Study finds hundreds of toxic chemicals in umbilical cords of newborns

[Karmadillo]

Sorry, kid. That's just the market and the invisible hand at work. It's all for the best.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/dec2005/toxi-d07.shtml

The umbilical cord is a baby’s lifeline, bringing nourishment from the mother and removing waste. The amniotic fluid bathes the growing embryo, and the umbilical cord brings the embryo oxygen, nutrients—and a startling array of toxic industrial chemicals, according to a recent study, “Body Burden: The Pollution in Newborns.”

In a first-of-its-kind study, researchers from two major laboratories looked for the presence of toxic chemicals in umbilical cord blood of 10 newborn babies born in U.S. hospitals in August and September 2004. A collaboration of the Environmental Working Group and Commonweal brought about the study. (For the full report, go to http://www.ewg.org/reports/bodyburden2/.)

Of the more than 400 chemicals tested for, 287 were detected in umbilical cord blood. Of these, 180 cause cancer in humans or animals, 217 are toxic to the brain or nervous system, and 208 cause birth defects or abnormal development in animals. Scientists refer to the presence of such toxins in the newborn as “body burden.”

According to the study’s authors, the scope of testing was limited because chemical companies are not required to divulge methods for detecting the presence of their chemicals in the human body. “Had we tested for a broader array of chemicals,” they wrote, “we would almost certainly have detected far more than 287.”

Among those substances found to be polluting the blood supply for the newborn babies were eight perfluorochemicals used as stain and oil repellants in fast-food packaging, clothes and textiles, including the Teflon chemical PFQA, a carcinogen; dozens of widely used bromated flame retardants and their toxic byproducts; and many pesticides.

Publication of this study, despite its sensational findings, created barely a ripple in the national media. There was no outcry from the Christian fundamentalists against the poisoning of fetuses by the chemical industry, in sharp contrast to their hysteria over abortion rights. The ultra-right fanatics demonize pregnant teenagers and even the victims of rape and incest as “murderers” for terminating their pregnancies. But it is apparently an article of faith that corporate polluters should have the right to continue pumping out dangerous chemicals that damage individuals and even generations, in the name of “free enterprise.”

more...

[mzmolly]

1. Very disturbing

:(

[rosesaylavee]

2. Perhaps, as it wasn't widely reported,

the Fundies haven't heard about it yet? I think it is a problem with MSM and not them at this point.

This was first reported in July... wow. This is the first I have read of it.

Kicked, recommended. Let's us get this to the Greatest Page and at least draw attention to it here.

[ComerPerro]

4. Numbers and figures on abortions aren't widely reported either

but somehow they get their hands on those figures. (either that or they just make them up, I could go either way).

Besides, these people are pro-life. They are supposed to be alert for this sort of thing.

Its not like ignorance can be a defense here. These people are very active and are very passionate about being anti-choice.

So, trust me, if they cared at all, they would be all over this.

[annabanana]

11. when the question is between fundies & coporate biggies...

the corpomedia knows where the bread is buttered.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

3. Were any of these chemicals...

...present in quantities that could be damaging?

[NeoGreen]

5. Read the report and remember this...

Almost all (99.999%) of our knowledge about human health risks to any specific chemical is based on an understanding of what I call "single compound response". That is, science only speaks to the risks associated with the exposure of a single compound, it is a fundemental "failing" of science, IMHO, that humans have not yet developed a scientific method to systematically test the relative risks of multiple exposures to multiple chemicals for differential periods of time. Unfortunately, as this report dramatically demonstrates, we do not live in a world of single exposures, not even in the protected world of the womb.

[Deja Q]

6. What do the *cough* "pro-life" imbeciles have to say about this?

Well well well, they have nothing to say.

They can shove their spurious morality where the cheese sandwich exits after 3 days...

[Spinzonner]

7. As nature intended ...

:sarcasm:

[Karmadillo]

8. Kick

nt

[donsu]

9. kicking for women and children's rights

we are over half the population, our voices should be heard and listened to, whether the men like it or not.

[Karmadillo]

10. I think the men would be with you on this one, but the corporate media

doesn't seem very eager to let people know this is happening. People might actually insist on change if they knew what our chemical nirvana was doing to us.

[unblock]

12. hmm, making me think twice about shelling out $1500 for infant cord blood

apparently this stuff is supposed to be a lifesaver should our child develop certain life-threatening conditions after birth....

[AlienGirl]

16. It's still worth saving the cord blood

There would be no *new* exposure if it were ever used.

Tucker

[Kurovski]

13. K&R. This is what environmentalism is all about.

The next time some right-Wing nutjob calls environmentalists "tree-huggers", keep a few articles like this handy for them.

Or you can just tell them to fuck off. Then you'll sound like a vice-president of the united States, and how cool is that?

The Right-wing--under the direction of the corporations who OWN them---have spun and lied about many horrific things that have caused health problems, have destroyed lives, and will for a long time to come.

The toll will be staggering when it all comes due.

We live in a toxic soup.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

14. At What Levels? I Doubt They Were Anywhere Near Any Level To Be Considered

significant. Their presence alone doesn't create any significance. What is important is the level at which the toxins were found. If the levels were inconsequential, than this is a non-story. If they were found in any concentration that could be considered harmful, than that is definitely worthy of further investigation.

Unfortunately as hard as the author tried through persuasion to try and convince me of his side, he failed to include the relevant facts as to the levels of toxins found. I therefore cannot accept the findings as worthy of significance just yet.

[SoCalDem]

15. So how much is "acceptable".. If you are pregnant and it's "ok" for

x amount of pcbs & dioxin to travel to your fetus.. But when that child is 4 and diagnosed with ADD or some other disability, will you still feel "ok" about that small amount??

and

Then we can go back to remember how "cool" taking a picnic lunch to a nuclear test..and the government wouldn;t lie to us about that either, did they?? They said it was perfectly safe:)

[bettyellen]

19. who is going to tell you wha the safe levels are? Dupont? our Govt? LOL.

very funny- you almost had me there!

[LunaC]

17. And we wonder why

the incidence of autism is increasing.....

"...217 are toxic to the brain or nervous system"

[undergroundpanther]

18. Like I said before

EVERYTHING is contaminated.
The Earth is dying ,we have used it up,it is out of whack, toxic and it will not last forever even without us. For the current die off it is the corporates ,agriculture,military and consumerism doing the job and we pay the destroyers wages by proxy.

[donsu]

20. kick

nt