California considers program to measure pollutants in people. (Brave New World Alert!)

Lexington Herald Leader ^ | Posted on Mon, May. 31, 2004 | BY BARBARA FEDER OSTROV

[.cnI redruM]

SAN JOSE, Calif. - (KRT) - What sort of potentially toxic chemicals are floating around in your body? Four parts per billion of pentachloronitrobenzene, perhaps? Trace amounts of dibutyl phthalate? And can they make you sick?

Scientists aren't at all clear on the last question yet. But California lawmakers are considering a bill that wades deep into the national debate over biomonitoring - and asks chemical manufacturers and distributors to pay for it.

Biomonitoring is an emerging science that analyzes human blood, breast milk and urine for trace amounts of pollutants, from lead and mercury to a host of industrial chemicals with unpronounceable names. After decades of testing soil, water, air and food, scientists now are scrutinizing pollution in people, cataloging chemicals that take up residence in fat cells and body fluids in hopes of establishing links to cancer and other diseases.

Last week the state Senate passed the Healthy Californians Biomonitoring Program, carried by Sen. Deborah Ortiz, a Democrat, and sponsored by the Breast Cancer Fund and Commonweal, an environmental group. The bill will be considered in the Assembly this summer.

The legislation would create the nation's first state biomonitoring program, one that would start by looking for 57 chemicals in the breast milk of volunteer women in three California communities, then expand its scope to other body fluids, chemicals and communities. Details of the program would be left to an advisory committee overseen by the California Department of Health Services.

"This really is an opportunity for California to gather the data we need to determine whether or not exposures to toxic contaminants in our everyday life are affecting our health," Ortiz said.

What's drawing vociferous opposition from business groups is how Ortiz wants to finance that scientific endeavor: Her bill would require state environmental officials to identify and levy fees on manufacturers and distributors of those 57 chemicals "at their first point of sale in California." The program, which would start in 2006, could ultimately collect up to $12 million in fees annually.

The bill's political prospects are murky. Ortiz withdrew a similar bill last year for fine-tuning. It's supported by dozens of health, education and environmental groups, among them the California Medical Association, the Sierra Club California and the National Resources Defense Council. But the bill's defeat is a top priority for a powerful business coalition that includes the California Chamber of Commerce, the Silicon Valley Manufacturers Group and the American Chemistry Council, which represents chemical manufacturers.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has not taken a position on the bill, but he'll probably be advised by an influential political appointee, state public health officer Dr. Richard Jackson. Jackson oversaw biomonitoring programs when he ran the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Environmental Health.

All of us have chemicals, both manmade and natural, in our bodies. A 2003 CDC report evaluating 116 chemicals in more than 2,000 Americans revealed the presence of lead and mercury, as well as residues from pesticides, cigarette smoke, even shampoo. But with many chemicals measuring in a few parts per million or even billion, which ones should we worry about, and at what levels? How much pentachloronitrobenzene, a fungus-killing chemical, is dangerous? What about dibutyl phthalate, found in nail polish and plastic wrap? With a few exceptions, scientists still aren't sure.

Researchers have definitely linked brain damage to ever-smaller amounts of lead. Some pesticides have been linked to cancer. But the dangers of a vast majority of industrial chemicals remain an open question, one that may be complicated by an individual's genetic makeup.

"Biomonitoring is a very important first step in determining risk," said David Ropeik, director of risk communication at the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis. "But saying it's in you is not the same as saying it will make you sick."

Business groups opposed to the biomonitoring bill have seized upon that issue, saying it's unfair to make chemical manufacturers and distributors pay for biomonitoring programs when the science of harm lags behind the science of detection.

While Ortiz acknowledges that lag, she believes that biomonitoring will ultimately protect the health of Californians. Scientists haven't exactly pinpointed the levels at which the flame retardant chemicals known as PDBEs can harm, but preliminary research on its dangers prompted the state to pass a ban on some PDBEs that will start in 2008. Lead in paint and gasoline was banned before researchers how toxic it could be in extremely low amounts, and children are healthier for it, Ortiz points out.

"It took years to come to a consensus on lead," Ortiz said. "We are at the very beginning of that process in California for these chemicals."

---

More information about Senate Bill 1168 can be found on the California Senate's Web site, www.senate.ca.gov. Click on "Legislation."

---

© 2004, San Jose Mercury News (San Jose, Calif.).

[Rebelbase]

"I think this will only make lawsuits even worse."

Yep. IMO that is all its geared for too.

[concordKIWI]

And proud of it!

[Rockingham]

The testing program in question would be voluntary. Absent compulsion, what objection do you have?

As for the Fifth Amendment, it does not stretch as far as you suppose. The Supreme Court has held that routine drug testing can usually be required as a condition of employment and that the police can even require a blood test incident to a DUI stop.

There is no "slippery slope" here. To go from voluntary testing for environmental contaminants to indiscriminate mass compulsory testing for illegal drugs would be like falling up a staircase.

[Rockingham]

I ain't touchin' that one!

[.cnI redruM]

In his case, the alcohol sterilizes it. He could be dipped in Ebola without getting sick.

[.cnI redruM]

>>>>Metals can cause depression. They should start with Al Gore - I think he is a major depressor!

Why not just flat-out call him a slug. One metal he seems depressingly short of is lithium carbonate.

[Seadog Bytes]

RE: "The testing program in question would be voluntary. Absent compulsion, what objection do you have?"

Unfortunately, when dealing with government, any programme initially touted as "voluntary" (while marketing it to the sheeple) will not necessarily 'stay' voluntary. An old favorite ploy is to condition local funding (from state or federal programs) upon compliance with 'voluntary' guidelines. One can readily see examples of this in the "planning" arena, as the pro-'Agenda 21' (read 'socialist') crowd seeks to bring recalcitrant local jurisdictions into line with their 'vision'. There are certainly other examples.

In Santa Cruz County (CA) for instance, those wishing to build 'Granny Units' must 'voluntarily' agree to rent controls (otherwise illegal under state law[Costa-Hawkings Act] and also considered a regulatory 'taking' under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by many) in order to obtain permits. Further, if the proposed structure is considered 'non-habitable' (read 'garage', 'barn', etc.), individuals seeking permits must 'voluntarily' record permanent deed restrictions, prior to permits being issued, granting perpetual property access to county employees, (...without county employees ever having to deal with any notice requirements, nor any of those pesky 'warrants', or 'probable cause' issues supposedly guaranteed to all citizens by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, of course.), and agreeing to pay all costs and 'enforcement fees'(investigative, legal, etc.), regardless of the property owner's ultimately determined guilt or innocence, if, and whenever, county employees, in their sole discretion, might 'determine' that some 'investigation' or other 'enforcement action' is deemed 'necessary' (another Fifth Amendment issue). This is ALL totally 'voluntary' of course... as long as one does not wish to obtain the necessary permits. (!!!)

RE: "As for the Fifth Amendment, it does not stretch as far as you suppose. The Supreme Court has held that routine drug testing can usually be required as a condition of employment and that the police can even require a blood test incident to a DUI stop."

You are correct, of course. The courts HAVE already reduced or revoked many of American citizens' previous 'rights' under the Constitution's 'Bill of Rights'. (2nd, 4th, 5th, to name but a few.) Such reductions and revocations are ongoing, and continue because activist courts are continually busily 'amending' (the "living document") rather than 'interpreting' the U.S. Constitution as it was written and, some would say, 'as intended'. (Can you say "Ninth Circus"...?)

RE: "There is no "slippery slope" here. To go from voluntary testing for environmental contaminants to indiscriminate mass compulsory testing for illegal drugs would be like falling up a staircase."

I absolutely disagree. The 'slope' is always 'slippery' for citizens in their attempts to limit (hold the line) on government powers. There is ALWAYS some excuse, some 'chicken-little' 'emergency' from which the government 'must protect the people', which government uses as an excuse to ever enhance, never reduce, its powers. Rather than 'falling up a staircase', I would suggest to you that a more appropriate comparison might be to "Where does a 500lb gorilla sleep...???", or to "What always happens right after your camel gets his nose under your tent...???"

No real surprise here - It is, of course, a natural, and totally anticipated, thing for governments to always strive to expand their powers over their citizens. It is also true that the more power government has, the less freedom its citizens have. It should therefore ALSO come as no surprise to you either that *some* of us should wish restrain the inexorable growth of government power to the small extent we can, so that we may (at least for the short time we may have left on this planet) cherish for just a little longer, those few freedoms we still have remaining.

Senator Ortiz is, of course, known to many Californians as a staunch advocate of the in-your-face 'nanny state', and we tend to remember some of the more outrageous of her earlier proposed big-government 'solutions'.

...all just my opinion, of course. <;-}

"Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law. ...When ‘the common good’ of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals. "--Ayn Rand

[Old Professer]

The biggest public health issue of all is indiscriminate breeding.

[LPDen]

"The courts HAVE already reduced or revoked many of American citizens' previous 'rights' under the Constitution's 'Bill of Rights'. (2nd, 4th, 5th, to name but a few.) Such reductions and revocations are ongoing, and continue because activist courts are continually busily 'amending' (the "living document") rather than 'interpreting' the U.S. Constitution as it was written and, some would say, 'as intended'. "

Part of the problem we have is that the US Supreme Court has been "interpreting" far too long...their job is to UPHOLD the constitution,not tell us what the founders "really" meant.

[Rockingham]

You see many far-reaching implications in a proposal for California to fund a public health study. I do not.

Public health concerns and problems are traditionally understood to be properly suited to government intervention. Most classical and free market economists agree on this.

Thus carriers of contagious diseases can and ought to be quarantined so that they do not spread disease; food and restaurants are inspected lest the public be made ill by poor sanitation; sewage is required to be treated rather than slopped out on the streets; and so on.

The cumulative human dose of pesticides and other man-made toxins is worthy of study. The science is still developing, but it increasingly suggests that many of these chemicals accumulate in the body and act on it in damaging ways: cancer, gender deformities, impaired fertility, hormonal disorders, and other diseases have been implicated.
On the whole, industry will tend to publicly resist, but then, if the evidence bears out the concern, will reformulate their processes and products and eventually accept regulation as preferable to mass litigation. No one will get tested except with their permission, and the most that the public at large will ever notice is a newspaper story that some products are being changed in imperceptible ways due to health concerns.

The battle against excessive government is best fought against the excesses, not against measures than make sense on traditional grounds.

[Rockingham]

Yeah, but it is always a question in the end of the wrong people being too fertile. Personally, I would embrace a doubling of our minority population -- provided the increase was all due to new versions of Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Condi Rice, Michelle Malkin, and so on.

[Old Professer]

The engineers have all been fired.

[endthematrix]

re:...the most that the public at large will ever notice is a newspaper story that some products are being changed in imperceptible ways due to health concerns.

re: Compulsory testing.

Welcome to technological progress! For more info try the DARPA/UC Berkley Health Science Initiative. This is new technology (Bio-MEMS and Bio-Flip)and to think it won't be employed into you EVERYDAY lives is ignorant.

"Indeed, he believes that in three to five years his nanoscopic micro-CIA, funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, could lead to an extremely sensitive wristwatch biomonitor that soldiers could wear."

Do some research and find that the defense industry is on this. If you are interested in public safety you or someone more "important" up the chain of command might decide that you should wear a device that might clue them in to what you might be up to. Also this is the flip to drug delivery through MEMS technology.

UC Berkeley Researchers Developing Microsized Microscope That Can Peek Inside Living Cells

[endthematrix]

Re: a little monitoring device will be implanted in babies to monitor their lifetime chemicals.

See post #33..

[Rockingham]

I am old enough to remember technology and nature scares in years past over: an impending ice age due to inescapable climate cycles; overpopulation; extinction of the Bald Eagle; depletion of mineral resources; pervasive eavesdropping; and destruction of the ozone layer.

For more than a generation, conservatives had reason to fear that communism was the future. Its progress seemed inexorable, and our response often faltering, confused, and inadequate.

There was and is a basis for all those fears, but none of them have come true as general catastrophes, or at least not in the time frames projected. Alarmism is seldom in order because somehow, when dangers appear, human beings reform and adapt; and, contrary to the well-informed pessimism of Whitaker Chambers and so many others, communism did not triumph.

Fears over implants for purposes of government control of the populace are of the same category as fear of massive, police state eavesdropping. After a series of eavesdropping abuses came to light in the 1960's and 70's, American public opinion led to reforms that dramatically reduced government and private eavesdropping.

Even if one is pessimistic about the course the US is on, one should have a sense of optimism because of our innate love of freedom and that it reflects fundamental human desires. The house odds are on our side.

[endthematrix]

"The house odds are on our side. "

I pray that you are not teaching that to your grandchildren. The "It can't happen here" argument falls deaf upon the millions of exterminated corpses from Communism.

The annual death rate in Lenin's slave labor camps generally ranged between 10-30% per year. (Thus, the odds of surviving a five- year sentence ranged from 20-60%). Moreover, the high death rate required continuous large-scale arrests merely to keep the prison population stable. I'd suppose to argue this you would counter that they were the "bad" Communists and deserved to be there.

[B4Ranch]

It shouldn't be too far down the road where we will all be declared irresponsible and the free choice to own firearms, vote, smoke or drink will not be our decision.

That's when life will be much easier for everyone. //sarcasm//

[Rockingham]

We resisted the Soviets, as did many others, and were ultimately successful. When Reagan called the Soviet Union an evil empire soon to be discarded on the trash heap of history, I wondered if he was carried away by optimism and a sense of faith.

Yet Reagan was proven right in his confidence that communism was perverse and could and would be defeated. He believed this as President, but he also believed it when he was just a B list actor fighting communist infiltrated unions in Hollywood.

I am in no sense complacent or inert against the evils that are loose in the world. The world is always in trouble, and we are always called to battle. Conservatives are not guaranteed victory, but when we fight, we have history, human nature, and God on our side -- the house odds.

[Seadog Bytes]

"...provided the increase was all due to new versions of Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Condi Rice, Michelle Malkin, and so on."

AMEN.

[Seadog Bytes]

RE: "You see many far-reaching implications...I do not."

"Be alert to the beginnings of evil. It never comes under the appearance of evil, but always under the appearance of the beautiful, the promising, the idealistic, the pleasant." --Michael Novak

"Now here is the secret: despite the softening of the rhetoric, the liberal project remain(s) ...the same. Americans would no longer be citizens exercising sovereign control over their government (or themselves), but a mass of raw materials to be worked upon by the government." --Glenn Ellmers

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with a series of hobgoblins." -- H.L. Mencken

"Every problem in America, every need and every threat, whether real or conjured, is used as an excuse for the confiscation of private wealth, the suppression of individual freedom and the expansion of an overbearing government bureaucracy. An imperial government is taking charge of our lives in the name of what's good for us, telling us what to eat, how to raise our children, what cars to drive, when to buckle up, where to set our thermostats, who can play professional golf, how often to flush the toilet, what to believe and what to think. Where will Nanny Government look next?" --Linda Bowles (...bless her.)

"The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments." - William H. Borah

"Anyone can see a forest fire. Skill lies in sniffing the first smoke." --Robert Heinlein

"Few men desire liberty; the majority are satisfied with a just master." --Gaius Sallustius Crispus (Roman historian, c. 86-35/45 B.C.)