Low-level environmental exposures--more dangerous than you thought?Low levels of common environmental toxins may pose a more significant concern for human health than is generally recognized, according to "Human Health Risks from Low-Level Environmental Exposures: No Apparent Safety Thresholds," an article that appeared in the December 2005 issue of PLoS Medicine (Volume 2, Number 12, page e350). Authors Donald Wigle, of the McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment at the University of Ottawa n the process of destroying pathogenic organisms or rendering them inert. disinfection, full oral cavity, n a procedure used to reduce active periodontal disease, usually completed within a certain short time frame. by-products in drinking water drinking water supply of water available to animals for drinking supplied via nipples, in troughs, dams, ponds and larger natural water sources; an insufficient supply leads to dehydration; it can be the source of infection, e.g. leptospirosis, salmonellosis, or of poisoning, e.g. . Their conclusions are based on pooled analyses of epidemiological studies. For both lead and secondhand smoke sec·ond·hand smoke n. Cigarette, cigar, or pipe smoke that is inhaled unintentionally by nonsmokers and may be injurious to their health if inhaled regularly over a long period. Also called passive smoke. , these analyses found that dose-response relationships between exposure and cognitive impacts were actually stronger at low blood or serum concentrations of the contaminants. With respect to lead, the authors write: "In a pooled analysis of seven of the eight prospective longitudinal studies longitudinal studies, n.pl the epidemiologic studies that record data from a respresentative sample at repeated intervals over an extended span of time rather than at a single or limited number over a short period. , the investigators reported that the average IQ deficit associated with an increase in concurrent blood lead concentration from less than 0.048 [micro]M to 0.48 [micro]M was about 3-fold higher than the IQ deficit associated with an increase in concurrent blood-lead concentration from 0.48 [micro]M to 0.96 [micro]M." With respect to radon, they cite findings by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) is a U.S. organization which seeks to formulate and widely disseminate information, guidance and recommendations on radiation protection and measurements which represent the consensus of leading scientific that "the most plausible relationships between low-level ionizing radiation and mutations, chromosome aberrations, and cancer are linear, with no threshold." They also point out that "a pooled analysis of eight epidemiologic studies of underground miners showed that the excess risk of lung cancer per unit of cumulative radon exposure was greater at lower exposure levels. Among men with the same cumulative radon exposure," they conclude, "prolonged exposure at low levels is more hazardous than shorter exposures at higher levels." With respect to chlorination by-products, they observe that a pooled analysis of six studies showed "a lifetime bladder cancer risk of about seven per 1,000" in men exposed to trihalomethanes (THMs) at levels above 1 [micro]g/L. In general, Wigle and Lanphear believe that epidemiological studies should be preferred over animal studies in the development of environmental standards. They also argue that "risk assessments should not assume thresholds for noncarcinogens as well as carcinogens Carcinogens Substances in the environment that cause cancer, presumably by inducing mutations, with prolonged exposure. Mentioned in: Colon Cancer, Rectal Cancer , especially for toxins shown in epidemiologic data to exhibit no apparent threshold and those not yet adequately tested for developmental toxicity." Readers can find the complete article at http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020350. |
|
||||||||||||||||||

Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion