[ RadSafe ] TR: The solution to pollution

Thu Aug 25 09:15:21 CDT 2011

Hi Jerry,

The Pubmed web site is from the National U.S. National Library of Medicine. It allows to search medical literature, with appropriate keywords. Of course, the original papers must be consulted afterwards. There is a large university library available where I work, so I could do so easily.

I agree that the dose of a pollutant is very relevant to any effect. The papers that I found reported work done with low concentrations of pollutants, in the same order of magnitude that those found in the environment. For example:

Citation from the first paper: Schultz, et al

"Antidepressant pharmaceuticals have been reported in wastewater effluent at the nanogram to low microgram-per-liter range. (...) adult male fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) were exposed for 21 days either to a single concentration of the antidepressants FLX (Fluoxetine or Prozac), SER, VEN, or BUP (other related antidepressants), or to an antidepressant mixture. The data demonstrated that exposure to VEN (305 ng/L and 1104 ng/L) and SER (5.2 ng/L) resulted in mortality. Anatomical alterations were noted within the testes of fish exposed to SER and FLX, both modulators of the neurotransmitter serotonin. Additionally, FLX at 28 ng/L induced vitellogenin in male fish-a common endpoint for estrogenic endocrine disruption. Significant alterations in male secondary sex characteristics were noted with single exposures."

Citation from Mennigen, et al

"Environmental SSRI (a class of antidepressants comprising FLX and others) concentrations are as high as 540 ng/L for FLX (Brooks et al., 2003) and 2.5 ug/L for venlafaxine (Metcalfe et al., 2010) and appear to be relatively stable as indicated by similar concentrations for different timepoints at a particular sampling site (Vasskog et al., 2008). Total concentrations of SSRIs in aquatic systems were measured in the range of 840 ng/L (Vasskog Kolpin et al. (2002) analyzed water samples from 139 streams across 30 US states between 1999 and 2000 and reported FLX concentrations as high as 0.012 ug/L, however, with a low frequency of appearance (1.2%). Additional analyses conducted in rivers and streams across Canada and the US reported concentrations of FLX ranging from 13 to 540 ng/L (Metcalfe et al., 2003; Brooks et al., 2003). et al., 2008) to 3.2 ug/L (Metcalfe et al., 2010). (...) In this study, we investigated the effect of two doses of FLX (Fluoxetine), an environmental concentration of 540 ng/L, and 100-times this concentration (54ug/L), on feeding and key metabolic parameters in goldfish. Significant decreases in food intake and weight gain were recorded in goldfish exposed to 54 ug/L FLX. Furthermore a significant decrease occurred in circulating glucose levels in the group exposed to 540 ng/L FLX."

Citation from FOSTER, et al

Fluoxetine has been found in sewage treatment plant effluents and surface waters at concentrations as high as 0.099 mg/L (...) Tadpoles in a laboratory setting were exposed to a low (0.029 mg/L) and a high (0.29 mg/L) concentration of the common SSRI fluoxetine from stages 21 and 22 through completion of metamorphosis. (...) Exposed tadpoles in the laboratory showed delayed development compared with controls when stage was assessed throughout the experiment. Control tadpoles also gained weight faster than treatment tadpoles, which may be explained by reduced food intake. (...) These results indicate that ecologically relevant levels of fluoxetine may cause developmental delays in amphibians

So to summarize the environmental concentrations of antidepressants reported by the authors:

Reported in

pollutant

Environment

Maximum or range of concentrations reported

Schultz

antidepressants

wastewater effluent

nanogram to low microgram-per-liter

Menningen

SSRI

aquatic systems

840 ng/L

Menningen

VEN

environmental

2.5 ug/L

Menningen

FLX

environmental

540 ng/L

Menningen

FLX

139 streams across 30 US states

0.012 ug/L

Menningen

FLX

rivers and streams across Canada and the US

13 to 540 ng/L

Menningen

FLX

rivers and streams across Canada and the US

3.2 ug/L

Foster

FLX

sewage treatment plant effluents and surface waters

0.099 mg/L

And now to summarize the concentrations which were tested and the effects measured:

Authors

pollutant tested

Concentration s

Subject species

Effects observed

Schultz

VEN

305 ng/L and 1104 ng/L

fathead minnows

mortality increase

Schultz

SER

5.2 ng/L

fathead minnows

Anatomical alterations within the testes

Schultz

FLX

28 ng/L

fathead minnows

vitellogenin in males (estrogenic endocrine disruption)

Menningen

FLX

540 ng/L

goldfish

significant decrease in circulating glucose levels

Menningen

FLX

54ug/L

goldfish

decreases in food intake and weight gain

Foster

FLX

0.029 mg/L

Tadpoles

delayed development

Foster

FLX

0.29 mg/L

delayed development

Have a good day,

Colette

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

-----Message d'origine-----
De : radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] De la part de Jerry Cohen
Envoyé : 24 août 2011 17:37
À : The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Objet : Re: [ RadSafe ] TR: The solution to pollution

Hi,

    I am unable to open the referenced site, but I would guess that the

concentration levels of pollutant applied in the "effects" research are far

higher than those likely to actually be found in the environment. Our ability to

detect vanishingly low concentrations has  outrun our abilty

to assess the health effects at these very low concentrations levels

 ------- And thats the problem! I believe Paracelsus was right.

Jerry Cohen

________________________________

From: Colette Tremblay <Colette.Tremblay at ssp.ulaval.ca>

To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List

<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>

Sent: Wed, August 24, 2011 6:27:47 AM

Subject: [ RadSafe ] TR: The solution to pollution

Hi,

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

Colette,

    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

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

_______________________________________________

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

_______________________________________________

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