"Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast"
-Oscar Wilde
Brilliant at Breakfast title banner "The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that watereth, shall be watered also himself."
-- Proverbs 11:25
"...you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -- Steve Gilliard, 1964 - 2007

"For straight up monster-stomping goodness, nothing makes smoke shoot out my ears like Brilliant@Breakfast" -- Tata

"...the best bleacher bum since Pete Axthelm" -- Randy K.

"I came here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum." -- "Rowdy" Roddy Piper (1954-2015), They Live
Tuesday, July 03, 2012

Seamus lives!
Posted by Jill | 11:22 AM
Gail Collins, eat your heart out:

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Monday, August 16, 2010

Think of it this way: Your kids won't have to pay off the deficit
Posted by Jill | 10:14 PM
...because the planet they live on will be uninhabitable:
We now know that global warming is “capable of wrecking the marine ecosystem and depriving future generations of the harvest of the seas” (see 2009 Nature Geoscience study concludes ocean dead zones “devoid of fish and seafood” are poised to expand and “remain for thousands of years”).

The acidification of the ocean in particular is a grave threat — for links to primary sources and recent studies, see “Imagine a World without Fish: Deadly ocean acidification — hard to deny, harder to geo-engineer, but not hard to stop” (and below).

A new Nature Geoscience study, “Past constraints on the vulnerability of marine calcifiers to massive carbon dioxide release” (subs. req’d) provides a truly ominous warning. The release from the researchers at the University of Bristol is “Rate of ocean acidification the fastest in 65 million years.”



Funny how those who worship before the alter of BP don't care about that...at the same time they call abortion murder. We are slowly murdering this planet -- and the future generations who will have to live on it.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Monday, August 09, 2010

Blaming the fat chicks again
Posted by Jill | 6:44 AM
I used to work with someone whose daughter started menstruating at the age of eight. She told me at the time, "How do I explain to this kid what this thing that's happening to her means?"

It seems that her daughter is by no means an anomaly:
A new study finds that girls are more likely today than in the past to start developing breasts by age 7 or 8.

The research is just the latest in a flood of reports over the last decade that have led to concern and heated debate about whether girls are reaching puberty earlier, and why it might be happening.

Increased rates of obesity are thought to play a major role, because body fat can produce sex hormones. Some researchers also suspect that environmental chemicals that mimic the effects of estrogen may be speeding up the clock on puberty, but that idea is unproved.

The issue is of concern for both medical and psychosocial reasons. Studies suggest that earlier puberty, as measured by the age at first menstruation, can slightly increase the risk of breast cancer, probably because it results in longer lifetime exposure to the hormones estrogen and progesterone, which can feed some tumors.

Although the new study did not look at menstrual age, breast growth is also a sign of hormone exposure, and some researchers fear that early development might also mean an increased cancer risk.

Socially and emotionally, life can be difficult for a girl who has a child’s mind in a woman’s body and is not ready to deal with sexual advances from men and boys, or cope with her own hormone-spiked emotions and sexual impulses.

“Our analysis shows clearly that the white participants entered puberty earlier than we anticipated,” said Dr. Frank M. Biro, the first author of the study and the director of adolescent medicine at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

Overweight girls were more likely to have more breast development, the study showed. But Dr. Biro said he did not think weight was the whole story. He said it was possible that environmental chemicals were also playing a role, and added that he and his colleagues were now studying the girls’ hormone levels and lab tests measuring their exposures to various chemicals.

“It’s certainly throwing up a warning flag,” Dr. Biro said. “I think we need to think about the stuff we’re exposing our bodies to and the bodies of our kids. This is a wake-up call, and I think we need to pay attention to it.”

Dr. Catherine Gordon, a pediatric endocrinologist and specialist in adolescent medicine at Children’s Hospital Boston, said that so far, most evidence showed that neither breast development nor menstrual age had changed for white girls of normal weight.

The new study included 1,239 girls ages 6 to 8 who were recruited from schools and examined at one of three sites: the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in Manhattan, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital or Kaiser Permanente Northern California/University of California, San Francisco. The group was roughly 30 percent each white, black and Hispanic, and about 5 percent Asian.

At 7 years, 10.4 percent of white, 23.4 percent of black and 14.9 percent of Hispanic girls had enough breast development to be considered at the onset of puberty.

At age 8, the figures were 18.3 percent in whites, 42.9 percent in blacks and 30.9 percent in Hispanics. The percentages for blacks and whites were even higher than those found by a 1997 study that was one of the first to suggest that puberty was occurring earlier in girls.

Here's the red flag that I see in this study: How was weight accounted for in this study? Was the weight distribution the same among these girls? Why are there no numbers indicated for the Asian girls?

There have always been overweight kids. I was a chubby kid and I started menstruating at the age of twelve, which was about average at the time. So if it's JUST about weight, why is it that chubby kids like me weren't menstruating at age eight in the late 1960's but they are now?

Given that no matter what an overweight woman goes to a doctor for, she's told to lose weight, can we really trust doctors to perform and analyze studies without weight bias? And why is it that weight is only causing early puberty NOW?

Because it's so much easier to blame Gluttonous Girls for their own early puberty and the potential health problems later on that may result from earlier pumping of estrogens into their system than to look at some of the environmental factors that corporate America is pumping into them...things like bisphenol A, which is in everything plastic with the recycling number "7" (which means it's not recyclable and ends up in landfills. BPA is in plastic food wrap, the inside of metal food cans,those ubiquitous plastic water bottles, and plastic food storage containers. Things like the chemical 4-MBC, which is found in the sunscreen that mothers now have to smear all over their kids to prevent skin cancer later on. Or bovine growth hormone, which is in American beef. Even something as seemingly benevolent as soy, which is in baby formula, mimics estrogen.

But why look at things that are profitable for the chemical and food industries as causes for girls finding themselves bleeding once a month at an age when they are simply not ready to hear what it all means, when you can simply blame them and their parents because they're fat?

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Friday, July 16, 2010

Sealing Our Doom Part II
Posted by Jill | 9:06 PM
While Americans, despite the BP oil spill, have no stomach for adjusting our lifestyles one iota, nature doesn't care what we have the stomach for. We are killing this planet. Tonight on my way home I heard a radio spot for a Chevrolet SUV, with a female voiceover talking about how she bought this vehicle because "they're my CHILDREN". Clearly, protecting children is first and foremost in the minds of the suburban parents I see in mmy town who put their kids in body armor to ride a bicycle and who feel they need a four-ton behemoth armored vehicle for their kids to ride in.

They are not even thinking about the world their children will live in when they grow up:
A sobering new report warns that oceans face a "fundamental and irreversible ecological transformation" not seen in millions of years as greenhouse gases and climate change already have affected temperature, acidity, sea and oxygen levels, the food chain and possibly major currents that could alter global weather.

The report, in Science magazine, doesn't break a lot of new ground, but it brings together dozens of studies that collectively paint a dismal picture of deteriorating ocean health.

"This is further evidence we are well on our way to the next great extinction event," said Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, the director of the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland in Australia and a co-author of the report.

John Bruno, an associate professor of marine sciences at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the report's other co-author, isn't quite as alarmist, but he's equally concerned.

"We are becoming increasingly certain that the world's marine ecosystems are reaching tipping points," Bruno said, adding, "We really have no power or model to foresee" the effect.

The oceans, which cover 71 percent of the Earth's surface, have played a dominant role in regulating the planet's climate. However, even as the understanding of what's happening to terrestrial ecosystems as a result of climate change has grown, studies of marine ecosystems have lagged, the report says. The oceans are acting as a heat sink for rising temperatures and have absorbed about one-third of the carbon dioxide produced by human activities.

Among other things, the report notes:

* The average temperature of the upper level of the oceans has increased more than 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 100 years, and global ocean surface temperatures in January were the second-warmest ever recorded for that month.

* Though the increase in acidity is slight, it represents a "major departure" from the geochemical conditions that have existed in the oceans for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years.

* Nutrient-poor "ocean deserts" in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans grew by 15 percent, or roughly 2.5 million square miles, from 1998 to 2006.

* Oxygen concentrations have been dropping off the Northwest U.S. coast and the coast of southern Africa, where dead zones are appearing regularly. There is paleontological evidence that declining oxygen levels in the oceans played a major role in at least four or five mass extinctions.

* Since the early 1980s, the production of phytoplankton, a crucial creature at the lower end of the food chain, has declined 6 percent, with 70 percent of the decline found in the northern parts of the oceans. Scientists also have found that phytoplankton are becoming smaller.

Volcanic activity and large meteorite strikes in the past have "resulted in hostile conditions that have increased extinction rates and driven ecosystem collapse," the report says. "There is now overwhelming evidence human activities are driving rapid changes on a scale similar to these past events.

"Many of these changes are already occurring within the world's oceans with serious consequences likely over the coming years."

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Monday, June 07, 2010

In case you didn't already think BP was one of the worst corporations in the world
Posted by Jill | 5:28 AM
Is there nothing this company doesn't want to wreck?
The massive BP oil refinery in Whiting, Ind., is planning to dump significantly more ammonia and industrial sludge into Lake Michigan, running counter to years of efforts to clean up the Great Lakes.

Indiana regulators exempted BP from state environmental laws to clear the way for a $3.8 billion expansion that will allow the company to refine heavier Canadian crude oil. They justified the move in part by noting the project will create 80 new jobs.

Under BP's new state water permit, the refinery -- already one of the largest polluters along the Great Lakes -- can release 54 percent more ammonia and 35 percent more sludge into Lake Michigan each day. Ammonia promotes algae blooms that can kill fish, while sludge is full of concentrated heavy metals.

The refinery will still meet federal water pollution guidelines. But federal and state officials acknowledge this marks the first time in years that a company has been allowed to dump more toxic waste into Lake Michigan.

[snip]

The company will now be allowed to dump an average of 1,584 pounds of ammonia and 4,925 pounds of sludge into Lake Michigan every day. The additional sludge is the maximum allowed under federal guidelines.

Company officials insisted they did everything they could to keep more pollution out of the lake.

"It's important for us to get our product to market with minimal environmental impact," said Tom Keilman, a BP spokesman. "We've taken a number of steps to improve our water treatment and meet our commitments to environmental stewardship."

If you believe that, you probably believed that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Saturday, April 18, 2009

But let's not allow facts to interfere with our right as a society to loathe fat people
Posted by Jill | 6:37 PM
As hard as it was to be a fat kid when I was one, it's even worse today. After all, when I was a kid, Barbie may have been impossibly curvy, but at least she had a shape. And most of us didn't eat fast food, so they couldn't blame it on neglectful mothers feeding their kids McDonald's. In our family, we were chubby not because we gorged on sweets, but because we were from Russian and Polish peasant stock, our parents battled their weight, and because we were fed too much food, particularly meat. My father grew up during the Depression, and my mother was emotionally deprived when she was a child, so with their relationship with food not being all that healthy, we really didn't have much of a chance. Exercise and outdoor play wasn't exactly a priority either, and as a fearful and uncoordinated kid, school gym classes (which DCap, who is close to my age, outlined quite nicely earlier this week), I learned very early on that where sports and physical activity were concerned, "can't win, don't try. Add to my own situation being unusually short, and it was a perfect storm for lifelong weight issues.

As an adult, I've learned how to eat like a normal person, not that it's helped me with my weight issues. I went through my 'OMG I CAN EAT ALL THE ICE CREAM AND COOKIES I WANT NOW" phase when I moved out on my own, followed of course by the crash diet from which my metabolism never recovered, and finally ending up where they are now, with no white bread and yogurt and granola and lean meat and fish and no fried foods and no fast foods and lots of fruits and vegetables. But of course even though they keep finding biological reasons beyond "calories in, calories out" as to why some people are able to eat whatever they want and never gain a pound, the rest of us are expected to subsist on a lettuce leaf and the morning dew if that's what it takes to be thin.

I haven't had a blood draw in four years because I'm afraid to go to an internist who'll just tell me to go on a diet. Sorry, bub, been there, done that, and the last internist I went to was a size two, and that doesn't help either. But I cling to hope that someday children will be able to grow up and not be blamed for their own obesity.

I'd like to believe that time is now:

Exposure to chemicals used in plastics may be linked with childhood obesity, according to results from a long-term health study on girls who live in East Harlem and surrounding communities that were presented to community leaders on Thursday by researchers at Mount Sinai Medical Center.


The chemicals in question are called phthalates, which are used to to make plastics pliable and in personal care products. Phthalates, which are absorbed into the body, are a type of endocrine disruptor — chemicals that affect glands and hormones that regulate many bodily functions. They have raised concerns as possible carcinogens for more than a decade, but attention over their role in obesity is relatively recent.


The research linking endocrine disruptors with obesity has been growing recently. A number of animal studies have shown that exposing mice to some endocrine disruptors causes them be more obese. Chemicals that have raised concern include Bisphenol A (which is used in plastics) and perfluorooctanoic acid, which is often used to create nonstick surfaces.


However, the East Harlem study, which includes data published in the journal Epidemiology, presents some of the first evidence linking obesity and endocrine disruptors in humans.


The researchers measured exposure to phthalates by looking at the children’s urine. “The heaviest girls have the highest levels of phthalates metabolites in their urine,” said Dr. Philip J. Landrigan, a professor of pediatrics at Mount Sinai, one of the lead researchers on the study. “It goes up as the children get heavier, but it’s most evident in the heaviest kids.”




I'd like to believe that time is now, but it probably isn't. Watch for reports any day now from doctors who say that because some kids are more sensitive to phthalates than others, it just means that those kids who are will have to be careful all their lives about what they eat.

Because God forbid we should do anything about the packaging.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Didn't we learn anything from the Administration's lies about air quality at the WTC site after the 9/11 attacks?
Posted by Jill | 5:59 AM
I wonder if anyone in Tennessee actually believed this:
Officials at the Tennessee Valley Authority have said preliminary tests suggest there is no danger to millions of people who get their drinking water from the 652-mile Tennessee River.

According to TVA, there is no threat to the environment from Monday's breach at the coal-fired Kingston plant along the Emory River, which joins the Clinch River and flows into the main Tennessee River.


That was last Friday. By last night it was a different story:
Some water samples near a massive spill of coal ash in eastern Tennessee are showing high levels of arsenic, and state and federal officials on Monday cautioned residents who use private wells or springs to stop drinking the water.

Samples taken near the spill slightly exceed drinking water standards for toxic substances, and arsenic in one sample was higher than the maximum level allowed for drinking water, according to a news release from the Tennessee Valley Authority, which operates the power plant where the spill occurred, the Environmental Protection Agency and other officials.

TVA spokesman Jim Allen said there are four private drinking water wells in the area affected by the spill and the agency should have tests from them this week.

"I think they were beyond the actual slide point of the material," EPA spokeswoman Laura Niles said of the wells. "There shouldn't be direct impact, but that's why they are sampling."

Arsenic occurs naturally in the environment, but elevated levels can cause ailments ranging from nausea to partial paralysis, and long-term exposure has been linked to several types of cancer, according to the EPA.

TVA's environmental executive Anda Ray said the arsenic levels were high because of the type of measurement that the EPA used, which included soil mixed in with water.

"Those samples were not dissolved arsenic," Ray said. "The dissolved arsenic, which is what you look at for drinking water samples, are undetectable in all the cases. The elevated arsenic that the EPA is referring to is the data that we collected when it was stirred up. It is routinely filtered out through all water treatment plants."

Authorities have said the municipal water supply is safe to drink.

The warning came a week after a retention pond burst at the Kingston Steam Plant, spreading more than a billion gallons of fly ash mixed with water over roughly 300 acres of Roane County and into a river. The deluge destroyed three homes and damaged 42 parcels of land, but there were no serious injuries.

However, environmental concerns could grow when the sludge containing the fly ash, a fine powdery material, dries out. The federal Environmental Protection agency and the TVA have begun air monitoring and on Monday advised people to avoid activities that could stir up dust, such as children or pets playing outside.

The dust can contain metals, including arsenic, that irritate the skin and can aggravate pre-existing condition such as asthma, Niles said.


But it's perfectly safe, right? Just the way the air around Ground Zero was safe and now we have a rash of cases of people who worked and live in that area with serious respiratory problems.

It's amazing that this story hasn't gotten more press than it has. I realize that the latest Israel/Palestinian fracas takes up a fair amount of ink, as does the continuing media case of Blagomania. But with this coal ash spill being at least as big an environmental catastrophe as the Exxon Valdez spill, you'd think it would get more press.

This is what the EPA is still telling people is safe for them to have in their drinking water and their backyards:
In a single year, a coal-fired electric plant deposited more than 2.2 million pounds of toxic materials in a holding pond that failed last week, flooding 300 acres in East Tennessee, according to a 2007 inventory filed with the Environmental Protection Agency.

The inventory, disclosed by the Tennessee Valley Authority on Monday at the request of The New York Times, showed that in just one year, the plant’s byproducts included 45,000 pounds of arsenic, 49,000 pounds of lead, 1.4 million pounds of barium, 91,000 pounds of chromium and 140,000 pounds of manganese. Those metals can cause cancer, liver damage and neurological complications, among other health problems.

And the holding pond, at the Kingston Fossil Plant, a T.V.A. plant 40 miles west of Knoxville, contained many decades’ worth of these deposits.


Amy Gahran wrote last week on the media's near-blackout of the story, noting in particular how CNN has cut its entire science, environment, and technology news team. I guess the increase in religion-themed programming we've seen on CNN in recent years is a sign of that network's enthusiastic embrace of the new Middle Ages towards which we're headed. Or perhaps it's simply a question of not wanting to acknowledge that not even Barack Obama can change the fact that there is no such thing as clean coal.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Saturday, March 22, 2008

Water, Food, Life....
Posted by Melina | 4:20 PM



Happy World Water Day!



Remember the big pet food scare last year when we were made aware of what amounts to plastic being put into animal feed and pet food by Chinese companies trying to save a buck? Remember how it put the spotlight on globalization and its impact on our food supply, and how we are really fucked when it comes to our government checking on imports?...that old Reagan line about deregulation being fine because corporations will police themselves. Well, as anyone coulda predicted then, its not working. The thing is that the problems that we think we can solve in food tainted with this substance that has killed some pets and caused massive recalls of pet foods, are pervasive in a world where we cant control what a second or third world country is feeding its livestock. Nor can we even begin to grasp where that feed comes from, and, of course, the health of the animals used to make so many things that we use, from gelatin to plant fertilizer. There are things that we should be able to control, like what we produce in this country and what we import. The fact that most Americans have abdicated their responsibility to mindfully feed themselves, much less vote for candidates who will protect us from the kind of corporate greed that would put our children, much less our pets, in physical harm, is a symptom of the dumbing down of our culture. At some point a line has to be drawn connecting the cutting of social services, the housing situations in varying parts of the country that seems to always put lower classes in places far from food choices, and allows fast food places to congregate and prey on those populations; the cutting of education funds, and the evolution of the global marketplace to the point where, even if you could think straight between your uniquely American 3 jobs, you couldn't sort it out anyway. Add to that a couple of generations who think that a hamburger is a quarter inch thick piece of brown leather with special sauce, (each made of the meat from some 2000+ cows,) and that salad is the lettuce and tomato on that, and you have kids who turn their nose up at any real food offered to them that doesn't have a full week's sodium in one serving and isn't cooked in old brown oil!

There is a continent of plastic waste floating in our oceans which is the size of Texas and getting bigger all the time, Americans are consuming more and more plastic in the form of individual and convenience sized foods and our worry about germs makes us apt to choose disposable everything rather than reusables. It may be easy to dismiss this problem because its out there in the middle of the ocean and we aren't seeing it here, in front of us, but surprise folks, there is an insidious mass of near invisible plastic particles floating among this mass that contains 6 times more plastic particles than plankton! Get that? Fish eat plankton...if there are tiny bits of plastic in and around the main food of fish, then the plastic is in the fish. Take that a step further beyond the direct effect of that on our food supply to the fact that fish is used for everything from fertilizer to stock feed to pet food, and the conclusion is obvious. The plastic is here and we are likely ingesting it.



Besides the energy used to create the bottles themselves, most bottled water facilities use much more energy in importing and bottling etc than is warranted by their environmental claims about the purity of their water. Starbucks charges almost $2 for a bottle for their Ethos water claiming that they are giving back to the world's water shortage, a mere 5 cents per bottle, while the markup still makes it the most expensive of fine waters. No matter how its bottled, they cant deny that a similar program pushing reusable water bottles would be much more helpful to the planet all around. Its just that bottled water is such a great business, and Starbucks has the corner on bullshit environmental practices with their bogus charity that ensures them a healthy profit.





We live in a water paradise compared to so many other parts of the world. As the climate changes at an alarming rate, it occurs to me that we are maybe not so far from the many in this small world who have to walk, sometimes 3 hours, to get to a community well. The entire day for these individuals is spent in collecting water and returning it to the village. Meantime, we are chugging and tossing out any plastic piece that isn't marked with the few codes that our particular city is or is not recycling. Its really time to become much more aware of our use of and disposal of our resources...and where our food is coming from. There are things that we can effect in this world, and there is really no excuse for not doing the few things that we can; reuse, recycle, be aware, and stay politically active! Blue Girl has a very good post on the water issue here.

Life for our children is already going to be so different than it has been for us. Lets make sure that they will be able to experience life that allows for even a little relaxed enjoyment without the barrage of poison that we are fighting through every day.

c/p RIPCoco

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Monday, October 08, 2007

But don't even look at this stuff, let's focus on the fat people
Posted by Jill | 10:18 AM
Twenty years ago it was cigarette smoking blamed for American health problems. Today it's Teh Fatties. Yes, obesity is blamed for just about everything, from diabetes to certain cancers to pregnant women who gain too much weight passing The Curse of Obesity to their children.

Blaming everything on obesity has a few advantages to society at large. It allows thin people to feel virtuous. It feeds the multibillion dollar diet industry. It gives health insurers a way to discriminate without having to resort to expensive risk testing. And it allows employers to hire based on physical appearance, all under the guise of "wanting healthy employees."

Few people other than the most avid fat acceptance folks are saying that it's possible for a five foot tall woman to weigh 500 pounds and be healthy. But when we live in a society in which we inhale and consume toxins and artificial foods belched out by multinational corporations, blaming Teh Fat People seems just a bit of an oversimplification -- and a diversion.

Katharine Mieszkowski at Salon interviews epidemiologist Devra Davis, author of The Secret History of the War on Cancer:

Testicular cancer in men under age 40 has risen 50 percent in a decade. What are the theories about why there might be such a radical increase?

In the United States and Japan, there has been a significant decline in the birth of baby boys. What does this have to do with testicular cancer? Well, there's a theory of testicular dysgenesis, which means that there is something on the Y chromosome that is transmitted to boys that is affecting their overall health, and it may affect whether or not a boy sperm works to fertilize an egg.

Something is affecting fathers' ability to make baby boys, which may also be affecting the ability of the boys that are conceived to become fathers. It may be affecting sperm count, which is declining. It may also be affecting development of testicular cancer, which peaks in young men in their 20s. And these things are likely to be related to early life exposures to hormone-mimicking chemicals.

[snip]

In 1977, Richard Merrill, who later became dean of the University of Virginia Law School, was the chief counsel of the Food and Drug Administration, and he formally asked the U.S. attorney to convene a grand jury to decide whether or not to indict the producer of aspartame, G.D. Searle, for misrepresenting "findings, concealing material facts and making false statements" in aspartame safety tests.

This is not some left-wing group. This is the actual chief counsel of the FDA asking the U.S. attorney's office to convene a grand jury. It never happened, because by the time the grand jury was ready to be convened we had a new president. That president was Reagan, and within a month of Reagan taking office, he had a proposal from a guy you might have heard of named Donald Rumsfeld [who was then chief operating officer of Searle].

And Jan. 22, 1981, one day after Reagan's inauguration -- one day -- Searle reapplied for FDA approval. Prior to that, ever single request for approval was turned down by all the scientists ever looking at the data. That's a fact. There's no dispute about that fact. And then, it gets approved May 19, 1981.

Remember what happened with the Reagan revolution? It was: "We need to get the government off our backs." One of the backs it got off of was suppressing the aspartame industry. Later, many of the people who worked at the FDA to evaluate aspartame ended up going to work for the company producing it.

[snip]

We have gone backward since the '70s. In the '70s, in the decision on lead in gasoline, the court said we could use experimental evidence that something was a threat to human health in order to prevent harm. The court repeatedly ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency could use theories, models and estimates to prevent harm.

Now, we have to prove that harm has already happened before taking action to prevent additional harm. In the area of cancer this is a travesty, since most cancer in adults takes five, 10, 20 or 30 years [to develop]. It means that we have no opportunity to prevent cancer, because we must prove through human evidence that it's already happened. I think that is fundamentally wrong public policy. Ninety percent of all claims now for toxic torts are denied.

What the court decisions have done is to make the burden of proof close to impossible when it comes to human harm and environmental contamination.

[snip]

What does the history of work-related exposures to carcinogens being covered up mean for workplace safety today?

The United States today has the smallest percentage of men and women working in blue-collar jobs in modern history. Just as an example, computers today are made in the United States by robots, which is called "lights-out manufacturing." Where people are exposed to computer manufacturing is in Asia. So, we've exported our dirty jobs. In the United States today it's not so much of a problem.

But polar bears in the Arctic are showing up as hermaphrodites with toxic waste in their bodies that would qualify them for burial in a hazardous waste site. How do you think that they're getting exposed to these pollutants? They don't work at factories. But they are at the top of the polar food chain, and pollutants go up through the food chain stored in fat from the little fish to the big fish to the walrus to the polar bear. Ultimately, they're making it very clear that pollutants don't need passports, and that you can't ban toxic materials in one nation. It has to be a global policy.

[snip]

A recent report from the American Cancer Society found that breast cancer death rates are falling. To what do you attribute that?

Some people think it's because of hormone replacement therapy, which, if it's true, is extraordinary. The question is: Is it a true decrease? One possibility is that we stopped doing as many mammograms. There have been budget cuts, as you may have heard. With fewer mammograms, then you'd be finding less breast cancer. A third possibility is that there is a real decrease because fat-seeking pesticides, like DDT, are at the lowest point in American history.

Yet, Gen Xers are at greater risk of developing breast cancer than their grandmothers?

When Gen Xers reach their 40s, the risks are higher than the risk was for their grandmothers when they were in their 40s.

I've developed a theory of Xeno estrogen, named for the Greek word for "foreign." Basically, all of the risk factors that have been identified for breast cancer, except radiation, are related to the total lifetime exposure to hormones. So, the earlier in life you get your period and the later in life you go through menopause, the more hormones you're exposed to in your lifetime, and the greater your risk of breast cancer. The more alcohol you drink in your lifetime -- alcohol is highly estrogenic -- the greater your risk of breast cancer. The less exercise you get -- exercise lowers the amount of circulating estrogen -- the more estrogen in your life. The more fat in your body, the more estrogen, because fat is estrogenic.

Endocrine disrupters in the environment certainly have been shown to affect the chances. Certain plastic, phthalates, some pesticides, arsenic, mercury, diesel exhaust, all of these things have been shown to increase the risk. Some things that are widely used in cosmetics, like parabens, are estrogenic. So, the sum total of natural and synthetic estrogen in your lifetime affects your risk of breast cancer.

Why are more young girls going into puberty at an earlier age? Why are more young girls developing breasts? There are several reasons to think that hormones in personal care products may be playing a role, particularly for breast cancer in young black women.


A number of years ago there was a study of the high incidence of breast cancer on Long Island, to determine if environmental factors such as old pesticide residues were a factor. Among the other causes speculated (because God forbid we should blame anything produced by a corporation) was the high percentage of Ashkenazic (Eastern European) Jewish women on Long Island and their consumption of fatty meats like pastrami. Yes, folks, it's not Monsanto or Dow Chemical that caused your cancer, it's the local kosher delicatessen.

And now we have the revelation of children's toys being contaminated with lead at the same time as 1 in 150 children being diagnosed as autistic, as much as 10% of this country's children being diagnosed as ADHD, and increased incidence of sensory integration disorders, and other learning disorders.

Given the government's long track record of protecting corporations against investigation of the safety of products, we need to look carefully at who funds the studies that always seem to point repsonsibility away from the toxic stews being produced by multinational corporations and towards individual fault.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share