Issue 17: Do Environmental Hormone Mimics Pose a Health Threat?

Issue 17

Do Environmental Hormone Mimics Pose a Potentially Serious Health Threat?

Authors: Michele L. Trankina and Michael Gough

1. (2pts) Definitions. List the important new terms and concepts used by the author. Define terms with which you were not familiar. Circle those that you think need clarification and discussion. Minimum 4.

a. junk science versus bad science (according to Mr. Gough) – junk science is science that is based off of ideology; bad science is science with honest mistakes. It’s the intent behind it that distinguishes a difference.

b. endocrine disruptor – a chemical that can disrupt, alter, or increase a normal physiological function in the body.

c. environmental estrogens – “many synthetic compounds and plant products present in the environment [that] have been found to affect hormonal functions in various ways.” (p. 304)

d. estrogen mimics – disruptors that bind to estrogen receptors on the membranes of cells that cause changes in reproduction and growth.

2. (4pts) Summary. In your own words, summarize the themes and key points developed in this chapter, article, or section of an assigned book. Write as if you were the author telling another educated person what you were trying to say in the assigned piece. In this section, do not give your opinion. Present the arguments and themes of the assigned author.

Michele L. Trankina, a professor of biological sciences, provides the positive argument. She uses the alligator population in Lake Apopka, Florida, which was studied by Louis Guillette. He found that the population was decreasing, male genitalia were smaller, and that females super ovulated. He linked it to a spill in 1980 of DDT (dichloro-diphenly-trichloroethane). DDT, in this case, acted as an estrogen mimic that resulted in the feminization of the males and over-feminization of the females.

This lead to curiosity of other effects of DDT. In rodents, high exposure to the substance caused testicular cancer in males and mammary tumors in females. As DDT concentrations increase higher in the food chain, we are lead to wonder what effects chronic exposure it would hold for humans.

A 1993 article, published by two authors from Holland and Scotland, looked at the decreases in sperm counts of males in the United States and twenty other countries. The decrease correlates to the increase of concentrations of environmental estrogens.

It is thought that through accidental contamination of cattle with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), women’s breast milk was highly concentrated with it. Their sons demonstrated defective genitalia – problems ranging from cryptorchidism (undescended testes) to hypospadia (urethra opening on the underside of the penis instead of the tip). More research is needed to a full correlation.

Precocious puberty, which is puberty before the ages of 12-13, is increasingly common in girls: 7% white and 27% black exhibiting pubertal growth by the age of seven. This might be from increased fat in the body; it might be from environmental factors. Most likely, it is a combination of both and deserves future study.

There is quite a bit of evidence that shows certain plastics have chemicals that can leach into our foods. It’s not just food either, Barbie dolls from the 1950’s and 1960’s have been found to release a stabilizing chemical from the PVC. The resulting residue is found to mimic estrogen. Many other things that are plastic surround us as well, too. How are we to know which is safe and which is not? These are all questions that, if concerned, we must research more and be aware of to protect ourselves. Fortunately, citizens are not alone in this; many organizations are committed to the cause of minimizing the effects of environmental estrogens as well.

Michael Gough, of the Cato Institute, provides the negative argument. He claims the science used to collaborate environmental estrogens to illnesses is faulty and that its environmentalist scare tactics that have caused billions of dollars wasted in research and testing products from plastics to pesticides.

He claims that the very existence of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is based off of faulty scientific evidence and scare tactics, namely, the carcinogenic agents found in our water supply, at our workplaces, and in our homes. By naming and regulating or removing these carcinogens, we could remove cancer from our lives. So bureaucracy believes they can remove cancer from our population. The EPA, in an effort to justify their existence, created list after list of carcinogens that we are exposed to. He claims that the Love Canal in New York, as it was blamed to be contaminated with carcinogenic wastes that caused “cancers, birth defects, miscarriages, skin diseases,” (p. 311) was all a hoax that has led to similar “Love Canal incidents” in every state. He says this only taxes the government’s resources with laws such as the Superfund Law to clean up what doesn’t need cleaning.

He believes that the decline of cancer rates in our nation is debunking the ‘cancer scare’. He argues that Dr. Theo Colborn, researching for cancer rates in the Great Lakes area and finding that they were decreased, “reached” in her exploration to find any collaboration between chemicals and an adverse effect on health.

She found endocrine disruptors, which she linked to abnormal responses from wildlife. She tried to collaborate this to humans, and found decreased sperm counts in males since World War II. Gough tries to make it out to seem as though Dr. Colborn was intending to find such results and therefore, found them.

He also scoffs the Tulane research and results. The Tulane paper connected the pesticides and other chemicals that can behave as estrogen disruptors to its presence in our food. This alarmed the EPA, Congress, the media, the scientific community, and the citizens. As a result, the Endocrine Disrupter Screening and Testing Advisory Committee (EDSTAC) were created, along with the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). The EDSTAC is now considering tests for all 70,000 known chemicals that are present in our nation and are adding additional tests to screen for testosterone and thyroid hormone disruptors. The total cost of this is estimated to be between $5 and $10 billion. The FQPA requires tests on our food for pesticides and evaluates the acceptable level of them. The Tulane report was then never replicated, despite efforts from the original researcher, Dr. John McLachlan and others.

Regardless of the research failure, the FQPA will continue, and is expected to result in the removal of 50-80% of pesticides from the market. This cost will directly impact companies, who will in turn, pass it on to farmers. The farmers then will increase the price of their product and the poor will be less likely to purchase healthy food such as fruits and vegetables. Without eating right, health problems will increase in the poor and some middle class, and here the cycle continues.

3. (3pts) Creative Reaction and Integration. Record some of your own ideas that came to you as you were reading and thinking about the issue or issues the author is discussing. Formulate these in well-written sentences, develop them as best you can, and relate them to the author’s discussion and possibly to other readings and course themes.

Gough is an interesting character. He finds Dr. Colborn in the worst light – trying to bunk her science to reach a goal. This is a serious charge of fraudulent work in research.

It is convincing that plastics and pesticides could contaminate our water, food, and living space. It’s happened before and it mostly likely will happen again, or happening now. This is something we need to take seriously. The correlation between the chemicals found in our products, the effects these chemicals have in laboratory settings, and the statistical evidence of ever-growing health problems is too great to ignore.

4. (2pts) Opinion – Not graded, 2 points awarded if completed.

We should employ the precautionary principle here. The evidence, while circumstantial, is enough to build upon in research and in court. There is no need for us to wait until we are dying of cancer to have to prove to the court that this chemical was contaminating us.

Issue 19: Should the United States Reprocess Spent Nuclear Fuel?

Issue 19

Should the United States Reprocess Spent Nuclear Fuel?

Authors: Phillip J. Finck and Matthew Bunn

1. (2pts) Definitions. List the important new terms and concepts used by the author. Define terms with which you were not familiar. Circle those that you think need clarification and discussion. Minimum 4.

a. nuclear waste – created when uranium and plutonium atoms are split during the process of nuclear fission, which creates energy at nuclear power plants. Also created when the same are used for medicine and nuclear weapons. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, we have 52,000 tons of spent reactor fuel and 91 million gallons of waste from nuclear weapon protection.

b. nuclear reprocessing – the process of separating and recycling unused fuel from spent fuel and thereby reducing the amount of waste and extending the supply of fuel.

c. Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty – a treaty that went into force in 1970 and caused the U.S. “policy not to reprocess spent nuclear fuel and thereby to limit the availability of bomb-grade material.” (p. 332) This has caused nuclear waste to accumulate.

d. onerous – “having legal obligations that outweigh the advantages” (Merrim-Webster Dictionary Online)

2. (4pts) Summary. In your own words, summarize the themes and key points developed in this chapter, article, or section of an assigned book. Write as if you were the author telling another educated person what you were trying to say in the assigned piece. In this section, do not give your opinion. Present the arguments and themes of the assigned author.

Phillip J. Finck, from the Statement Before the House Committee on Science at the Hearing on Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing on June 16, 2005, said that by exploiting our spent nuclear fuel, the United States can reduce our nuclear waste, increase our energy supply, and reduce carbon emissions and nuclear waste.

Finck states that the capacity of the Yucca Mountain will reach the capacity of 70,000 by 2010 and if nuclear energy grows at a rate of just 1.8% per year, we will reach the full capacity of the Yucca Mountain by 2030. Space will remain limited, because of this; we need to reprocess our fuel in order to minimize the amount of waste we are putting aside.

Spent nuclear fuel consists of 93% uranium, 1% plutonium, less than 1% minor actinides, and 5% fission products. The uranium can be separated from the other products and be disposed of as low-level waste or used later. The fission products are potentially useable in weapons but are highly radioactive. There are three isotopes, Pu241, Am241, and Np237 that require 100,000 to 1 million years that will need to be placed in a repository. The fission products, cesium and strontium, need to be cooled off before being placed in the repository as they are incredibly hot.

As the time scale is so large, we have three options for how to handle our spent fuel: (1) the once-through fuel cycle wherein it is stored in a safe geographic environment for that time, (2) the limited recycle wherein the uranium is stored for future use and the other products are either used or stored for decay, or (3) the closed fuel cycle wherein we isolate the uranium for future use, destroy the isotopes, and decrease the hazardous amount of material needed to store.

This process of recycling fuel will cost more, but will end in an overall less amount of radioactive material needed to be stored and dealt with for future generations.

Matthew Bunn, from his testimony before the same committee on the same day, believes that the United States does not need to reprocess spent nuclear fuel, the costs are too high, and we would run the risk of increased available tools for terrorists.

Reprocessing is expensive and “increases the cost of spent fuel management by more than 80%.” (p. 341) Thus, it increases the final cost to the consumer or to the tax payers, who are really the same. France and Japan have reached similar conclusions.

The fact that the plutonium, whether high or low grade, could be used as bomb material leaves us at risk. By having to process and ship the plutonium, we put ourselves at an unnecessary risk that it would fall into the wrong hands.

We are using diplomacy to deter other countries to stop their nuclear proliferation policies, including Iran and North Korea, and allies like Taiwan and South Korea. They had secret weapons programs that were closely involved with the reprocessing of nuclear fuel in the past. For the United States to do exactly what we are asking other countries to not do is going to hinder our efforts for a safer world.

Reprocessing nuclear fuel is dangerous. Significant accidents have already happened in the world at reprocessing plants, including Khystym, and Russian and France plants. There has been no objective study as to the safety of reprocessing, but processing radioactive fuel with volatile chemicals does not seem safer than leaving spent fuel within casks.

Bunn believes that the Yucca Mountain’s estimated capacity is too low. In fact, he claims that there has not been a conclusive study performed about the actual maximum that the mountain can contain.

He claims that the energy to be harvested from spent nuclear fuel is not substantial enough to counter the cost it requires to extract the valuable resources. And we can retrieve our uranium resources for cheaper than we would to get it from reprocessing. It’s just not economically feasible or advisable right now. We currently do not have the technology to make it feasible or cost-effective. By placing our spent fuel in a repository, we save that available fuel for future generations to make use of and to use to their advantage with more advanced extracting technology.

Nuclear waste is accumulating. Currently, nuclear power plants are storing their waste in large, earthquake proof casks that are open to the air and allow the heat to be released. Over time, the waste becomes less radioactive. However, this process takes millions of years. An alternative to waiting is using fast-neutron reactors that would expose the waste to neutrons from particle accelerators and speed up the radioactive decay process.

A disposal site has been researched and decided upon, but not yet developed. It’s called the Yucca Mountain and it’s in Nevada. The capacity of the site is limited by legislation to 70,000 metric tons of waste by 2010 and the expected capacity of the site is 120,000 metric tons. Environmental activists are strongly opposed to such an idea, and in 2005, reports of faulty research have spurned hope that the site’s approval would be delayed.

3. (3pts) Creative Reaction and Integration. Record some of your own ideas that came to you as you were reading and thinking about the issue or issues the author is discussing. Formulate these in well-written sentences, develop them as best you can, and relate them to the author’s discussion and possibly to other readings and course themes.

Nuclear fuel seems not to be clean and safe, as it was claimed to be in Issue 12. Sure, no carbon is released and there is no air pollution from it. But, we end up having nuclear waste that will not degrade for a million years. That’s a huge price to pay for energy!

They act as though they are leaving a gift of energy to the future generations. No one can predict the future, but if we move to clean and sustainable energy such as hydrogen, solar and wind power, there is high doubt that a mountain full of nuclear waste is going to be considered a gift.

4. (2pts) Opinion – Not graded, 2 points awarded if completed.

Why not shoot spend nuclear fuel into space? They have eliminated shooting it into the sun, but why not send it towards Jupiter or outer space? Would terrorists actually have the capability to retrieve such highly dangerous material? I doubt it. They barely have the ability to retrieve it from plutonium stockpiles.

Nuclear energy seems more and more unreliable and unsafe. There are benefits, but the costs are higher than the benefits can possible be. I say we move to hydrogen, solar, and wind power. Let the Earth remain green and become greener. Let us and other life forms be safe from nuclear energy and weapons.

Issue 14: Is Genetic Engineering the Answer to Hunger?

Issue 14

Is Genetic Engineering the Answer to Hunger?

Authors: Gerald D. Coleman and Sean McDonagh

1. (2pts) Definitions. List the important new terms and concepts used by the author. Define terms with which you were not familiar. Circle those that you think need clarification and discussion. Minimum 4.

a. Intellectual Property Rights – the rights that an inventor has to her work. She invented it, so she should reap the benefits from it. In reference to genetically engineered food, an inventor believes that she should have the right to price the food as she wishes. The argument against it is that it should be public domain for the greater good – namely, the billions of starving people.

b. Green Revolution – selective breeding of two genetically distant plants that resulted in a plant that produced more food than either parent. This saved Asia from food shortages in the 1960s and 1970s. However, “lead to the loss of three-quarters of the genetic diversity of major food crops.” (McDonagh p. 255)

c. Genetically modified crops – The manipulation of the genome of a plant, in this case one that produces food that will create a higher yield and less dependence upon pesticide. There is some debate over the ethical issues and whether or not they are safe to humans, animals, or the environment.

d. Proponents - a person that proposes an activity that may have an effect on the environment.

2. (4pts) Summary. In your own words, summarize the themes and key points developed in this chapter, article, or section of an assigned book. Write as if you were the author telling another educated person what you were trying to say in the assigned piece. In this section, do not give your opinion. Present the arguments and themes of the assigned author.

The pro argument author, Gerald D. Coleman, argues that genetically engineered crops can be used to feed the hungry, which in 2005 was estimated to be more than 3.7 billion people by the World Health Association. Every 3.6 seconds, someone dies of hunger in the world, a total of ten million in one year. Tomatoes, corn, and potatoes would not be here today without human engineering. It is no different than the selective breeding we’ve been performing for centuries.

Americans have been eating genetically modified foods for nearly a decade without any proven cases of disease or allergic reaction. The amount of genetically altered crops in this country is: 68% soybeans, 70% cotton, 26% corn, and 55% canola.

The intellectual property rights of genetically modified food could be resolved. Research universities are considering a proposal to have an open licensing provision that would share their inventions with developing countries through a ‘developing-country license’ but still retain the rights to research, education, and negotiations with industries. The Catholic Church insists that intellectual property rights over genetically modified food should be forsaken for the good of the entire human race.

With genetically altering our crops, we can reduce our use of pesticides, which are known to cause health problems in animals and man as well as pollute our environment. Genetically modified foods not only require less pesticide use, if at all, but they also hold many other benefits as well. They can be packed with nutrients if so designed. They can require less water and be drought resistant. This would be especially important in parts of Africa, where water is scarce. They can be designed to produce more substantial food product as well, so anywhere where the money is scarce, they can be planted and produce food at a lower comparative cost. This reduces the reliance poverty-stricken people have on aid and allows them to be more self-sufficient, which is what they desire anyway.

The con argument author, a priest named Sean McDonagh, argues that genetically engineered crops are dangerous and that we would be better serving the hungry by addressing the issues of land reform and social inequalities. He says that the terminator gene, called “Technology Protection System” by a Monsanto-owned company, which causes the plant’s seeds to self-destruct after the first crop, is reason enough to silence the “feed the world” argument. If every company that manufactures genetically engineered crops were to use this technology, farmers would be buying seeds every year. Hardly realistic if you are a very poor farmer who plants seeds in order to feed your family. This leads to our food supply being controlled by a few companies, which is in conflict with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Monsanto has attempted to distance its company’s reputation from the technology, and said it never intended to release the technology until other issues had been aired out. Quite simply, the political environment will not tolerate such technology, as it is obvious the only benefactor is the company itself.

There is some other danger with terminator technology. If genetically similar neighboring crops were to become pollinated with Monsanto terminator seeds, it could spell the end to such plants in a region. Ultimately, it can make an entire region of crops sterile. It could only spell disaster for farmers and those who depend on the region’s food.

Mr. McDonagh, as a priest, feels it is an abomination to God and the value of life that we could consider to patent living organisms. It “opts for an atomized, isolated understanding of life…as interconnected, mutually dependent and a gift from God to be shared with everyone.” (p. 255)

Perhaps technology is not as effective in increasing yields as they are claiming, either. In a 2003 study by the Institute of Development Studies at Sussex University of England, they found that the sweet potato, after 12 years of research costing $6 million dollars has only produced an 18% increase in yield. However, conventional crossing on a small budget has produced a virus-resistant variety that increased the yield to 100%.

Claims of a decreased reliance on pesticide are also being challenged. In a study by Charles Benbrook, the head of the Northwest Science and Environmental Policy Center in Sandpoint, Idaho that used U.S. government data, he found that in the first three years, the decrease in pesticide use was 25%. However, after that, pesticide use increases again. In 2001, 5% more pesticide was required on genetically modified crops than on conventional crops.

It is not a super seed that will save our starving population, he claims. In many “famines” caused by economic or environmental factors, food was available; enough for export or sale. But the people who needed the food were too poor to buy it and had no land to plant their own. He does not believe that it will change now with corporations making seeds. The basic underlying problem is social inequality. Until that is fixed, no magic genetic makeup of a seed will help us.

3. (3pts) Creative Reaction and Integration. Record some of your own ideas that came to you as you were reading and thinking about the issue or issues the author is discussing. Formulate these in well-written sentences, develop them as best you can, and relate them to the author’s discussion and possibly to other readings and course themes.

There are risks involved with genetic engineering. The precautionary principle should not be employed, however, as the need for this product is so great. Yet precautions should be taken, as we cannot possibly reverse any unforeseen effect it would wreck on the environment and human health.

Once again, corporate and political greed rears its ugly head. What audacity of Monsanto to believe that they can market such a gene that would produce sterility! Who do they think they are convincing? And who would invest in such a company that produces such an unethical thing? People argue ethics and what is ethical all the time, but how can anyone defend such a low blow to the world’s poor?

4. (2pts) Opinion – Not graded, 2 points awarded if completed.

My dad is a farmer, and every year he sells his crop for next to nothing. Some years they throw away some crops because there is a surplus. With that in mind, how is it possible that food is in shortage? Greed is the answer to that question. Corporate greed controls the movement of food and for those too poor to sate that greed, they can go hungry. It is a dichotomy of sorts that we are paying two dollars for a gallon of gas because demand is so high, yet, when the demand is high for food, the price is not gouged at the graineries. Farmers do not make the profit, the corporate guys do. Money controls the world and unless we can be more philanthropic, hunger will continue.