In the amoral milieu of the corporate bottom line, you can’t blame Tokyo Electric Power Co. for trying.

Tepco owns the six-reactor Fukushima complex that was wrecked by Japan’s March 11 earthquake and smashed by the resulting tsunami. It faces more than $350 billion in compensation and clean-up costs, as well as likely prosecution for withholding crucial information that may have prevented some radiation exposures and for operating the giant station after being warned about the inadequacy of its protections against disasters.

So, when the company was hauled into Tokyo District Court October 31 by the Sunfield Golf Club, which was demanding decontamination of the golf course, Tepco lawyers tried something novel. They claimed the company isn’t liable because it no longer “owned” the radioactive poisons that were spewed from its destroyed reactors.

“Radioactive materials that scattered and fell from the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant belong to individual landowners there, not Tepco,” the company said. This stunned the court, the plaintiffs and the press. An attorney for the golf club said, “We are flabbergasted….”

The court rejected Tepco’s notion that its cancer-causing pollution is owned by the areas it contaminated. But you have to hand it to Tepco. For brash balderdash, there’s hardly a match in the world.

Even Union Carbide, whose toxic gas in Bhopal, India, killed 15,000 people in 1984, hasn’t tried that one. Dow Chemical, which bought Union Carbide in 2001, is still fighting India’s demand for $1.7 billion in compensation. Perhaps Dow could try Tepco’s dodge: “The gas belongs to the breather now, since possession is nine-tenths of the law.”

Meanwhile, babies in Japan may be in for a life of debilitation and disease because radioactive cesium-137 and cesium-134 was recently found in infant milk powder. A December 6 announcement by the Meiji Holdings Company, Inc. said it was recalling 400,000 cans of its “Meiji Step,” powdered milk for babies older than nine months. The powder was packaged in April – at the height of Fukushima’s largest radiation releases – distributed mostly in May and has an October 2012 expiration date.

The amount of cesium in one serving of the milk powder was about 8 percent of the total contamination allowed by the government. But no one knows how much formula individual babies may have consumed prior to the recall. It is well known that fetuses, infants, children and women are harmed by doses of radiation below officially allowed exposures. Most exposure standards have been established in view of radiation’s projected effect on “Reference Man,” a hypothetical 20- to 30-year-old white male, rather than women and children, the most vulnerable.

Even tiny amounts of internal radioactive contamination can damage DNA, cause cancer and weaken the immune system. Fukushima’s meltdowns dispersed radioactive contamination found in vegetables, milk, seafood, water, grain, animal feed and beef. Green tea grown 250 miles from Fukushima was found contaminated. Rice harvested this fall from 154 farms in Fukushima Prefecture was found in November to be poisoned with cesium 25 percent above the allowable limit. Shipments of rice from those farms were banned, but not before many tons had been sold. Presumably, that radiation is now the property of each consumer under the inventive assertion of Tepco’s corporate attorneys.

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

Source:
John LaForge, Truthout, Fukushima’s Owner Adds Insult to Injury – Claims Radioactive Fallout Isn’t Theirs, Monday 16 January 2012

Related Environmental Medicine Matters articles:

• The Hanford Nuclear Reservation becomes an American Pop-Icon Amusement Park?
• Expert discovers simple method of dealing with harmful radioactive iodine
• People may eventually develop cancer as a result of the radiation exposure

Top-selling scented liquid laundry detergent and scented dryer sheet contains hazardous chemicals, including two that are classified as carcinogens

The same University of Washington researcher who used chemical sleuthing to deduce what’s in fragranced consumer products now has turned her attention to the scented air wafting from household laundry vents.

Findings, published online this week in the journal Air Quality, Atmosphere and Health, show that air vented from machines using the top-selling scented liquid laundry detergent and scented dryer sheet contains hazardous chemicals, including two that are classified as carcinogens.

“This is an interesting source of pollution because emissions from dryer vents are essentially unregulated and unmonitored,” said lead author Anne Steinemann, a UW professor of civil and environmental engineering and of public affairs. “If they’re coming out of a smokestack or tail pipe, they’re regulated, but if they’re coming out of a dryer vent, they’re not.”

The research builds on earlier work that looked at what chemicals are released by laundry products, air fresheners, cleaners, lotions and other fragranced consumer products. Manufacturers are not required to disclose the ingredients used in fragrances, or in laundry products.

For the new study, which focuses on chemicals emitted through laundry vents, researchers first purchased and pre-rinsed new, organic cotton towels. They asked two homeowners to volunteer their washers and dryers, cleaned the inside of the machines with vinegar, and ran full cycles using only water to eliminate as much residue as possible.

At the first home, they ran a regular laundry cycle and analyzed the vent fumes for three cases: once with no products, once with the leading brand of scented liquid laundry detergent, and finally with both the detergent and a leading brand of scented dryer sheets. A canister placed inside the dryer vent opening captured the exhaust 15 minutes into each drying cycle. Researchers then repeated the procedure with a different washer and dryer at a second home.

Analysis of the captured gases found more than 25 volatile organic compounds, including seven hazardous air pollutants, coming out of the vents. Of those, two chemicals – acetaldehyde and benzene – are classified by the Environmental Protection Agency as carcinogens, for which the agency has established no safe exposure level.

“These products can affect not only personal health, but also public and environmental health. The chemicals can go into the air, down the drain and into water bodies,” Steinemann said.

The researchers estimate that in the Seattle area, where the study was conducted, acetaldehyde emissions from this brand of laundry detergent would be equivalent to 3 percent of the total acetaldehyde emissions coming from automobiles. Emissions from the top five brands, they estimate, would constitute about 6 percent of automobiles’ acetaldehyde emissions.

“We focus a lot of attention on how to reduce emissions of pollutants from automobiles,” Steinemann said. “And here’s one source of pollutants that could be reduced.”

The project’s website also includes letters from the public reporting health effects from scented consumer products. Steinemann says that people’s reports of adverse reactions to fragranced air coming from laundry vents motivated her to conduct this study.

Steinemann recommends using laundry products without any fragrance or scent.

Co-authors are Lisa Gallagher and Amy Davis at the UW, and Ian MacGregor at Battelle Memorial Institute.

Literature:

Ann Steinemann, Lisa Gallagher, Amy Davis, Ian MacGregor, University of Washington, Scented laundry products emit hazardous chemicals through dryer vents, Aug. 24, 2011

Professor Ann C. Steinemann: Reduce Exposures Resource Assessment

Related Environmental Medicine Matters Articles:

• Since when do fish use perfume?
• Scented consumer products shown to emit many unlisted chemicals
• The Reckless Self-Interest of the Fragrance Industry
• Secret Chemicals Revaled in Celebrity Perfumes, Teen Body Sprays

New substances added to HHS Report on Carcinogens

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services today added eight substances to its Report on Carcinogens, a science-based document that identifies chemicals and biological agents that may put people at increased risk for cancer.

The industrial chemical formaldehyde and a botanical known as aristolochic acids are listed as known human carcinogens. Six other substances — captafol, cobalt-tungsten carbide (in powder or hard metal form), certain inhalable glass wool fibers, o-nitrotoluene, riddelliine, and styrene — are added as substances that are reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens. With these additions, the 12th Report on Carcinogens now includes 240 listings. It is available at 12th Report on Carcinogens.

“Reducing exposure to cancer-causing agents is something we all want, and the Report on Carcinogens provides important information on substances that pose a cancer risk,” said Linda Birnbaum, Ph.D., director of both the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the National Toxicology Program (NTP). “The NTP is pleased to be able to compile this report.”

John Bucher, Ph.D., associate director of the NTP added, “This report underscores the critical connection between our nation’s health and what’s in our environment.”

The Report on Carcinogens is a congressionally mandated document that is prepared for the HHS Secretary by the NTP. The report identifies agents, substances, mixtures, or exposures in two categories: known to be a human carcinogen and reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen. A listing in the Report on Carcinogens does not by itself mean that a substance will cause cancer. Many factors, including the amount and duration of exposure, and an individual’s susceptibility to a substance, affect whether a person will develop cancer.

Once a substance is nominated by the public or private sector and selected for consideration, it undergoes an extensive evaluation with numerous opportunities for scientific and public input. There were at least six opportunities for public input on each substance. The NTP used established criteria to evaluate the scientific evidence on each candidate substance under review. The NTP drew upon the scientific expertise of several federal agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, and Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

“The strength of this report lies in the rigorous scientific review process,” said Ruth Lunn, Dr.P.H., director of the NTP Office of the Report on Carcinogens. “We could not have completed this report without the significant input we received from the public, industry, academia, and other government agencies.”

A detailed description of each substance listed in the Report on Carcinogens is included in the new report.

Two known human carcinogens:

Aristolochic acids have been shown to cause high rates of bladder or upper urinary tract cancer among individuals with kidney or renal disease who consumed botanical products containing aristolochic acids. Aristolochic acids are a family of acids that occur naturally in some plant species. Despite a warning issued in 2001 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that advised consumers to discontinue use of any botanical products containing aristolochic acids, they can still be purchased on the Internet and abroad, and may be found as a contaminant in herbal products used to treat a variety of symptoms and diseases, such as arthritis, gout, and inflammation.

Formaldehyde was first listed in the 2nd Report on Carcinogens as a substance that was reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen, after laboratory studies showed it caused nasal cancer in rats. There is now sufficient evidence from studies in humans to show that individuals with higher measures of exposure to formaldehyde are at increased risk for certain types of rare cancers, including nasopharyngeal (the nasopharnyx is the upper part of the throat behind the nose), sinonasal, as well as a specific cancer of the white blood cells known as myeloid leukemia. Formaldehyde is a colorless, flammable, strong-smelling chemical that is widely used to make resins for household items, such as composite wood products, paper product coatings, plastics, synthetic fibers, and textile finishes. Formaldehyde is also commonly used as a preservative in medical laboratories, mortuaries, and some consumer products, including some hair straightening products.

Six substances reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens:

Captafol was found to induce cancer in experimental animal studies, which demonstrated that dietary exposure to captafol caused tumors at several different tissue sites in rats and mice. Captafol is a fungicide that had been used to control fungal diseases in fruits, vegetables, ornamental plants, and grasses, and as a seed treatment. It has been banned in the United States since 1999, but past exposures may still have an effect on health.

Cobalt-tungsten carbide (in powder and hard metal form) showed limited evidence of lung cancer in workers involved in cobalt-tungsten carbide hard metal manufacturing. Cobalt-tungsten carbide is used to make cutting and grinding tools, dies, and wear-resistant products for a broad spectrum of industries, including oil and gas drilling, as well as mining. In the United States, cobalt-tungsten hard metals are commonly referred to as cemented or sintered carbides.

Certain inhalable glass wool fibers made the list based on experimental animal studies. Not all glass wool or man-made fibers were found to be carcinogenic. The specific glass wool fibers referred to in this report have been redefined from previous reports on carcinogens to include only those fibers that can enter the respiratory tract, are highly durable, and are biopersistent, meaning they remain in the lungs for long periods of time. Glass wool fibers generally fall into two categories for consumers: low-cost, general purpose fibers, and premium, special purpose fibers. The largest use of general purpose glass wool is for home and building insulation, which appears to be less durable and less biopersistent, and thus less likely to cause cancer in humans.

o-Nitrotoluene is listed because experimental animal studies showed tumor formation at many different tissue sites in rats and mice. o-Nitrotoluene is used as an intermediate in the preparation of azo dyes and other dyes, including magenta and various sulfur dyes for cotton, wool, silk, leather, and paper. It is also used in preparing agricultural chemicals, rubber chemicals, pesticides, petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals, and explosives. Workers in the United States are likely exposed to o-nitrotoluene through the skin or from breathing it during production and use. o-Nitrotoluene has also been detected in air and water near facilities that produce munitions, and near military training facilities.

Riddelliine has been found to cause cancer of the blood vessels in rats and mice, leukemia and liver cancer in rats, and lung tumors in mice. This botanical should not be confused with the drug Ritalin, prescribed for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Riddelliine is found in certain plants of the genus Senecio, a member of the daisy family, grown in sandy areas in the western United States and other parts of the world. Some common names for Senecio plants are ragwort and groundsel. Riddelliine-containing plants are not used for food in the United States, and have no known commercial uses. However, at least 13 Senecio species have been identified that are used in herbal medicines or possibly as food in other parts of the world. Exposure in humans could result from eating or drinking herbal medicine or teas, honey, or foods contaminated by parts of Senecio plants or after consuming products from animals that have fed on the plants.

Styrene is on the list based on human cancer studies, laboratory animal studies, and mechanistic scientific information. The limited evidence of cancer from studies in humans shows lymphohematopoietic cancer and genetic damage in the white blood cells, or lymphocytes, of workers exposed to styrene. Styrene is a synthetic chemical used worldwide in the manufacture of products such as rubber, plastic, insulation, fiberglass, pipes, automobile parts, food containers, and carpet backing. People may be exposed to styrene by breathing indoor air that has styrene vapors from building materials, tobacco smoke, and other products. The greatest exposure to styrene in the general population is through cigarette smoking. Workers in certain occupations may potentially be exposed to much higher levels of styrene than the general population.

The Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition, is prepared by the National Toxicology Program, an interagency program headquartered at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, part of the National Institutes of Health.

- -

The NTP was established in 1978. The program was created as a cooperative effort to coordinate toxicology testing programs within the federal government, strengthen the science base in toxicology, develop and validate improved testing methods, and provide information about potentially toxic chemicals to health, regulatory, and research agencies, scientific and medical communities, and the public. The NTP is headquartered at the NIEHS. For more information about the NTP, visit http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov.

NIEHS supports research to understand the effects of the environment on human health and is part of NIH. For more information on environmental health topics, visit  http://www.niehs.nih.gov.

About the National Institutes of Health (NIH): NIH, the nation’s medical research agency, includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIH is the primary federal agency conducting and supporting basic, clinical, and translational medical research, and is investigating the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases.

Related Articles:

• Norway proposes to prohibit four hazardous substances in consumer products
• Submissions sought on Review of Organophosphate Insecticide Dichlorvos
• United Nations urged to ban Mercury Fillings

Drinking water polluted with toxic industrial chemical

The DuPont Company has agreed to pay $8.3 million to install water filters in nearly 5,000 southern New Jersey homes whose tap water is polluted with the toxic industrial chemical perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), also known as C8.

E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company settled a class action lawsuit brought by residents of Penns Grove, N.J., who charged that their drinking water had been polluted by perfluorochemicals, including C8, emitted from the company’s Chambers Works facility.

The chemical C8 is a member of a family of synthetic industrial substances called perfluorochemicals, which do not break down in the environment and which pollute drinking water and source water in at least 11 states, according to limited investigations by state water agencies, academic scientists, businesses and journalists.

A byproduct of the manufacture of fluorotelomers, used for stain-repellent textile coatings, non-stick cookware and water and grease-resistant coatings, C8 has been widely found in people and the environment, due to unregulated industrial discharges and leaching from consumer goods and landfills.

Environmental Working Group has campaigned for eight years to restrict perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a likely human carcinogen, endocrine-disrupting chemical and reproductive toxin that for 50 years.

“For years, thousands of people who live in southern New Jersey have been drinking water polluted with the toxic industrial chemical C8,” EWG senior scientist Olga Naidenko, Ph.D. said. “DuPont has disregarded public health by waiting for a federal court order before providing the community with filtered water. “

On February 1, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed a nationwide plan to require water utilities to test drinking water for 28 contaminants currently unregulated by federal law, including C8 and five other perfluorinated chemicals.

“EPA’s decision to test for C8 in water supplies nationwide is a step in the right direction,” Naidenko said. “We cannot afford to delay protecting Americans from this dangerous chemical any longer.”

-

Literature:

EWG, DuPont to pay $8.3 Million, March 21, 2011

EWG is a nonprofit research organization based in Washington, DC that uses the power of information to protect human health and the environment and can be found at www.ewg.org

New articles examine safety

“We need to be concerned that some of these billion people may eventually develop cancer as a result of the radiation exposure”

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has begun to use whole-body imaging scanners as a primary screening measure on travelers passing through airport security checkpoints. One type of scanner employs millimeter wave technology, which delivers no ionizing radiation. However, the second type of scanner currently deployed at airports uses backscatter X-rays that expose the individual being screened to very low levels of ionizing radiation. In the April issue of Radiology, two articles address the question of what potential long-term public health threats, if any, these backscatter X-ray systems pose.

In the first article, David J. Brenner, Ph.D., D.Sc., director of the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University Medical Center in New York, N.Y., proposes that from a public health policy perspective, given that up to one billion such scans per year are now possible in the U.S, we should have concerns about the long-term consequences of an extremely large number of people being exposed to a potential radiation-induced cancer risk, no matter how slight.

“The risks for any individual going through the X-ray backscatter scanners are exceedingly small,” Dr. Brenner said. “However, if all air travelers are going to be screened this way, then we need to be concerned that some of these billion people may eventually develop cancer as a result of the radiation exposure from the X-ray scanners.”

In the second article, David A. Schauer, Sc.D., C.H.P., executive director of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), argues that the summation of negligible average risks over large populations or time periods into a single value produces a distorted image of risk that is out of perspective with risks accepted every day, both voluntarily and involuntarily.

“There is no scientific basis to support the notion that a small risk to an individual changes in any way for that individual as others around him are also exposed to the same source of radiation,” he said. “Critics of security screening acknowledge that doses from backscatter X-ray systems are very low and safe for an individual.”

Dr. Schauer advocates strict regulatory control of the backscatter scanners in order to ensure that their use is consistent with the goals and objectives of radiation protection, which include justification (benefits exceed cost or harm), optimization (exposures are kept as low as reasonably achievable) and limitation (individual doses are limited).

“Any decision that alters the radiation exposure situation should do more good than harm,” Dr. Schauer said. “In other words, people should only be exposed to ionizing radiation for security screening purposes when a threat exists that can be detected and for which appropriate actions can be taken. In addition, exposures must be justified and optimized.”

Both Dr. Brenner and Dr. Schauer agree that the scanners using millimeter wave technology should be considered as a first option, since they are similar in cost and functionality to the backscatter machines, but do not expose the passenger to ionizing radiation. However, they also say that the average traveler should not be overly concerned about being screened with the backscatter scanners.

“As someone who travels just occasionally, I would have no hesitation in going through the X-ray backscatter scanner,” Dr. Brenner said. “Super frequent fliers or airline personnel, who might go through the machine several hundred times each year, might wish to opt for pat-downs. The more scans you have, the more your risks may go up—but the individual risks are always going to be very, very small.”

NCRP has recommended that backscatter X-ray systems adhere to an effective dose of 0.1 microsieverts (µSv) or less of ionizing radiation per scan, which roughly equates to the radiation exposure each passenger receives in under two minutes on the plane while flying at 30,000 feet. The average person in the U.S. receives an effective dose of about 3 millisieverts (3,000 µSv) per year from naturally occurring radioactive materials and cosmic radiation from outer space.

Author:

Radiological Society of North America, New articles examine safety of airport security scanners, Oak Brook, March 16, 2011

Literature:

• “Are X-ray Backscatter Scanners Safe for Airport Passenger Screening? For Most Individuals, Probably Yes, but a Billion Scans per Year Raises Long-Term Public Health Concerns.” David J. Brenner, Ph.D., D.Sc.
• “Does Security Screening with Backscatter X-rays Do More Good than Harm?” David A. Schauer, Sc.D., C.H.P.
• Radiology is edited by Herbert Y. Kressel, M.D., Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass., and owned and published by the Radiological Society of North America, Inc. (http://radiology.rsna.org/)
• RSNA is an association of more than 46,000 radiologists, radiation oncologists, medical physicists and related scientists committed to excellence in patient care through education and research. The Society is based in Oak Brook, Ill. (RSNA.org)
• For consumer-friendly information on radiation safety, visit RadiologyInfo.org.