More bad news for Nalgene

Byoliveridley

Nalgene, and other so called safe hard plastics made from polycarbonates. Read here for background and all previous Bisphenol A postings.

PLoS Genetics – Bisphenol A Exposure In Utero Disrupts Early Oogenesis in the Mouse

In the course of studies to assess the effects of BPA on the mouse oocyte, we have uncovered a novel “grandmaternal” effect: exposure to BPA during pregnancy disturbs oocyte development in unborn female fetuses. When these fetuses reach adulthood, the perturbations are translated into an increase in chromosomally abnormal eggs and embryos. Thus, low-dose BPA exposure during pregnancy has multigenerational consequences; it increases the likelihood of chromosomally abnormal grandchildren. Our studies also provide mechanistic insight, and, surprisingly, suggest that BPA acts in the fetal ovary not by mimicking the actions of estrogen but by interfering with the function of one of the known estrogen receptors. Thus, our data suggest that estrogen plays a far earlier role in oocyte development than previously suspected and, importantly, raise the possibility that a variety of substances—both synthetic and naturally occurring—that mimic the actions of estrogen or act as estrogen antagonists may affect early oocyte development.

Once again, caution is involved in the interpretation of the results, mice are more sensitive than humans to environmental exposures. The heartening part of this, and other recent studies is that work is now being carried out at doses that are more representative of ambient exposures, making results much more relevant. The part in bold is equally interesting. Estrogen is a very powerful hormone that has so many unknown effects on the body (and the mind, presumably :-;)

Similar Posts

  • | |

    Arsenic in the News

    Byoliveridley

    Professor wins $1M for arsenic filter – Yahoo! News

    The National Academy of Engineering announced Thursday that the 2007 Grainger Challenge Prize for Sustainability would go to Abul Hussam, a chemistry professor at George Mason University in Fairfax. Hussam’s invention is already in use today, preventing serious health problems in residents of the professor’s native Bangladesh.

    This British Geological Survey website provides a good primer to the problem. Some key points:

    1. Arsenic is very toxic
    2. Arsenic is naturally occurring in the shallow groundwater aquifers of Bengal and Bangladesh at a toxic level
    3. The surface water is contaminated with bacteria and was responsible for high infant mortality, so aid agencies in the ’70s encouraged the use of tube wells and other groundwater pumps. While this contributed to a decline in infant mortality from gastrointestinal infections, it also dosed unsuspecting people with disease causing levels of arsenic
    4. The technology for removal of arsenic is very well known. But most solutions require electricity/periodic maintenance/technical skills and are thus not universal or sustainable.
    5. Simplicity is the key. You can’t tell the people to not drink the water, it is the only clean water available. You can’t install water treatment plants, there is no running water, you can’t rely on solutions that are centralized.

    So with all that in mind, here’s what Prof. Hussam did:

    The Gold Award-winning SONO filter is a point-of-use method for removing arsenic from drinking water.  A top bucket is filled with locally available coarse river sand and a composite iron matrix (CIM).  The sand filters coarse particles and imparts mechanical stability, while the CIM removes inorganic arsenic.  The water then flows into a second bucket where it again filters through coarse river sand, then wood charcoal to remove organics, and finally through fine river sand and wet brick chips to remove fine particles and stabilize water flow.  The SONO filter is now manufactured and used in Bangladesh. That’s great, and easy!

    That’s pretty much freshman chemistry right there, further proof that most innovation does not need new science, only people willing to spend some time on problems that don’t necessarily get looked at.

  • BC's Election

    Byoliveridley

    Is over and the centre-right Liberals won. Many in the traditional environmental movement are trumpeting it as a referendum on the BC Carbon Tax. I am not so sure. The so called people who were supposed to vote for the opposition left leaning NDP, but did not because of their (admittedly stupid) opposition to the “gas tax” also gave the Green Party their lowest share of the vote in the last few years. I am finding it hard to imagine a left leaning voter voting for the Liberals instead of the NDP, rather than throwing her vote on the Green Party.

    The truth is probably a lot simpler. Carole James of the NDP did not resonate with voters as an alternative for many reasons, poor campaign positioning, lack of vision, poor media coverage, etc. and in tough economic times, BC just made what it considered a safe choice.

    Of course, BC also made a “safe” choice and rejected a proportional representation system for the province. More will be known once any exit poll data is released, but a proposal which came within a couple of percentage points of passing in the last election failed roundly this time. There is early speculation that it was how the question was asked. I would have preferred a multi-party proportional system to reduce the stranglehold of the two major parties and get some Green Party representation in the legislature.

    Anyway, full speed ahead for BC’s puny Carbon Tax, which will go all the way to $30 a ton in a couple of years, let’s see what that does to compensate for The Liberal’s penchant for massive road building, offshore drilling ideas and “business friendly” privatization of the commons approach to governance.

  • |

    NC Smoking ban now inevitable?

    Byoliveridley

    Well, it has taken less than a decade (I am a pessimist), but looks like smoking in bars and restaurants may finally be over and done with in my old home state of NC.

    Note that there is currently a HUGE loophole in the senate version of the bill, it permits smoking in “private clubs”. Many bars in NC designate themselves as “private clubs” to circumvent prohibition era (or thereabouts) laws that mandate liquor serving establishments to get a certain percentage of their revenue from food. So, my favourite Chapel Hill drinking establishment, The Dead Mule (no website, sorry!) is supposedly a “private club” – You supposedly pay a one time membership fee (usually less than 5 bucks), and are supposed to “sign in” any members and guests. This was all a farce anyway, and the Mule got extremely smoky, it was quite disgusting after a while.

    One hopes that the final bill will make the ban universal. Bans like this work best when they don’t favour one group of establishments over the other for no real reason. The people who work at the Dead Mule are equally entitled to clean air.

    1.5 cautious cheers, let’s see what happens in the end…

    The state Senate voted Thursday to ban smoking in bars and restaurants in North Carolina. It set the stage for what would be a historic prohibition of a product that created thousands of jobs, built Duke and Wake Forest universities and has long been an integral part of the culture in the nation's top tobacco-producing state.

    House members passed a tougher version last month, meaning that lawmakers will still have to work out a compromise, assuming the Senate passes the measure in a second vote on Monday. The bill passed Thursday by an eight-vote margin, 26-18, so that seems likely.

    via State Senate OKs smoking ban – Politics – News & Observer.

  • Do Voluntary Environmental Programs Work?

    Byoliveridley

    Through the most excellent Environmental Valuation & Cost-Benefit News blog comes notice of a book that answers a question that’s been on my mind off and on.

    Environmental Valuation & Cost-Benefit News – Post details: Reality Check: The Nature and Performance of Voluntary Environmental Programs in the United States, Europe, and Japan

    Despite a growing theoretical literature trying to explain how and why voluntary programs might be effective, there is limited empirical evidence on their success or the situations most conducive to the approaches. Even less is known about their cost-effectiveness.

    The book’s called Reality Check (and long byline) and at $40 is too expensive for a look see! But here’s a teaser:

    The central goals of Reality Check are understanding outcomes and the relationship between outcomes and design. Most of the programs it studies have positive results, but they are small compared with business-as-usual trends and the impact of other forces–such as higher energy prices. Importantly, potential gains may be quickly exhausted as the “low-hanging fruit” is picked up by voluntary programs. By including in-depth analyses by experts from the U.S., Europe, and Japan, the book advances scholarship and provides practical information for the future design of voluntary programs to stakeholders and policymakers on all sides of the Atlantic and Pacific.

    So, the answer is no, I guess. Voluntary programs catch the bulk of changes that can be carried out easily anyway and may have been part of the company plans. They also make for good Company PR. The greater the threat of regulation and good enforcement, I guess, the more power you have to set up a good voluntary program. But if it is all carrot and no stick, who knows…

    For an example of what a voluntary program looks like, here’s Climate Wise from the EPA.

  • Supreme Court to decide if CO2 is a “pollutant”

    Byoliveridley

    Well, I am not sure if the Clean Air Act has all the right tools to regulate CO2, but the kind of vehicle-to-vehicle and plant-to-plant focus that the Clean Air Act brings could be a good starting point. If the court decides in favor of the states, and the EPA can get its rule making together, we can start seeing regulation in 5 years. I am not sure if this is early enough, and it is definitely insufficient. A “pollutant” as ubiquitous as CO2 needs a a comprehensive national and global policy effort even bigger than the Montreal Protocol to be effective. Kyoto was meant to be a starting point, but is stalled at the moment.

    Forcing motor vehicles to lower their emissions and increase efficiency is a no-brainer. If it takes the Clean Air Act to make this happen, I am all for it! But this will not really address the power plants that are the other huge contributor, most of the existing plants will be grandfathered in and as we know from previous experience, these grandaddies are bionic and immortal!

    Any chance that the Supreme Court will find in favor of this addition? I don’t think so. I predict 6-3 for the government on this one.

    Supreme Court to Hear Key Environment Case – New York Times

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider whether the Bush administration must regulate carbon dioxide to combat global warming, setting up what could be one of the court’s most important decisions on the environment. A dozen states, a number of cities and various environmental groups asked the court to take up the case after a divided lower court ruled against them. They argue that the Environmental Protection Agency is obligated to limit carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles under the federal Clean Air Act because as the primary ”greenhouse” gas causing a warming of the earth, carbon dioxide is a pollutant.

  • Nanoparticles the new asbestos?

    Byoliveridley

    I am sure everyone has heard about the wonders of nanotechnology, but what about the other side?

    ScienceDaily: Tiny Inhaled Particles Take Easy Route From Nose To Brain

    In a continuing effort to find out if the tiniest airborne particles pose a health risk, University of Rochester Medical Center scientists showed that when rats breathe in nano-sized materials they follow a rapid and efficient pathway from the nasal cavity to several regions of the brain, according to a study in the August issue of Environmental Health Perspectives

    There was a time when asbestos was the wonder material, malleable and fire resistant, capable of being woven into sheets, and being incorporated into buildings for fire retardation. Unfortunately, many cases of asbestosis and mesothelioma later, not so wonderful. Asbestos is a special case because the fibers started out big and would keep breaking down into smaller particles till they reached that magic size range between 0.1 and 1-2 um where they could stay suspended in the air for a long time, and also take advantage of the lungs’ inability to filter particles that size to any great degree of efficiency.

    Nanoparticles are an order of magnitude smaller, and hence behave more like gases. They may  also contain choice toxic heavy metals such as manganese which are not usually floating around in the air at these small sizes. So, this study is a little scary, especially for the folks in the manufacturing end of things, these miracle particles seem to be going straight to the brain. Traditional masks and air handling systems are not designed to filter such fine particles, so I am sure they’re floating around in the air waiting to be breathed in.

    Update 9:00 AM, 8-3-2006
    Well, I swear, I did not see this before I wrote this morning!

    The question of the day, however, is are they safe for humans and other living things? Earlier this year, Andrew Seaton, A U.K. scientist who was the lead author of a 2004 report investigating the saftey of nanotechnological materials raised a bit of a ruckus by comparing carbon nanotubes to asbestos fibers. Asbestos once had its day in the sun as an all-purpose wonder material. But then we learned that tiny asbestos fibers, once ingested by the human body, could be extremely deadly. Carbon nanotubes: also easy to ingest, and exquisitely capable of penetrating cell structures. Could they be equally toxic?