Gulf Shrimp Widely Contaminated With Carcinogens

 Essays  Comments Off on Gulf Shrimp Widely Contaminated With Carcinogens
Jun 272012
 

Conservative estimates indicate that the 2010 BP oil disaster released over 200 million gallons of oil into the Gulf, followed by at least 1.8 million gallons of dispersants. While the use of dispersants helped mitigate the public relations disaster by preventing the persistent formation of surface oil, as well as keeping many beaches visibly untouched, they also drove the oil deeper into the water column (and food chain) rendering a 2-dimensional problem (surface oil) into a 3-dimensional one. Additionally, research indicates that dispersants prevent the biodegradation of toxic oil components, as well as increasing dispersant absorption into fish from between 6 to 1100 fold higher levels.

Since the event, both the mainstream media and the government have acted as if the oil disappeared, and that no significant health risks remain for the millions still consuming contaminated seafood from the Gulf.*

Now, a new study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives has revealed that the 2010 BP Gulf oil disaster resulted in widespread contamination of Gulf Coast seafood with toxic components from crude oil.1 In fact, levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in shrimp were found to exceed the FDA’s established thresholds for allowable levels [levels of concern (LOCs)] for pregnant women in up to 53% of Gulf shrimp sampled.

PAHs are well-known carcinogens and developmental toxicants, which is why the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is obligated to set risk criteria and thresholds for allowable levels of exposure to them.**

In the new study the authors set out to evaluate the degree to which the FDA’s procedures for determining the safety of Gulf seafood after the BP disaster reflect the current risk assessment guidelines and practices, as produced by other authoritative entities, including the National Research Council (NRC), the World Health Organization (WHO), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California EPA. The authors focused on cancer risk associated with shellfish consumption, looking at whether or not the FDA’s guidelines protect the most vulnerable populations, e.g. pregnant women, infants.

The authors discovered a glaring discrepancy between the FDA Gulf seafood risk assessment (FDA 2010a) and the FDA’s own prior practice with risk assessment guidelines produced by other authoritative entities.

The FDA’s risk assessment was found to be seriously flawed because of the following six questionable assumptions:

The questionable assumptions include six main issues: a) high consumer body weight,b) low estimates of seafood consumption, c) failure to include a cancer risk assessment for naphthalene, d) failure to adjust for early-life susceptibility to PAHs, e) short exposure duration, and f) high cancer risk benchmarks. Taken together, these flaws illustrate a failure to incorporate the substantial body of evidence on the increased vulnerability of subpopulations to contaminants, such as PAHs, in seafood.

Their final conclusion was as follows:

Environmental risk assessment requires the use of scientifically founded assumptions and appropriate default estimates about the exposed population, the intensity and duration of exposure, and the dose–response relationship. The risk assessment methods used by the FDA to set safe exposure levels for Gulf Coast seafood after the oil spill do not incorporate current best practices and do not protect vulnerable populations. The FDA’s conclusions about risks from Gulf seafood should be interpreted with caution in coastal populations with higher rates of seafood consumption and in vulnerable populations such as children, small adults, and pregnant women. Our analysis demonstrates that a revised approach, using standard risk assessment methods, results in significantly lower acceptable levels of PAHs in seafood and identifies populations that could be at risk from contaminants in Gulf Coast seafood. Health advisories targeted at high-end consumers would better protect vulnerable populations such as pregnant women, women who may become pregnant, and children. Our approach did not address infant exposure to PAHs via maternal seafood consumption and lactational transfer. The NRC (2008) found up to 50-fold interindividual variability in cancer risk and recommends incorporation of estimates of uncertainty, as well as population risk distributions, into future risk assessments. Improved public health protection from contaminants in food will require reforming FDA risk assessment practices.

Taken together, these findings demonstrate that the FDA’s conclusion that there are no significant risks to Gulf populations from oil spill–related contaminants in seafood are incorrect, and reckless when it comes to the health of the most vulnerable populations.

With reports now surfacing in mainstream media outlets on the appearance of eyeless shrimp and mutant fish, this latest finding probably only scratches the surface of a health problem in the Gulf titanic in proportions.

1 Seafood contamination after the BP Gulf oil spill and risks to vulnerable populations: a critique of the FDA risk assessment. Environ Health Perspect. 2012 Feb ;120(2):157-61. Epub 2011 Oct 3. PMID: 21990339

*Sixty percent of domestic shrimp and 70% of domestic oysters are sourced from the Gulf.

**The inherent absurdity of determining “an acceptable level of harm” is often overlooked

This article first appeared at GreenMedInfo. Please visit to access their vast database of articles and the latest information in natural health.

Sayer Ji, Contributor

Activist Post

 

 

Letter to AARP—read more

 Essays  Comments Off on Letter to AARP—read more
Jun 142012
 
SHRINKING AARP MEMBERSHIP IS LOSING PLENTY OF SENIORS – VERY
IMPORTANT READ!!
AARP’s Fall from Grace

This letter was sent to Mr. Rand , Executive Director of AARP

THIS LADY NOT ONLY HAS A GRASP OF ‘THE SITUATION’ BUT AN INCREDIBLE COMMAND OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE!

Dear Mr. Rand,

Recently you sent us a letter encouraging us to renew our lapsed membership in AARP by the requested date. This isn’t what you were looking for, but it’s is the most honest response I can give you. Our coverage gap is a microscopic symptom of the real problem, a deepening lack of faith.

While we have proudly maintained our membership for years and long admired the AARP goals and principles, regrettably, we can no longer endorse its abdication of our values. Your letter stated that we can count on AARP to speak up for our rights, yet the voice we hear is not ours.

Your offer of being kept up to date on important issues through DIVIDED WE FAIL presents neither an impartial view nor the one we have come to embrace. We do believe that when two parties agree all the time on everything presented to them, one is probably not necessary. But, when the opinions and long term goals are diametrically opposed, the divorce is imminent. This is the philosophy which spawned our 200 years of government.

Once upon a time, we looked forward to being part of the senior demographic. We also looked to AARP to provide certain benefits and give our voice a power we could not possibly hope to achieve on our own. AARP once gave us a sense of belonging which we no longer enjoy. The Socialist politics practiced by the Obama Regime and empowered by AARP serves only to raise the blood pressure my medical insurance strives to contain.

Clearly a conflict of interest there! We do not understand the AARP posture, feel greatly betrayed by the guiding forces that we expected to map out our senior years and leave your ranks with a great sense of regret. We mitigate that disappointment with the relief of knowing that we are not contributing to the problem anymore by renewing our membership. There are numerous other organizations which offer discounts without threatening our way of life or offending our sensibilities and values.

This Obama Regime scares the living daylights out of us. Not just for ourselves, but for our proud and bloodstained heritage. But more importantly for our children and grandchildren. Washington has rendered Soylent Green a prophetic cautionary tale rather than a nonfiction scare tactic. I have never endorsed any militant or radical groups, yet now I find myself listening to them. I don’t have to agree with them to appreciate the fear which birthed their existence. Their borderline insanity presents little more than a balance to the voice of the Socialist Mindset in power. Perhaps I became American by a great stroke of luck in some cosmic uterine lottery, but in my adulthood I CHOOSE to embrace it and nurture the freedoms it represents as well as the responsibilities.

Your website generously offers us the opportunity to receive all communication in Spanish. ARE YOU KIDDING??? The illegal perpetrators have broken into our ‘house’, invaded our home without invitation or consent. The President insists we keep these illegal perpetrators in comfort and learn the perpetrator’s language so we can communicate our reluctant welcome to them. I DON’T choose to welcome them, to support them, to educate them, to medicate them, or to pay for their food or clothing. American home invaders get arrested. Please explain to me why foreign lawbreakers can enjoy privileges on American soil that Americans do not get? Why do some immigrants have to play the game to be welcomed and others only have to break and enter to be welcomed?

We travel for a living. Walt hauls horses all over this great country, averaging over 10,000 miles a month when he is out there. He meets more people than a politician on caffeine overdose. Of all the many good folks he enjoyed on this last 10,000 miles, this trip yielded only ONE supporter of the current Regime. One of us is out of touch with mainstream America .

Since our poll is conducted without funding, I have more faith in it than ones that are driven by a need to yield AMNESTY (aka-make voters out of the foreign lawbreakers so they can vote to continue the government’s free handouts). This addition of 10 to 20 million voters who then will vote to continue Socialism will OVERWHELM our votes to control the government’s free handouts. It is a “slippery slope” we must not embark on!

As Margret Thatcher (former Prime Minister of Great Britain ) once said Socialism is GREAT – UNTIL you run out of other people’s money”.

 We have decided to forward this to everyone on our mailing list, and will encourage them to do the same. With several hundred in my address book, I have every faith that the eventual exponential factor will make a credible statement to you. I am disappointed as all getout! I am more scared than I have ever been in my entire life! I am ANGRY! I am MAD as hell, and I’m NOT gonna take it anymore!

Walt & Cyndy Miller,

Miller Farms Equine Transport

Jose Lugo: editor ddtv.org