I was honored to serve as the Utah Medical Association Environmental/Public Health Committee for 15 years. I have scars to show for it. It was “not easy being green,” like Kermit the Frog well said it. Despite the political battles, we were able to raise awareness about air pollution, chemicals in the environment, and water conservation. I also became more aware of the negative impact the field of Environmental Medicine can have on doctors and patients. Both may get easily overwhelmed and discouraged. “What can I do about it?!” Here is what I tell those who are willing to listen (and go on reading:) Become politically active, cut down exposure to pollutants, AND EAT A GOOD DIET!
I hope the studies highlighted below (If you are in a hurry, at least read the titles and my comments,) motivate you to at least do the latter—that is the most practical, sensible way to cope with the toxic environment we live in. By maximizing the health of our Microbiome, and the Liver (and the former tells the latter how to work,) we optimize our ability to detoxify the ubiquitous chemicals that are causing all our cells, and organs to T.O.I.L. Remember, the “T” stands for Toxicity, the “O” for Oxidation, the “I” for Inflammation, and the “L” for Less than optimal Love (relationships,) and Mitochondrial function.[1]
Hugo Rodier, MD
HHS report finds industrial chemicals more toxic than previously thought.[2]
COMMENT. The title should read “more toxic than the Chemical Industry” previously thought.” They have hidden the impartial data that has been around since their products began to rear their ugly head. I will never forget the commercial showing a family eating out on their front lawn, trying to smile as a truck spreading pesticides gassed them out of sight.
“The AP (6/20, Knickmeyer) reports that a “family of industrial chemicals turning up in public water supplies around the country is even more toxic than previously thought, threatening human health at concentrations seven to 10 times lower than once realized,” according to a report released Wednesday by HHS. The chemicals, perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl, “were used in such goods as fire-suppressing foam, nonstick pans, fast-food wrappers, and stain-resistant fabric and carpet, but are no longer used in U.S. manufacturing.” A draft of the report “set off alarms within the Trump administration earlier this year.”
Air Pollution May Account for 1 in 7 New Diabetes Cases[3]
COMMENTS. One in seven may not impress you, but, if your midriff is a bit generous, you may want to pay more attention: the same chemicals that increase the risk of diabetes are now dubbed “Obesogens.” Do the math yourself.
“(Reuters Health) – Air pollution could be responsible for 3.2 million new cases of type 2 diabetes every year globally, suggests a new analysis. “We estimate that about 14 percent of diabetes in the world occurs because of higher levels of air pollution, that’s one in seven cases,” said senior study author Dr. Ziyad Al-Aly of Washington University and the VA Saint Louis Health Care System in Missouri. “Risks exist at levels that are below what’s now currently considered safe by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the United States and also by the World Health Organization,” he told Reuters Health in a phone interview.
The tiniest form of particulate matter pollution, known as PM 2.5, is already associated with increased risk of heart disease, lung disease, kidney disease, and other noncommunicable diseases “and contributed to about 4.2 million premature deaths in 2015,” the study team writes in The Lancet Planetary Health, June 29. PM 2.5 is the mix of solid fragments and liquid droplets suspended in air that’s sometimes visible to human eyes as haze. “There is emerging evidence over the past several years that particulates, when they are small enough, they make their way through the lungs to the blood vessels,” Al-Aly said. “They go to the liver, they go to the pancreas, they go to the kidneys. These particles are noxious. They irritate tissue and they damage tissue, they create oxidative stress, they create inflammation.” To look for a link between air pollution and type 2 diabetes, researchers analyzed data on 1.7 million U.S. veterans without diabetes, comparing PM 2.5 levels where they lived to their risk of being newly diagnosed with the disease during the next eight and a half years, on average. The researchers separated out the independent effect of air pollution by taking other diabetes risk factors, like obesity, into account.
Veterans’ annual average daily PM 2.5 exposure ranged from 5 to 22.1 micrograms per cubic meter (mcg/m3) of air. A 10-point increase in PM 2.5 concentration was associated with a 15 percent higher risk of developing diabetes, and an 8 percent higher risk of death. Risk of diabetes started to rise when pollution levels exceeded 2.4 mcg/m3, well below the EPA’s current standard of 12 mcg/m3 and the World Health Organization guideline of 10 mcg/m3. Al-Aly and his colleagues then looked at worldwide PM 2.5 levels to estimate the total burden of diabetes due to air pollution. About 3.2 million new cases of diabetes, 8.2 million years of life lost to disability and more than 200,000 deaths annually were attributable to breathing dirty air, the authors calculated. Low-income and low-to-middle income countries bore the largest burden of air pollution-related diabetes. While air in the U.S. is relatively clean compared to smog-choked parts of China, India and elsewhere, Al-Aly said, “we need to do better.” He called for moving to “energy sources that contribute much less to pollution, more electric cars, more hybrid cars, more solar power and wind sources of energy rather than coal. It’s already happening, but probably not fast enough.”
In an editorial, Dr. Gary O’Donovan of the Universidad de los Andes in Bogota, Colombia, and Dr. Carlos Cadena-Gaitan of the Universidad EAFIT in Medellin, call the findings “another call for action.” They note that the current study did not adjust for physical activity, and that it’s possible to cut air pollution while promoting exercise with programs like Bogota’s Cyclovia, in which city roads are closed to motor vehicles on Sundays and holidays to make room for walkers and cyclists. “More research is required to determine the independent associations of physical activity and air pollution with diabetes and other non-communicable diseases; nonetheless, there is more than enough evidence to justify the implementation of policies and interventions that might actually increase physical activity and decrease air pollution, such as Cyclovias, free sport and exercise facilities, bicycle sharing schemes, electric vehicles, low sulphur fuels, exhaust filters, and driving prohibition schemes,” they write.”
Food Additives and Child Health.[4]
COMMENTS. At least cut down on cereals full of pesticides, and High Fructose Corn Syrup. They have been associated with practically all diseases, especially ADD, cognitive problems, and Neurodegenerative diseases (see next article.)
“Our purposes with this policy statement and its accompanying technical report are to review and highlight emerging child health concerns related to the use of colorings, flavorings, and chemicals deliberately added to food during processing (direct food additives) as well as substances in food contact materials, including adhesives, dyes, coatings, paper, paperboard, plastic, and other polymers, which may contaminate food as part of packaging or manufacturing equipment (indirect food additives); to make reasonable recommendations that the pediatrician might be able to adopt into the guidance provided during pediatric visits; and to propose urgently needed reforms to the current regulatory process at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for food additives. Concern regarding food additives has increased in the past 2 decades, in part because of studies in which authors document endocrine disruption and other adverse health effects. In some cases, exposure to these chemicals is disproportionate among minority and low-income populations. Regulation and oversight of many food additives is inadequate because of several key problems in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Current requirements for a “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) designation are insufficient to ensure the safety of food additives and do not contain sufficient protections against conflict of interest. Additionally, the FDA does not have adequate authority to acquire data on chemicals on the market or reassess their safety for human health. These are critical weaknesses in the current regulatory system for food additives. Data about health effects of food additives on infants and children are limited or missing; however, in general, infants and children are more vulnerable to chemical exposures. Substantial improvements to the food additives regulatory system are urgently needed, including greatly strengthening or replacing the “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) determination process, updating the scientific foundation of the FDA’s safety assessment program, retesting all previously approved chemicals, and labeling direct additives with limited or no toxicity data.”
Common Solvents Strongly Tied to MS Risk.[5]
COMMENTS. You may dismiss this article thinking MS is kind of rare. But, you may have forgotten that memory problems, Cognitive Dysfunction, and even Alzheimer’s Disease have also been associated with neurotoxins in the environment.
“There is a strong association between exposure to organic solvents and multiple sclerosis (MS) risk, especially among those who smoke and carry a genetic risk, new research shows. Individuals with a family history of MS can’t do anything about their genetic risk for the disease, [I DISAGREE!] lead study author Anna Karin Hedström, MD, PhD, Department of Clinical Neuroscience and Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, told Medscape Medical News. “But what they can do is avoid smoking and also try to avoid at least unnecessary exposure to organic solvents.” [AND EAT A BETTER DIET, AS FREE OD SUGAR AND CHEMICALS/PESTICIDES AS POSSIBLE!] The combination of these factors increases the disease risk, especially in those carrying a certain allele within the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) complex. The study was published online July 3 in Neurology.
Common Chemicals: Organic solvents are hydrocarbon compounds widely used in many industries, including paint and varnishing, dry cleaning, adhesives, and cosmetics. Research indicates that the cause of MS involves specific genetic factors. The authors note that the strongest genetic associations with MS are located within the HLA complex. The HLA-DRB1*15 allele increases the risk for MS, with an odds ratio (OR) of about 3, whereas the HLA-A*02 allele of the HLA-A locus exerts a protective effect, with an OR of about 0.5. Exposure to organic solvents seems to be a risk factor for developing a variety of autoimmune diseases, including MS. A meta-analysis based on 15 studies found that the OR for MS among participants exposed to organic solvents was 1.53 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03 – 2.29).
Environmental factors also influence MS risk. These include Epstein-Barr virus infection, vitamin D status, sun exposure, adolescent obesity, and smoking. Research suggests that smoke exposure has a considerably higher association with MS among those with a genetic susceptibility to the disease, said the authors. The new study included 2042 patients with newly diagnosed MS from the Epidemiological Investigation of Multiple Sclerosis, a Swedish population-based case-control study that includes the general population aged 16 to 70 years. The mean age at MS onset was 34 years, and the median duration from disease onset to diagnosis was 1.0 year. From the national population register, researchers randomly selected two controls per case, matched for age, sex, and residential area. Investigators collected Information on environmental exposures and lifestyle factors using a standardized questionnaire. Among other things, participants were asked to provide detailed information on occupational exposures to organic solvents, painting products, and varnish. Those who were exposed, a group that included painters, printers, chemical engineers, and farmers, were asked to be specific and detailed about the duration of their exposure. Study participants also provided detailed information about smoking history. Blood samples were available from 88% of cases and 59% of controls who completed the questionnaire. Participants who donated blood were genotyped for the HLA-A and HLA-DRB1 alleles.”
Flight attendants may have higher likelihood of developing certain cancers.[6]
COMMENT. “May?” They do! Why the reticence? The system prefers to blame our genes, instead of heeding the profound implications of the new field of EPIGENETICS—cancers are 85% environmental.[7]
“Reuters (6/25, Rapaport) reports a new study by researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health suggests “U.S. flight attendants may be more likely than other Americans to develop several types of cancer.” The findings were published online in Environmental Health. TIME (6/25, Park) reports that the researchers “found higher prevalence of breast, melanoma, uterine, gastrointestinal, thyroid and cervical cancers among the flight attendants compared to the general public.” The research “also revealed for the first time a higher rate of non-melanoma skin cancers, such as basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas, among flight attendants.”
- For more details on T.O.I.L., go through my slide show at www.hugorodier.com. ↑
- Medscape June 2018 & https://www.usnews.com/news/healthiest-communities/articles/2018-06-20/industrial-chemicals-more-toxic-than-thought-report-finds ↑
- Medscape – Jul 05, 2018. https://bit.ly/2zc5NgW and https://bit.ly/2lJERLF ↑
- J. Pediatrics July 2018. American Academy of Pediatrics’ Policy Statement. ↑
- Medscape – Jul 05, 2018 ↑
- Medscape July 2018 &https://abcnews.go.com/Health/flight-attendants-increased-risk-cancers-study/story?id… ↑
- “Combating Environmental Causes of Cancer,” NEJM 2011;364:7991 ↑
