Autism Awareness Ribbon

According to the National Academy of Sciences, 3 percent of neurobehavioral disorders in children are caused by exposure to toxins in the environment.  The disorders in this category include ADHD and autism spectrum disorder (ASD).  An additional 25 percent of these disorders are believed to be caused by a mix of exposure to environmental factors and genetics, though the exact causes are still unknown.  Researchers at Mount Sinai have estimated that between 400,000 and 600,000 of the 4 million children born each year in the U.S. are affected by these issues.

For these reasons, Dr. Landrigan, as well as four other editorials, have called for additional studies to be conducted to determine which chemicals might be causing conditions like autism.  The CEHC listed ten chemicals it believes to be linked to causing autism and learning disabilities.  They are:

1. Lead

2. Methylmercury

3. PCBs

4. Organophosphate pesticides

5. Organochlorine pesticides

6. Endocrine disruptors

7. Automotive exhaust

8. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

9. Brominated flame retardants

10. Perfluorinated compounds

If you or a family member have been injured by exposure to a toxic substance, contact our firm for a complementary consultation.  We have over 25 years of experience and would be happy to explain your legal options, free of cost.

For more information on these chemicals and their potential link to autism, please click here.

In the past year, the California Poison Control System announced that it has received sixty reported cases of teenagers drinking hand sanitizer.  In order to kill all of those germs on your hands, sanitizer contains 62% ethyl alcohol.  Unfortunately, many teens have begun to utilize the substance to create a very potent alcoholic beverage, which sometimes includes salt to separate out the alcohol.  Some students reported locating instructions for making this stiff cocktail on the Internet.

If you are concerned that your child might be interested in experimenting, there are ways to continue using hand sanitizer, while minimizing the availability of the product around your house.  According to Cyrus Rangan of the Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, “All it takes is just a few swallows and you have a drunk teenager.”  Health experts have advised purchasing foam hand sanitizers instead of the liquid versions, as the foam is more difficult to transform into a legal beverage.

To read more about this, please see the following sources:

With this in mind, it is disturbing that the Department of Toxic Substances Control is releasing a report, showing that toxic chemicals were found in a number of nail products, claiming to be toxic-free.  ”Toxic-free” refers to products not using the “toxic trio:” formaldahyde, toluene, and dibutyl phthalate.  Exposure to these three chemicals has been linked to both cancer and birth defects.

According to Thu Quach of the Cancer Prevention Institute of California, nail products are not closely regulated, and the toxic effects of nail products can be compounded if a nail salon is not properly ventilated.  Therefore, some cities have begun to pay attention and implement stricter regulations.  While Boston has approached the issue by requiring salons to obtain health permits, the city of San Francisco has used an incentive approach by recognizing salons that use toxic-free products.

If you or a loved one have been injured by a toxic product, contact us for a complementary consultation.

For more information on toxic nail products, please see the article appearing in today’s Los Angeles Times.

While heightened occurrences of all types of cancer are cause for concern, epidemiologists are working to trace which types of cancers are appearing more than others.  John Soler, an epidemiologist for the Minnesota Cancer Surveillance System, indicated that initial findings revealed higher concentrations of lung cancer, especially in women.  Despite this, Soler noted that final numbers have yet to be crunched.

In the meantime, Bob Bowcock, Brockovich’s associate, is reaching out to Fridley residents on the facebook page, “Fridley Cancer Cluster.”  The page was started by residents and was one of the reasons Fridley caught Brockovitch’s attention.

The page has nearly 1,900 members and is full of stories from locals whose lives have been affected by cancer.

For more on this issue, please visit any of the following sites:

• KSTP
• The Fridley Patch
• City Pages
• Fridley Cancer Cluster Facebook Page

The Tobacco Atlas, funded by the American Cancer Society and World Lung Foundation, launched a book, which contains a number of statistics concerning the harm caused by tobacco.  One of the most important figures indicates that smoking costs around 1 to 2 percent of the world’s gross domestic product every year.  Included in these figures are costs such as healthcare expenses for treating tobacco-related illnesses and the costs of tobacco-related absences from work.

Today, there are around 7 billion people on the planet, and approximately one out of every seven smokes.  Each year, approximately 600,000 non-smokers die as a result of second-hand smoke.

Sadly, these staggering statistics don’t seem so staggering after being in the news for so many years.  The World Health Organization is taking action to curtail global tobacco use, and so are nations around the globe.  As of today, 174 countries have signed and ratified the WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

While this is certainly a step in the right direction, the Convention lacks any penalties for a State’s failure to comply with Convention provisions.  The United States has signed the treaty, but it has not been ratified.  Therefore, the signature is nothing more than a symbolic gesture; treaties are not binding until they have been ratified.

While frightening statistics about tobacco use and related injuries have become the norm, and while one more article likely won’t cause anyone to to toss their last pack of Marlboros in the trash, it remains important to be reminded every once in a while that kicking the habit can not only save lives, but apparently, it can help our ailing economy.

Fluoride prevents tooth decay and guards against the development of cavities.  According to WebMD, the mineral allows teeth to resist being damaged by bacteria and sugars in the mouth, and it reversed early tooth decay.  In fact, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention has hailed the addition of fluoride to local water supplies as one of the top ten public health achievements of the 20th century.

Objections to fluoridation of water have been raised over concerns that fluoride, in addition to preventing tooth decay, also can cause bone weakness if consumed in high doses over many years.

In 1986, the E.P.A. mandated that fluoride levels in water could not exceed 4.0 milligrams per liter.  This regulation was accompanies by a suggestion that levels actually be limited to 2.0 milligrams per liter.  Twenty years later, the National Research Council released a study it was asked by the E.P.A. to conduct.  The study indicated that the 4.0 maximum level should be lowered, though it does not specify by how much.  Today, the E.P.A. is still pondering how to proceed.

It seems that other federal agencies are beginning to take notice of the issue as well. In January 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services recommended that fluoride levels be capped at 0.7 milligrams per liter.

In light of these findings and recommendations, cities throughout the country have begun to explore the issue in greater detail.  While many cities in New Jersey have elected to abandon fluoride in local water, others like Aspen, CO and Shippensburg, PA have elected to continue adding it.

If you or a loved one has been harmed by a toxic substance, click here to contact our firm for a complementary consultation.  A member of our staff who specializes in toxic torts will be happy to speak with you.

To learn more about fluoride in water, please see any of the following sources:

• WebMD
• New York Times Editorial
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Upon revealing its findings, CSPI asked the FDA to ban 4-MI.  The FDA confirmed that the group’s petition is presently under review, though FDA representatives did not appear overly concerned.  An FDA spokesman indicated that a consumer would have to drink over one thousand cans of soda per day to consume cancerous doses of 4-MI.

CSPI’s petition also pointed out that the levels of 4-MI found in the sodas were beyond the legal limits in California.  Nonetheless, California added 4-MI to its list of carcinogens without supplying any studies linking 4-MI to cancer in humans.  The only study in support of placing the chemical on the list was conducted using mice and rats.

Still though, manufacturers of sodas have requested that their suppliers of the caramel coloring reduce the amounts of 4-MI present just to remain on the safe side.  Diana Garza-Ciarlante, a Coca-Cola representative, indicated that this change was not made because of any actual public health risks.

In a statement, the American Beverage Association defended the beverage manufacturers: “This is nothing more than CSPI scare tactics… In fact, findings of regulatory agencies worldwide … consider caramel coloring safe for use in foods and beverages.”

For more on this story, please click here or here.

In 2005, the USS America aircraft carrier, a vessel spanning more than three football fields in length, sank after Navy personnel purposefully fired missiles and bombs at it. The ships now rests about three-hundred nautical miles southeast of Norfolk, Virginia.  In the past twelve years, this procedure has taken place 109 times.  Sixty-four other ships were recycled at approved processing centers.

The USS America

The Navy stated that sinking ships is not only a means of disposal, but also part of important training exercising that allow for first-hand experience with live-fire and studies on the effectiveness of the munitions.  Nonetheless, this practice is at odds with serious environmental concerns.

When the USS America was laid to rest, it took with it around 500 pounds of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), a chemical banned by the US in 1979.  In high concentrations, PCBs are believed to increase the risks for certain types of cancers and have adverse effects on pregnant women, fetuses, and newborns.  In addition, other substances, such as lead, asbestos, and mercury are also believed to have been on many ships now resting at the depths of the ocean.

In 1999, the EPA ordered the Navy to document toxic waste on ships more thoroughly.  In exchange, the EPA agreed to exempt the Navy from federal pollution laws that prohibited dumping the ocean.  Despite this, state officials in Florida have spoken out in reaction to spikes in PCB levels in local fish.  There is currently a lawsuit pending against the EPA, alleging failure to safeguard federal waters.

An AP review of naval documents revealed both incomplete records and stark inconsistencies in the disclosures of toxins on ships.  The Sierra Club and another environmental group, Basal Action Network, have also joined the litigation against the EPA.

The Navy is defending its policy, arguing that it would be cost-prohibitive to remove all toxic chemicals from every ship.  Estimates place the price of doing so at between $500,000 and $600,000 per ship.  Naval spokesperson, Christopher Johnson, said, ”Each vessel is put through a rigorous cleaning process that includes the removal, to the maximum extent practicable, of all materials which may degrade the marine environment.”

Despite the costs, opponents of the Navy’s methods maintain that recycling is a better method of disposing of the ships.  Richard Jaross of Brownsville, Texas, said that not only is the current practice bad for the environment, but his business could add jobs if the Navy decided to recycle more ships. According to Jaross, ”The waters of the world aren’t dumping grounds for getting rid of old things. It’s totally irresponsible of our government to use them for target practice.”

The girls had been receiving a combination of medication and behavioral and psychological treatment.  Dr. McVigh also attributed the fading attention from the national media as a factor contributing to the girls’ recovery.

Despite this, environmental investigations are ongoing.  Both the EPA and Erin Brockovich are continuing to investigate potential environmental concerns.  The EPA plans to remove barrels leftover from the 1970 train derailment, even though there is no conclusive evidence linking them to the girls’ conditions.  Erin Brockovich’s team also has yet to discover any links between environmental causes and the schoolgirls.

For more information on this story, please click here.

These particles were discovered about twenty years ago.  However recent scientific studies have uncovered a subset of these particles, known as secondary organic aerosols.  According to the results, the particles are actually more dangerous than we thought.  Secondary organic aerosols are slightly larger and consequently more harmful than their predecessors.  These compounds are formed as a result of the interactions between pollutants and natural chemical compounds.

According to Bill Becker of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, if the authors’ analysis is correct, the public is not facing a false sense of security in knowing whether the air they breathe is indeed safe.”

Essentially what this means is that prior governmental pollution control efforts have only been aimed at a part of the problem, and new measures need to be implemented soon.  The EPA recently announced that it is in the process of reassessing the national standards for fine particulates in ambient air quality.  The regulations were last updated in 2006 and have been successful in lowering the amount of airborne fine particulates by twenty-seven percent.

For the full story, please click here to read the article on the New York Times’ website.