The so-called intersex abnormality may be caused by pollutants from sewage plants, feedlots and factories that can interfere with animals' hormone systems, The Washington Post reported Sunday. Nine male smallmouth bass taken from the Potomac near Sharpsburg, about 60 miles upstream from Washington, were found to have developed eggs inside their sex organs, said Vicki S. Blazer, a scientist overseeing the research for the U.S. Geological Survey (news - web sites). Authorities say the problems are likely related to a class of pollutants called endocrine disruptors, which short-circuit animals' natural systems of hormone chemical messages. Officials are awaiting the results of water-quality testing that might point to a specific chemical behind the fish problems, Blazer said. "It certainly indicates something's going on," Blazer said of the new findings in Maryland. "But what, we don't know." The Potomac River is the main source of drinking water for the Washington metropolitan area and many upstream communities. It provides about 75 percent of the water supply to the 3.6 million residents of Washington and its Maryland and Virginia suburbs. Blazer, who works at a federal fish lab in Leetown, W.Va., said she found the latest abnormalities last week while examining tissues from fish taken from the river near Sharpsburg. The same symptoms had previously been found about 170 miles upstream, in the South Branch of the Potomac in Hardy County, W.Va. Blazer and other scientists discovered the problem there last year while investigating a rash of mass fish deaths. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service researchers are seeking money for a much larger study across the Potomac watershed. Endocrine disruptors comprise a vast universe of pollutants capable of driving a hormone system haywire. Some are hormones themselves — such as human estrogen from women taking birth-control pills or animal hormones washed downstream with manure — that can pass through sewage plants untouched. In Hardy County, officials were especially concerned about chicken waste from poultry farms. Other endocrine disruptors are hormone "mimics" — industrial chemicals or factory byproducts which confuse the body because they are chemically similar to natural hormones. These pollutants are often found in very low concentrations, so until recently no equipment could detect them. But the first nationwide survey, in 1999 and 2000, found hormones in about 37 percent of streams tested. Many scientists are concerned that people, as well as other animals, might be affected. "It's not good news that there's something that feminizes male fish in your water," said Gina Solomon, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council. But the Environmental Protection Agency (news - web sites) has not set standards for many of these pollutants. Because of this, many drinking-water plants make no special efforts to remove them. Authorities in West Virginia are investigating whether there is a link to higher rates of certain cancers in people there. A recent survey of cancer in Hardy County, where some residents get drinking water from the South Branch, found rates of cancer of the liver, gallbladder, ovaries and uterus that were higher than the state average. All four cancers can in some cases grow faster in the presence of estrogen or chemicals that mimic it, cancer experts said. "It is at least theoretically possible that those two concepts are worth thinking about side-by-side," said Alan Ducatman, chairman of the Department of Community Medicine at West Virginia University. ___ http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1894&e=1&u=/ap/20041221/ap_on_sc/intersex_fish |
|
Rock Dust: Cure for Global Warming? (Moderator) |
posted 3/24/05 11:17 AM
Rock Dust: Cure for Global Warming? 22-Mar-2005 Australian scientists have discovered that vegetables planted in rock dust grow to an extraordinary size. The dust, a byproduct obtained from rock quarries, rejuvenates tired soil. By mixing the rock dust with compost, researchers have been able to produce football-sized cabbages, coconut-sized onions, and plum-sized strawberries. Best of all, the rock dust absorbs the CO2 that is emitted from car exhausts. Moira Thomson says we could "cover the Earth with rock dust" and solve many of our environmental problems. Paul Kelbie writes in the Independent that Moira and Cameron Thomson spread rock dust on 6 acres of land where erosion was so severe that nothing had grown there for 50 years. The dust mimics the natural glacial cycles of the Earth, which fertilize the ground with minerals, eliminating the need for artificial fertilizer. Since the last ice age 3 million years ago, there have been 25 glaciations, each of which lasted about 90,000 years. Right now we're in a period between ice ages, which is why we need to spread fertilizer on agricultural land. But rock dust does the job even better by putting essential minerals back into the Earth. How does this fight climate change? The calcium and magnesium in the dust converts the carbon in the air from greenhouse gases into carbonates. Also, plants grown in rock dust need much less water. NASA is so impressed with the idea that they plan to use it rock dust to grow crops on other planets. Rock dust could also eliminate the need to take a daily multivitamin pill. One reason we're urged to take vitamins is because plants no longer contain sufficient vitamins and minerals, and the main reason for this is the poor quality of the soil they're grown in. Nobody used rocks like the Egyptians, who were able to carve them into building blocks for their gigantic pyramids. According to William Henry, the pyramids were also "resurrection "machines," and the secrets of interstellar travel are revealed by the "wormhole dance," which can be seen in the DVD that comes with this extraordinary book! http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=4481 |
|
Pot smoking not a major lung cancer threat: report (Moderator) |
posted 11/3/05 9:35 AM
Pot smoking not a major lung cancer threat: report By Amy Norton Last Updated: 2005-10-26 10:21:44 -0400 (Reuters Health) NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Although both marijuana and tobacco smoke are packed with cancer-causing chemicals, other qualities of marijuana seem to keep it from promoting lung cancer, according to a new report. The difference rests in the often opposing actions of the nicotine in tobacco and the active ingredient, THC, in marijuana, says Dr. Robert Melamede of the University of Colorado in Colorado Springs. He reviewed the scientific evidence supporting this contention in a recent issue of Harm Reduction Journal. Whereas nicotine has several effects that promote lung and other types of cancer, THC acts in ways that counter the cancer-causing chemicals in marijuana smoke, Melamede explained in an interview with Reuters Health. "THC turns down the carcinogenic potential," he said. For example, lab research indicates that nicotine activates a body enzyme that converts certain chemicals in both tobacco and marijuana smoke into cancer-promoting form. In contrast, studies in mice suggest that THC blocks this enzyme activity. Another key difference, Melamede said, is in the immune system effects of tobacco and marijuana. Smoke sends irritants into the respiratory system that trigger an immune-regulated inflammatory response, which involves the generation of potentially cell-damaging substances called free radicals. These particles are believed to contribute to a range of diseases, including cancer. But cannabinoids -- both those found in marijuana and the versions found naturally in the body -- have been shown to dial down this inflammatory response, Melamede explained. Another difference between tobacco and marijuana smoking, he said, has to do with cells that line the respiratory tract. While these cells have receptors that act as docks for nicotine, similar receptors for THC and other cannabinoids have not been found. Nicotine, Melamede said, appears to keep these cells from committing "suicide" when they are genetically damaged, by smoking, for instance. When such cells do not kill themselves off, they are free to progress into tumors. THC, however, does not appear to act this way in the respiratory tract -- though, in the brain, where there are cannabinoid receptors, it may have the beneficial effect of protecting cells from death when they are damaged from an injury or stroke, according to Melamede. All of this, he said, fits in with population studies that have failed to link marijuana smoking with a higher risk of lung cancer -- though there is evidence that pot users have more respiratory problems, such as chronic cough and frequent respiratory infections. If marijuana does not promote lung cancer, that could factor into the ongoing debate over so-called medical marijuana. Melamede said he believes "marijuana has loads of medicinal value," for everything from multiple sclerosis, to the chronic pain of arthritis, to nausea caused by cancer treatment. U.S. government officials, however, maintain that the evidence for medical marijuana is not there. Ten states allow people to use marijuana with a doctor's prescription, but the Supreme Court has ruled that federal law trumps state law. http://www.pamf.org/health/healthinfo/reutershome_top.cfm?fx=article&id=25449 |
|
|