[ RadSafe ] TR: The solution to pollution

Colette Tremblay Colette.Tremblay at ssp.ulaval.ca
Wed Aug 24 08:27:47 CDT 2011


I did a quick Pubmed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed) search, and I found these papers:
Melissa M. Schultz, et al (2011)  Selective uptake and biological consequences of environmentally relevant antidepressant pharmaceutical exposures on male fathead minnows. Aquatic Toxicology 104 (2011) 38-47

Jan A. Mennigen, et al (2010)  Waterborne fluoxetine disrupts feeding and energy metabolism in the goldfish Carassius auratus. Aquatic Toxicology 100 (2010) 128-137

HANNAH R. FOSTER, et al (2010) CHRONIC EXPOSURE TO FLUOXETINE (PROZAC) CAUSES DEVELOPMENTAL DELAYS IN RANA PIPIENS LARVAE. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 29, No. 12, pp. 2845-2850, 2010
In all  three, negative effects such as estrogenic endocrine disruption (alterations in the testes and production of egg-yolk protein in males), or feeding and energy metabolism were observed in fish, and developmental delay was observed in frogs, following exposure to environmental concentrations of antidepressants.

Fish and especially amphibians have very permeable skin; populations of amphibians are declining worldwide. Environmental pharmaceuticals may play a role in the decline of these populations, along with other pollutants and habitat destruction.

The problem with "solution to pollution is dilution" is in the proper assessment of those  "designated standards". Some effects which had never been investigated when the standards were created can indeed affect some organisms. These standards must change with advancing knowledge.

Colette Tremblay
Spécialiste en radioprotection
Service de sécurité et prévention
Pavillon Ernest-Lemieux - Université Laval
2325, Rue de la Vie-Étudiante, local 1533
Québec (Québec) G1V 0B1
Téléphone : (418) 656-2131 poste 2893
Télécopie : (418) 656-5617

Avis de confidentialité<http://www.rec.ulaval.ca/lce/securite/confidentialite.htm>

De : Jerry Cohen [mailto:jjc105 at yahoo.com]
Envoyé : 23 août 2011 11:02
À : Colette Tremblay
Objet : Re: [ RadSafe ] The solution to pollution

    How are the fish and amphibians "affected"? Is there any scientific evidence to support this?
Reproductive anomalies are always occuring, with or without pollution.     Jerry

From: Colette Tremblay <Colette.Tremblay at ssp.ulaval.ca>
To: Jerry Cohen <jjcohen at prodigy.net>; The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Tue, August 23, 2011 6:44:46 AM
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] The solution to pollution

I understand that fish and amphibians are affected by the medications in water, since they actually live in the water. Reproductive anomalies have been observed.


Colette Tremblay
Spécialiste en radioprotection
Service de sécurité et prévention
poste 2893

-----Message d'origine-----
De : radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu<mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu<mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu>] De la part de Jerry Cohen
Envoyé : 22 août 2011 17:05
À : The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Objet : Re: [ RadSafe ] The solution to pollution

    Many years ago, when I began to work in the environmental health field,
there existed a guideline to the effect, "The solution to pollution is
dilution". In other words, if it could be assured that disposal of any harmful
agent could not result in environmental concentrations above designated
standards, the disposal method could be considered acceptable. Over time, this
approach had apparently been superceded by the "Any is too much" philosophy
where the detectible presence of anything harmful is not acceptable. The ALARA
principle in radiation safety is a manifestation of this type of thinking.
    Now, it seems that we have evolved to the next level. I recently noted a
warning from our state Health Dept. to the effect that any disposal of outdated
medications into the sewage system is forbidden. I've tried to imagine a set of
conditions where this practice might conceivably result in some harmful effect,
but I am stumped. When I inquired about the rational, I learned the reason for
this prohibition is because the practice is illegal. OK, ---I give  up! Maybe
someone on radsafe has a reasonable explanation.
Jerry Cohen
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu

More information about the RadSafe mailing list