Son, this is one reason I have worked so hard to find a place to shop that doesn't have ANY harmful chemicals in their products. You know my favorite store. You may also want to click here after reading this article. ;-) This is an important science lesson.The assignment details follow the article.
BIG CHEM; BIG HARM?
by Nicolas Kristof
edited by Mom
NEW research is demonstrating that some common chemicals all around us
may be even more harmful than previously thought. It seems that they may
damage us in ways that are transmitted generation after generation,
imperiling not only us but also our descendants.
Even before the latest research showing multigeneration effects, studies
had linked BPA to breast cancer and diabetes, as well as to
hyperactivity, aggression and depression in children.
Maybe it seems surprising to read a newspaper column about chemical
safety because this isn’t an issue in the presidential campaign or even
firmly on the national agenda. It’s not the kind of thing that we in the
news media cover much.
Yet the evidence is growing that these are significant threats of a kind
that Washington continually fails to protect Americans from. The
challenge is that they involve complex science and considerable
uncertainty, and the chemical companies — like the tobacco companies
before them — create financial incentives to encourage politicians to
sit on the fence. So nothing happens.
Yet although industry has, so far, been able to block broad national
curbs on BPA, new findings on transgenerational effects may finally put a
dent in Big Chem’s lobbying efforts.
One good sign: In late July, a Senate committee, for the first, time
passed the Safe Chemicals Act,
landmark legislation sponsored by Senator Frank Lautenberg, a New
Jersey Democrat, that would begin to regulate the safety of chemicals.
Evidence of transgenerational effects of endocrine disruptors has been
growing for a half-dozen years, but it mostly involved higher doses than
humans would typically encounter.
THE EXPERIMENT:
Pregnant mice were exposed to BPA at dosages analogous to those humans
typically receive.
WHAT HAPPENED:
1) The offspring were less sociable than control mice
(using metrics often used to assess an aspect of autism in humans), and
various effects were also evident for the next three generations of
mice.
WHY?
The BPA seemed to interfere with the way the animals processed hormones
like oxytocin and vasopressin, which affect trust and warm feelings. And
while mice are not humans, research on mouse behavior is a standard way
to evaluate new drugs or to measure the impact of chemicals.
CLARIFICATION & COMMENTS by authors of the report
“It’s scary,” said
Jennifer T. Wolstenholme,
a
postdoctoral fellow at the University of Virginia and the lead author
of the report. She said that the researchers found behaviors in
BPA-exposed mice and their descendants that may parallel
autism spectrum
disorder or
attention deficit disorder in humans.
Emilie Rissman, a co-author who is professor of biochemistry and
molecular genetics at University of Virginia Medical School, noted that
BPA doesn’t cause mutations in DNA. Rather, the impact is
“epigenetic”
— one of the hot concepts in biology these days — meaning that changes
are transmitted not in DNA but by affecting the way genes are turned on
and off. These results at low doses add profoundly to concerns about endocrine
disruptors,” said John Peterson Myers, chief scientist at Environmental
Health Sciences. “It’s going to be harder than just eliminating exposure
to one generation.”
SCIENCE HISTORY NOTE:
In effect, this (epigenetic impact) is a bit like evolution through transmission of acquired
characteristics — the theory of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, the 19th-century
scientist whom high school science classes make fun of as a
foil to
Charles Darwin. In epigenetics, Lamarck lives.
The National Institutes of Health is
concerned enough that it expects to make transgenerational impacts of
endocrine disruptors a priority for research funding, according to a
spokeswoman, Robin Mackar.
In his conclusion, the author of this New York Times Article offers his two cents:
Like a lot of Americans, I used to be skeptical of risks from chemicals
like endocrine disruptors that are all around us. What could be safer
than canned food? I figured that opposition came from tree-hugging
Luddites prone to conspiracy theories.
Yet, a few years ago, I began to read the peer-reviewed journal
articles, and it became obvious that the opposition to endocrine
disruptors is led by toxicologists, endocrinologists, urologists and
pediatricians. These are serious scientists, yet they don’t often have
the ear of politicians or journalists.
I’m hoping these new studies can help vault the issue onto the national
stage. Threats to us need to be addressed, even if they come not from
Iranian nuclear weapons, but from things as banal as canned soup and
A.T.M. receipts.
ASSIGNMENT:
1) Read this New York Times article. Read a second time and take key word notes
I have edited with
notes in red to keep you focused on important points.
2) VOCABULARY: Define and memorize the 20 bolded words or terms. You already know many of the words and
numerous other words can defined contextually.
3) Make sure you understand and memorize the 2 bolded sentences.
4) Become familiar enough with the article that you are ready to discuss it.
5) Complete a re-write in your own words by Monday.
5) We can discuss this after dinner tonight. :-)
Also see:
http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/
