Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘cancer’

Roundup “Probably Carcinogenic” – and Monsanto Knew

Posted in Food, Health, Toxics, tagged , , , , , , on February 26, 2016 |

Monsanto has a bad track record when it comes to the safety of its products. From saccharin, to Agent Orange, to DDT, Monsanto has a history of producing and distributing chemicals that have serious health consequences. Most recently, the company has come under pressure for its herbicide, Roundup. After years of consumer concern, world-leading scientists at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) released a study in March 2015, stating they believed glyphosate, Roundup’s active ingredient, is “probably carcinogenic”. These findings have been echoed by the World Health Organization.

Chafer Sentry Herbicide Application

Chafer Sentry Herbicide Application

This news should bring shockwaves in regulatory policy, as glyphosate is by far the most used herbicide in the world. The use of this carcinogenic herbicide has become essential for thousands of farmers who are under contract with Monsanto to use Roundup Ready genetically modified (GM) seeds. Roundup Ready crops are most heavily applied with glyphosate and these include soy, corn, canola, alfalfa, cotton, sorghum, and wheat.

Countries such as Sri Lanka, and Bermuda have banned the use and importation of glyphosate, while Germany’s health ministers are spearheading a campaign to have the herbicide banned all across the European Union. For the US, the first instance of this can be seen in the California Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to begin labeling Roundup and other products containing the chemical as carcinogenic. Dr. Nathan Donley, a scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, stated,

“As far as I’m aware, this is the first regulatory agency in the U.S. to determine that glyphosate is a carcinogen. So this is a very big deal.”

Glyphosate’s carcinogenic potential has been known to Monsanto and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from long term animal experiments since the early 1980s, but the company has repeatedly dismissed such claims and refused to disclose the studies, buy claiming they contain “trade secrets”. After petitioning the EPA, Dr. Anthony Samsel, a research expert who has worked for the EPA, and as a hazardous materials expert, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the United States Coast Guard (USCG), received the lab documents.

One study shows how mice exposed to glyphosate produced renal tubular adenomas, which are tumors in kidney cancer, along with developing hepatocyte hypertrophy, which is a sign of liver cancer. In addition, lab findings show how glyphosate glyphosate stops the body from absorbing selenium, which leads to thyroid cancer growth. As a result, the EPA labeled glyphosate a Class C carcinogen in a March 4, 1985 EPA review. The Class C carcinogen label means there is suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential. This classification was changed by the EPA just six years later to a Class E category which suggests “evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans”. Is it a coincidence that this change in glyphosate’s classification transpired during the same period that Monsanto was producing its first Roundup-Ready GM Crops?

(more…)

Read Full Post »

One More Reason to be Skeptical About Natural Gas – Study Links Gas Development to Birth Defects

Posted in Air Quality, Fracking, Health, natural gas, Safety, Toxics, Water, tagged , , , , , , , on February 28, 2014 |

2014-02-28 Drilling Rig explores the shale - Mladen Antonov AFP Getty Images

Drilling Rig Reflected in Wastewater Holding Pond
Photo by Mladen Antonov, AFP/Getty Images

Studies released over the past few months have linked pollution from natural gas extraction with birth defects.

In a study released in January by Environmental Health Perspectives, researchers examined data from 124,842 births between 1996 and 2009 in rural Colorado. They examined correlations between how close and dense natural gas development was to the pregnant mother and incidences of various birth defects, including congenital heart defects, neural tube defects, oral cleft, preterm birth and low term birth weight.

The study found that the most exposed mothers, who lived in areas containing over 125 natural gas wells per mile, were 30% more likely to have a child born with a congenital heart defect than a mother who does not live near any wells. One might ask – how is this possible?

Many pollutants from the natural gas extraction processes, including toluene, xylenes and benzene, are suspected to cause physiological abnormalities and mutations in human DNA. These pollutants are known to be able to cross the placenta blood barrier, raising the possibility of fetal exposure to these and other air pollutants.

Of course, air pollutants are not the only danger posed by natural gas extraction. The fluid used in this process is already known to contain over a hundred known or suspected endocrine disruptors – chemicals that can interfere with the body’s responses to estrogen and testosterone – which can lead to many health problems including infertility and cancer. What researches found in a late 2013 study was that groundwater samples taken from areas around natural gas extraction contained very high levels of these endocrine disruptors, while groundwater taken from an area without natural gas had much lower levels. In other words, natural gas extraction is linked with the contamination of groundwater with chemicals that cause infertility.

While researchers cannot say that their studies definitively prove that the natural gas extraction process causes birth defects or groundwater contamination, it is clear that more research needs to be done and the process needs to be further regulated before America continues on an ‘All of the Above’ energy policy. These studies suggest that the future health of generations to come depends on it.

Read Full Post »

World Health Organization says air pollution causes cancer

Posted in Air Quality, Health, tagged , , , , , on October 17, 2013 |

The Associated Press is reporting that the World Health Organization (WHO) is declaring – what many of us who spend our days in traffic choking on smog or who live near a power plant or other industrial facility have long suspected but now has finally been scientifically validated – air pollution causes lung cancer.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the cancer agency of the World Health Organization based in Lyon, France, declared  that air pollution is a carcinogen, alongside known dangers such as asbestos, tobacco and ultraviolet radiation. The decision came after a consultation by an expert panel organized by IARC declared air pollution an important environmental carcinogen, more so than passive smoking.

IARC had previously deemed some of the components in air pollution such as diesel fumes to be carcinogens, but this is the first time it has classified air pollution in its entirety as cancer causing.

The risk to the individual is low according to their statement, but main sources of pollution are widespread, including transportation, power plants, and industrial and agricultural emissions, and they are difficult for individuals to avoid.

WHO and the European Commission are reviewing their recommended limits on air pollution. Previously, pollution had been found to boost the chances of heart and respiratory diseases, but the recent analysis of more than 1,000 studies worldwide points to enough evidence that exposure to outdoor air pollution is now considered to cause lung cancer and WHO will review their recommended limits on air pollution based on these new findings.

Click here to read the NBC news story on this new finding.

Read Full Post »

Diesel exhaust causes cancer according to the WHO

Posted in Air Quality, tagged , , , , , on June 13, 2012 |

Diesel exhaust causes cancer, declared the World Health Organization’s cancer agency earlier this week.

The new classification was released by an expert panel organized by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the cancer arm of the World Health Organization. In 1989, the agency labeled diesel exhaust a “probable” carcinogen. Reclassifying it as carcinogenic puts it into the same category as other known hazards such as tabacco smoke, asbestos and ultraviolet radiation.

While the risk of getting cancer from diesel fumes is small, so many people breathe in the fumes in some way that the science panel said raising the status of diesel exhaust to carcinogen from “probable carcinogen” was an important shift, making diesel emissions as important a public health threat as secondhand smoke.

Fumes from diesel engines affect groups including pedestrians on the street, school children who ride in diesel school buses, commuters who share highways with heavy truck traffic, ship passengers and crew, port workers and fence line communities, railroad workers, truck drivers, mechanics, miners and people operating heavy machinery.

The U.S. government, however, still classifies diesel exhaust as a likely carcinogen, and diesel engine makers and car company officials are quick to say new diesel engines emissions are far cleaner, pointing out emissions from new and retrofitted trucks and buses have been slashed by more than 95 percent for nitrogen oxides, particulate and sulfur emissions.  However further studies should be done to assess any potential dangers even these lower levels of emissions might have on the public.

At this point, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has not received any requests to reevaluate whether diesel definitely causes cancer but their assessments tend to be in line with those made by IARC.

In 2001, the Texas legislature created the Texas Emissions Reduction Program (TERP) to reduce emissions from on and off road diesel engines. In 2007, that program was expanded to help school districts retrofit their school bus fleets. So while there have been efforts to reduce diesel emissions in the state, there are many sources of diesel emissions that are still impacting Texas communities that need to be addressed.

TERP legislation is up for review this upcoming legislative session. This new declaration by the World Health Organization makes it imperative that TERP not only be reauthorized, but be expanded to include more classes of diesel engines.

Read Full Post »

San Antonio Protest of Nuclear Reactors TOMORROW, Thursday Sept. 10

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 9, 2009 |

Hey San Antonio! There will be a protest against nuclear power tomorrow at lunchtime downtown outside of City Hall.  Join us and the rest of the Energia Mia coalition and make your voice heard!  Details below.

WHAT: Protest against CPS Energy’s pursuit of more nuclear reactors at the South Texas Project. Not only is nuclear power the most expensive form of energy, it’s the most water intensive and it comes with enormous security, safety and health risks.

WHEN: Thursday, September 10th, Noon

WHERE: 114 W. Commerce, Outside of the Municipal Plaza Building, City Hall Complex

WHO: Concerned students, Members of Energia Mia and others.

Energia Mia includes members active in Southwest Workers’ Union, the Esperanza Peace and Justice Center, Project Verde, the Alamo Group of the Sierra Club, Highland Hills and Jefferson Heights Neighborhood Associations, AGUA, the Texas Drought Project, the Green Party, San Antonio Area Progressive Action Coalition, Public Citizen, SEED Coalition, Environment Texas and Clean Water Action.

WHY: Nuclear reactors come with serious health and safety risks. Exposure to radioactivity leads to cancer and genetic damage and after fifty years there is still no solution to storing radioactive waste. San Antonio needs drinking water. Vast quantities of water should not be wasted to cool nuclear reactors. Safer, more affordable energy choices exist today.

Spending billions of dollars for nuclear reactors is throwing money away that should be used for energy efficiency and renewable solar, wind and geothermal power, creating green jobs in San Antonio. Nuclear power would raise electric rates much more than other energy options, at a time when people are already struggling to pay their bills. The nuclear reactors should be halted now.

For More Information, Contact: Alice Canestaro, Energía Mía (713.480.8013) or Amanda Hoss, Esperanza Peace and Justice Center (210.228.0201)

Read Full Post »

Proposed South Texas Project Reactors Pose Increased Water Use and Radioactive Contamination Risks

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 1, 2009 |

San Antonio, TX —  Nuclear power is the most water intensive energy source available. When San Antonio and all of Texas are suffering from extreme drought and are increasingly in need of sources of drinking water, pursuing more nuclear reactors doesn’t make sense, especially true since cheaper, safer alternatives such as energy efficiency, wind, geothermal and solar energy are available. All use significantly less water than nuclear reactors.

Dr. Lauren Ross’ comments are timely in that the Texas drought continues to worsen, and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is still considering nine water-related contentions submitted in opposition to additional reactors by SEED Coalition, Public Citizen and STARE, the South Texas Association for Responsible Energy.

“Nuclear reactors consume vast quantities of water,” said Dr. Lauren Ross, environmental engineer and owner of Glenrose Engineering. “The proposed STP reactors 3 and 4 would withdraw 23,170 gallons per minute from the Colorado River. The two proposed reactors would increase forced evaporation by an additional 37,400 acre-feet per year. The water withdrawal required from the Colorado River to replace evaporated water for all four reactors would be about 74,500 acre-feet per year.”

“Water withdrawal for STP’s nuclear reactors can be a significant fraction of the total river flow. Peak water use so far occurred on September 16, 2001, when the water withdrawal was 48% of the total Colorado river flow near the reactor site,” said Dr. Ross. “From January 1, 2001 through September 30, 2006 there were 69 days when withdrawal for existing STP reactors was equal to or greater than one quarter of the entire river flow.” With four reactors and an increase in the surface water demand, the river flow in the future could go even lower than it is now.

Estimated groundwater use would more than double from an average of 798 gallons per minute for the existing facility over the last five years to a level of 2040 gallons per minute for all four reactors, according to Dr. Ross, but STP wants to wait on analyzing groundwater availability until after the permit is issued.

The year 2008 was one of the driest years on record for Central Texas. Dr. Ross’s most recent research shows that in 2008 water use by LCRA’s firm water customers plus four irrigation operators was more than twice that of the Highland Lakes inflows for the same period, so losses are not being replenished. Moreover, STP’s authorized withdrawal is more than one-third of the total Highland Lakes inflow for 2008.

Water versus Energy

The San Antonio Water System recently filed suit for breach of contract against the Lower Colorado River Authority for $1.23 billion. The suit claims that the water-sharing project was killed by the river authority in order to make sure there would be enough water for power plant deals in Matagorda County. At the same time CPS Energy, the San Antonio municipal utility, seeks to be a partner in the proposed nuclear reactors for Matagorda County. STP’s annual permitted withdrawal from the Colorado River is 102,000 acre-feet per year, incredibly close to the amount in the canceled LCRA/SAWS water agreement, 102,500 acre-feet per year (average).

“Will we reach a point where San Antonio will have to decide which matters most, electricity from nuclear reactors or water for drinking?” asked Alice Alice Canestaro-Garcia, visual artist and member of EnergÍa MÍa. “It makes no sense to build two more reactors, which together would use enough water to fill 1,440 swimming pools in one day.”

Increasing Radioactive Contamination

South Texas Project’s license application fails to evaluate the increasing levels of groundwater tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen that can be dangerous if inhaled, ingested or absorbed through the skin. Tritium emits Beta radiation that causes cancer, cell mutation, and birth defects. “Tritium has been detected in two of the pressure relief wells that collect water leaking from the unlined bottom of the existing main cooling reservoir. Concentrations of tritium have been increasing in both wells, and these concentrations could rise if two more nuclear reactors are built at the site,” said Dr. Ross.

A state water permit proposed for the site fails to address radionuclides such as tritium, and doesn’t require monitoring for total dissolved solids, some metals or the chemicals added by the facility, such as biocides, sulfuric acid, and anti-scalants. There are also no sulfur or sodium limits for the wastewater discharges, even though these are significant components of the water that would be released back to the Colorado River system.

The application’s Environmental Report relies upon a dilution factor of 10 to meet discharge standards, but fails to provide information about how much the waste discharge loads would change with two additional nuclear reactors. It fails to analyze the consequences of the load increases into a system with only a small change in the dilution factor, since the storage volume would increase only 7.4%.

The reactor application admits that “5,700 acre-feet per year leaks through the unlined bottom of the main cooling reservoir into the underlying Gulf Coast Chicot Aquifer” and 68% of it is recovered. The rest migrates underground, seeping into nearby surface water bodies, into pumped wells or the estuaries of the Gulf of Mexico.

“Failure to monitor and regulate leakage through the bottom of the main cooling reservoir constitutes a failure to protect groundwater and surface water from plant operations,” said Dr. Ross.

For more information, visit www.EnergiaMia.org

Read Full Post »

A Look at Uranium Mining

Posted in Energy, Nuclear, Toxics, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 8, 2009 |

An Open Pit Uranium Mine

An Open Pit Uranium Mine

Proponents of nuclear power do a lot to paint it as an environmentally friendly, cheap fuel source. It is not, and we at Public Citizen work hard to dispel these kinds of myths. We have said a lot about how expensive a major nuclear undertaking can be (San Antonio is on verge of dumping several billion dollars into one of these projects) and how they emit radiation into the air and produce radioactive waste that hangs around for thousands of years and can be a huge contamination risk. None of this gets much attention in mainstream discourse, so it is up to concerned citizens like us to shed light on these things.

There is one destructive aspect of nuclear power that public discourse tends to be especially silent on. Just as coal industry apologists brush over the enormous damage caused by coal mining, any discussion of nuclear is power is likely to be silent on the damage done by uranium mining.

The damage to human health associated with uranium mining is huge. Historically, uranium miners have had a significantly higher risks of developing small cell Carcinoma, which is a likely product of their exposure to Radon-222 — a cancer causing agent created by decaying uranium. The presence of Radon gas also makes uranium mines a very dangerous work environment. This led to the 1990 passage of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), which awards $100,000 to miners, millers, and transporters who subsequently got cancer after exposure to uranium — though families of many of the victims have had difficulty receiving this money (many cancer stricken miners were Navajo, and their marriage licenses were not universally recognized).

Last year the French mining company Areva was nominated for a Public Eye Award (a recognition intended for companies who brought about the most social or ecological damage) by Pro Natura (Switzerland’s branch of Friends of The Earth), and the Berne Declaration development campaign. The nomination came from the company’s perceived failure to adequately disclose the risks associated with uranium mining to its workers in Niger, as well as neglecting to treat patients who are unable to pay at company hospitals. Workers also mentioned deaths caused by radioactive contamination of air and ground water.

Aside from the dangers of uranium exposure, mining projects  also cause considerable damage to the local environments and to the health of people who live nearby. The American Southwest is covered with abandoned uranium mines from the Cold War Era that have yet to be cleaned up, not to mention waste piles, open tunnels, and pits — all of which emit cancer causing radiation and leach arsenic and heavy metals into the soil and drinking water. Oddly enough, much of this radioactive debris eventually came to be used as building material for local houses. It is likely that exposure to this material is at least partially responsible for the increased cancer rates among Navajos (from almost non-existent) to well above the national-average by the end of the cold war.

Currently all uranium mining done in the United States is in the form of in-situ leaching, a process in which boreholes are drilled into a deposit, it is filled with an acid or alkali, and the dissolved ore content is pumped to the surface for recovery. It is a controversial process, often objected to by local land owners, because it acidifies ground waters and can release toxic heavy-metals as well as radioactive materials. There have also been concerns about spillage of acid leachates into the soil or water supplies. In other parts of the world, open pit mines and underground mines are still used, which continue to expose workers to danger, damage the local landscapes, and create waste heaps of toxic and radioactive waste rock.

There are a lot of hidden expenses and environmental as well as human health problems with nuclear power, despite claims that it is a “clean”  fuel source. I think we need to be a lot more skeptical and a lot more forward in our rejections of these claims. I also think that the dangers of uranium mining give us another reason to support new clean energy sources like wind and solar power.

The Disappointed Environmentalist

Read Full Post »

The Smokestack Effect

Posted in Toxics, tagged , , , , , , on December 16, 2008 |

An investigative report by USAToday brought me to tears this morning.

Granted, I am a particularly emotional person at a period of transition in my life. I just started a new job (here, with Public Citizen!) in a new town (loving Austin already), and am living out of a suitcase. Things are rather in flux, and my emotional state may have followed suit. But I think that even beyond all that, USA Today’s recent report finally made air toxics issues hit home.

Cesar Chavez High School In Houston, TX

USAToday’s report, entitled “The Smokestack Effect: Toxic Air and America’s Schools”, ranks 127,800 schools nationwide based upon the concentrations and health hazards of the chemicals likely to be in the surrounding air.

The report was initiated after Meredith Hitchens Elementary School in Addyston, Ohio was closed due to the danger posed by the surrounding air. Air monitors placed near the school recorded extremely high levels of toxics coming from the plastics plant across the street. When the Ohio EPA determined that students were being exposed to cancer at levels 50 times higher than what the state deems an acceptable risk, the school was shut down.

Following this story, USAToday spent 8 months examining the extent and danger of schools located in toxic hot spots. Using the EPA’s own models for tracking toxic industrial chemicals, USAToday found 435 schools across the country with air quality worse than that which caused the closure of Hitchens Elementary School. Though the Environmental Protection Agency has a special office dedicated to protecting children’s health, the agency has never used their own data or models to look at potential problems surrounding schools. Nor does the office set health and safety standards for children in schools, as they do for adults in the workplace.

Philip Landrigan, a physician who heads Mount Sinai School of Medicine’s children’s health and the environment unit, comments on this problem in the article:

“The mere fact that kids are being exposed ought to be enough to force people to pay attention. The problem here is, by and large, there’s no cop on the beat. Nobody’s paying attention.”

Children are particularly susceptible to the health risks associated with toxic chemical exposure. Because or their small size, children breathe in more air in relation to their weight than adults. Their bodies are also still in a formative state, making early exposure all the more dangerous. And since kids are required to spend so many childhood hours in school, toxins are likely to accumulate in their bodies and not cause problems until years later.

Unfortunately, the names of several Texas schools peppered this national article. The first was San Jacinto Elementary School in Deer Park:

“At San Jacinto Elementary School in Deer Park, Texas, data indicated carcinogens at levels even higher than the readings that prompted the shutdown of Hitchens. A recent University of Texas study showed an “association” between an increased risk of childhood cancer and proximity to the Houston Ship Channel, about 2 miles from the school.”

The USAToday report’s findings were based upon EPA data and industry estimates. That means, unfortunately, that even what they’ve reported “may be a gross underestimate”, because industries only estimate their emissions. For the most part, dangerous chemical carcinogens such as benzene and butadiene are not monitored because they are not regulated by the EPA. USAToday’s report suggested that Deer Park might be a hot spot particularly worthy of such monitoring because students are exposed to very high levels of carcinogens at area elementary, middle, and high schools – that is, throughout every level of their education and development.

Port Neches-Groves High School in Port Neches, Texas, was featured as a major part of the report. That’s because 27 graduates of Port Neches schools have sued the chemical plants there or there former owners after being diagnosed with cancer… (more…)

Read Full Post »