Toxic flame retardant found in U.S. breast milk - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-23-2003, 06:33 PM   #1
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 10:46 PM
Toxic flame retardant found in U.S. breast milk

Tue September 23, 2003 04:34 PM ET
WASHINGTON, Sept 23 (Reuters) - Several American mothers nursing their infants had high levels of potentially toxic flame retardant chemicals in their breastmilk, a U.S. environmental group said on Tuesday.
While the study by the Environmental Working Group was small and did not show any health effects in the babies, the group said it showed just how widespread the chemicals are.

The chemicals are bromine-based fire retardants and are used in a wide range of products including furniture, computers, television sets, automobiles, copy machines and hair dryers to make them less likely to catch fire. They can build up in the body over years.

"Brominated fire retardants impair attention, learning, memory, and behavior in laboratory animals at surprisingly low levels," the EWG report reads.

"The most sensitive time for toxic effects is during periods of rapid brain development."

The EWG, a non-profit group that has publicized the presence of many different chemicals in products and the environment, tested the breast milk of 20 first-time mothers across the country, including Washington, D.C., Evergreen, Colorado, and Los Angeles.

"The average level of bromine-based fire retardants in the milk of 20 first-time mothers was 75 times the average found in recent European studies," the report reads.

"Milk from two study participants contained the highest levels of fire retardants ever reported in the United States, and milk from several of the mothers in EWG's study had among the highest levels of these chemicals yet detected worldwide.

"These results confirm recently published findings from University of Texas researchers, as well as other U.S. studies, that American babies are exposed to far higher amounts of fire retardants than babies in Europe, where some of these chemicals have already been banned," the EWG said.

"In the United States, only California and Maine have acted to restrict the use of these chemicals."

The group stressed that women should not stop breastfeeding. No study links intake of the chemicals from breastmilk with any problems in children.

Any health effects probably take place while the children are still in the womb, the group said.

Albemarle Corp. ALB.N of Richmond, Virginia, one of the companies that makes the flame-retardant chemicals, said it was working to find out if the chemicals are dangerous.

"As an industry group and as a company we are working with just about any and every scientific group that is doing long-term studies on the safety of these products," spokesman Michael Whitlow said.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 09-23-2003, 06:39 PM   #2
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 03:46 AM
This is scary. What if this stuff is not safe??
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 09-23-2003, 06:58 PM   #3
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:46 PM
Gov. Davis signed a bill banning this product.


The GOP accused him of being anti business and cite it as one of the reasons to recall him.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 09-23-2003, 07:04 PM   #4
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:46 PM
Really??? I'd like to see your evidence supporting that one.

Davis has made plenty of blunders to generate a recall. I've never heard the flame retardant issue as one of them.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-23-2003, 07:14 PM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:46 PM
Quote:
The GOP accused him of being anti business and cite it as one of the reasons to recall him

I am sure you got me. I am guilty of generlization.

My local Chamber of Comerce is not "the GOP"

They seem to support the GOP 100%.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 09-23-2003, 07:17 PM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:46 PM
Newport Beach? GOP?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-23-2003, 07:20 PM   #7
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:46 PM
well, does this partially vindicate me?

Quote:
But Davis only saw signing the ban into law as one that might help him survive Oct. 7. That alone is reason for California’s voters to recall him. His risking their lives for personal political survival is beyond the pale.
California Recall Burns Flame Retardant [Davis risks lives for personal political survival]
FoxNews ^ | 8/15/2003 | Steven Milloy





Bill Clinton advised California Governor-for-now Gray Davis to start doing more governor-like things to survive the Oct. 7 recall election.


The first thing Davis did in response was to sign a bill last Saturday phasing out two flame retardants by 2008, making California the only state to do so.


I hope no one dies or is injured from Davis “acting” like a governor.


Davis banned two so-called “brominated flame retardants” (BFRs) -- namely Penta-BDE and Octa-BDE -- widely used in furniture and electronic equipment. First developed in the 1960s, BFRs have saved thousands of lives.


A room fire can rapidly escalate to the point where enough heat is generated that all combustible material in the room bursts into flames. This “flash-over” can occur in a matter of minutes. Added to plastics and fabrics, BFRs slow the initial burn rate -- as much as 15 times -- giving room occupants more time to escape.


Though BFRs aren’t the only type of chemical flame retardant, they are the most effective flame retardants when both cost and performance are considered.


Despite the clear value of BFRs, anti-chemical activists oppose their use, claiming the chemicals do not readily degrade in the environment -- called “persistence” -- and can accumulate in wildlife via the food chain. Despite the inclusiveness of the claim, only Penta-BDE is known to persist in the environment and, even then, at very low levels.


The activists succeeded in bringing matters to a head in California by hyperventilating about supposedly alarming increases of BFRs in humans and human breast milk.


A July 2003 study in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, for example, reported detecting a median of 16.5 billionths of a gram of BFRs per gram of fat among 32 California women compared with zero BFRs in serum samples from the 1960s.


A 1999 study in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health reported that the concentrations of BFRs in the breast milk from a sample of Swedish women increased on average from 0.07 billionths of a gram per gram of fat in 1972 to 4.02 billionths of a gram per gram of fat in 1997.


Of course, it is a fundamental principle of toxicology that mere exposure to a substance does not necessarily mean that the exposure is harmful.


In the case of BFRs, despite 40 years of real-world use, no evidence indicates that BFRs have caused any harm whatsoever to humans, according to the U.S. Agency for Toxics Substances and Disease Registry and the European Commission.


Ironically, the European Union nonetheless banned the same chemicals as California earlier this year, using the lame excuse that more scientific data on the chemicals needs to be gathered before their absolute safety could be guaranteed -- a condition that could never be met by any substance, including water, sugar and salt.


The California ban of the BFRs is even hasty from an environmental perspective. Penta-BDE may persist somewhat in the environment (as do a myriad of other natural and manmade substances), but alternative flame retardants will have their own environmental impacts and costs.


For example, in order to achieve the same level of fire protection as BFRs, higher quantities of other flame retardants (chlorinated, phosphorus, nitrogen and inorganic) will be used, burdening the environment with increased levels of plastic additives manufactured and transported. And who knows what the ultimate environmental fates of the substitutes will be?


Moreover, it’s not clear that Penta-BDE is continuing to accumulate in the environment because of use as a flame retardant.


Penta-BDE was found in the environment in increasing quantities during the 1980s, but levels began declining in the early 1990s. The Penta-BDE levels found in the 1980s may be explained by the brief use of the chemical (not as a flame retardant) by the oil industry.


Finally, Penta-BDE was detected in the environment 40 years before the commercialization of any BFRs and so it may have natural sources.


Any rational government decision-making process should balance the risks to human health and safety and to the environment from BFRs with their benefits. It seems that BFRs saving thousands of real lives should easily outweigh imaginary risks to human health and the debatable environmental impacts.


But Davis only saw signing the ban into law as one that might help him survive Oct. 7. That alone is reason for California’s voters to recall him. His risking their lives for personal political survival is beyond the pale.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 09-23-2003, 09:34 PM   #8
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:46 PM
Now I get it. Fox News = GOP. Is that it?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-23-2003, 09:47 PM   #9
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:46 PM
a lot of people would say yes



Quote:
well, does this ** partially** vindicate me?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 09-24-2003, 10:22 AM   #10
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
a lot of people would say yes

And a lot of people thought Saddam was responsible for 9-11
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-24-2003, 12:12 PM   #11
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,693
Local Time: 09:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader



And a lot of people thought Saddam was responsible for 9-11
Didn't a lot of that have to do with Fox News?
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com