[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Know_Nukes] Air pollution may alter genes
there
is nothing new about chemicals or pollutants, for that matter, causing mutations
in any organism. this article is likely implying that this study shows
that inhalation exposures to air pollutants caused germ line mutations that are
indeed inherited. this is difficult to prove from environmental exposures.
many of the difficulties lie in the exclusions mentioned as well as the ability
to show dose response. this mutation theory is incorporated, at least in
theory, in the clean air act which mandates for large reductions in cancer
burdens due to pollutants. the latest of these is polynucleararomatic
hydrocarbons associated with diesel fuels. most cancers are considered due
to mutational change.
unless one can show a pharmacodynamic model for germ line mutations
in humans, the exposure would have to be dermal and to a degree rather simple
for males anatomy but a somewhat different proposition for female anatomy.
perhaps the closest and most widely accepted example for females is with
acrylamide exposure from dermal contact.
given
what is known about chronic and acute exposures to chemicals and cancer with
complexities such as mesothelioma or simple somatic cell mutations such as rb,
p53 or barca, regulating chemical exposures for these genetic effects would
cover concerns about germ line changes at least from a mutational mechanistic
point of view with LNT. from a pharmacodynamic point of view LNT may be
overkill for some changes and inadequate for some more sensitive germ sites such
as fragile X. then again small exposures may not cause significant or any
increase in activity at such sites.
the
chickens you see around the steel mill are the ones with the mutations that at
least allow the animals to survive, are beneficial and silent. mutant
means change, we just equate it with ugly these days.
Jim Hoerner <jim_hoerner@hotmail.com> wrote:
[Article and followup comments]
Air pollution may alter
genes
Tuesday, January 07, 2003
By David Suzuki
Six
years ago, scientists found that herring gulls living near steel mills
around the harbour in Hamilton, Ontario, tended to have high DNA
mutation
rates. These mutations were then transferred to the next
generation of
gulls, increasing the offspring's chances of developing
genetic diseases
like cancer and birth defects. Researchers suspected at
the time that air
pollution was causing the mutations, but they couldn't
eliminate other
factors, such as polluted water or contaminated fish,
that also could have
been responsible.
Now other scientists have
published a paper indicating that air pollution is
indeed the likely
culprit behind the mutations. What's more, there's no
reason why human
DNA should be immune from the same pollution. So our genes
may also be
damaged and inherited by our children. It! 's sobering to think
that
chemicals in our air affect us at a genetic level. Few studies have
been
done on this topic outside examinations of animals exposed to
radioactive dust from nuclear accidents.
. . .
>Date: Tue, 07
Jan 2003 19:32:51 -0700
>From: Steven Dapra
>Subject:
Re: Air pollution may alter genes
>If these findings are
legitimate why aren't there already mutant children
all over the place
around steel mills?
I think that it should be considered that the gene mutations found
are obviously not determental to the gull, mice, or
humans. If it was, the effects should have been reported if
observed. Just because a gene mutation occurs should not lead to the
assumption that it will lead to extra limbs, increased cancers etc. If I
remember correctly, studies around Chernobyl found mutations in voles.
Yet, the animal population flourished.
I think Ted Rockwell pointed out that cellular effects may not be seen at
the level of the organism. I think that this holds true in this
work.
-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health
Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail
Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
now