IN U.S. EXPOSURE TO HORMONE DISRUPTING CHEMICALS COSTS HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS PER YEAR

Following up on my recent post "Ten Percent of US have high concentrations of ten or more toxins in our blood,", here's a new study that calculates the costs to the U.S. economy from the burden of disease that some of those chemicals cause.

Plastic bottles--one of many sources 

of endocrine-disrupting chemicals

Credit: Velka/Shutterstock (public domain)

Writing in The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology, October 17, researchers at the New York University Medical Center say that even a conservative estimate of the diseases and conditions--including birth defects, autism, attention-deficit disorder, intellectual disability, infertility, obesity, diabetes, heart disease and stroke--caused by exposure to these toxins puts their cost to the economy at $340 billion. That's 2.3 percent of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

Flame retardants alone (found in building insulation, fabrics, furniture and electronics) account for more than $200 billion of those health-related costs.

The researchers say this is the first assessment of the overall costs to the U.S. economy from the buildup of endocrine-disrupting substances in the population.

The major sources of these chemicals include plastic bottles, the lining of metal food cans, detergents, flame retardants, toys, pesticides and cosmetics. These pervasive chemicals build up in our bodies over time. They can impair fetal development in the womb, especially the brain and nervous system, and lead to a variety of diseases in adults.

These chemicals are pervasive and extremely difficult to avoid. To address the problem at the policy level, the authors call for more proactive testing and tighter regulation, starting with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). They point out that people living in Europe, where these substances are more strongly regulated, have less exposure, lower levels in the bodies and blood, and reduced risk of disability and disease.

At the personal level, they recommend steps such as not microwaving food in plastic containers or covered by plastic wrap, avoiding containers with the number 3, 6 or 7 on the bottom, which contain phthalates and using fragrance free or "all natural" cosmetics.

You can find more ways to minimize your and your family's exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals here.

This may seem a daunting or even impossible task, given how ubiquitous these chemicals have become. However, new research shows that avoiding common sources of endocrine disrupting chemicals can quickly reduce levels in the body

How to Monitor US Radiation Exposure Yourself

As the plume of radioactive debris from the damaged Fukushima nuclear reactors approaches the U.S., there are resources besides official reports that will let ordinary citizens track radiation levels.

You'll find a map with nine or ten active monitoring sites across the U.S. here:
http://radiationnetwork.com/
This site updates automatically every three minutes. Note that its readings are in counts per minute, or CPM.

I've been tracking the readings on this site from British Columbia, Washington, California and Arizona since March 14, 2011, before any radiation from Japan would have made it to the West Coast. As of noon on March 17, the readings from the four sites have averaged 23.6 counts per minute with a standard deviation of 1.76 counts per minute. The author of this site says that "it would be unusual for those levels to exceed 130 CPM," and sets this as the alert level. This should provide a baseline for readings on and after Friday March 18, when the plume is predicted to reach the U.S.

I've located another site with fifteen active monitors here:
http://www.blackcatsystems.com/RadMap/map.html.
This site updates every fifteen minutes. Please note that its readings are in micro Roentgens per hour, and so differ from those of the first network. A note on this network's webpage says that typical readings across the U.S. range from 5 to 28 micro Roentgens per hour, with a standard deviation of around four.

Both networks take pains to point out that readings from a given monitor can vary widely over time, due to the random nature of radioactivity.

I, for one, feel a bit more comfortable knowing that I have two independent sources of information apart from whatever reports government agencies chose to release.

Robert Adler
for the institute