Pesticide makes rat grandsons unattractive.

Byoliveridley

Yes, strained headline!

A Toxic Hand-Me-Down — Balter 2007 (327): 1 — ScienceNOW

Environmental contamination can cause cancer and birth defects. Of particular concern are a group of toxic chemicals called endocrine-disrupters, which interfere with reproductive hormones and may cause sterility. A new study, published online this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggests that these chemicals can change reproductive behavior as well, and that these behavioral changes can be passed on from parents to offspring. If correct, these changes could alter the course of evolution by giving natural selection new targets to act on.

In 2005, a team led by reproductive biologist Michael Skinner of Washington State University in Pullman reported in Science that the fungicide vinclozolin, an endocrine-disrupter used to spray vineyards and other crops, causes fertility defects in the male offspring of female rats treated with the chemical. These defects are, in turn, passed down to the males of subsequent generations. The toxin did not appear to be altering gene sequences; instead, Skinner and colleagues found, vinclozolin was somehow causing other chemical groups to latch onto certain genes, changing their expression (Science, 3 June 2005, p. 1391). The phenomenon is known as epigenetic inheritance. Last year, Skinner’s group identified 15 epigenetically altered DNA sequences in the sperm of the vinclozolin-treated rats

More signs of intergenerational effects of low levels of endocrine disruptors. I had blogged recently about Bisphenol A having intergenerational effects (where exposure to a chemical agent causes consequences for offspring and off off spring, etc).

It’s still early, but remember Children of Men (good movie, see it).

Similar Posts

Volcanos and Climate Geoengineering

Byoliveridley

The first thing that occurred to me when I heard about the Sarychev eruption was whether it was going to be large enough to inject significant quantities of sulphate aerosol into the stratosphere. Apparently, it is.

Sarychev Eruption Generates Large Cloud of Sulfur Dioxide

When sulfur dioxide reacts with water vapor, it creates sulfate ions (the precursors to sulfuric acid), which are very reflective. Powerful volcanic eruptions can inject sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere, beyond the reach of cleansing rainfall. At these altitudes, the sulfates can linger for months or years, cooling the climate by reflecting incoming sunlight. (The effect is stronger when the eruptions occur at tropical latitudes.) Carn says the persistence of such high concentrations of sulfur dioxide in the OMI data throughout the week indicates that the plume from Sarychev Peak reached high altitudes. Data from other satellites (such as CALIPSO) suggest that the volcanic plume reached altitudes of 10–15 kilometers, and perhaps as high as 21 kilometers.

In 1991, the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines injected enough sulphate into the atmosphere to cause a 0.5° C drop in global temperature. This was caused by about 20 million tonnes of SO2. We are nowhere close to these kind of emission levels. After all, Pinatubo was one of the two biggest volcanic events of the century.

Injecting sulphate particles into the stratosphere has been proposed for a while now, I first wrote about it in 2006 when a prominent atmospheric chemist, Paul Crutzen wrote an article proposing this. The science behind this proposal is basic, sulphate aerosols of the size that would be formed from the oxidation of SO2 are the right size to scatter and reflect solar radiation back into space (my Masters thesis did a first order estimate of this effect from Indian emissions!). If injected directly into the stratosphere, they can stay there for a long time and will not deposit to the the Earth’s surface as acid rain. The issue is managing all the crazy regional variations in climate that would result, and the attendant complications in assigning blame, etc. It would also not help the oceans, which would acidify to hell with all the CO2.

Anyway, so much for that, the volcano is causing all kinds of havoc with Pacific travel and making for all kinds of cool pictures, which are about the most interesting thing happening at this point in time. We shall see how the sulphate situation plays out in the days to come when the dust settles.

|

Scientist speaks up

Byoliveridley

Vote for [Liberal Party Leader] Stéphane Dion; don't vote for the Green Party," Weaver said in an interview promoting Keeping Our Cool: Canada in a Warming World.

"If the Green Party has a strong candidate who's going to beat out the Liberal and Conservative candidates, then, okay, go ahead and vote Green. But, by and large, a green vote is not a Green vote. A green vote is for a Liberal government and Stéphane Dion. There is no other candidate you can vote for.

Scientist speaks up.

Victoria’s most prominent scientist wants you to vote for a Liberal Party candidate in this Canadian election.

|

Clothianidin and the Colony Collapse Disorder

Byoliveridley

Clothianidin is the pesticide at the center of controversy. It is used to coat corn, sugar beet and sorghum seeds and is part of a class of pesticides called neonicotinoids. The pesticide was blamed for bee deaths in France and Germany, which also is dealing with a colony collapse. Those two countries have suspended its use until further study. An EPA fact sheet from 2003 says clothianidin has the potential for toxic chronic exposure to honey bees, as well as other pollinators, through residues in nectar and pollen.

Lawsuit seeks EPA pesticide data

Interesting story. For more on the Colony Collapse Disorder...

Movement on Texas Coal Fired Power Plants.

Byoliveridley

There’s been some progress on the coal fired power plants I had railed on about recently.
In Big Buyout, Utility to Limit New Coal Plants – New York Times

Under a proposed $45 billion buyout by a team of private equity firms, the TXU Corporation, a Texas utility that has long been the bane of environmental groups, will abandon plans to build 8 of 11 coal plants and commit to a broad menu of environmental measures, according to people involved in the negotiations. The roster of commitments came through an unusual process in which the equity firms asked two prominent environmental groups what measures could be taken to win their support. The result is an about-face from the company’s earlier approach to climate-change issues, and includes a goal of returning the carbon-dioxide emissions by TXU to 1990 levels by 2020. Environmental groups said yesterday that they had never known of a financial deal with such an ambitious built-in environmental component.

Better than nothing. This is good news for sure. But as I mentioned previously, the Sanders (Good ol’ socialist!) Bill calls for an 80% reduction from 1990 levels by 2050. This is required to cap CO2 levels at 450 ppm and avoid the worst effects of global warming. So, while reducing CO2 to 1990 levels sounds impressive in a breathlessly written NY Times article. It is not nearly enough. This is exactly what I was afraid of when I mentioned the moratorium word! In the absence of regulation, or a clear policy, private equity companies, power plants, and other plutocrats are setting the US global warming agenda. They are establishing the floor plan, meaning, we’ll set the bar near the floor and not budge. Yes, I know, the NRDC and Environmental Defense were involved, and this part is definitely good…

TXU will discard plans to build eight of 11 proposed new coal plants, which would have been major new sources of emissions. Those plants — which would have added more than 9,000 megawatts of new capacity, the equivalent of 3.5 percent of the nation’s current coal-fired power — had been part of a planned $10 billion expansion of coal-fired electricity.

TXU, which is based in Dallas, also intends to expand the renewable energy portion of its portfolio and reduce or offset its emissions significantly, said people who were familiar with the plans.

All very good, but as I talked about previously (man, way too much self reference, not a good thing!), a book called Reality Check just out assesses voluntary actions by various companies in the US, Europe and Japan and comes to the following conclusion:

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.

Now tell me that this agreement does not fit this frame!

The Precautionary Principle at work

Byoliveridley

This is how you’re supposed to regulate chemicals, burden of proof on the manufacturers, makes sense because they are the ones who have the most information, and the most to gain or lose. So, you have the right motivators with the right tools to ensure that a decision can be reached in the right amount of time. If you reverse the burden of proof, the group (people/government) with incomplete information and little monetary motivation is going up against a group (the industry) which has all the information on its side, and powerful monetary motivation to do nothing, because in doing nothing, the burden of proof will ensure that they win.

Makes so much sense, doesn’t it!

EU bans 22 hair dye chemicals feared unsafe – Yahoo! News

BRUSSELS, Belgium – The European Commission said Thursday it would ban 22 hair dye substances, following the release of a scientific study that concluded the long-term use of these chemicals could cause bladder cancer. The ban will go into effect Dec. 1. “Substances for which there is no proof that they are safe will disappear from the market,” said European Union Industry Commissioner Guenter Verheugen.

Well said, sir, way to motivate industry to prove safety!

“Our high safety standards do not only protect EU consumers, they also give legal certainty to (the) European cosmetics industry.”

A crucial point, industries adjust to regulation very well, as long as the regulation is clear, stable and consistently applied. Not to say that they don’t work to undermine the regulations at times, but most of the time, stability is more important than the regulation itself. The regulation just gets added to the cost of doing business, and you protect yourself against lawsuits, you have plausible deniability, all the good stuff.

The Commission had asked the cosmetics industry to provide safety files for all chemicals used in hair dyes to prove they do not pose a health risk for consumers. The ban concerns 22 chemicals for which no safety files were submitted by producers.

Nice, no proof = no sale.

Deep Sixing California’s Prop 65

Byoliveridley

House mulls bill on food label removal – Boston.com:

“This bill would strip state governments of the ability to protect their residents through state laws and regulations relating to the safety of food and food packaging,” the attorneys general wrote.

The obvious target, they said, is California’s Proposition 65, a law passed by voters requiring companies to warn the public of potentially dangerous toxins in food. The law has prompted California to file lawsuits seeking an array of warnings, including the mercury content in canned tuna and the presence of lead in Mexican candy.

Prop 65 is a California Law that requires the state of California to “publish, at least annually, a list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity” and for businesses to post warning labels. Well naturally, it kinda depresses sales of canned tuna if you have mercury warnings on the labels, mmm, lead in my candy, so delicious…

This is obviously not good for the consumer, I undestand that businesses feel the burden of extra labeling, depressed sales, etc, but why should the onus always be on the consumer? If the assumption that it is the consumer’s responsibility to find out that there is mercury in his/her tuna and that the informed consumer will make informed choices, why not make it easier on the consumer to find out and then rely on him/her to make that choice? What are the companies afraid of, exactly?

Update 4:24 PM 3-3-2006

More here,  here and here