Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Bud Dingler Posted 2:27 am
   19 Jun 2008

   i think its important to note

   that your observations are speculative. you have no study to back up your claims.

   once again, another speculative doomsday post on gristmill.

   what does not add up is that IN, IL,MN and NE have much higher concentrations of ag land and corresponding chemical usage.

   there could be a tie in with some other industrial contamination or other phenomenon we do not understand.

   Permalink

2. 

   caniscandida Posted 3:23 am
   19 Jun 2008

   NY testes, go charging on!

   The more sex you have -- and having plenty of sex of course describes us perfectly here in NYC, with no comment on what those watery wicks down in Missouri are up to or not -- , the more impregnatorily potent you are, say the experts.

   Nevertheless, if PETA wants to use these data as an anti-CAFO argument, well, fine.  The more anti-CAFO arguments out there, especially floating around in the farm states, the better.

   Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

   Permalink

3. 

   Tom Philpott Posted 3:48 am
   19 Jun 2008

   Bud,

   I think i made clear that the tie is speculative. But a) I've seen no numbers on sperm counts in the other big-ag states; and b) Missouri lies downstream of those states, meaning that the water could be worse there. The idea is that serious research needs to be done -- something that state and federal officials have, until the CDC study, have cravenly failed to do.

   Victual Reality

   Permalink

4. 

   justlou Posted 4:17 am
   19 Jun 2008

   No MO MoJo

   Interesting.  There is growing evidence that the stuff we flush down our toilets is having bad impacts on aquatic life in streams in MO and elsewhere.  This includes pharmaceuticals and other human health care and hygienic products.  So, what is interfering with the reproductive abilities of stream organisms, could very well be having similar impacts on man.  

   I think researchers will find that much of the problem in MO streams is pretty much homegrown. It and all states have quite a stew brewing with hundreds of chemicals from a variety of sources.  

   Permalink

5. 

   JMG Posted 8:16 am
   19 Jun 2008

   Atrazine -- it's what's for dinner

   This is a good time to remind people of one of the finest books written since "Silent Spring" -- this one is "Living Downstream" by Sandra Steingraber, an ecologist/poet.

   June 18, 2008
   SECTION: Vol. 25 No. 13
   LENGTH: 713 words
   HEADLINE: NEW ATRAZINE STUDY PAINTS GRIM PICTURE FOR HUMAN HEALTH EFFECTS
   BODY:  A new study examining the endocrine-disrupting effects of the widely used herbicide atrazine raises concerns that the common drinking water contaminant is a definite endocrine disruptor for humans and could show serious effects on fish at levels below EPA's drinking water standards.

   The study, published May 7 by the Public Library of Science, The Herbicide Atrazine Activates Endocrine Gene Networks via Non-Steroidal NR5A Nuclear Receptors in Fish and Mammalian Cells, is the first time that scientists have performed a study that systemically looks at all the genetic effects in a human cell, according to a source involved with the study.

   Previous studies have explored whether atrazine is a human carcinogen, and EPA is currently reviewing several of those studies after pressure from environmentalists, who charge the herbicide is harmful to the environment and humans. But EPA sources say the agency will likely find atrazine is not a human carcinogen.

   The researchers in the new study, completed at the University of California San Francisco, examined both human placenta cells and the effects of atrazine on zebra fish and found striking results, a source involved with the study says.

   The study found endocrine-disrupting effects on zebra fish at a level of 2 parts per billion (ppb), which is below EPA's potable drinking water standard of 3 ppb.

   "I have no doubts after our study that this is a major endocrine disrupter for wildlife at very low levels," the source says.

   The study says, "Given the current pervasive use and persistence of [atrazine] in the environment, our findings support the environmental concerns that [atrazine] poses a potential risk to the reproductive health of young fish and other wildlife."

   The study also found effects on human cells at 20 ppb, and the report suggests "further research is needed to determine how this non-estrogenic [endocrine disrupting compound] influences the mammalian embryonic and adult endocrine system," the study says.

   In the human health section of the study, the researchers found that a number of genes involved in the way the body produces and processes hormones are affected by atrazine at relatively low levels -- as low as 20 ppb. The study only looked at one human cell line, the study source notes, saying, "we need to do other studies," looking at reproductive cells, adrenal cells, and other hormone-reacting genes. Researchers need to "start thinking beyond breast cancer and prostate cancer."

   But given the results of the current study, researchers can surmise that "exposure to a fetus could predispose the fetus later in life" to reproductive problems, the source says.

   The source does note that in doing the study, the microbiologists were less aware of EPA regulatory levels and the politics of environmental toxicology. In rebuttals from atrazine producer Syngenta, the source says there have been complaints that the dosages used on human cell lines were too high.

   The researchers tested the effects on human cells at 2,000, 200 and 20 ppb -- seeing clear results at 200 ppb and the beginnings of such effects at 20 ppb. But if the researchers had been aware of the politics of the environmental toxicology of atrazine when doing the study, the source says, they would have examined dosages in between, to discover the drop-off levels in effects.

   In a Syngenta position paper responding to the study, the company argues that the human cell line effects were only seen at very high levels, above 216 ppb. The source involved in the study refutes this though. The company also notes that the effects in the human cell lines have been noted previously, but that there is still no evidence that there is a "physiological consequence . . . in whole animals."

   As for the zebra fish, Syngenta says "similar animal studies have been conducted before, and there is NO previous evidence for an effect of atrazine on aromatase in any whole animal," particularly in zebra fish. Syngenta also questions the methods used by the researchers, particularly for counting fish and sex ratios of the fish.

   Nevertheless, the study source says, "I don't understand why it's banned in the [European Union] and not here," adding that the study has prompted questions about banning atrazine in the Australian state of Tasmania.
   

   The 5% Project

   Permalink

6. 

   jkearns Posted 2:02 am
   20 Jun 2008

   DIY Water Purification

   Aqueous Solutions - a non-profit R&D organization promoting simple, inexpensive water filtration systems, specifically targeting pesticides and other harmful agrichemical water contaminants.

   www.aqsolutions.org

   Permalink

7. 

   Wolverine Posted 9:18 am
   20 Jun 2008

   And This Is A Problem Because?

   So, by poisoning the Earth humans make themselves less fertile.  Sounds like just desserts to me.  Moreover, consider human overpopulation, this is a quite positive result, not a negative one.

   Permalink

8. 

   samdcare Posted 11:33 pm
   05 Aug 2008

   save earth before it is too late!

   This planet earth is by far the only planet known which has the capacity to sustain life, so if we ruin it we spell doom for us as well as our future generations.

   http://www.treatmentcenters.org/missouri

   Permalink