AngryToxicologist is a scientist in the public health sector, knows plenty about toxicology, and is occasionally angry about it all. Drop me a line at tox@angrytoxicologist.com.
Any money I would have gotten from writing this blog is donated to the National Capital Poison Control Center. They rely on grants, save lives, and decrease health care costs. So read this blog every day!
A couple of years ago DuPont and other perfluorochemical industries were dismissing evidence of PFOA-caused cancer in rats, saying it was due to peroxisome proliferation in rats, which some argue isn't relevant to humans. However, PFOA may have other mechanisms of action (disrupting thyroid hormones, gap junctions, and estradiol among them). You can read more about the evidence in this EWG submission to the EPA. Well, EPA must not have payed too much attention to those other mechanisms because they basically ignored them and wanted to discount the cancer. In fact, they didn't do a cancer risk assessment at all. The EPA's draft risk assessment isn't very good but it does contain most of the background info if you're interested.
Speeding forward to now, we have a paper in EHP showing that PFOA causes liver cancer in trout without causing peroxisome proliferation. In fact, it finds that PFOA administration leads to changes similar to, you guessed it, estradiol.
Gee, look how that turned out. Not as if a scientist should need convincing of this but...Never ignore data, it will turn around and make you look like a fool someday.
And our divided country will produce the worst of both worlds.
The LA city council has passed a resolution that bans fast food restaurants in poor neighborhoods (via Slate - worth moseying over for). This is so paternalistic it's disgusting. Do poor people make bad food choices? Yes. Should we thus deprive them of choosing all food we consider bad? Don't make me answer that. If you want more health choices, put incentives in for a decent grocery to move in or a farmers market (although you are still left with the issue that healthy foods are more expensive). Beyond that, you can eat relatively healthy at many fast food places if you want to; but-news flash-people don't.
The sense of paternalism seems to be growing in the country equal to the sense that the government is responsible for everything, both reinforcing each other. I was listening to a radio recently and heard some city government official railing against Verizon for not putting FIOS into the poor sections of town as fast as the richer sections. Umm, gee, ya think? One, they're a business, they install where they can get money back on their investment. Two, super-high-speed internet is a main concern for the poor in the city? Now, I know that there is a digital divide and we need to make sure people have access but maybe we should get crime, housing and social services in order first before we start worrying about fiber optic internet access.
So where do we stand? We have torture, hugely increased executive power, weak consumer rights, diminishing civil rights in the areas of surveillance and detention along with policies that take away choice, forcing us to live "better". Ah, the worst of conservative and liberal wing ideas. It's heading down the road of a communist country except we don't even have health care.
And don't blame the government. We are the government. Beyond that, we are the people eating too much, buying houses we can't afford, not saving, not exercising, running up credit cards and equity loans, wasting food and products. I'm all for the gov't stepping in when the public isn't able to either control a problem (factory pollution), when they can't be expected to know enough (banning harmful pesticides), or to level the playing field (financial regs) but lately ours only seems to step into areas where we know what we should be doing and do the opposite. If the future of the country is looking to the government to compensate for our bad habits so we can escape the consequences, the future is bleak indeed.
Weekly Aural Pleasure
I'm actually going to the sea this weekend but this excellent Blood Red Shoes song has been in my head all week. No White Stripes comparisons, please.
Let's just put it in a hole
CO2 sequestration has been going forward but only approved as research class wells. The EPA is proposing regulations on how to do it full scale and correctly. This is necessary because the CO2 may have nasty impurities, can move around, is corrosive with water, and is a weak acid. In other words, mixing with water supplies is bad.
You mean if I screw up, I've got to fix it? That's un-American!
The main contentious issue here is what are industries' responsibilities after the well is filled and capped. How much should they have to put up for financial assurances in case drinking water is acidified or the CO2 leaks out? Who should be responsible for monitoring? For how long? The arguement is somewhere inbetween 0 and 300 years. That's quite a gap to close. This reminds me of mining a lot. Hmm...that's not a good thing; most of the problem mines in the west had bonds put up for future remediation and they are never even close to enough, leaving the citizens to foot the bill. The Agency is taking comments and I think I may express my own desire not to foot the remediation bill. I'll keep my eye out for the public hearing and let you know about that when it comes.
Oops!
In case you didn't know, the Boulder, CO site of the National Institute of Sandards and Technology (NIST) had an accidental spill of plutonium-239 on June 9 and the initial actions taken would have an industrial hygenist pulling her hair out (read more at C&EN). Basically, a guest researcher* cracked a bottle, didn't realize it, and when he did here's what he did: He locked up the sample, moved some of his materials, and washed his hands in the sink. As you might have guessed, he wasn't trained to work with radioactive substances, which is required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Basically this was the big mistake. NIST made some other mistakes; all the people in the lab were moved to the corridor and someone suggested that they take off their shoes so as not to spread the contamination but what they really did was end up contaminating their feet and socks too since the corridor was already contaminated (a good assumption that haz-mat pros make: contamination has spread much farther and faster than you think possible).
What they did right
Okay, so people make mistakes. This isn't an excuse but since it happens all the time it's gratifying to see openness, apologies, and responsibility taken compared to the usual denial, defense, stonewall approach. The acting director made no excuses; NIST has already changed its safety training and emergency resonse prodecures, including getting outside evaluators to help. The director also shut down all radioactive work at Boulder immediately. Most importantly, NIST has been, my all accounts, very open with the public and the local community.
This isn't to say this shouldn't have been prevented. It should have. Somewhere around 20% of the sample isn't in the lab; it's in the public sewer, the people in the lab, the air, ETC. It was a collosal screw-up for a place that is supposed to know how to handle radioactive substances and take appropriate action in the event of an accident. NIST was 0-2 in this incident.
A good thing to come out of this is that because of NIST's transparency and acceptance of help, the problems will get fixed, and that's what really matters. Organizations should think of this the next time someone fires off a critique. If it has some truth, it's easier to simply take it and say 'you're right, what can we do to fix this' than to get defensive. For one, it kinda takes the wind out of the sails of the angry advisary. Two, it allows you to get some help in fixing what you probably already knew was a problem instead of tring to fix it on the sly while denying it exists.
*Why do all the reports continually refer to the guest as a "foreign guest researcher"? Is that pertinent? Dang foreigners.
Every party needs a pooper, that's why Scienceblogs invited me.
Enemy? Really? Yes, it can be. Read on; It doesn't have to be.
A commentary in Nature Nanotechnology discusses the European Environment Agency report, Late Lessons from Early Warnings. The basic idea is to make recommendations so that nanotech can grow with the idea that if you ignore risks and get dealt a nasty surprise, the public backlash will doom the whole field. They came up with a list of 12 lesssons: some are as old as the hills and probably won't followed; all would be welcome if they were followed.
Among the lessons that we won't learn from (considering name change to Cynical Toxicologist) are the ones the commentary groups under "Heed the 'warnings'", "consider wider issues" and "retain regulatory independence" (hah!). Everybody knows this is what's supposed to happen and it doesn't; it's not specific to nanotech. There are some that should stop and make you think, however. Lessons 5 and 8 (accounting for real world conditions and using layperson knowledge) are often dismissed as going beyond the worst case scenario. Anyone who has ever worked in a factory knows how much of a joke it would be to assume that the product conforms to the standard. Talking to the workers on the floor really changes how you think about potential risks. But what I really want to write about is lesson 12...
You say scientists, I say enablers. Let's call the whole thing off.
My favorite is lesson 12, the "paralysis by analysis" lesson. Everyone likes to ask for more information instead of putting their ass on the line and making a decision. I can't tell you how many gov't advisory committees I've almost pulled my hair out at because the committee as a whole doesn't want to make any recommendations other than 'we need more research'. I can recall three where committee members specifically asked if they had to answer the question put before them as they'd rather not make judgements, and can't recall a single one where the members didn't want to change the questions posed to it. More data. More research. Uncomfort with uncertainty. When science meets public health, it gets ugly. Really ugly. It sounds pretty easy to say you're going to use a weight of evidence approach until you try and apply it to a decision that will have a drastic effects on the public, the gov't, and industry. It's oh so tempting to pull up your 'more research' security blanket around you and refuse to make a decision. It's not only tempting, it's how we're trained as scientists: look at data, formulate hypothesis, test hypothesis, repeat. It's tough to break that mold and replace it: look at data, formulate hypothesis, act.
Because this is used so often, the costs in health, money, and manpower are astronomical. Think about the debate over global warming as an example. This is actually at a pretty good stage compared to most scientific debates over a public health issue. Most are stuck doing ever more research to try and confirm something that most people know while everyone mumbles about what we don't know. With global warming at least we also have a large number of scientist saying we need to do something. So here's my lesson 13 (et al.) and professional plea to other scientists out there: Whatever science you practice, take a stand about what you work on, be passionate about people and the data, understand that regulators need advice from advisory boards-not more confusion, understand that making decisions and being open-minded are not mutally exclusive, and most importantly, locate your spine and act in accordance with this discovery or confirmation as the case may be. Thank you.
How to lose respect and relevance in three easy (dance) steps
Can this really be happening? Congress in public group therapy with Richard 'cartoon of myself' Simmons? Crawl back into your protective bubble and weep my friends, becasue it really happened. Do they know they have 14% approval rating? Obesity is a problem, and Congress' approach to this is to hold a hearing with Mr "Yankee Doodle DAAAAN-DEEEEE" and talked about their traumatic childhoods and self-esteem issues with statements like:
I'm still waiting to get picked for the congressional basketball team
Next week, they'll be looking to Patch Adams for tips on how to fix the health care system.
I've got the solution
I got an e-mail that suggested that I shouldn't critique things unless I had a better plan fully delineated. This put me in mind of an old Fry and Laurie bit (first 1:45):
Happy Friday! (For more good friday laughs, find Hugh and Laurie's 'Privatization of the Police Force', 'Genital Fungus' or 'the word gay' bits)
A couple of readers have asked bout the NYTimes article about sunscreens so I thought I'd weigh in.
80 lbs.
Okay, with the lame humor over, let's get to the particulars. The most common question has been
1) What do I think is best/do I agree with the NYTimes?
3Answer: the advice they gave stunk. They said most doctors suggested a combination of "avobenzone and oxybenzone". Good Lord, I hope not. Micronized zinc or titanium products are best. Excellent protection, no exposure (absorption), no problem, go enjoy the beach.
Question 2) is there a problem with oxybenzone?
Answer: Maybe. I think my favorite quote from the piece is:
At this point, I don't think there's enough evidence to firmly claim that sunscreens containing oxybenzone are unsafe.
Yeah, it's only likely that they're unsafe, so what's the problem? Oh. I see. Maybe if there's an alternative that's safe for sure, then maybe we should just use that? Just a thought.
(I also enjoyed the same person saying that to protect yourself from the harmful effects of oxybenzone you just reapply constantly. While this may have some scientific basis, it's more than a little out of touch with the real world.)
Answer: Yeah, kinda. Judging from what I can see from the site and how it works, you can be confident that the ones on the top of the list are much better than those on the bottom. The relative rankings of those that are near each other on the scale probably don't mean a whole lot. Also, they made their stance on nanotech a little more clear, which is a good thing.
Also, I wouldn't pay much attention to the little scorecard that lists possible harms (e.g. 'reproductive toxicity'); without exposure information to compute a margin of safety, this is a hazard index, and not that helpful, especially when not all ingredients are tested. When not all are tested, an untested chemical would look better than one that has been tested. This is because almost all tests are positive because they run the dose up until they see something. The chart doesn't note if it took 3 mg or 3 tons. So unless EWG has access to the amounts of chemicals in the sunscreens (confidential business information) and did an exposure assessment, this isn't worth much.
What they did do is do a good job of looking at the relative safety of different active ingredients and paired that with information on how effective they are at blocking UVA and UVB. This is information I don't think you can easily get anywhere else. For this alone, it is a useful tool. FDA is currently working on a rule to give you more information on this. But until then, simply pick something up off of the EWG best bets list.
Personal Toxicologist Shopper.
As for me, I've been using this brand for a while. There is a sport version as well that's good. For the smaller set, I use the same thing or this depeding on how squirmy the situation is (the CA baby stuff is thick and not as easy to put on, but my guess is that it stays on better).
You know, the last one is really silly in a way. Why does the administration try to make its underhanded anti-scientific meddling secret? Everyone knows they do it at this point. It's hardly even news anymore!
I shall retreat to my corner and cry for a bit. Come get me in Jan 2009.
EHP has a small report on EPA's troubled ozone standard that's worth a look, especially if you don't know much about the issue. What strikes me is how there is such resistance from regulators to setting a decent standard because it would put too many counties into non-compliance. It's almost as if there's this idea that, 'well, we can't say that they whole nation has unhealthy air. It's like saying the country is bad'. Of course, that's the breathing state we're in. In reality it's much more admirable to own up to the problem then go about fixing it. Not only admirable but, in this case, the only fight you can win. The fact that a county can say it's in compliance really doesn't take away from the shame of kids and older people unable to go outside on hot summer days due to unhealthy air. Maybe someone should let Administrator Johnson know that it's probably pretty easy to make a case that people have a right to work and play outside without risking a trip to the ER.
If I like what I see, I'll receive 5 more issues (6 in all) for just $14.95. That's 50% off the cover price! If I'm not completely satisfied, I'll simply write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing. The free issue is mine to keep.
AngryToxicologist is a scientist in the public health sector, knows plenty about toxicology, and is occasionally angry about it all. Drop me a line at 
