|
|
Clark v. United States, 660 F. Supp. 1164 (1987), summarizes mid-1900’s knowledge of TCE’s danger, unfitness for consumption, and the need to prevent it from poisoning water supplies:
Prior to 1950, [TCE] was known as dangerous and poisonous in occupational settings involving sustained exposure to high concentrations of TCE, but specific adverse health effects resulting from chronic exposure were not generally understood. Prior to 1950 it was generally known that TCE was not fit to consume and that it should not be in a water supply. The defendant [Air Force] was or should have been aware that substances such as TCE should not be in a water supply.
[...]
Prior to 1950, it was common knowledge that groundwater could be polluted and that the pollution could travel great distances from the site of the original contamination. Further, it was generally known prior to that time that percolation, a process by which substances disposed of would leach into the underlying groundwater, could occur and that groundwater needed to be protected from deleterious leachates.
The appropriate standard of care in waste disposal in the 1950s was to treat TCE as a hazardous substance in disposing of the contaminant so as not to pollute groundwater.
We received this statement by email Wed evening (emphasis ours):
Statement in response to National Research Council report on Camp Lejeune:
We are disappointed and dismayed at the report titled, “Contaminated Water Supplies at Camp Lejeune – Assessing Potential Health Effects,” released by the National Research Council (NRC) on Saturday, June 13, 2009. This report was two years in preparation by scientists, many of whom we know and respect, that reached puzzling and in some cases erroneous conclusions. We are aware of the complex situation regarding availability and access to data, and each of us has participated in committees advising the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) about how to move forward with health studies. It is our view that the Marines and their families who were exposed to dangerous chemicals in the Camp Lejeune drinking water over several decades deserve to know if this exposure has had an effect on their health. The most direct way to assess this is to conduct valid epidemiologic studies of those who lived or worked there, and we urge ATSDR to continue their efforts to carry these to conclusion. The overall judgment about the impact of the chemicals on health can then be informed both by the general scientific literature the NRC reviewed, plus findings from directly relevant studies of the exposed population.
Specific areas where we disagree with the NRC report include their assessment of the water distribution modeling, their assessment of the risk caused by exposure to two of the principal contaminants (TCE and PCE), and the likelihood of conducting meaningful epidemiologic studies in this setting. We view the water modeling undertaken by ATSDR and its consultants as “state-of-the-art” and worth carrying through to completion so that it can be used in the on-going and proposed health studies. There may be uncertainties about specific levels of exposure for individual households or people, but these can be described in the study results. We also agree with the National Toxicology Program that TCE and PCE are “reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens” and reject the characterization of the evidence as “limited/suggestive” as presented in the NRC report. We note that this characterization of solvent mixtures actually steps back from previous work done by the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine in 2003. Finally, we disagree with the thrust of the NRC report that it is unlikely that scientifically informative epidemiologic studies of the Camp Lejeune population can be done. The NRC doubts that “definitive” answers can come from any study, but this sets the bar too high – no one study can provide definitive answers, and all studies must be considered in the light of other scientific evidence. From our experience in other settings, we believe that useful studies of the Camp Lejeune population are possible and furthermore that the Marines and their families deserve our government’s best efforts to carry them out.
For these reasons, we urge the ATSDR to consider this particular NRC report in the context of other expert advice they have received during the past decade and the competent work already done by agency staff. Since the NRC report is at such variance with the recommendations of other water modeling and epidemiologic experts, we believe it should not stand as the final word.
Sincerely,
Ann Aschengrau, Sc.D., Professor, Associate Chair of the Department of Epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health
Richard Clapp, D.Sc., MPH, Professor, Boston University School of Public Health
David Ozonoff, MD, MPH, Professor and Chair Emeritus of the Department of Environmental Health, Boston University School of Public Health
Daniel Wartenberg, Ph.D., Professor, Environmental and Occupational Medicine, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School
Sandra Steingraber, Ph.D., Scholar in Residence, Ithaca College
A report by the National Research Council, Contaminated Water Supplies at Camp Lejeune – Assessing Potential Health Effects, was released yesterday. Money quote:
The available scientific information does not provide a sufficient basis for determining whether the population at Camp Lejeune has, in fact, suffered adverse health effects as a result of exposure to contaminants in the water supplies.
[...]
[T]hese limitations cannot be overcome with additional study. Thus, the committee concludes that there is no scientific justification for the Navy and Marine Corps to wait for the results of additional health studies before making decisions about how to follow up on the evident solvent exposures on the base and their possible health consequences.
Though we’re not yet through the whole thing, the report appears to raise more questions than it answers — not so much about the exposed poisoned population at CL, but about the mindset, approach and conclusions of the NRC.
Andrea over at The Few, The Proud, The Forgotten has posted the the full report (PDF), as well as the report brief (PDF) and the executive summary (PDF).
We’ll be back with thoughts and questions once we trudge through the full report…stay tuned.
This news is not good:
ScienceDaily (Feb. 21, 2008) — The consequence of maternal exposure to a variety of potentially toxic agents during pregnancy remains the prime focus of concern in scientific endeavors and in society at large.
However, there is now mounting evidence that paternal exposure can also adversely affect fetal and postnatal development of offspring and that this imprint can be expressed in subsequent generations.
[...]
The reported impact on offspring outcome includes low birth weight; increase in childhood cancers; developmental, behavioral, endocrine abnormalities and cross-generational effects.
We already know that TCE-exposure, even at low levels, can cause permanent genetic damage. The notion that this damage is passed along by TCE-exposed fathers to subsequent generations has staggering public health implications for millions of Americans.
To be fair, we should mention this news came in the form of a symposium announcement rather than as a breaking investigative story. The symposium is being organized by Gladys Friedler, Ph.D., of Boston University School of Medicine and is entitled The Father and Fetus Revisited. You can read more about it here.
…over at Water Technology Online, the home for Water Technology Magazine. According to the Editor’s note:
Starting with this issue, Water Technology® will provide each month basic information about a contaminant found in water sources. The contaminant may not necessarily be found in all geographic locations or situations, or at levels sufficient to raise concern.
Their inaugural column includes, amongst other things, the molecular structure of TCE:
In addition, the article includes details in the following categories:
Chemical formula
Molecular weight
Physical characteristics
Where found
Common uses
Potential health effects
Regulation
Common water treatment methods
It’s a quick reference and a good overview. Check it out here.
A UCLA study recently linked increased physical activity at work with a decreased chance of developing prostate cancer. In addition, it linked exposure to TCE (amongst a handful of other chemicals) with increased rates of prostate cancer. According to UCLA’s Johnson Cancer Center:
Researchers studied more than 2,100 men who worked at the Rocketdyne facility in the San Fernando Valley, many of whom were exposed to radiation and chemicals that may have increased their risk for certain cancers. The research team identified 362 men who developed prostate cancer and compared them to 1,805 men of similar age and socioeconomic status who did not get prostate cancer.
The study, done in conjunction with researchers at the Olive View-UCLA Education and Research Institute and the University of Michigan, appears in the February issue of the journal Cancer Causes Control.
“The message from this study for today is that if you’re more active, you may be able to prevent this cancer from happening,” said Beate Ritz, a Jonsson Cancer Center researcher, an associate professor of epidemiology in the UCLA School of Public Health and the study’s senior author. “If you have a desk job, do something physically active to counterbalance it.”
[...]
The study found that the men who developed prostate cancer were less likely to hold the more physically active jobs. Those that got cancer also were more likely than the control group to be highly exposed to the chemicals that were evaluated, including hydrazine, benzene, mineral oil, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and trichloroethylene (TCE), which are known or suspected carcinogens.
Though the focus on physical activity appears to be the main thrust of this research, we think the TCE-related finding is worth highlighting.
Read the news about the study here. For the study itself (”Nested case–control study of occupational physical activity and prostate cancer among workers using a job exposure matrix”), see here.
Can trees help us remediate TCE? This story comes from today’s Journal and Courier (Lafayette, IN):
Purdue helping to remove pollutants using poplars
January 14, 2008
The news
Purdue University researchers and Chrysler LLC are collaborating on a project using modified poplar trees to eliminate pollutants from a former oil-storage facility near Kokomo.
In laboratory experiments, the trees have been shown to be capable of absorbing trichloroethylene, or TCE, and other pollutants. The pollutants are then turned into harmless byproducts.
The study
Richard Meilan, a Purdue associate professor of forestry and natural resources with Purdue’s Hardwood Tree Improvement and Regeneration Center and the Center for Tree Genetics, co-authored a study published last fall that showed poplar cuttings could remove 90 percent of TCE from a solution in one week.
The trees are called transgenic poplars because they have an inserted gene that aids the breakdown of TCE and other environmental pollutants.
TCE is the most common groundwater pollutant on Superfund sites and causes various human health problems when in the water or air.
The study was published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The process
Meilan believes the poplars will be able to absorb the TCE from the site with their roots. Peter’s Pond was contaminated by oil stored there in the 1960s. The oil is now within 10 feet of the surface, easily reachable by poplar roots.
There is concern by some that the inserted genes could escape the trees and invade other natural tree populations, but Meilan said he’s trying to make sure that isn’t the case by removing the trees before they reach sexual maturity.
“It is legitimate to be concerned about transgenic plants, but we are taking comprehensive steps to ensure that our transgenes don’t escape into the environment,” Meilan said.
The following story, published in the Lexington Herald-Leader (KY) this week, reveals the origin of the recent study confirming links between TCE and Parkinsons:
Chemical linked to Parkinson’s disease
By Sarah Vos
SVOS@HERALD-LEADER.COM
In the late 1970s, Eddie Abney cleaned grease from metal gauges at a Berea factory using a chemical solvent called trichloroethylene, or TCE. The chemical, which is still used today as an industrial degreaser, soaked through his cotton gloves and into his skin. It splattered on his clothes. He breathed in its vapors.
At night, when he came home, he would tell his wife that the smell was killing him.
It may have been.
Researchers at the University of Kentucky have linked industrial use of TCE to Parkinson’s disease, which Abney has. It was Abney, 51, who pointed researchers to a possible connection, leading to a study that was published last month in the online version of Annals of Neurology, a journal of the American Neurological Association.
The study shows a clear link between an environmental contaminant and Parkinson’s, said Don Gash, the lead researcher.
TCE has been suspected before as a cause of Parkinson’s, but the UK study shows a “clear-cut link” from exposure to the chemical to the disease’s development, Gash said. “We’ve connected the dots.”
The study found that three people who directly handled TCE at the factory where Abney worked developed Parkinson’s disease. An additional 14, who breathed in its vapors, had early symptoms of Parkinson’s, but not the disease itself. And 13 more, who were also exposed to vapors, didn’t show signs of parkinsonism but had slower fine motor skills than others their age.
[...]
When Abney was diagnosed with Parkinson’s in 2001, he and his wife, Susan, wondered whether TCE could have been the cause. Sometimes Parkinson’s has a genetic tie, but Eddie Abney didn’t have family history of Parkinson’s. Environmental factors had been linked to the disease: exposure to certain pesticides or recreational use of MTPT, known commonly as synthetic heroin.
But Abney wondered whether, in his case, it was TCE. He remembered the strong smell of the chemical he had worked with for more than two decades with little protection.
“I had gloves on, but they were just white cotton gloves,” Abney said. “If they got wet, they got saturated.”
A year after his diagnosis, Abney participated in a clinical drug trial for Parkinson’s disease at UK. When he told a researcher his medical history, he mentioned the exposure to TCE, and the fact that others from the factory had Parkinson’s. The researcher, Kathyrn Rutland, thought it sounded like a cluster of cases.
“We felt like there was enough there to really get started,” said Gash, the lead researcher.
Read the full story here. (Thanks to KM for the tip!)
Anybody with an interest in documenting the connection between TCE and disease should know that important lessons may lie with View-Master, where a single contaminant – TCE – poisoned a single, private water supply and exposed an entire company to TCE as a result. So why won’t the federal government prioritize a thorough study of the View-Master workers?
The following piece was published in The Oregonian on Thursday, June 14th and authored by Tom Griffith, professor emeritus of physics at Pacific University and secretary of the View-Master Citizens Advisory Group. We’re reprinting this in full with Tom’s permission:
The exposure that needs more exposure
Thursday, June 14, 2007
In 1998, high levels of the organic solvent trichloroethylene — known as TCE — were discovered in the drinking water of the View-Master plant in Beaverton. The levels were 300 times the maximum established as safe at that time by the Environmental Protection Agency. It’s estimated that as many as 25,000 workers were exposed, some of them to high levels of TCE for 30 years or more.
TCE is a probable carcinogen and is known to produce health effects besides cancer with high enough exposures. It was a commonly used degreaser and dry-cleaning fluid from 1950 to 1980, and there are more than 3,000 sites around the country where it is present in groundwater. But very few of these sites have produced levels of exposure anywhere near those at View-Master.
Since discovery of the contamination, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has implemented a remediation plan for cleaning up the groundwater beneath the site. This cleanup is ongoing and will take at least 20 more years to complete.
The Oregon State Public Health Division completed a limited mortality study of the site in 2004, designed to determine whether a more thorough study was called for, and it more than met that goal. It showed death rates for kidney cancer in women workers at the plant were roughly six times higher than the rates for other Oregon residents of similar age. It also found high rates for a few other cancers.
Since then, however, efforts to conduct a more thorough study have been stymied by a lack of money. It’s been almost 10 years since the initial discovery of the TCE contamination, and nothing definitive has been done.
In the meantime, former View-Master workers are left in a fog regarding what health problems they might face and what they should do about it. Some of these workers clearly face an increased risk of cancer and other ill effects. The number potentially harmed is large. Some have already died.
The irony is that the View-Master workers represent an ideal population to gain better knowledge of the effects of exposure to TCE, a national problem. These workers were exposed at high levels to essentially a single contaminant over a long period of time. And their numbers are large enough to provide reliable statistics. In other words, studying them has a high probability of producing definitive results that will be useful in assessing the effects of TCE exposure at other sites.
So why has such a study not been funded? It’s a complicated story, but the problem lies, at least in part, with bureaucratic buck-passing among the federal agencies that could provide the money to pursue it. No one in the vast alphabet soup of federal agencies seems to have a clear mission to fund epidemiology research of this nature.
But the state of Oregon is not blameless either. The Public Health Division has no direct funds allocated for such research. The state scientists in the epidemiology department must find external money through grants to get anything accomplished.
Those charged with protecting our health and safety need to step up and see that the appropriate scientific work is done at View-Master. Otherwise, the funds already spent will have been wasted and the former View-Master workers will be left with no good information. Just as importantly, our nation will have missed an opportunity to learn something definitive about a national concern.
So who will step up as the buck passes along? The View-Master workers aren’t getting any younger.
Next time a politician or federal representative (EPA, ATSDR, NIOSH, etc) tells you that they would like nothing better than to study the link between TCE and disease (but laments that it is oh so hard to find a good study population), make sure to ask them why they refuse to study View-Master.
Rita Beamish from the Associated Press has written three articles that are running in papers around the world today:
Camp Lejeune Water Under Scrutiny
The former residents, who together seek nearly $4 billion, believe their families were afflicted by water containing industrial solvents before the Marines shut off the bad wells in the mid-1980s.
Dates Important in Water Contamination
Key events in the contamination of drinking water at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina.
Solvents in Water Present Perils
Industrial solvents known as TCE and PCE are known health hazards, but the amount of exposure that can cause harm is subject to debate.
Update (June 13):
Congress investigates tainted water at Marine base by Kimberly Hefling
The government Tuesday disclosed results from a new study the same day lawmakers listened to emotional testimony from families about cancers and other illnesses they blame on tainted tap water at the sprawling base.
The following paper was published back in April:
Occupational trichloroethylene exposure as a cause of idiosyncratic
generalized skin disorders and accompanying hepatitis similar to drug
hypersensitivities [View abstract or purchase]
Authors: Kamijima, Michihiro1; Hisanaga, Naomi; Wang, Hailan; Nakajima, Tamie
Source: International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, Volume 80, Number 5, April 2007 , pp. 357-370(14)
Publisher: Springer
After reading the abstract and the paper, we decided a layman’s summary was warranted. Here’s our attempt:
Researchers reviewed cases of severe generalized skin disorders and
accompanying hepatitis in workers exposed to trichloroethylene (TCE).
They attempted to compare TCE-induced skin disorders to similar
disorders caused by hypersensitivity to medications.
Not only was the frequency of skin disorders in TCE-exposed workers greater than the occurrence of such disorders caused by medicine-hypersensitivity, the TCE-induced skin disorders were accompanied by a higher rate of fever, hepatitis, and lymphadenopathy (swelling of the lymph nodes). [Note: For several reasons, the incidence rate/frequency surveyed does not seem to offer much predictive power.]
Patients suffering from TCE-related generalized skin disorders typically show rash on the extremities, face, neck or trunk with/without fever 2 weeks to 2 months after commencement of occupational TCE exposure. Some experienced recurrences after going back to their worksites. These findings indicate a clear temporal relationship between TCE exposure and the disorder occurrence.
TCE-induced skin disorders found in the review include:
- Exfoliative Dermatitis (widespread scaling of the skin, often with itching (pruritus), skin redness (erythroderma), and hair loss.)
- Erythema Multiforme (multiple skin lesions; can be accompanied by itching, fever, and general ill-feeling)
- Stevens-Johnson syndrome (a much more severe condition than erythema multiforme. SJS typically involves multiple areas of the body and extensive lesion formation. The lesions can extend to the mucous membranes, thus affecting the lungs, eyes, mouth, stomach, intestines and virtually every major organ.)
- Epidermolysis Bullosa (a group of blistering skin conditions. The skin is so fragile in people with EB that even minor rubbing may cause blistering. At times, the person with EB may not be aware of rubbing or injuring the skin even though blisters develop. In severe EB, blisters are not confined to the outer skin. They may develop inside the body, in such places as the linings of the mouth, esophagus, stomach, intestines, upper airway, bladder, and the genitals.)
Also:
The reported patients were engaged mostly in degreasing, i.e. cleaning metal-made products or machines, plastic toys, electronics parts (e.g. printed circuit boards, transistor components, capacitors, or computer displays), socks, ink stains in a printing shop , or unspecied material.
Skin contact with liquid TCE is not essential for the onset of the disorders (i.e. TCE vapors can cause them)
These TCE-related hypersensitivities are totally different from typical solvent toxic effects in terms of unclear dose–response relationship, period of exposure before disease onset, generalized rash, fever, lymphadenopathy, and recurrence just after minimal re-exposure
Occurrences of the disorders have been reported from the USA, Japan, Spain, Singapore, China, Korea, Thailand, and the Philippines. The case reports from industrialized countries were mostly published up to 1990, whereas cases from Asian industrializing countries appeared thereafter.
–
For a copy of the full paper for research purposes, please feel free to contact us.
We recently received the following announcement from our friends at VOTE – Victims of TCE Exposure in Oregon:
Meeting Notice
View-Master Health Study Citizens Advisory Group (VMHS CAG)
Tuesday, June 12, 2007, 6:00-7:30 p.m.
Conference Room, Beaverton Library [Google map]
(SW Hall and Fifth St.)
Tentative Agenda:
1. Introductions (5 min.)
2. Approval of minutes of the April meeting. (5 min.)
3. Quick Reports (charter, letters). (10 min.)
4. Discussion with Dr. Don Austin. Dr. Austin is an M.D., an epidemiologist, and a co-investigator on the proposed View-Master health study. He will discuss with us the formation of the Oregon Cancer Registry, and talk about a few specific cancers thought to be associated with TCE. (50 min.)
5. Next meeting: September (probably Thursday, Sept. 27) (5 Min.)
Please notice that we are meeting on a Tuesday evening in order to accommodate Dr. Austin’s schedule. We are meeting at 6:00, our customary time, because the library closes at 8:00.
I was cruising the Shannon Citizens’ Committee website today and I came across this helpful explanation and overview of carbon filters and carbon filtration, esp. for TCE.
U.S. Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey, D-Hurley: “It is something that needs to be done.”
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.: “The people of Endicott deserve answers. I also believe that IBM should provide free and open access to the records that the researchers need.”
Read the full article in the Press & Sun-Bulletin (Binghamton, NY).
We’ve not yet reviewed, but wanted to alert readers to the the following documents, available for review at the New York State Health Department’s website:
- Health Consultation – Health Statistics Review Follow-up (Public Comment Draft) – March 26, 2007 – NEW
- Information Sheet – Health Statistics Review Follow-up (Public Comment Draft) – March 26, 2007 – NEW
-
Written Response Form – Health Statistics Review Follow-up (PDF, 11KB, 1pg.) – March 26, 2007 – NEW
From the Information Sheet:
What is a health statistics review?
A health statistics review uses existing health data from data sources like birth certificates and health registries to determine whether health outcomes in a particular community are occurring at higher, lower, or about the same level compared to statewide or national levels after taking into account the age, race, and sex of individuals in the community. A health statistics review does not tell us why elevations or deficits in health outcomes exist and can not prove whether there is a cause and effect relationship between exposure to chemicals and health outcomes. While a health statistics review can take risk factors commonly found on health records into account, a health statistics review may not be able to take into account certain individual risk factors for health outcomes such as medical history, genetics and occupational exposures which may explain the elevations or deficits. Rather a health statistics review can generate hypotheses and may indicate whether a more rigorous study should be considered. This health statistics review follow-up is the second major report resulting from the step-wise approach to addressing health outcome concerns related to environmental contamination in Endicott, NY.
Why was a health statistics review conducted?
A health statistics review was conducted because of concerns about possible exposures to chemicals known as volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Groundwater in the Endicott area is contaminated with VOCs from leaks and spills associated with local industry and commercial businesses. Trichloroethene (TCE) and tetrachloroethene (PCE) are two main VOCs of concern in the area. The VOCs moved from the contaminated groundwater into air spaces in the soil and then into indoor air through cracks in foundations in some buildings, a process known as soil vapor intrusion. Because of possible health concerns, the New York State Department of Health conducted the prior health statistics review and the health statistics review follow-up.
The follow-up health statistics review gathered additional detailed information to see if known risk factors may have played a role in the higher than expected levels of health outcomes shown in the previous review. The follow-up looked at individual birth defect records, birth certificates, cancer records, and death certificates to find information about risk factors such as smoking, occupational history, family medical history, and medication use. Newspaper obituaries, Motor Vehicle records, city directories, and telephone directories were used to trace residential histories.
The follow-up also reviewed two additional birth outcomes, conotruncal heart defects (specific defects of the heart’s outflow region) and stillbirths. The scientific literature suggests that both of these outcomes may be associated with TCE exposures. The follow-up also reviewed cancer incidence for all types of cancer, taking account of race. Findings from the follow-up review as well as the findings from the prior review were used to guide the development of possible options for next steps.
More to come…
The folks near Rocketdyne apparently have way more to be concerned with than just TCE or perchlorate contamination. According to this front-page story from Friday’s Los Angeles Times:
Radioactive emissions from a 1959 nuclear accident at a research lab near Simi Valley appear to have been much greater than previously suspected and could have resulted in hundreds of cancers in surrounding communities, according to a study released Thursday.
Chemical contamination from rocket engine testing at the site continues to threaten soil and groundwater in the area around Rocketdyne’s Santa Susana Field Laboratory, the study also found.
The nuclear meltdown, which remained virtually unknown to the public until 1979, could have caused between 260 and 1,800 cases of cancer “over a period of many decades,” the study concluded.
But the advisory panel that oversaw the five-year study, conducted by an independent team of scientists and health experts, said it could not offer more specifics about potential exposure to carcinogens because the Department of Energy and Rocketdyne’s owner, Boeing Co., did not provide key information.
“This lack of candor … makes characterization of the potential health impacts of past accidents and releases extremely difficult,” the panel concluded.
AP Reports also add:
The lab’s former owner, Rocketdyne, has said for years that no significant radiation was released. But the independent advisory panel said the incident released nearly 459 times more radiation than a similar one at Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island in 1979.
[...]
The Energy Department, Boeing [the site's current owner] and the state have been involved in efforts to decontaminate the site. The state has estimated that more than 1.73 million gallons of toxic trichloroethylene was dumped on the grounds and that 500,000 gallons have saturated the bedrock beneath the lab.
The panel concluded local soil and groundwater also may have been contaminated. The rocket fuel additive perchlorate has been found in a well, but Boeing has disputed assertions it came from the lab. Long-term exposure to high levels of perchlorate can cause thyroid problems.
Read the full LA Times article, Study Says Lab Meltdown Caused Cancer. Or check out AP’s report here.
The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) has released a video about the brain cancer investigation/study of Pratt & Whitney workers in CT.
Though the video suggests various chemicals may have been at play, the investigation has focused on exposure to TCE.
See the video here. Also be sure to visit Worked to Death for more on the P & W investigation and study.
When this blog first launched, we created a topic category called “Health Effects”. This was one of many topic categories we included to enable readers to find pertinent information more easily (see the list of “Topics” to the left).
Over time, we have realized that many of our readers have a particular interest in the way TCE (or related solvents) impacts specific organs in the body — and what is known about its relationship to particular diseases. As such, we’ve decided to begin categorizing health effects information (articles, studies, resources, etc) by target site/organ in the body. In doing so, we’ve created a number of new Health Effects categories. In a few cases, we’ve created specific disease categories, such as Lymphomas or Leukemia.
Want to know how TCE effects the brain? Click on Health Effects – Brain. The heart? Click on Health Effects – Heart. Want to to see all posts related to all health effects? Choose Health Effects – All.
At the moment, you’ll notice these categories are relatively empty. It may take us a few days or more to re-categorize all of our old health effects-related posts. In addition, as we publish new items related to specific health effects in the future, you will be able to find them in these new categories. Over time, we hope to add as many resources as possible in each category so that the TCE Blog continues to be a useful online resource.
Note: If there are resources (or categories) you would like to see added to our library of health effects information, please don’t hesitate to contact us. Also, please don’t hesitate to shout if you think there is a better/easier way to organize this information.
A recently published article from CancerConsultants.com reports:
Occupational Solvents May Increase Risk of Lymphoma
Researchers from Italy have reported that occupational exposure to solvents such as benzene, xylene, and toluene may increase the risk of developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) and Hodgkin’s lymphoma (HL). The details of this case-control study were published in Epidemiology .
[...]
Many, but not all, studies show a consistent link between woodworking and Hodgkin’s disease . Trichloroethylene is an organic chemical used in dry cleaning, metal degreasing and as a solvent for oils and resins and has been identified to cause liver and kidney cancer in animals. Exposure to trichloroethylene has been associated with an increased chance of developing Hodgkin’s disease and other cancers. Machinists in the metal working industry have also been reported to have a higher than average incidence of Hodgkin’s disease. Exposure to pesticides has been associated with an increased incidence of Hodgkin’s disease in some, but not all, clinical studies. It has also been known for some time that young adults with infectious mononucleosis are at increased risk for the development of Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Read the full article here. Or check out the abstract of the study, entitled “Occupational Exposure to Solvents and the Risk of Lymphomas.” (the full study is available here for download with registration)
Last month, we received an email from Professor Raymond Runyan of the University of Arizona, alerting us to the publication of a new study about TCE’s effects on the developing heart.
Professor Runyan is a Professor with U of A’s Cell Biology and Anatomy program, an Associate Research Scientist at the Univerity’s Sarver Heart Center, and an Investigator for their Center for Toxicology.
We are reprinting Professor Runyan’s comments here with his permission:
[T]he latest issue of Birth Defects Research part A (vol 76, 517-527) has a report by a group of investigators in South Carolina on the valve and blood vessel specific effects of TCE during cardiovascular development. This makes the third independent group to report on cardiovascular defects after the Arizona and Wisconsin groups. What is significant about the report is that it shows we are making some progress on understanding the mechanistic basis for TCE-mediated congenital heart disease and getting away from the “black box” view of teratology. As we give a molecular identity to the problem, I expect to see more investigators in this area and a reduction in the “controversy” as to whether TCE causes heart defects. Further, the developmental events targeted in the heart are likely to be relevant to cancer mechanisms as well.
From the abstract of the study that Professor Runyan references:
Chick embryos exposed to trichloroethylene in an ex ovo culture model show selective defects in early endocardial cushion tissue formation
Noboru Mishima 1, Stanley Hoffman 1 2, Elizabeth G. Hill 3, Edward L. Krug 1 *
1Department of Cell Biology and Anatomy, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina
2Division of Rheumatology and Immunology, Department of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina
3Department of Biostatistics, Bioinformatics and Epidemiology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina
BACKGROUND: Formation of the primitive heart is a critical step for establishing a competent circulatory system necessary for continued morphogenesis, and as such has significant potential as a target for environmental insult. The goal of this study was to identify the initial cellular events that precede more superficially observable abnormalities resulting from exposing early chick embryos to trichloroethylene (TCE). METHODS: A whole embryo culture method was used to assess the susceptibility of endocardial epithelial-mesenchymal transformation in the early chick heart to TCE. This method has the benefits of maintaining the anatomical relationships of developing tissues and organs, instantaneously exposing precisely staged embryos to quantifiable levels of TCE in a protein-free medium, and the ability to directly monitor developmental morphology. RESULTS: A minority of embryos (Hamburger and Hamilton [HH] stage 13-14) exposed to TCE (10-80 ppm) were not viable after 24 hr in culture and exhibited a variety of gross malformations in a dose-dependent fashion. However, the majority of treated embryos remained viable and developed into HH stage 17 embryos that were superficially indistinguishable from vehicle-treated controls. Further analysis of the hearts of these superficially normal embryos by whole-mount confocal microscopy revealed selective reduction in the number of atrioventricular canal mesenchymal cells. Additionally, those mesenchymal cells that did develop migrated abnormally as long thin cords of adherent cells. CONCLUSIONS: The regional selectivity of these effects in the chick heart suggests a critical window of susceptibility to TCE in the epithelial-mesenchymal transformation of atrioventricular canal endocardium.
Thank you Professor Runyan.
Note: We welcome your tips and suggestions. If there is a study, report, or news item that you think would interest TCE Blog readers and have not yet seen reported here, please let us know.
|
|