Thanks neverdem. The proposed test subject is on the right.
Posted on 12/23/2008 11:30:21 AM PST by neverdem
Cumulative effects of phthalates and related compounds will be larger than effects measured one chemical at a time, reports a National Research Council panel
On December 18, a National Research Council panel told the Environmental Protection Agency that sufficient data exist to begin assessing the potential health risks posed by phthalates, among the most ubiquitous pollutants on the planet. At the same time, the NRC panel strongly recommended that the agency adopt a “paradigm shift” in the way it assesses the chemicals’ toxicity to humans.
Instead of evaluating each phthalate compound individually, EPA should begin assessing risks from likely combos of these and related chemicals — even if each chemical works differently, according to the panel’s new report.
Phthalates are a widely used family of plasticizers and solvents. Owing to the chemicals’ presence in plastics, cosmetics, personal care products and even medicines, residues of these chemicals show up in everyone throughout the developed world.
For more than a decade, studies in rodents have been demonstrating that exposures to phthalates early in life can perturb — in some cases derail — development of an animal’s reproductive organs (SN: 9/2/00, p. 152). Males are most sensitive, largely because these chemicals act as anti-androgens. That is, the chemicals lower concentrations of testosterone, the primary male sex hormone. Especially concerning: In females, phthalates can cross the placenta and pollute the womb.
The NRC panel advocated that EPA assess cumulative risks from all phthalates and other anti-androgenic compounds together — even if the way each pollutant depresses testosterone action or availability results from differing modes of action.
Whether these pollutants pose serious risks to people remains an open question, acknowledged several authors of the NRC report, who took part in a teleconference for the report’s release...
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencenews.org ...
Might explain why so many need Viagra, especially if it accumulates.
There have been stories about the polluting effects of the synthetic estrogen in the Pill as it enters the water supply. It is not removed by sewage treatment methods, so it goes right into the water and wreaks havoc feminizing fish populations etc.
I read one pinhead environmentalist interviewed about this whose attitude was “well, yes, it has all those bad effects, but we can’t expect people to change their lifestyles.”
Of course not. We must shut down industries all over the globe but HEAVEN FORBID you bonobos should have to stop fornicating with each other. I mean, it’s just common sense....how dare we pollute the planet in pursuit of money when we can pollute it in pursuit of sex instead! /sarc
Far be it from me to beat the EPA's drum, but this is actually something that needs to be examined. Some phthalates accumulate in the body's fat cells and don't become an issue unless the chemical burden becomes too great.
Due to overexposure at my job, there are several of these type of chemicals I can't come in contact with anymore.
The havoc they would wreak in a developing body would be worse.
And it might explain the dramatic increase in the number of homosexuals/girly men in the past dozen or so years.
What made their little compasses suddenly decide to point South?
Thanks neverdem. The proposed test subject is on the right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
