XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality, alt.california, sac.politics   
   XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   From: bksperman@outlook.com   
      
   (CNN) - Routine contact with plastic bottles, toys, food cans,   
   cosmetics and flame retardants containing "endocrine-disrupting   
   chemicals" results in ingestion, leading to a toxic buildup and   
   potentially a variety of medical conditions.   
      
   Routine exposure to these chemicals adds up to annual costs in   
   excess of $340 billion -- a whopping price tag that comes in the   
   form of poor health, increased medical bills and lost income,   
   according to researchers at NYU Langone Medical Center.   
      
   The largest single cost comes from chemical effects on   
   children's developing brains, said Dr. Leonardo Trasande, an   
   associate professor at NYU Langone and lead investigator of the   
   study.   
      
   Obviously, costs are not the main concern of families with   
   growing children. According to Trasande, a few simple steps will   
   limit exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the home.   
      
   "Families can eat organic; they can avoid the use of pesticides   
   in their homes to get rid of unwanted creatures; they can avoid   
   aluminum can food consumption; they can avoid microwaving   
   plastic and machine-dishwashing plastic containers," Trasande   
   said, noting that it is important to avoid plastic bottles with   
   the numbers 3, 6 and 7 on the bottom.   
      
   Another easy fix for families is to "simply air out their homes   
   every couple of days," Trasande said. This helps remove chemical   
   dusts from electronics and other materials, especially flame   
   retardants.   
      
   Chemicals and our hormones   
      
   By mimicking the body's natural sex steroid hormones, endocrine-   
   disrupting chemicals interfere with the function of hormones.   
   Increasing evidence over the past three decades shows how   
   exposure to these chemicals has negative effects on human   
   health, including neurobehavioral disorders, reproductive   
   disorders, and obesity and diabetes, according to Trasande and   
   his co-authors.   
      
   These chemicals include bisphenol A (BPA), which lines food cans   
   made of tin; phthalates, which are used when manufacturing   
   cosmetics and plastic food containers; polybrominated diphenyl   
   ethers (PBDEs) found in the flame retardants added to furniture   
   and packaging; and pesticides such as chlorpyrifos and   
   organophosphates.   
      
   For the new study, appearing in?the journal Lancet Diabetes &   
   Endocrinology, the NYU team reviewed the levels of endocrine-   
   disrupting chemicals in blood and urine samples provided by   
   volunteers participating in the National Health and Nutrition   
   Examination Survey. Five thousand people have participated in   
   this survey each year since 1999.   
      
   After collecting this data, Trasande and his colleagues used   
   advanced computer models to estimate the total cases of disease   
   that would result from exposure to the levels of endocrine-   
   disrupting chemicals they observed. The researchers also   
   calculated the consequences of disease caused by chemicals: lost   
   income, in addition to health care bills.   
      
   The grand total? Annually, it costs the United States $340   
   billion. Yearly exposure to highly toxic fire-resisting PBDE   
   chemicals and pesticides accounted for nearly two-thirds of this   
   total endocrine-disrupting chemical disease burden, said   
   Trasande.   
      
   Worst of all, most of this financial burden resulted from   
   neurological damage in unborn children.   
      
   "Typically, when policy discussions are had about regulation,   
   the arguments are one-sided," Trasande said, noting that   
   everyday people hear about the costs to manufacturers, but they   
   never hear about the benefits -- and cost savings -- involved in   
   regulating the use of damaging chemicals.   
      
   This new analysis is intended "to facilitate a transparent   
   dialogue about the real and substantial tradeoffs for human   
   health that we make by failing to act to protect against the   
   chemicals of greatest concern," said Trasande.   
      
   As such, it should come in handy for the days ahead.   
      
   Chemical policy decisions in the works   
      
   In June, President Obama signed into law a reboot of the Toxic   
   Substances Control Act, "the major law that reviews chemicals   
   for their safety and decides whether they should be allowed for   
   use in the broad environment," including in personal care   
   products, furniture and electronics, explained Trasande.   
      
   "That law presumed that chemicals are innocent until proven   
   guilty," he said.   
      
   The June reboot, known as the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical   
   Safety Act, means "the Environmental Protection Agency is on a   
   fast timeline to deal with the requirements associated with that   
   action," said Frankie Wood-Black, principal at Sophic Pursuits   
   Inc., a boutique consulting firm specializing in environmental   
   and safety regulatory compliance and an instructor at Northern   
   Oklahoma College.   
      
   "All of us in the regulatory world" are interested in the EPA's   
   timing, actions and priorities, said Wood-Black.   
      
   With the EPA articulating new policy, "there is an opportunity   
   here to ensure effective implementation of the law," Trasande   
   said.   
      
   Andrea Gore, a professor of pharmacology and toxicology at the   
   University of Texas at Austin, explained how last year, Trasande   
   and his team estimated costs based on predictions of exposures   
   to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the European Union.   
      
   "It is important that they did a similar study in the US,   
   because it shows that costs of endocrine-disrupting chemicals to   
   health are an international problem," Gore said, adding that the   
   chemicals people are exposed to differ around the world, so   
   "learning about exposures in one part of the world can inform   
   decisions in other places that may be considering whether or not   
   to allow or ban a chemical."   
      
   Gore was not involved in the new study, though she is a co-   
   author in a couple of the studies cited by Trasande.   
      
   According to Michele La Merrill, an environmental toxicologist   
   and assistant professor at University of California-Davis, the   
   authors used a definition of endocrine disruption that reflects   
   the views of the Endocrine Society, a 100-year-old global   
   membership organization representing professionals from the   
   field.   
      
   "These authorities have a broader definition of endocrine   
   disrupting-chemicals than that used by the US EPA," said La   
   Merrill, who did not participate in the research. "This exposes   
   a weakness in the archaic US EPA definition and indicates a need   
   for the US EPA to include endocrine-disrupting effects they   
   currently do not consider, such as obesity."   
      
   http://www.news4jax.com/health/researcher-chemical-toxicity-   
   costs-us-340-billion-per-year   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)