Researchers - 99% certain of link between Chemicals/Pesticides and ADD, Diabetes, etc.

[Lodestar]

From National Geographic:

Chemical Exposure Linked to Billions in Health Care Costs.

Excerpt -

The researchers concluded that there is a greater than 99 percent chance that endocrine-disrupting chemicals are contributing to the diseases, according to the studies published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

Tip of the Chemical Iceberg

The estimate was limited to a handful of chemicals commonly found in human bodies: bisphenol-A (BPA), used in hard plastics, food-can linings, and paper receipts; two phthalates used as plasticizers in vinyl products; DDE, the breakdown product of the banned insecticide DDT; organophosphate pesticides, including one called chlorpyrifos used on grain, fruit, and other crops; and brominated flame retardants known as PBDEs that were extensively used in furniture foams until they were banned in Europe and the United States.

BPA, DDE, and the phthalates were examined for their links to obesity and diabetes, phthalates for male reproductive effects, and flame retardants and organophosphate pesticides for neurological effects.

Together, these represent about 5 percent of endocrine disruptors—or "the tip of the proverbial iceberg," says Leonardo Trasande, an associate professor of pediatrics and environmental medicine at New York University School of Medicine. He was the main study's lead author.

"The chemicals were chosen based on the quality and amount of available evidence," says Bruce Blumberg, a University of California, Irvine, professor of developmental and cell biology and co-author of the obesity and diabetes paper.

Evidence linking the pesticides and flame retardants to neurological effects was the strongest, showing "near certainty of causation," Trasande wrote in a summary.

The researchers also reported that chemicals contribute "substantially" to obesity, diabetes, and male reproductive disorders. Those findings were based on previous research, largely in the United States and Europe, that tracked the exposures and health of people over extended periods of time.

The estimated health care cost associated with chemicals in plastics is at least $28 billion per year, according to the researchers.

MORE - http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/03/150305-chemicals-endocrine-disruptors-diabetes-toxic-environment-ngfood/

[jeff47]

1. Uh, then we should see the rates of these diseases going down.

After all, the chemicals were banned. DDT was banned outside malaria-prone areas a very long time ago. That reduced exposure, yet the rate of these diseases is going up.

I guess that's a measure of just how evil these chemicals are. They're able to cause diseases decades after they stopped being used.

[A Little Weird]

2. It's talking about more than just DDT

BPA, phthalates, organophosphates, flame-retardants - these are all pretty common. It doesn't mention the newer neonicotinoid pesticides but I wonder if they have a similar effect.

[jeff47]

4. They included it. Which means they're blaming it along with the others.

And it's also a demonstration that their claim is crap. "It's every chemical, man!!" isn't science. It's a way to separate people from their money. By making them say things like this:

It doesn't mention the newer neonicotinoid pesticides but I wonder if they have a similar effect.

[A Little Weird]

8. Whatever

They didn't claim that every chemical causes problems. They found a connection between some chemicals and some diseases and it makes me wonder if there's a connection between similar chemicals and similar diseases. There may not be, but it seems to be a logical question. To me that kind of curiosity is inherent in science.

[KT2000]

3. Absolutely!

These are known as persistent chemicals. Tests were done on plants and animals in a local harbor. Most had DDE, the breakdown product of DDT. The animals include crab, fish and the worst were the clams. They live in our history.
People eat these animals and the chemical is then stored in the fat tissue of the person.

The rates of disease would not necessarily go down as the chemicals people consume and store increase when they eat animals further up the food chain. Example is the larger fish that feed on smaller fish will have higher levels of the chemicals than the small fish. We consume the larger fish.

Another example is the polar bears' fat tissue has persistent chemicals used in industry, including DDE, but they are far away from industry. They consume fish that have those chemicals stored in their bodies. Whales are very contaminated with them too. So are people.

Chemicals stored in fat tissue are released when a person is under stress, when they diet, when they are pregnant and when they breastfeed. Newborns take in the fat stored chemicals.

Hint - children's cancer rates are increasing and neurological disorders in children are nearly epidemic.

[jeff47]

5. So polar bears live forever?

The plants and animals exposed to DDT die. Since their offspring are not directly exposed to DDT, they should have less symptoms. Yet this study claims the opposite.

Compare it to the studies about environmental exposure to lead via gasoline. That study: Use goes down, measured symptoms go away. This study: use goes down, measured symptoms go up.

[KT2000]

6. Humans are consuming

persistent chemicals in their food - animals. The higher up the food chain, the more persistent chemicals will be found in the fat tissue of those animals. Humans then harbor those chemicals. Humans then will have their health affected by those chemicals.
It is an interesting topic. You can google "persistent chemicals" and get a better explanation.

[Yo_Mama]

7. I think this is bullshit. I do research on metabolic disorders and CV disorders

and everything we have come up with is that it is about 90% genetic (I know NO ONE wants to hear this) and 10% insult.

So if you have the genes and live a lifestyle designed to prevent the disease, you may gain a few years. If you are merely inclined, you may live the perfect lifestyle and still develop the syndrome after an insult (accident, illness).

The good news is that we have adequate tools to detect it early and deal with it, but it does require very, very early intervention and for those who inherit a nice strong set of genes tending toward metabolic disorder, it requires very early medicine.

The major factor in modern society is that these people need to be constantly physically active, and most modern jobs require you to sit still in one place for long hours after your day. Aside from the primary lipid disorders, everything points to the fact that these people have inherited complexes of genes that make them very good at surviving starvation, and for many of them, that includes gene complexes that very quickly shut down a good part of the circulation to all the parts of their bodies that they are not currently using, including the gastic tract. These people can run on trickle power.

So calorie restriction without constant physical activity doesn't work for them. It makes their syndrome worse.

However, you might find slightly higher levels of chemicals in the bodies of those with these gene complexes, because the first symptom is vasoconstriction for many, and that's on the microvascular level. So they do have a harder time getting some of this stuff out of their bodies.