Sandra Finley

Dec 092002
 

E-mail this article to
yourself or a friend.
Enter address:
 

home

What happens when farm leaders meet agri-business?

(Monday, Dec. 9, 2002 — CropChoice news) —

ARTHUR SCHAFER, Winnipeg Free Press, 12/08/02: Main Street, Moose Jaw, is a long way from Wall Street, New York City. And the Manitoba Canola Growers Association doesn’t have a lot in common with Merrill Lynch Securities.

Nevertheless, the ethical issue currently dominating the attention of corporate America — conflict of interest — is now stirring controversy across the Prairie provinces. It has come to light that a number of Western farm leaders *have financial ties to the multinational chemical giant Monsanto. Because these leaders are accepting money and travel from Monsanto at the same time they serve as board members of leading farm organizations, they have been accused of being in a conflict-of-interest situation.

* [Reader inserted.  Except for Dave Sefton formerly of Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, all the other Monsanto panel members  initially exposed by CBC as having signed the agreement, besides being involved in many different organizations have at least one common element to all of them. Each of them is involved with the Western Canadian Wheat Growers association, in many cases having held positions at the national or provincial executive level.  ]

First, some background to this story. Monsanto is spending a lot of money to persuade the federal government that it should license genetically modified (GM) wheat. A big part of Monsanto’s campaign hinges on persuading western farmers to support the introduction of GM wheat to Prairie agriculture. This is proving to be a tough sell. Many western wheat farmers fear that licensing GM, or “Roundup Ready” wheat would destroy Canada’s most valuable wheat, export markets. Europeans, for example, won’t touch the stuff. Since there’s no safe and sure way to segregate GM wheat from conventional wheat, all Canadian wheat runs the risk of being banned from Europe.

Understandably, feelings on this issue are passionate. There’s a lot at stake.

Some Manitoba farmer leaders, such as Ernie Sirski and his wife, have accepted Monsanto-funded travel (Winnipeg Free Press, Dec. 14). The Sirskis were treated to an all-expenses-paid trip to Spain last year to attend the World Congress on Conservation Agriculture. Mr. Sirski is president of the Manitoba Canola Growers’ Association. Another board member *is a paid member of Monsanto’s grower advisory panel on Roundup Ready Wheat. He is paid $150 per day to advise Monsanto on how to win the support of his fellow farmers for the introduction of GM wheat. The Monsanto Roundup Ready wheat panel has four members from each Prairie province — all receiving similar benefits.

[*Reader Insertion:  Director and 2002 director candidate Bruce Dalgarno as well as  previous MCGA director Max Polon, now director on Seed Growers Association.]

Not surprisingly, the beneficiaries see nothing morally troubling about the situation. Mr. Sirski, for example, is quoted as saying: “It would take more than a trip to Spain to prostitute myself for a chemical company.”

In thinking about how best to respond to this issue, Canadian farmers could study not only the crisis of confidence now plaguing Wall Street, but also the record of the Canadian medical community, which is awash in such conflict-of-interest issues. ‘Big Pharma’ spends more than $20,000 annually per Canadian physician on gifts, including free meals, money to attend educational sessions, travel and consulting fees.

I have lectured across Canada on the ethics of doctors accepting gifts from drug companies. Interestingly, I have never met a doctor who admitted that he or she had been influenced in any way by drug-company generosity. When confronted on the issue, they invariably reply, as did Mr. Sirski: “I can’t be bought for… (fill in the blank: a fancy dinner, laptop computer, Caribbean holiday, whatever).”

Are doctors and farmers incorruptible in the objectivity of their judgment, as they insist? Or, could it be that the drug and chemical companies recognize something fundamental about human nature?

This is a rhetorical question. What drug and chemical companies understand is that much of social life is based on reciprocity. The need to return kindness for kindness, favour for favour, benefit for benefit, is a basic motivator in virtually every human society. It behooves us, therefore, to reflect upon the fact that every dollar of the millions that the drug companies invest in gifts to physicians and hospitals — and every dollar that chemical and food companies invest in gifts to universities, farm organizations and individual farmers — is viewed by the companies as an important part of their corporate strategy. They are buying goodwill. They are buying influence with people who have decision-making power.

To put this point in another way, every gift and payment from agri-businesses to farmers and their organizations comes with strings attached. Strings that are sometimes as heavy as an iron chain, even when the recipients don’t recognize that their chain is being jerked.

All farm-organization directors have an obligation to put the interests of their members first. They have a “fiduciary duty” to exercise their judgment impartially and objectively in the best interest of members. Money, however, has a tendency to influence people’s judgment. So, when board members accept money or other benefits from a private corporation (such as Monsanto) about whose products they must officially make evaluative judgments, no one can be certain that their judgment is not being influenced by their vested interest. They may bend over backwards not to be influenced, and sometimes they will succeed. Nevertheless, because human motivation is often complex, there is always a risk that this conflict-of-interest situation will result in a violation of their moral duty.

Farm leaders who accept benefits from agri-business have acquired a “vested interest” that has the potential to conflict with their duty to put the interest of their membership first. Consciously or unconsciously, their judgment may be skewed. With the Enron/Arthur Andersen scandal in the U.S., we saw that accountants’ conflicts of interest led to disastrous consequences for shareholders and employees. With the Olivieri scandal at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, we saw that when hospitals and universities solicit donations from drug companies, they can too easily lose sight of their primary duty, which is to protect research integrity and patient safety.

Farmers are discovering that they had better protect the independence and integrity of their own organizations, or they too could face disastrous consequences.

Professor Arthur Schafer is Director of the Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics at the University of Manitoba. schafer@cc.umanitoba.ca

Nov 142002
 

Grant writes:  “This is a good site”.   

The text below is “Testimony before Congress” given in 2002 by dentist Richard D. Fischer.   Go to the website for 2004  TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS & WELLNESS U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES and other information.

http://www.evergreen8.com/testimony/

Richard D. Fischer, D.D.S.,
F.A.G.D., F.I.A.O.M.T.
4222 Evergreen Lane
Annandale, VA 22003
Telephone: (703) 256-4441
Fax: (703) 354-1631

——————————————————————————–

Testimony Before Congress
November 14, 2002

Dental amalgam (“silver”) fillings contribute more mercury to the body burden in humans that all other sources (dietary, air, water, vaccines, etc.) combined.[1,2,3] These fillings contain 50% mercury – which is more neurotoxic than lead, cadmium, or even arsenic.

To put this in perspective, the amount of mercury contained in one average size filling exceeds the U.S. E.P.A. standard for human exposure for over 100 years. Put in other terms, it takes only ½ gram of mercury (the amount in one filling) to contaminate all fish in a 10 acre lake.[4]

Mercury vapor escapes from dental amalgam fillings and is readily absorbed into the body. It accumulates in all body tissues and has been shown to cause pathophysiology. Many studies have confirmed this. Furthermore, in the case of pregnant women with amalgam fillings, the mercury readily passes from her bloodstream through the placental barrier and accumulates to even higher levels in the developing fetus’ organs than it does in the mother’s. Mercury from dental amalgam has also been shown to concentrate in mother’s milk, providing not only a prenatal, but a perinatal and a postnatal exposure[5] for the developing child, whose immune system and central nervous system are exquisitely vulnerable to this poison.

Scrap amalgam mercury, that unused portion of the filling material remaining after the filling is placed into a tooth, must by law be handled as a toxic waste disposal hazard.[6] It cannot be thrown in the trash, buried in the ground or incinerated. It must be stored in an air-tight vessel until properly disposed of. Yet some will justify storing this same mixture in peoples’ mouths just inches from the brainstem and declare it harmless!

Governments of other countries (Canada, Germany, Sweden, France, Norway and the United Kingdom) have place restrictions and/or issued advisories against the use of mercury in dental fillings – particularly in children and pregnant women.

In addition to the direct mercury exposure to humans from dental fillings, there exists a significant secondary route of exposure from dental offices. Published research shows that between 14% and 75% of the mercury found in municipal waste waters originate from dental offices. Mercury in this form ultimately finds its way into our rivers, lakes, bays and oceans where it undergoes a bioconversion by bacteria into methyl mercury – the form which commonly contaminates fish and shellfish. In this form, when eaten 90-100% of the mercury is absorbed. It was this compound which caused the tragedy in Japan’s Minimata Bay in the 1970’s when hundreds of people were poisoned and many died from eating mercury contaminated fish.

In conclusion, there is no scientific debate over the following facts regarding mercury from dental fillings.

Mercury is more toxic than lead, cadmium or even arsenic
Mercury escapes from dental amalgam fillings continuously as a vapor
74-100% of inhaled mercury vapor is absorbed into the human body
Inhaled mercury vapor from dental fillings accumulates in the body to levels which cause pathophysiology

Respectfully submitted,

Richard D. Fischer, D.D.S., F.A.G.D.
Past President, International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology

References:

World Health Organization (WHO) Environmental Health Criteria 118 document on inorganic mercury.

Aposhian, et. al., FASEB J. 6:2472-2476, 1992.

Clarkson & Friberg – Biological Monitoring of Toxic Metals. Plenum Press, N.Y., 1988.

Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI Technical Brief: “Mercury in the Environment,” 1993: and EPRI Journal, April, 1990.

Vimy, et. al., Maternal – fetal distribution of mercury (203 Hg) released from dental amalgam fillings. American Journal of Physiology 258:R939-45. April 1990.

Council on Dental Materials, Instruments and Equipment. Recommendations in dental mercury hygiene. 1984 JADA. 109:617-9, October, 1984.

AVERAGE FETAL/INFANT ABSORBED DOSES OF MERCURY
(A TIME LINE)  

(CLICK on  http://www.evergreen8.com/testimony/   to view the graph.)

*Contributed from Mothers Absorbed Doses Transferred to Fetus via Placenta

References for data on graph:

“Exposure to mercury in Canada: a multimedia analysis” Richardson, et. al., Water Air and Soil Pollution, 80:21-30, 1995.

World Health Organization (WHO) Environmental Health Criteria 118 document (EHC118) on inorganic mercury, 1991.

Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) online, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Physicians’ Desk Reference, 53rd Edition, 1999, Medical Economics Company, Inc.

Jan 012002
 

Published on Tuesday, January 01, 2002

By the Washington Post

Monsanto Hid Decades Of Pollution

 

PCBs Drenched Ala. Town, But No One Was Ever Told

 

 

By Michael Grunwald

 

ANNISTON, Ala. — On the west side of Anniston, the poor side of Anniston, the people ate dirt. They called it “Alabama clay” and cooked it for extra flavor. They also grew berries in their gardens, raised hogs in their back yards, caught bass in the murky streams where their children swam and played and were baptized. They didn’t know their dirt and yards and bass and kids — along with the acrid air they breathed — were all contaminated with chemicals. They didn’t know they lived in one of the most polluted patches of America.

 

Now they know. They also know that for nearly 40 years, while producing the now-banned industrial coolants known as PCBs at a local factory, Monsanto Co. routinely discharged toxic waste into a west Anniston creek and dumped millions of pounds of PCBs into oozing open-pit landfills. And thousands of pages of Monsanto documents — many emblazoned with warnings such as “CONFIDENTIAL: Read and Destroy” — show that for decades, the corporate giant concealed what it did and what it knew.

 

In 1966, Monsanto managers discovered that fish submerged in that creek turned belly-up within 10 seconds, spurting blood and shedding skin as if dunked into boiling water. They told no one. In 1969, they found fish in another creek with 7,500 times the legal PCB levels. They decided “there is little object in going to expensive extremes in limiting discharges.” In 1975, a company study found that PCBs caused tumors in rats. They ordered its conclusion changed from “slightly tumorigenic” to “does not appear to be carcinogenic.”

 

Monsanto enjoyed a lucrative four-decade monopoly on PCB production in the United States, and battled to protect that monopoly long after PCBs were confirmed as a global pollutant. “We can’t afford to lose one dollar of business,” one internal memo concluded.

 

Lastmonth, the Environmental Protection Agency ordered General Electric Co. to spend $460 million to dredge PCBs it had dumped into the Hudson River in the past, perhaps the Bush administration’s boldest environmental action to date. The decision was bitterly opposed by the company, but hailed by national conservation groups and many prominent and prosperous residents of the picturesque Hudson River Valley.

 

In Anniston, far from the national spotlight, the sins of the past are being addressed in a very different way. Here, Monsanto and its corporate successors have avoided a regulatory crackdown, spending just $40 million on cleanup efforts so far. But they have spent $80 million more on legal settlements, and another lawsuit by 3,600 plaintiffs — one of every nine city residents — is scheduled for trial next Monday. David Carpenter, an environmental health professor at the State University of New York at Albany, has been a leading advocate of the EPA’s plan to dredge the Hudson, but he says the PCB problems in Anniston are much worse.

 

“I’m looking out my window at the Hudson right now, but the reality is that the people who live around the Monsanto plant have higher PCB levels than any residential population I’ve ever seen,” said Carpenter, an expert witness for the plaintiffs in Anniston. “They’re 10 times higher than the people around the Hudson.”

 

The Anniston lawsuits have uncovered a voluminous paper trail, revealing an unusually detailed story of secret corporate machinations in the era before strict environmental regulations and right-to-know laws. The documents — obtained by The Washington Post from plaintiffs’ attorneys and the Environmental Working Group, a chemical industry watchdog — date as far back as the 1930s, but they expose actions with consequences that are still unfolding today.

 

Officials at Solutia Inc., the name given to Monsanto’s chemical operations after they were spun off into a separate company in 1997, acknowledge that Monsanto made mistakes. But they also said that for years, PCBs were hailed for preventing fires and explosions in electrical equipment. Monsanto did stop making PCBs in 1977, two years before a nationwide ban took effect. And the current scientific consensus that PCBs are harmful, especially to the environment, masks serious disputes over just how harmful they are to people.

 

Today, the old plant off Monsanto Road here makes a chemical used in Tylenol. It has not reported a toxic release in four years. Robert Kaley, the environmental affairs director for Solutia who also serves as the PCB expert for the American Chemistry Council, said it is unfair to judge the company’s behavior from the 1930s through 1970s by modern standards.

 

“Did we do some things we wouldn’t do today? Of course. But that’s a little piece of a big story,” he said. “If you put it all in context, I think we’ve got nothing to be ashamed of.”

 

But Monsanto’s uncertain legacy is as embedded in west Anniston’s psyche as it is in the town’s dirt. The EPA and the World Health Organization classify PCBs as “probable carcinogens,” and while no one has determined whether the people in Anniston are sicker than average, Solutia has opposed proposals for comprehensive health studies as unnecessary. And it has not apologized for any of its contamination or deception.

 

In the absence of data, local residents seem to believe the worst. The stories linger: The cancer cluster up the hill. The guy who burned the soles off his boots while walking on Monsanto’s landfill. The dog that died after a sip from Snow Creek, the long-abused drainage ditch that runs from the Monsanto plant through the heart of west Anniston’s cinder-block cottages and shotgun houses. Sylvester Harris, 63, an undertaker who lived across the street from the plant, said he always thought he was burying too many young children.

 

“I knew something was wrong around here,” he said.

 

Opal Scruggs, 65, has spent her entire life in west Anniston, the last few decades in a cottage in back of a Waffle House behind the plant. But in recent years, Monsanto has bought and demolished about 100 PCB-tainted homes and mom-and-pop businesses nearby, turning her neighborhood into a virtual ghost town. Now she has elevated PCB levels in her blood — along with Harris and many of their neighbors — and she believes she’s a “walking time bomb.”

 

“Monsanto did a job on this city,” she said. “They thought we were stupid and illiterate people, so nobody would notice what happens to us.”

 

The Model City

 

Anniston was born at the height of the Industrial Revolution as a mineral-rich company town controlled by the Woodstock Iron Works, off-limits to all but company employees. It was named in 1879 for the foundry owner’s wife — Annie’s Town — but it was nicknamed “The Model City of the South” because it was supposed to be a kind of industrial utopia, a centrally planned rebuke to the North’s slums after the Civil War. The company would provide the workers’ cottages, the general store, the church, the schools. It would take care of the community.

 

Anniston retains its Model City slogan to this day, but its paternalistic social experiment was quickly abandoned. It soon developed into a heavy-industry boomtown, dominated by foundries and factories with 24-hour smokestacks. In 1929, one of those factories began manufacturing polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs.

 

Now that PCBs are considered “probable” human carcinogens by the EPA and the World Health Organization, it is easy to forget that they were once known as miracle chemicals. They are unusually nonflammable, and conduct heat without conducting electricity. Many safety codes once mandated the use of PCBs as insulation in transformers and other electrical equipment. They also were used in paints, newsprint, carbon paper, deep-fat fryers, adhesives, even bread wrappers. The American public had no idea of the downside of PCBs until the late 1960s.

 

Monsanto did. Shortly after buying the 70-acre plant at the foot of Coldwater Mountain in 1935, the company learned that PCBs, in the doublenegative of one company memo, “cannot be considered non-toxic.” A 1937 Harvard study was the first to find that prolonged exposure could cause liver damage and a rash called chloracne. Monsanto then hired the scientist who led the study as a consultant, and company memos began acknowledging the “systemic toxic effects” of Aroclors, the brand name for PCBs. Monsanto also began warning its industrial customers to protect their workers from Aroclors by requiring showers after every shift, providing them with clean work clothes every day and keeping fumes away from factory floors.

 

One Aroclor manual reveals that “in the early days of development,” workers at the Anniston plant had developed chloracne and liver problems. In February 1950, when workers fell ill at a customer’s Indiana factory, Monsanto’s medical director, Emmett Kelly, immediately “suspected the possibility that the Aroclor fumes may have caused liver damage.”

 

Two years later, Monsanto signed an agreement with the U.S. Public Health Service to label Aroclors: “Avoid repeated contact with the skin and inhalation of the fumes and dusts.” The company also warned its industrial customers about ecological risks: “If the material is discharged in large concentrations it will adversely affect . . . aquatic life in the stream.” But it did not warn its neighbors. “It is our desire to comply with the necessary regulations, but to comply with the minimum,” an official wrote.

 

In 1998, a former Anniston plant manager, William Papageorge, was asked in a deposition whether Monsanto officials ever shared their data about PCB hazards with the community.

 

“Why would they?” he replied.

 

In the fall of 1966, Monsanto hired a Mississippi State University biologist named Denzel Ferguson to conduct some studies around its Anniston plant. Ferguson, who died in 1998, arrived with tanks full of bluegill fish, which he caged in cloth containers and submerged at various points along nearby creeks. This is what he reported to Monsanto about the results in Snow Creek: “All 25 fish lost equilibrium and turned on their sides in 10 seconds and all were dead in 3 1/2 minutes.”

 

“It was like dunking the fish in battery acid,” recalled George Murphy, who was one of Ferguson’s graduate students at the time and is now chairman of Middle Tennessee State University’s biology department.

 

“I’ve never seen anything like it in my life,” said Mack Finley, another former Ferguson grad student, now an aquatic biologist at Austin Peay State University. “Their skin would literally slough off, like a blood blister on the bottom of your foot.”

 

The problem, Ferguson concluded, was the “extremely toxic” wastewater flowing directly from the Monsanto plant into Snow Creek, and then into the larger Choccolocco Creek, where he noted similar “die-offs.” The outflow, he calculated, “would probably kill fish when diluted 1,000 times or so.” He warned Monsanto: “Since this is a surface stream that passes through residential areas, it may represent a potential source of danger to children.” He urged Monsanto to clean up Snow Creek, and to stop dumping untreated waste there.

 

Monsanto did not do that — even though the warnings continued.

 

In early 1967, a group of Swedish scientists demonstrated publicly that PCBs were a threat to the global environment. The Swedes identified traces of PCBs throughout the food chain: in fish, birds, pine needles, even their children’s hair. They proved that PCBs are persistent — which, as one lawyer drawled in court last spring, “is nothing but a fancy word for ‘won’t go away.’ ” But Monsanto’s primary response was to prepare for a media war.

 

“Please let me know if there is anything I can do . . . so that we may make sure ourAroclor business is not affected by this evil publicity,” a Monsanto official wrote Kelly, the company medical director.

 

The first thing Monsanto’s board did, in November 1967, was approve a $2.9 million expansion of Aroclors operations in Anniston and Sauget, Ill. The vote was unanimous.

 

Records show that the Anniston plant did act to reduce its mercury releases after the Snow Creek fish kills. But it did not try to reduce PCB releases, even though the Anniston plant was leaking 50,000 pounds of PCBs into Snow Creek every year, while burying more than 1 million pounds of PCB-laced waste in its antiquated landfills. (By contrast, GE has been ordered to dredge 150,000 pounds of PCBs from the Hudson.) Jack Matson, a Pennsylvania State University environmental engineering professor who has consulted for Monsanto, concluded in a report for the Anniston plaintiffs that the company failed to observe even basic industry practices here. It had no catch basins, settling ponds or carbon filters to clean its wastewater. It washed spills straight into its sewers.

 

It was only in December 1968 — after PCBs had been discovered in California wildlife, setting off a furor in the United States — that Monsanto officials even began to write memos about controlling PCBs. “It only seems a matter of time before the regulatory agencies will be looking down our throats,” one warned. A consultant scolded Monsanto to stop denying problems and start cleaning up: “The evidence regarding PCB effects on environmental quality is sufficiently substantial, widespread and alarming to require immediate corrective action.”

 

Another memo — labeled C-O-N-F-I-D-E-N-T-I-A-L, with each letter underlined twice — said the company was finally thinking about limiting releases of Aroclors. But the memo did not go so far as to propose a cleanup — “only action preparatory to actual cleanup.”

 

“We should begin to protect ourselves,” it said.

 

The Company Committee

 

In September 1969, Monsanto appointed an Aroclors Ad Hoc Committee to address the controversies swirling around its PCB monopoly, which was worth $22 million a year in sales. According to minutes of the first meeting, the committee had only two formal objectives: “Permit continued sales and profits” and “Protect image of . . . the Corporation.”

 

But the members agreed that the situation looked bleak. PCBs had been found across the nation in fish, oysters and even bald eagles. They had been identified in milk in Georgia and Maryland. They were implicated in a major shrimp kill in Florida. Their status as a serious pollutant, the committee concluded, was “certain.”

 

“Subject is snowballing,” one member jotted in his notes. “Where do we go from here?”

 

One option, as a member put it, was to “sell the hell out of them as long as we can.” Another option was to stop making them immediately. But the committee instead recommended “The Responsible Approach” — phasing out its PCB products, but only once it could develop alternatives.The idea was to maintain “one of Monsanto’s most profitable franchises” as long as possible while taking care to “reduce our exposure in terms of liability.” The committee even drew up graphs charting profits vs. liability over time, and urged more studies to poke holes in the government’s case against PCBs.

 

But the company’s own tests on rats, chickens and even dogs proved discouraging. “The PCBs are exhibiting a greater degree of toxicity than we had anticipated,” reported the committee chairman. Fish tests were worse: “Doses which were believed to be OK produced 100% kill.” The chairman pressured the company’s consultants for more Monsanto-friendly results, but they replied: “We are very sorry that we can’t paint a brighter picture at the present time.”

 

The picture was not bright in Anniston, either. Company studies were finding “ominous” concentrations of PCBs in streams and sediments. In Choccolocco Creek, Monsanto had discovered deformed and lethargic fish with off-the-charts PCB levels, including a blacktail shiner with 37,800 parts per million. The legal maximum was only 5 parts per million. “It is apparent to us that there is a cause-and-effect relationship,” the consultants wrote.

 

At first, the committee members proposed reducing PCB releases to an “absolute minimum.” But then they removed the word “absolute.” They saw no benefit in a unilateral crackdown on Monsanto’s PCBs when Monsanto’s customers were still dumping, too: “It was agreed that until the problems of gross environmental contamination by our customers have been alleviated, there is little object in going to expensive extremes in limiting discharges.”

 

And before Monsanto even began to phase out its best-selling PCBs, its top customer intervened: General Electric, according to a memo by Papageorge, insisted that it needed to keep buying PCBs to prevent power outages and that the environmental threat was still “questionable.” Monsanto agreed to slow down its plan, and kept making PCBs until 1977, although only for closely monitored industrial uses.

 

And what, Kaley asks, is wrong with that? Corporations, after all, have obligations to their shareholders, and the federal law banning the manufacture of PCBs did not take effect until 1979. Monsanto’s critics, Kaley says, do not understand capitalism.

 

“Look, this was a good product,” Kaley said. “Did we try to save it as long as we could? Absolutely. Was the writing on the wall when we stopped producing it? Sure. But we did stop.”

 

The Reluctant Regulators

 

By May 1970, PCBs were a hot topic in the national media. Members of Congress were calling for hearings. It seemed like only a matter of time before regulators would notice the river of PCBs spewing out of the Anniston plant. “This would shut us down depending on what plants or animals they choose to find harmed,” the committee had warned.

 

So Monsanto decided to inform the Alabama Water Improvement Commission (AWIC) on its own that PCBs were entering Snow Creek. And AWIC helped the company keep its toxic secrets.

 

According to a company memo, AWIC’s technical director, Joe Crockett, had been “totally unaware of published information concerning Aroclors.” The Monsanto executives assured him that everything was under control, and Crockett, who is now deceased, said he appreciated their forthright approach. “Give no statements or publications which would bring the situation to the public’s attention,” he told them, according to the memo.

 

“In summary . . . the full cooperation of the AWIC on a confidential basis can be anticipated,” the memo concluded.

 

That summer, Crockett again came to Monsanto’s rescue after the federal Food and Drug Administration found PCB-tainted fish in Choccolocco Creek. (There were no fish — or any other aquatic life — in Snow Creek.) Monsanto’s managers told him not to worry, saying they hoped to reduce PCB emissions to 0.1 pounds per day by September.

 

“Crockett will try to handle the problem quietly without release of the information to the public at this time,” announced a memo marked CONFIDENTIAL: F.Y.I. AND DESTROY. Crockett explained that if word leaked out, the state would be forced to ban fishing in Choccolocco Creek and a popular lake downstream to ensure public safety.

 

Instead, the public kept fishing. But Monsanto’s daily PCB losses, after dipping from a high of 250 pounds to a low of 16 pounds, ballooned to 88 pounds — 880 times its goal.

 

“There is extreme reluctance to report even relatively low emission figures because the information could be subpoenaed and used against us in legal actions,” wrote an executive at Monsanto headquarters in St. Louis. “Obviously, having to report these gross losses multiplies, enormously, our problems because the figures would appear to indicate lack of control. . . . Is there anything more that can be done to get the losses down?”

 

There was. The problem had festered for 36 years, but the Anniston managers finally began to act that fall, installing a sump, a carbon bed and a new limestone pit to trap PCBs. And in 1971, facing as much as $1 billion in additional pollution control costs in Anniston, Monsanto shifted all PCB production to its plant in Illinois.

 

Before the year was over, Crockett helped out once more. The Justice Department was considering a lawsuit against Monsanto over PCBs, and the EPA wanted it to dredge Snow Creek. So Crockett set up a meeting between Monsanto and an EPA regulator and helped argue the company’s case. The company’s problems disappeared. One executive noted with relief in a memo that a federal prosecutor had tried but failed to obtain Monsanto’s customer list: “I shudder to think how easily it would have been for someone . . . to start spilling the beans as to whom we have been selling PCB products.”

 

Monsanto’s luck with regulators held in 1983, when the federal Soil Conservation Service found PCBs in Choccolocco Creek, but took no action. In 1985, state authorities found PCB-tainted soils around Snow Creek, but a dispute over cleanup details lingered until a new attorney general named Donald Siegelman took office in 1988. In a letter that April, Monsanto’s Anniston superintendent thanked Siegelman — who is now the state’s Democratic governor — for addressing the Alabama Chemical Association, and meeting Monsanto’s lobbyists for dinner. Then he got to the point: Monsanto wanted to go forward with its own cleanup plan, dredging just a few hundred yards of Snow Creek and its tributaries.

 

The company soon received approval to do just that.

 

A spokesman for Gov. Siegelman noted that in April 2000, he wrote to President Bill Clinton about Anniston’s PCBs, pointing out “the severity of the situation” and requesting federal funding. But several state officials acknowledged that a dozen years earlier, Alabama should have tested a much larger area for PCBs before approving Monsanto’s limited plan.

 

“It’s hard to know how that one slipped through the cracks,” said Stephen Cobb, the state’s hazardous waste chief. “For some reason, no one investigated the larger PCB problem.”

 

The larger problem finally burst into public view in 1993, after a local angler caught deformed largemouth bass in Choccolocco Creek. After studies again detected PCBs, Alabama issued the first advisories against eating fish from the area — 27 years after Monsanto learned about those bluegills sliding out of their skins.

 

By 1996, state officials and plaintiffs’ attorneys were finding astronomical PCB levels in the area: as high as 940 times the federal level of concern in yard soils, 200 times that level in dust inside people’s homes, 2,000 times that level in Monsanto’s drainage ditches. The PCB levels in the air were also too high. And in blood tests, nearly one-third of the residents of the working-class Sweet Valley and Cobbtown neighborhoods near the plant were found to have elevated PCB levels. The communities were declared public health hazards. Near Snow Creek, the state warned, “the increased risk of cancer is estimated to be high.”

 

That’s when Monsanto launched a program to buy and raze contaminated properties, offering early sign-up bonuses and moving expenses as incentives. “Monsanto intends to be a good neighbor — to those who wish to leave, and to those who wish to stay,” its brochures explained.

 

Sally Franklin, a 64-year-old retired mechanic with a girlish voice, decided to stay; she couldn’t afford to buy a new home with the money Monsanto was offering. One spring afternoon, she looked down from her PCB-contaminated home overlooking what used to be Sweet Valley, now just an overgrown field around an incongruous stop sign. So much for good neighbors, she grumbled.

 

“They must not think we know a black cow can give white milk,” she said.

 

The Dredged-Up Past

 

Anniston is not much of a model city anymore. The EPA officials who set up an Anniston satellite office to deal with the PCB problem are now alarmed about widespread lead poisoning as well. The Army is building an incinerator here to burn 2,000 tons of deadly sarin and mustard gas. And the Anniston Star has been questioning Monsanto’s past mercury releases.

 

Duane Higgins runs the Chamber of Commerce here in Calhoun County — motto: “Near Atlanta . . . Near Birmingham . . . Near Perfect” — and like many civic leaders here, he’s sick of headlines about pollution. “I’m tired of paying for the sins of our fathers and grandfathers,” he said. “I don’t see the point of dredging this stuff up.”

 

He meant that literally, too. Local activists want Monsanto to dredge all its PCBs out of Anniston’s creeks and move all its buried PCBs to hazardous-waste landfills. That could cost billions of dollars. But state and EPA officials do not agree that such drastic measures are necessary. They have no evidence that PCBs have escaped from the dumps since Monsanto was required to cap them after a spill in 1996; they believe most of Anniston’s PCBs spread from the creeks during floods. And dredging projects such as the one approved for the Hudson River remain scientifically as well as politically controversial.

 

“There’s a very pervasive problem in Anniston, but so far we haven’t seen a need for those kinds of dramatic actions,” said Wesley Hardegree, an EPA corrective action specialist.

 

Part of the problem is that despite all the publicity, much remains unknown about PCBs. Various animal studies have linked them to various cancers. Other studies suggest possible ties to low IQs, birth defects, thyroid problems, immune problems, diabetes. A federal research summary titled “Do PCBs Affect Human Health?” concluded: “No smoking gun . . . but plenty of bullets on the floor.”

 

But no one has found a link between PCBs and any cancer as definitive as the link between, say, cigarettes and lung cancer. A recent GE-funded study — conducted by the same toxicologist who originally discovered that PCBs cause cancer in rats — found no link to cancer in humans. And some independent scientists remain skeptical of any serious health effects from real-world PCB exposure.

 

Today, Solutia is negotiating a final Anniston cleanup plan; EPA officials say the company has been aggressive in pressing for lower standards but generally cooperative. It employs 85 workers in Anniston, and donates computers and science labs to area schools. Its brochures pledge to “insure environmental safety and health for the community” and to hide nothing from Anniston residents: “You have a right to know, and we have a responsibility to keep you, our valued neighbor, informed.”

 

“We don’t have horns coming out of our head,” said David Cain, the current manager of the Solutia plant in Anniston. “We’re not evil people.”

 

Still, the company’s credibility problems linger in Anniston. A recent company e-mail revealed that even the gifts of computers and labs were part of a new damage-control strategy, along with donations to Siegelman’s inaugural fund: “The strategy calls for significantly increasing . . . community outreach, contributions and political involvement while aggressively seeking . . . to contain media issues regionally.” The company’s critics say little has changed. And they warn that Monsanto, which no longer produces chemicals, is now promising the world that its genetically engineered crops are safe for human consumption.

 

“For years, these guys said PCBs were safe, too,” said Mike Casey of the Environmental Working Group, which has been compiling chemical industry documents on the Web. “But there’s obviously a corporate culture of deceiving the public.”

 

On Jan. 7, the two sides will have their day in court. Kaley said his company has nothing to hide.

 

“I’m really pretty proud of what we did,” Kaley said. “Was it perfect? No. Could we be second-guessed? Sure. But I think we mostly did what any company would do, even today.”

 

© 2002 The Washington Post Company

Nov 052001
 

(link no longer valid)

PETROLEUM

November 5, 2001 Issue Full Text

U.S. cash revitalizes Canadians’ urgent search for natural gas

by Mike Byfield

SO far this year, American firms have spent US$17 billion to acquire Canadian petroleum producers. By any standard, this is serious money. For example, Exxon Mobil-the world’s largest petroleum producer outside The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC)-has an annual capital and exploration budget in the neighbourhood of US$11 billion. The Yankees’ latest corporate trophy was Canadian Hunter Exploration, snapped up in early October for C$3.3 billion by Burlington Resources. In September, two other Canadian flagships-Westcoast Energy and Anderson Exploration-got gobbled by Duke Energy and Devon Energy respectively, at a combined price tag just shy of US$10 billion. American investment is driven by the probability of higher natural gas prices in the near future, a sobering thought for Canadian consumers.

Stephen Rodrigues, a statistician with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, says U.S. ownership of the oil and gas industry was more than 70% in the 1970s. The next two decades were dogged by government intervention and low fuel prices, which prompted the Yanks to pull back. In their place flourished a flock of Canadian independents, with names like Chauvco, Berkley and Encal. Some of these firms have now in turn been purchased by foreigners. The CanHunter buy pushes the U.S. stake in the industry back above 50%. Gord Currie, an analyst with Canaccord Capital Corp. in Calgary, believes that the American buyers are anticipating a strong rebound in natural gas prices and hence want a sturdy position in gas-prone western Canada.

Far from weakening the Canadian-owned sector, however, the acquisitions have put millions into the pockets of its most aggressive energy entrepreneurs. These executives are now organizing new companies to get back into the game. A recent example is Duvernay Oil, founded by several principals from Berkley Petroleum. Anadarko Petroleum paid $1.14 billion for Berkley last February. Duvernay has been grubstaked with $66.5 million, including $28 million contributed by the five-member firm’s own executives.

The same story is echoed elsewhere. Last year Renaissance Energy was bought by Hong Kong-controlled Husky for $4 billion. Now Renaissance co-founder Clayton Woitas is running Profico Energy Management, capitalized with $20 million. After Hunt Oil purchased Newport Petroleum for $489 million in 2000, former boss Uldis Upitis invested $22 million in a new outfit named Sentra Resources. These new companies are mostly privately held by professional industry insiders. Their equity will give them several years to develop properties without worryimg.

In the past, many Canadian junior producers raised capital through public share issues. But speculative and institutional investors alike were hammered by low gas prices through much of the 1990s, and have since refused to risk fresh capital on smaller players. Now the junior sector is reviving dramatically in private form, thanks to those American acquisition dollars. “The rate of formation of new companies in this industry is remarkable,” comments Greg Gilbertson, a spokesman for the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (EUB). “Since 1998, 317 new exploration and development firms have registered with us, including 79 between January and September this year.”

After peaking last winter at $12 per gigajoule, Alberta spot prices for natural gas have settled back to less than $3 this fall. Factors dampening prices include plentiful gas in underground storage, moderate weather this summer and slowing industrial demand due to recession and fuel switching. The lower gas price tickles many Canadian oil patchers. “The Americans bought at the peak of the demand cycle,” says the president of one Calgary-based junior. “With gas prices now down again, outfits like Duke and Anadarko will likely cull through their new acquisitions and sell off properties which they consider less attractive. In that case, Canadian juniors will have a good shot at building up their own production all over again. As long as exploration land is available at affordable prices, we’ve always been better at finding oil and gas on our own turf than the big American companies.”

The gas price decline, which is expected to hold bills down through this winter, is obviously good news for consumers. Atco Gas, for instance, just announced that its annualized gas charge will drop from $5.41 per gigajoule to $3.45 in southern Alberta. But the longer term outlook remains fraught with the risk of continental shortages. Canada is producing 6.2 trillion cubic feet per year, a rate that drillers cannot match. The EUB expects Alberta’s gas production to start declining by 2% annually after 2003. Arctic gas, when it eventually becomes available, will cost considerably more.

Sep 111999
 

This epidemiological research contains the same flaw in logic as pointed out to Dr. Jock Murray:

The majority of the population has mercury amalgams.  That there is “no increase” in mercury in MS patients – –  in comparison with other people in the population – – is to be expected.   It does not argue for a non-causal relationship between mercury amalgams and MS:

The same toxins cause different health outcomes in different people, and they exist in different bodies in different combinations with other environmental toxins.

If most everyone has mercury amalgams, and people react differently to mercury poisoning, then a level of mercury in you may result in disease A, but that same mercury in your neighbor may result in disease B, and so on.  NOT ONE of the disease groups (like MS or alzheimers or whatever) will show an elevated level of mercury, IN COMPARISON with the rest of the population.  The mercury levels can be the same or variable across the population, but with different and/or no disease outcomes.  Not everyone with the same level of mercury will get the particular disease.  So, MS patients may not have elevated mercury readings in comparison with the rest of the population.”

(The preceding is from the posting  2010-12-06  Accumulated, on mercury poisoning. Vaccinations & dental amalgams.  Did the European countries that banned dental amalgams made with mercury bow to uninformed public pressure or to sound science?)

THE BRITISH DENTAL JOURNAL:

http://www.nature.com/bdj/journal/v187/n5/full/4800254a1.html

Summaries


British Dental Journal 187, 258 (1999)
Published online: 11 September 1999 | doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.2009.436

Epidemiology:�
Multiple sclerosis, dental caries and amalgam fillings — is there an association?

Linda Shaw1

In brief

  • MS patients have more dental caries than age-sex matched controls. This difference is unlikely to be secondary to MS and may be causally associated in some way.
  • Levels of mercury in the body are not higher in MS patients compared with controls suggesting mercury is unlikely to be a causal factor for MS.
  • Levels of mercury in the body were related to the number of teeth filled with mercury.
  • Further research should concentrate on the possible aetiological connection between dental disease and MS.

 


Abstract

Objectives To investigate the association between multiple sclerosis, dental caries, amalgam fillings, body mercury and lead.

Design Matched case-control study.

Setting Leicestershire in the years 1989–1990.

Subjects Thirty-nine females with multiple sclerosis (of recent onset) were matched with 62 controls for age, sex and general practitioner.

Methods Home interview of cases and controls within which there was an assessment of the DMFT index and blood and urine mercury and lead levels.

Results The odds of being a MS case increased multiplicatively by 1.09 (95% CI 1.00,1.18) for every additional unit of DMFT index of dental caries. This represents an odds ratio of 1.213 or a 21% increase in risk of MS in relation to dental caries in this population. There was no difference between cases and controls in the number of amalgam fillings or in body mercury or lead levels. There was a significant correlation between body mercury levels and the number of teeth filled with amalgam (controls: r = +0.430, P = 0.006, cases: r = +0.596, P = 0.001).

Conclusion There was evidence of excess dental caries among MS cases compared with the controls. This finding supports the strong geographical correlation between the two diseases. A further study of this association is recommended.

Introduction

Multiple sclerosis, dental caries and fillings: a case-control studyC. W. McGrother , C. Dugmore , M. J. Phillips , N. T. Raymond , P. Garrick , and W. O. Baird Br Dent J1999;  187: 261–264


Comment

There are occasions when the dental profession groans audibly at yet another media disinformation campaign perhaps linking cancer and Down Syndrome with water fluoridation — or indeed linking multiple sclerosis with amalgam restorations. However, it behoves us all, as scientists, to examine the facts, sift the evidence, and keep an open mind until there is sufficient robust information before we authoritatively advise our patients. Perhaps you remember the publicity of the ‘miracle cures’ reported in patients with multiple sclerosis after having all their amalgam fillings replaced. Perhaps, like me, you thought that MS is a disease which is characterised by remissions and relapses and patients were clutching at straws in the vain attempt to produce a miracle.

This research project investigates the emotive argument in a very scientific approach so that we can produce some evidence-based dentistry as far as MS sufferers are concerned. The subjects and controls were identified according to rigorous criteria but although, there was a response rate of 81% in the MS study group there was a lower 59% response rate in the matched control group. It is, perhaps, important to note that there was a tendency for the MS cases to be relatively disadvantaged in relation to employment and major financial commitments to home and car ownership despite similar levels of educational attainment.

As far as the dental findings were concerned, there was a significant relationship between MS and dental caries with a mean difference of 2.24 carious teeth between MS cases and controls. What is also very important is that there was no significant difference in the number ot teeth filled with amalgam. There was evidence, though, of wholesale replacement of fillings with non-amalgam materials in four of the MS cases.

However, is this cause and effect? The old, old question of which comes first — the chicken or the egg, must come to mind. Should we postulate that the differences in dental caries arose after the onset of MS because of all sorts of compensatory dietary factors, or as a result of its debilitating nature? Or does Streptococcus mutans have an important effect on the activation of the immune mechanism involved in demyelination in MS as well as dental caries?

There are very important conclusions that we can draw from this study. First that there is a correlation between multiple sclerosis and dental caries. Secondly, there is no association between multiple sclerosis and the numbers of amalgam fillings or body mercury. Thirdly, without doubt, we still have many more questions to answer in this field but this research project has furthered our evidence base in advising our patients.

Dec 211998
 

OHS knows all about Hg (mercury).

(Link no longer valid)  http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/mercury/health_mercury.html

The text of the web page on March 3, 2011 is:

Document last updated on December 21, 1998

Health Effects of Mercury

  • What are the main health hazards associated with breathing in Mercury?
  • What happens when Mercury comes into contact with my skin?
  • Can Mercury hurt my eyes?
  • What happens if Mercury is accidentally swallowed (enters the digestive system)?
  • What are the long term health effects of exposure to Mercury?
  • Will Mercury cause cancer?
  • Will Mercury cause any problems with my reproductive system?
  • Will Mercury cause effects on the fetus/unborn baby?
  • Will Mercury act in a synergistic manner with other materials (will its effects be more than the sum of the effects from the exposure to each chemical alone)?
  • Is there potential for Mercury to build-up or accumulate in my body?

 

What are the main health hazards associated with breathing in Mercury?

Harmful effects due to short-term exposure to elemental mercury are rarely seen any more because of strict controls used in workplaces where mercury exposure might occur. Historically, short-term exposure to high concentrations of mercury vapour caused harmful effects on the nervous, digestive and respiratory systems, and the kidneys. In most cases, exposure occurred when mercury was heated.

Initial exposure to high concentrations of mercury vapour produces symptoms similar to “metal fume fever” including fatigue, fever, and chills. Respiratory system effects include cough, shortness of breath, tightness and burning pains in the chest and inflammation of the lungs. Occupational exposure to 1 to 44 mg/m3 of mercury vapour for 4 to 8 hours caused chest pain, cough, coughing up blood, impaired lung function and inflammation of the lungs. In some cases, a potentially life-threatening accumulation of fluid in the lungs (pulmonary edema) has occurred. Exposure to high, but unspecified, concentrations of mercury vapour has caused death due to respiratory failure. All of the reported deaths resulted from inhaling mercury vapours formed upon heating mercury.

Several case reports have described harmful nervous system effects following inhalation of high concentrations of mercury vapour. The most prominent symptoms include tremors (initially affecting the hands and sometimes spreading to other parts of the body), emotional instability (including irritability, excessive shyness, a loss of confidence and nervousness), sleeplessness, memory loss, muscle weakness, headaches, slow reflexes and a loss of feeling or numbness.

A classic sign of exposure to high concentrations of mercury is inflammation of inside of the mouth (stomatitis), sometimes with a metallic taste, excessive salivation and difficulty swallowing. Other digestive system effects include abdominal pains, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea.

Kidney injury is common following exposure to high concentrations of mercury. Reported effects range from increased protein in the urine to kidney failure. Exposure to high concentrations of mercury has also caused increased blood pressure and heart rate.

What happens when Mercury comes into contact with my skin?

Elemental mercury is not known to directly irritate the skin. However, an allergic skin reaction may develop following contact with mercury. For further information, refer to “What are the long term health effects of exposure to Mercury?” below. Elemental mercury liquid and vapour can be absorbed through the skin and may contribute to the overall absorption and toxicity.

Can Mercury hurt my eyes?

There is very little relevant information about the effects of getting liquid mercury in the eyes. It is probably not a direct eye irritant. In one case, droplets of mercury accumulated under the surface of the cornea in an person forcefully sprayed with mercury liquid. After two days, the cornea cleared and vision was normal. High concentrations of mercury vapour can cause redness, burning and inflammation of the eyes.

What happens if Mercury is accidentally swallowed (enters the digestive system)?

Elemental mercury is poorly absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract and is more toxic following inhalation. In one report, ingestion of 204 gm did not cause harmful effects. In a second report, ingestion of 220 mL (approximately 3.0 kg) caused immediate effects such as tremor, irritability, forgetfulness and fatigue. It is uncertain whether liver effects observed several months later were related to the mercury exposure. Ingestion is not a typical route of occupational exposure. Although airborne droplets of elemental mercury are actually more likely to enter the gastrointestinal system rather than the lungs, resulting in lower absorption.

What are the long term health effects of exposure to Mercury?

The harmful effects of long-term exposure to elemental mercury are generally thought to be caused by inhalation exposure. However, mercury liquid and vapour are absorbed through the skin in small amounts and this route of exposure can contribute to the overall exposure. Effects following absorption through the skin are expected to be similar to those reported for long-term inhalation exposure.

Mercury levels in urine are often used as a general indicator of how much exposure to mercury has occurred. As a result, urine mercury levels rather than airborne levels are provided in some of the reports which compare mercury exposures to specific health effects. Urine mercury levels are reported in micrograms/gram of creatinine (a component of the urine). The relationship between airborne mercury levels and urine mercury levels is complicated and depends on many factors, including other sources of mercury exposure and between individual differences. Several studies indicate that an airborne exposure of 0.025 mg/m3 mercury compares to approximately 37 micrograms of mercury/gram of creatinine in the urine. Urine mercury levels in adults without occupational exposure are typically less than 3 micrograms/gram of creatinine. Sources of non-occupational exposure to inorganic mercury include new dental fillings.

In this review, urinary mercury levels below 35 micrograms/gram of creatinine are considered to reflect relatively low mercury exposure; 35 to 50 micrograms/gram of creatinine reflects moderate exposure; 50 to 100 micrograms/gram of creatinine reflects moderately high exposure and above 100 micrograms/gram of creatinine reflects high exposure.

EFFECTS ON THE NERVOUS SYSTEM:

Effects on muscle coordination, mood, behaviour, memory, feeling and nerve conduction have been reported following long-term occupational exposure to mercury. These effects are often observed in employees with moderately high or high exposure to mercury. At lower exposures, the results are inconclusive with no effects being reported in some studies and mild effects reported in other studies. Although improvement has been observed upon removal of the person from the source of exposure, it is possible that some of the changes may be irreversible. The nervous system effects of mercury toxicity are sometimes referred to as “Mad Hatter’s Disease” since mercurous nitrate was used in making felt hats.

A classic sign of mercury toxicity is a fine tremor, usually of the fingers, hands or arms and occasionally the eyelids, lips, tongue, and whole body. Many occupational studies indicate that tremors become more pronounced with longer exposures to mercury. Tremors are thought to be a sensitive indicator for long-term low-level exposure to mercury vapour. One report described tremors in employees with average exposures as low as 0.026 mg/m3 for an average of 15 years.

Behaviour and personality changes such as irritability, excitation and shyness, psychotic reactions such as delirium and hallucinations, loss of appetite, tiredness, sleeplessness, short-term memory loss and impaired nerve conduction have also been reported following long-term exposure. In one study, subtle behaviourial effects were detected in dentists with moderate mercury exposure.

Damage to the nerves of the arms and legs (polyneuropathy) has been reported in employees with high exposures. Reduced sensation and strength in the arms and legs, muscle cramps and decreased nerve conduction have been observed. Employees with episodes of very high exposure appear to be more at risk of developing these effects. Studies of employees in a chlor-alkali plant showed mild polyneuropathy in employees exposed to high levels of mercury. Signs included abnormalities in nerve conduction tests with reduced sensation and increased tremor of the arm.

EFFECTS ON THE KIDNEY:

Many occupational studies indicate that moderate to high exposure to mercury can cause harmful effects on the kidneys. When urine mercury levels are low to moderate, the results are inconclusive with no effects being reported in some studies and mild effects reported in others.

Early indicators of kidney injury include increased levels of protein in the urine (proteinuria) and increased levels of certain enzymes in the blood and urine. Proteinuria is commonly observed in studies reporting kidney effects. Less often, changes to the structure of the kidneys have been shown. An increase in deaths from kidney disease in people occupationally exposed to mercury was not observed in one study.

SKIN SENSITIZATION:

Allergic skin sensitization has been reported in people with occupational exposure to mercury liquid or vapour. Once a person is sensitized to a chemical, contact with even a small amount causes outbreaks of dermatitis with symptoms such as skin redness, itching, rash and swelling. This can spread from the hands or arms to other parts of the body. Occupational skin sensitization to mercury has been observed in people exposed to mercury in dental amalgams, tattoos or breakage of medical instruments. Positive patch tests were obtained in a dentist, five doctors, a nurse’s aid, a mercury recycling employee and a pipeline repairman who had developed of red, dry, itchy skin (contact dermatitis) following occupational exposure. Previous history of allergies was not discussed for any of these cases. Skin sensitization to mercury has also been reported in the general public.

EFFECTS ON THE DIGESTIVE SYSTEM:

Limited information suggests that long-term exposure to mercury vapour can cause inflammation and ulceration of the inside of the mouth, sore gums, drooling, diarrhea and other effects on the digestive system. No exposure information is reported, but presumably the concentrations were high.

EFFECTS ON THE HEART:

Mercury may affect the heart producing increased blood pressure and/or heart rate. Two studies of employees with long-term exposure to low levels of mercury showed no effects on blood pressure or heart rhythm, as measured by electrocardiogram (ECG). A few other studies have shown effects on the heart including increased blood pressure and heart rate and abnormal ECG results. More deaths due to cardiovascular problems were observed in employees exposed to mercury in the chlor-alkali industry. These studies are limited by factors such as exposure to other potentially harmful chemicals at the same time and weak exposure information.

EFFECTS ON THE IMMUNE AND ENDOCRINE SYSTEMS:

In most studies, effects on the immune and endocrine systems were not observed in employees exposed to mercury. However, altered immune response has been suggested in a few studies.

EFFECTS ON THE RESPIRATORY SYSTEM:

Very little information is available regarding effects on the respiratory system from long-term exposure. Two studies reported persistent cough in employees exposed to mercury vapour for several weeks. Another study reported no respiratory symptoms, X-ray abnormalities or impaired pulmonary function in employees exposed to mercury vapour levels up to 0.27 mg/m3 for more than 6 years.

EFFECTS ON THE EYE:

Long-term occupational exposure to mercury has caused a grayish-brown or yellow discoloration in the eyes of some people. This haze is not thought to affect vision. A gray band through the cornea (band keratopathy) has also been reported in a few people. In one study, poor colour vision was observed in 33 employees with moderately high to high urine mercury levels.

Will Mercury cause cancer?

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that there is inadequate evidence in humans and animals for the carcinogenicity of mercury and mercury compounds. The overall IARC evaluation for metallic mercury and inorganic mercury compounds is that they are not classifiable as to their carcinogenicity to humans (Group 3).

In most studies, increased cancer rates were not observed in people with occupational exposure. Brain tumours were increased in dentists and dental nurses exposed to metallic mercury, but this outcome was not observed in other similar populations. In another study, prostate and lung cancers were associated with exposure to metallic mercury. Other studies could not be interpreted because of study design limitations such as multiple chemical exposures.

Will Mercury cause any problems with my reproductive system?

Although it is not possible to draw firm conclusions based on the limited human information available, exposure to mercury may reduce fertility in females. Effects on male fertility have generally not been observed. There is no relevant animal information available.

In one study, fertility was decreased in female dental assistants who prepared 30 or more dental fillings per week and had poor work hygiene practices. There was also some evidence of decreased fertility in a group of employees exposed to mercury at a lamp factory. Both of these studies had design limitations. Complications during pregnancy and delivery and increased menstrual disorders have also been seen in some studies. However, all of the studies had design limitations including inadequate exposure assessment, inadequate controls and incomplete reporting of the data.

Effects on fertility were not seen in three studies of men occupationally exposed to mercury. One study showed that the wives of men occupationally exposed to moderately high concentrations of mercury had more miscarriages, but another study did not show this effect. Two studies showed no harmful effects on pregnancy when the father was exposed to mercury.

Will Mercury cause effects on the fetus/unborn baby?

While it is not possible to draw firm conclusions based on the limited human information available, exposure to mercury has generally not caused harmful effects in the unborn child or more miscarriages. Two animal studies do indicate that mercury exposure during pregnancy can cause subtle behavioral changes in offspring, in the absence of harmful effects in the mothers. Several human population studies have investigated pregnancy outcome in women routinely exposed to low levels of mercury in the workplace. Two large studies of dental assistants and dentists did not report an increase in birth defects. Two smaller studies, both with study design limitations, reported birth defects (such as spina bifida and dislocation of the hip). One incompletely reported study suggested decreased birth weights.

A small number of case reports have not described harmful effects on the unborn child following brief exposure of the mother to high levels of mercury during pregnancy. Another case report describes a normal pregnancy outcome in a woman occupationally exposed to low levels of mercury vapour throughout pregnancy. No conclusions can be drawn from one other case report where the infant was also deprived of oxygen during delivery.

Most human population studies have not shown more miscarriages in women occupationally exposed to mercury. A few studies with significant design limitations have shown more miscarriages.

Will Mercury act in a synergistic manner with other materials (will its effects be more than the sum of the effects from the exposure to each chemical alone)?

In one animal study, the offspring of pregnant rats exposed to both methylmercury and elemental mercury had more pronounced behaviourial effects than rats exposed to elemental mercury alone. Similar effects were not observed in the offspring of rats exposed to methylmercury alone. No conclusions can be drawn from one study which indicated that the mutagenic effects of elemental mercury are enhanced by smoking. This study was incompletely reported.

Exposure to other metals at the same time, the use of penicillin-type antibiotics, and ingestion of ethanol in alcoholic beverages can the influence excretion of elemental mercury.

Is there potential for Mercury to build-up or accumulate in my body?

Elemental mercury is a heavy liquid. The vapour evaporates from the liquid and evaporation occurs more rapidly when the liquid is heated. The vapour is well absorbed following inhalation. It accumulates in the kidney and the brain. Elemental mercury is excreted from the body slowly. It has an elimination half-life of 40-60 days. Most elemental mercury is excreted in exhaled air, and small amounts in the feces and urine. Very small amounts can be eliminated in sweat, saliva and milk. Following ingestion, elemental mercury is poorly absorbed and most of it is excreted in the feces. Elemental mercury liquid and vapour can be absorbed through the skin in small amounts. Elemental mercury is transferred to the developing child in a pregnant women. 

Apr 021998
 

http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/fox.html

Ronnie Cummins

Little Marais, Minnesota

On April 2, 1998, two award-winning Florida TV producers, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, held press conferences in Tampa and Tallahassee to announce a lawsuit against a Fox TV network television station, WTVT. The reporters sued Fox for firing them after they refused to broadcast false reports about Monsanto’s controversial genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH or rBST).

Akre and Wilson were fired after a year-long battle over a TV news feature series they produced which highlighted the public health dangers of Monsanto’s rBGH (increased antibiotic residues, increased levels of a potent human growth hormone factor called IGF-1, linked to the promotion of cancer tumors). Shortly before the original TV series was to run, an attorney from Monsanto contacted Fox TV and demanded that the script be altered.

The station gave in to Monsanto’s demands and told Akre and Wilson to rewrite and tone down the script. One year and 73 rewrites later Monsanto still wasn’t satisfied and Akre and Wilson were fired. rBGH was approved by the FDA in February, 1994, with no labeling or special pre-market safety testing required, despite massive opposition by consumers and dairy farmers, and over the objections of scientific experts from the Consumers Union, the Cancer Prevention Coalition, and other organizations.

At the April 2 press conference, Jane Akre emphasized that the public has a right to know the truth about the health hazards of rBGH, despite the strongarm tactics of Monsanto:

“Every parent and every consumer has the right to know what they’re pouring on their children’s morning cereal. We set out to tell Florida consumers the truth about a giant chemical company and a powerful dairy lobby. That used to be something investigative reporters won awards for. As we’ve learned the hard way, it’s something you can be fired for these days…”

As reported by Jeanette Batz in the St. Louis newsweekly, Riverfront Times, David Boylan, WTVT station manager, was blunt in demanding that Akre and Wilson tell the story about rBGH the way Monsanto wanted it told.  “We (the Fox TV network) paid $3 billion for these television stations. We will decide what the news is. The news is what we tell you it is.” So much for freedom of the press in the era of Corporate Power. Full details of the lawsuit and the BGH story are available at: http://www.foxBGHsuit.com

Published in In Motion Magazine, April 28, 1998

Ronnie Cummins is National Director of the Pure Food Campaign (PFC), a non-profit, public interest organization dedicated to building a healthy, safe, and sustainable system of food production and consumption in the U.S. and the world. The PFC’s primary strategy is to help build a national and international consumer/farmer/ labor/progressive retailer boycott of genetically engineered and chemically contaminated foods and crops.

Jan 221998
 

(I bold-faced and indented the “REAL EXAMPLES”)

 

By Donella Meadows

Nov 211997
 

2012:  This is the research quoted in a conversation with a professional who defended the use of mercury fillings.  (Oxford University Press)

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/4/667.short

  • Dieudonné Bangsia,b,
  • Parviz Ghadiriana,b,
  • Slobodan Ducicb,d,
  • Richard Morissetd,
  • Sébastien Ciccocioppoa,
  • Ed McMullenc and
  • Daniel Krewskie

Abstract

Background The aetiology of multiple sclerosis (MS) remains poorly understood. Dental amalgams containing mercury have recently been suggested as a possible risk factor for MS.

Methods In a case-control study conducted between 1991 and 1994, we interviewed a total of 143 MS patients and 128 controls, to obtain information on socio-demographic characteristics and the number of dental amalgams and the time since installation based on dentists’ records.

Results Neither the number nor the duration of exposure to amalgams supported an increased risk of MS. After adjustment for age,  sex, smoking, and education those who had more than 15 fillings had an odds ratio (OR) of 2.57 (95% CI: 0.78– 8.54) compared to those who had none; for individuals whose first amalgam was inserted more than 15 years prior to the study, we found an OR of 1.34 (95% CI: 0.38–4.72).

Conclusions Although a suggestive elevated risk was found for those individuals with a large number of dental amalgams, and for a long period of time, the difference between cases and controls was not statistically significant.