Toxins lead to healthier lives?

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Saturday, January 3, 2003 | John Pike

[JohnHuang2]

By John Pike
© 2004 Insight/News World Communications Inc.

Hormesis, the scientific theory that humans actually need small amounts of poison in their diets, could be the most important environmental event of the 21st century if proved valid. Billions of dollars could be saved in environmental cleanup costs, say researchers, while at the same time improving the health of all organisms, including humans.

But at first examination, hormesis appears kooky. The knee-jerk reaction is to reject this phenomenon as pseudoscience or propaganda by polluters, and a few uninformed observers have done just that.

But hormesis is a possible, if not highly probable, iconoclastic notion, first postulated either in the 16th century or the 1880s but gaining flattering attention within the last decade.

According to the theory, a little arsenic, dioxin or radiation peppered on the spaghetti sauce may be just what we require to live long and healthy lives. And since humans need more toxins in our environment than allowed under current government regulations, so the theory goes, future efforts to clean up the environment could be greatly reduced.

The idea is that poisons such as arsenic are, of course, poisonous – that is, if one ingests too much they will produce sickness or death. But arsenic and other toxins in very low doses, below an amount deemed harmful, repeatedly have been shown to benefit the functions of organs, the optimal growth of the organism or longevity.

According to scientists who favor this theory, when the human body, or cell, becomes stressed or damaged by a small amount of poison, it not only repairs the damage but overcompensates and becomes stronger than it was. The phenomenon is similar to exercise; by jogging or lifting weights, one may stretch and exhaust the muscle tissue, which causes soreness. But later the muscle not only repairs itself but overcompensates and improves to the point where one can lift more weight or run longer and faster.

Chon Shoaf, a scientist with the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, at Research Triangle Park, N.C., says recent work on hormesis "is revolutionary and we want people to be aware of it. It has the potential to generate substantial savings."

The persons most responsible for conceptualizing and exalting this pioneering research since the 1990s, and who may flip EPA policy upside down to the benefit of taxpayers and every organism down to the last menacing insect, is Edward Calabrese, 56, a toxicology professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, and his longtime assistant Linda Baldwin. He has been described as "one of the leading toxicologists in the country." Speaking to Insight in his messy office, whose floor for the last three years has featured what appears to be the largest malfunctioning air conditioner ever seen on planet Earth, Calabrese explains his breakthrough research. These are ideas, ironically, that were generated not by an elite Massachusetts university with posh paraphernalia on the banks of the Charles River, but rather from the "70 to 80 hours weekly" this scientist toils at his lunch-pail university that the elitists sometimes refer to as "Zoo Mass."

"I believe there is not a single chemical that does not" exhibit patterns of hormesis, Calabrese says. It is a general response that is shown with mercury, lead, components of cigarette smoke, cadmium, marijuana, cocaine, alcohol and "everything that is regulated by the EPA."

One example is the first time Calabrese witnessed hormesis as an undergraduate student at Bridgewater State College in Massachusetts in 1966. He had been assigned to retard the growth of peppermint plants with high doses of a growth-retardant chemical. Not only did the plants not die, they grew taller than normal – a result, Calabrese says, that comes from mistakenly treating the plants with what proved to be too little growth-retardant.

The policy implication for this work, if proved valid, is stratospheric. It means the EPA could permit higher concentrations of so-called toxins in the environment, actually encouraging healthier lives and simultaneously saving money by not cleaning "toxic" sites. After all, the EPA now assumes the optimal level for a vast majority of carcinogens is zero parts per billion – in other words, none at all.

What makes the work of Calabrese and Baldwin especially credible as these things go is that their research is not uniquely their own, but an analysis of thousands of toxicology studies done by others the world over.

"We evaluated about 21,000 cases, using 2 percent on which the data were most complete," Calabrese says. "Of those 2 percent, 40 percent showed hormesis." Most toxicology studies are not helpful in analyzing for hormesis because the doses of toxins used are too high since researchers are studying a poison's threshold of lethality and not its potential beneficial properties. According to Calabrese, "The model showing hormesis has a huge amount of data, more than any other competing model. This is so overwhelmingly convincing I do not think anyone rational could deny that hormesis exists."

That said, another reason scientists are taking the work of Calabrese so seriously is the environmental cleanup and expense implications of work he has done in the past. At one point his studies drew the wrath of the chemical industry, the same circle now delighting in his conclusions on hormesis.

This Massachusetts scientist was in fact the primary proponent of the "single-exposure carcinogen theory," which says that humans sometimes can contract cancer with just one exposure to a carcinogen, a theory with the potential to add millions to the cost of chemical manufacturing.

It also was virtually his testimony alone in the 1990s that forced the government to spend millions of additional dollars cleaning a toxic site in Colorado to a much higher standard than previously expected, and contrary to the testimony of others and at least one irate newspaper.

"I am nonideological," Calabrese says. "But my work on hormesis is a little like President [Richard] Nixon going to China."

Calabrese is the first to say more research needs to be done "before we start handing out radiation pills," though some researchers seem more cautious. Nonetheless, this reporter was unable to find any toxicologist who substantially disagreed with Calabrese's work on hormesis, including officials at the Sierra Club, a prominent environmental advocacy group.

At the same time, "There are trade-offs in hormesis that we cannot forget about," warns Michael Davis, an EPA scientist also in North Carolina. "I do not believe all organisms share the same mechanical basis of hormesis. I see it as a variety of things." Thus, each poison must be evaluated separately because each particular toxin may affect different parts of an organism differently.

For example, a toxin at low doses may help a person grow taller, but also damage his liver. Another difficulty is the possibility that a particular poison at a certain dose may help one individual, yet hurt another.

"But I am not ruling out that hormesis could have significant EPA policy implications," says Davis.

According to Calabrese, hormesis also has an ugly side for some drugs prescribed by physicians. It means some pharmaceuticals that might cure a sickness at high doses could hurt at low doses. "The effects flip," he says. "So I want my doctor to know about hormesis, though unfortunately most are unaware of it."

One who apparently did not know about hormesis, or at least whose office refused to respond to repeated messages about it, was recently resigned EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman, who would not comment even on the work of her own people on this matter.

"The EPA does not want the American people to become cognizant of good environmental news, or potential savings in environmental cleanup, because in part they view the agency as a jobs program," says a scientist who often engages the EPA. "If the American people realize the environment is getting cleaner and healthier, they might seek to cut the funding of the EPA because much of its purpose has been accomplished. They seem to be afraid of losing their jobs."

Although properties of hormesis have been documented for many years, Calabrese says there are several reasons why it took the scientific community so long to examine hormesis and his research about it seriously. The EPA controls a large part of the funding, and therefore how the research is conducted, he says. Since the government is interested in saving lives, the research it funds in this area is almost always to study a toxin's lethal effect, as opposed to its beneficial side, so the research is not generated.

In addition, the beneficial effects of a poison tend to be less dramatic than its deadly results, he says, so it is less noticeable. It may benefit a plant in small amounts by only 30 percent, but in larger doses its pernicious effect may be a factor of 10 times. Scientists also often will see a benefit of only 1 percent of the time in a study because most of the research involves much higher doses, and "they blow it off," according to Calabrese.

"They think it is a freak thing. They have to learn to think out[side] of the box," he says.

But thanks in part to Calabrese and Baldwin, that box now has been broken wide open and good news is spilling all over the ground. It is a toxic spill with which we all can learn to live.

---

[ConservativeMan55]

I completely understand your problem.

I went out to eat with someone last night.

I ordered the Tuna sandwhich. They then told me that it was best "not to eat that" because there is a risk that the Tuna might be bad.

And this wasn't at some 2 bit restuarant either!

[SheLion]

It seems we're not the only ones who have been saying the same thing for quite some time!!!

Oh yes! They sure know how to spin it. They don't want to tell the truth for fear of losing their jobs and/or funding. Just like the Anti-Tobacco Coalitions.

You got it, Gabz!

What a total waste of tax payers money!

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

If the Packers lose, I'll drink a bottle of Clorox.

[SheLion]

You SMOKE DDT? Wtf?!

OH MY GAWD HE SMOKES!  THROW HIM INTO A HOLDING CELL!

My goodness!  It IS legal you know. heh!

[Trickyguy]

"Small doses stimulate, moderate doses poison, large doses kill." That observation is hundreds of years old.

[Mears]

As a 71 year old smoker I tend to agree. Kids are sicker now than 30-40 years ago when many of their parents smoked.

I've heard it called "lazy lung" in that the lungs never breathe anything even slightly toxic and therefore can't fight off lung disease.

[Mears]

As a 71 year old smoker I tend to agree. Kids are sicker now than 30-40 years ago when many of their parents smoked.

I've heard it called "lazy lung" in that the lungs never breathe anything even slightly toxic and therefore can't fight off lung disease.

[Mears]

Sorry for the duplicate post----new computer with very sensitive keys.

[dalereed]

I consider all the "toxics" and other bad things that I consume and breath to be immune system stimulants that not only enhance the imune system but keep it on ready allert!

[Happy2BMe]

Well, did it work?

[Dr.Deth]

I tend to agree with your assessment. Most of the younger people I meet get ghastly allergic to anything and everything under the sun. A consequence of too much protection from things in the world when kids are young, I postulate.

Larger issue here is, of course: women. (Dons flame-retardant material). Ever since they got uppity with this women's lib crap (not to mention getting the vote), they do what women do: worry and fret and try to keep their kids safe from anything and everything. I mean, it's a natural instinct, there is no faulting that. The fault is the excesses this has been carried to through overempowerment. Oh, and certain geldings like Ralph Nader.

Kids are gonna get sick, skin their knees, break an arm climbing a tree, run through poison oak. That's what they do. That's what they HAVE to do, and aren't being allowed to do by a combination of government regulation, state education, and a de-balled society in general.

There's a whole Taoist discussion that could be brought in here, but basically, it can be summed as: we've lost our natural balance. If it's not regained one way, nature has a way of correcting us in another.

[Mears]

I agree with everything you said,we can't hover over kids and expect them to grow into healthy human beings.

Kids need to explore and experiment,fight with eachother,and yes,get hurt,or how are they going to get along in the larger world.

I live in a city with neighborhood elementary schools so that kids can walk,but that's not done anymore. The mothers are there with the SUVs waiting every day,and the kids never walk to or from school.

Kids need to roll in the dirt more,forget these scheduled "play dates",and learn to get along without adult supervision.

[VermiciousKnid]

My sis-in-law is the type who not only doesn't allow smoking in her house, but also loads her kids up on a pharmacy's worth of medicines, won't have a pet, and (I'm not joking) literally wipes her kitchen and bathroom down with BLEACH every time she uses it.

Guess what?

Her kids (and she) are sick ALL THE TIME. They have spent the entire winter fighting coughs, colds, flus, and other assorted viruses. But they CAN'T fight them (especially the kids), because she hasn't allowed their little immune systems to GROW. The instant the children get even the teeniest bit dirty (like when playing with MY kids, for example), she rushes them off to the anti-bacterial soap factory that is her bathroom.

She is shocked (SHOCKED, I tell you!) to find that I do not own one single bar of the nasty orange stuff (Ivory for us, thanks).

Now, while my house isn't dirty, I confess to not being the "I've got to dust, vacuum and sterilize this place every day" type. Having a sterile house is fine if you never plan to go OUT, but unless you are a hermit, you will go out and get exposed to all kinds of nasty little bugs. With no natural immune system upon which to rely, you may as well be wearing a great big bulls-eye for the germs on your back.

As far as I'm concerned, the best way to keep everybody healthy is to OPEN THE DOORS or CRACK THE WINDOWS to let fresh air in.

Sis-in-law insists on an hermetically-sealed house. It's clean, but it smells like a dentist's office...

Regards,

[SheLion]

As a 71 year old smoker I tend to agree. Kids are sicker now than 30-40 years ago when many of their parents smoked.

I was brought up in the 50's and 60's. ALL THE ADULTS SMOKED! I worked in a nightclub, where everyone smoked. Other jobs I had.........everyone smoked. Going out to nightclubs at night with friends, drinking and smoking and NO smoke eaters!

I could go on and on but you already know what I am going to say.............there was NO ASTHMA back in those days. NONE. And kids weren't so sickly either.

The anti's today would have everyone believe that asthma and all the ill health of kids are blamed on smoking. But I don't think there are many today that smoke around their kids, do you? The Health Department has embedded guilt in responsible adults so deep that they don't DARE smoke around their kids.

I'm sick of this War on the Smokers and I sure am sick of TRUTH and all the Partnership for a Tobacco Free Coalition across the U.S. (I need a cigarette to calm down...........)

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.

Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

[Mears]

I'm with you,let's light up and think about it.

The vet that I use for my dog even has a sign on the wall saying that smoking is bad for pets.Try to explain that to my 12 year old Sheltie who was preceded by another Sheltie who lasted 15 years.(Of course they were both non- smokers so the antis would say that's why they lived so long)

I've said it before,we are living in a world gone mad with junk science.

[SheLion]

Sources of Indoor Air Contaminants

Source: OSHA  http://www.osha-slc.gov/FedReg_osha_data/FED19940405.html
A wide variety of substances are emitted by building construction materials and interior furnishings, appliances, office equipment, and supplies, human activities, and biological agents.

For example, formaldehyde is emitted from various wood products, including particle board, plywood, pressed-wood, paneling, some carpeting and backing, some furniture and dyed materials, urea-formaldehyde insulating foam, some cleaners and deodorizers, and from press textiles. Volatile organic compounds, including alkanes, aromatic hydrocarbons, esters, alcohols, aldehydes, and ketones are emitted from solvents and cleaning compounds, paints, glues, caulks, and resins, spray propellants, fabric softeners and deodorizers, unvented combustion sources, dry-cleaning fluids, arts and crafts, some fabrics and furnishings,
stored gasoline, cooking, building and roofing materials, waxes and polishing compounds, pens and markers, binders and plasticizers. Pesticides also contain a variety of toxic organic compounds.

Building materials are point sources of emissions that include a variety of VOCs (Table
III-1).

Some of these materials have been linked to indoor air quality problems. The probability of a source emitting contaminants is related to the age of the material. The newer the material, the higher the potential for emitting contaminants. These materials include adhesives, carpeting, caulks, glazing compounds, and paints [Ex. 4-33]. These materials, as well as
furnishings can act as a sponge or sink in which VOCs are absorbed and then re-emitted later.

Appliances, office equipment, and supplies can emit VOCs and also particulates [Ex.
4-33]. Table III-2 lists the many contaminants that can be emitted from these point sources.
There is an indirect relationship between the age of the point source and the potential rate of
contaminant emission [Ex. 4-33].

It goes on to list all the "evils" in our home.

[SheLion]

Here is the link. I forgot to add the other link.

Sources of Indoor Air Contaminants

[Mears]

That's unbelievable.

And many of these toxins are in buildings where you can't even open a window and have to breathe re-circulated air all day.

THe antis never look at those facts,though,it might dilute their agenda.

[SheLion]

The vet that I use for my dog even has a sign on the wall saying that smoking is bad for pets.Try to explain that to my 12 year old Sheltie who was preceded by another Sheltie who lasted 15 years.(Of course they were both non- smokers so the antis would say that's why they lived so long)

Oh yes! The Coalition of PAID Anti's have gotten to the medical society, that's for sure.

I always have pets in my home. Mostly cats. But they ALL live well past 14 years old. And they are indoor cats. In the summer, I might take them in the yard on a leash, but not that much. They are completely indoor pets. None of them wheeze and cough and have watery eyes, not ever.

What does THAT tell you?

And before Ralph died recently, there was always at least two smokers in this house. My daughter smokes, and SHE smoked in this house before she got married. So, that was THREE smokers in this house. Never bothered our beloved pets one bit.

Just another saga for the War On The Smokers.