[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
EPA to look at how toxins affect kids
HI all,
While the EPA oes not specify radiation in this article, doesn't their
current position, that children are more at risk, lend support to the
Tooth Fairy Project's hypothesis about the effects of low level
radiation on the fetus and infants?
Norm
Agency Says Children's Risk Is Higher For Some Cancers
Posted by admin <http://sierraactivist.org> on Tuesday, March 04 @
23:07:57 PST
Contributed by admin
<http://sierraactivist.org/user.php?op=userinfo&uname=admin>
After assessing the scientific research, the Environmental Protection
Agency said today that when compared with adults, children younger than
2 faced a tenfold risk of developing cancer if they were exposed to some
substances.
The substances, known as mutagens and used in some industrial processes,
cause cancer by damaging DNA. Because the E.P.A. has long known about
the toxicity of certain kinds of mutagens, the agency has moved to ban
their use.
The conclusion was part of a draft report that represented the agency's
first try at assessing children's risk to cancer-causing agents. The
draft will be subject to public comment and scientific peer review.
Environmental health dangers to children have been the center of
contentious scientific and policy debate over the last six years,
resulting in a push for more development-focused cancer studies. Most
cancer research has historically centered on adults, with most of the
data collected through occupational exposure and tests on adult animals.
But children ages 2 to 15 have a cancer risk three times that of adults.
The E.P.A. says it is waiting for additional research before determining
whether children are at increased risk from other carcinogens.
The amount of scientific literature that shaped the children's
guidelines was relatively modest. The guidelines are among the
government's first formal steps to incorporate recent research into
procedures that are used to set environmental standards, something
environmental groups have been lobbying for.
"It's a step in the right direction, because kids are clearly more at
risk and government is trying to quantitate that and use that in a
meaningful way," said Kristina Thayer, a senior scientist with the
Environmental Working Group, an advocacy group that has focused on
children's environmental health.
The draft guidelines for children, which were released today for comment
and review, are part of a broader revision of E.P.A.'s cancer-risk
guidelines, first introduced in 1986. Risk assessments are a contentious
topic for the agency, which has faced criticism from industries and
environmental groups for its estimates.
"There is so much controversy around these risk assessments," said
William H. McFarland, the agency's acting deputy administrator for
science. " `You're overstating the case. You're understating the case.
They are unrealistic. They are clear enough to take action.' "
As scientific understanding and computer modeling become more
sophisticated, the E.P.A. is modifying its guidelines to go beyond
"one-size-fits-all" analysis. For example, as part of the general
assessment, the agency is encouraging a more descriptive approach to
characterizing a substance's cancer-causing potential. For example, the
report said, scientists should emphasize whether the risk comes through
breathing, ingesting or touching a carcinogen. As part of the effort,
the agency is looking at sensitive groups, such as children, people with
diabetes and the elderly.
Risk assessment has two main components: how a substance hurts the body,
and the probability of coming into contact with that substance. In
trying to more accurately assess the risks for different groups, the
E.P.A. is adopting procedures that incorporate elements of biology and
lifestyle.
In the past, cancer risk assessments might have focused only on how a
dose of toxic chemical might affect the human body. The newer guidelines
encourage the agency's scientists to consider other factors, including
that children spend more time outside, that they often put their hands
in their mouth, and that they eat, drink and breathe in greater
proportion to their body weights than do adults. At the same time,
children are less susceptible to occupational cancer risks.
The children's guidelines were issued as a supplement to the overall
risk-assessment report, which must be be peer-reviewed by the agency's
scientific advisory board. Keeping the children's guidelines separate
also makes them "lean, mean and easier to update," said James Coliano,
the chairman of the E.P.A. group that writes cancer guidelines.
To be sure, there are many categories of carcinogens, and children are
not at increased increased cancer risk from all of them. Because
mutagens damage DNA, children are more at risk because as they grow,
their cells divide more frequently than those of adults, perpetuating
that damage. But for other substances, such as chloroform, the E.P.A.
has determined that children are as likely or less likely to get cancer
because of the way it affects organs.
By Jennifer 8. Lee
New York Times - 3/4/2003
--
Coalition for Peace and Justice and the UNPLUG Salem Campaign; 321 Barr Ave., Linwood, NJ 08221; 609-601-8583 or 609-601-8537; ncohen12@comcast.net UNPLUG SALEM WEBSITE: http://www.unplugsalem.org/ COALITION FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE WEBSITE: http://www.coalitionforpeaceandjustice.org The Coalition for Peace and Justice is a chapter of Peace Action.
"First they ignore you; Then they laugh at you; Then they fight you; Then you win. (Gandhi) "Why walk when you can fly?" (Mary Chapin Carpenter)
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/