cancer - The Environment Report

PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM TAINTED FISH (Part II)

The people most at risk from contaminants in fish often don’t know it. Different chemicals found in fish from many inland lakes, including the Great Lakes, can be harmful to human development. State governments issue fish consumption advisories that recommend limiting eating such fish. In the second of a two-part series on contaminants in fish… the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports that not everyone learns of the advisories:

Transcript

The people most at risk from contaminants in fish often don’t know it.
Different chemicals found in fish from many inland lakes, including the
Great Lakes, can be harmful to human development. State governments
issue fish consumption advisories that recommend limiting
eating such fish. In the second of a two part series on contaminants in
fish… the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports that not
everyone learns of the advisories:

Horace Phillips likes to fish. He can often be found casting a line into a
lagoon off of Lake Michigan on Chicago’s south side. He says he and a lot of
his fishing buddies know about the fish consumption advisories, but he doesn’t
think he eats enough to matter…

“Sure, it’s always good to know, but, as I say, I’m not consuming that much fish.”

That’s because Phillips gives away much of the fish he catches. Like a lot of
anglers, he enjoys the sport, and shares what he catches with friends and
relatives. He doesn’t remember getting a fishing guide when he got his fishing
license, but the retailer was supposed to give him one. It not only outlines limits
on the amount of fish an angler can take, but also includes recommendations
on how much fish he should eat in a given month.

But Phillips says he thinks he learned about fish contaminants from the
newspaper. He never really thought about passing on the warning to people
with whom he shares his fish.

“I suppose the same literature that’s available to me is also available to them.”

But often the people who prepare the fish or who eat the fish don’t have a
clue that there’s anything wrong with the fish.

We should note here that fish is nutritious. It’s a good low-fat, lower calorie
source of protein. Eating fish instead of higher-fat and cholesterol laden foods
is believed to help lower the risk of heart disease, high blood pressure,
diabetes and several forms of cancer. Pretty good food, fish.

But some fish contain PCBs – polychlorinated biphenyls – believed to cause
cancer. Chlordane, a pesticide, has been found in fish. And methyl mercury is
found in some fish. These chemicals can cause serious health problems,
especially for children and fetuses. They can disrupt the systems that
coordinate the nervous system, the brain, and the reproductive system.

Studies have shown women store some of these chemicals in their
fat tissue until they become pregnant. Then, those chemicals are passed
to the child they’re carrying. Studies have indicated that of mothers
who ate three or more fish meals a month, those with the highest exposure
gave birth to children with health problems.

They had significant delays in neuromuscular and neurological development.
Those children continued to show short-term memory problems at age four… and
significant reduction in IQ and academic skills at age seven.

Barbara Knuth is a professor of Natural Resource Policy and Management at
Cornell University. She says given the health concerns with eating too much contaminated fish, the information about restrictions needs to be more widely distributed.

“Where we need to focus effort now is not so much on the angler, but we need to be focusing
on the people with whom they’re sharing those fish, the women, their wives, mothers
of childbearing age, women of childbearing age, children, because that’s where we now know,
scientists now know – who are studying this – where the real health effects are.”

But where to start? After all, the fish might come from a friend… it might be at the deli… it could be on the plate at a local restaurant. There are no rules requiring a notice that fish is from a lake, or the ocean, or farm-raised. So, how do you get the word out?

One federal agency is working to get the information to those at highest risk by going through their doctor. Steve Blackwell is with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

“We’ve taken on trying to reach health care providers that are serving the target
population, the most at-risk population of women, children, pregnant women and reach those
groups such as OBGYNs, family physicians, pediatricians with this information to help raise
awareness within that group that serves the at-risk population to try and make sure that they’re receiving the message and they’re not telling their patients something different from what the patients may be hearing outside that realm.”

Whether the doctors are actually passing on the concerns about contaminated fish is a
whole other question. But assuming they are, there’s still another concern. Many of the women who are most at risk might not see a doctor until the day the baby is due. Poor women… the very same women who might rely on fishing for a good part of their diet… might not be told
about the risks.

And so their children are born into poverty… and the added burden of chemicals that can hurt their development. Blackwell says reaching those women is something the federal government cannot do alone.

“You want to reach those people through local leaders, through churches, through
institutions that aren’t medical.”

And that’s best done, Blackwell says, by local government, not the federal
government. But state budgets are strapped. And, in some cases, states are
reluctant to raise awareness of an issue that they really can’t fix. A source within
a state agency told us that an higher-ranking official indicated to
him that he didn’t want to assign a full-time person to work on fish contamination
awareness alone because it would send the wrong political message. Another state stopped publishing fish consumption advisories as a budget cutting move… that is… until local reporters exposed that particular budget cut.

In short, warning pregnant women and women of childbearing age about the dangers of
eating too much contaminated fish and how that could damage their children’s
intellectual and physical development has not gotten enough attention yet to become a
political priority.

For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

States Stock Up for Nuclear Emergencies

Four Great Lakes states are stocking up on special cancer-prevention pills that are supposed to protect people who live near nuclear power plants, in case there’s a major leak of radiation. Ohio is the latest. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Bill Cohen has the story:

Transcript

Four Great Lakes states are stocking up on special cancer-prevention
pills that are supposed to protect people who live near nuclear power
plants, in case there’s a major leak of radiation. Ohio is the latest.
Bill Cohen has the story:

The pills contain potassium iodide and the federal government has
agreed to pay for them. The idea is, if people swallow this harmless
iodine just before they’re exposed to radioactivity, their thyroid
glands won’t absorb much dangerous radioactive iodine. That way, the
chances of getting thyroid cancer go down.

Ohio has just packaged 600,000 pills for evacuation centers near
the three nuclear power plants that serve the state. Next year, pills
will be available to residents to pick up directly, so they can keep
them in their medicine cabinet at home or their desk drawer at work.

Still, health officials stress in an emergency, evacuation – not
the pills – should be the top priority. Jay Carey speaks for the state
health department.

“If they’re ordered to evacuate, they should leave first. Don’t even turn
around and go back – ‘Oh, I left my pills in the medicine cabinet, I’ll
go get ’em.’ If you’re told to evacuate, evacuate!”

New York and Pennsylvania are also stocking up on the pills the feds
are paying for. Illinois is buying its own supply.

For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Bill Cohen.

Cleanup on Mohawk Tribal Land

St. Regis Mohawks used to fish and swim in this cove of the St. Lawrence River. Today, it's contaminated with PCBs from General Motors' landfill, which rises in the background. Photo by David Sommerstein.

The federal government has identified almost 50 toxic landfills that continue to contaminate the Great Lakes and their major tributaries. Thousands more may pollute smaller creeks and rivers upstream. Almost all of them have affected the way people live. In northern New York, General Motors and a native tribe have spent two decades fighting over how to clean up one of those sites. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s David Sommerstein reports… the lack of progress is caused by differing approaches to a permanent solution:

Transcript

Dana Lee Thompson and her sister, Marilyn, walk along the St. Lawrence River. They teeter as they step over driftwood and tufts of grass. This part of the shoreline belongs to the St. Regis Mohawk tribe.

When the sisters were kids, they used to splash and play in the river. Their father landed walleye and bass for dinner. And when the sisters had children of their own, this is where they taught them to swim…

“…it’s all flat rocks and stuff like that…”

“…And just down there, there used to be a tiny little falls and it was all sand and we used to swim.”

Thompson brushes her long black hair out of her eyes. The smile fades from her face…

“Never knew that what we were swimming in was one of the most toxic things, y’know, toxic pools.”

Just on the other side of a chain link fence that marks the end of tribal land, a hill rises above their heads. Its grass is cut short like the tenth green on a golf course.

It’s General Motors’ old landfill. Drums of used factory oil are buried just under the manicured lawn. The oil contains PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls. PCBs were used as a coolant in many factories until scientists found they cause cancer.

The federal government banned PCBs in 1977. A couple years later, workers covered the landfill with a temporary cap. But the PCBs had already seeped into the water where the sisters’ kids were swimming…

“I get emotionally disturbed. Mental anguish. Anger. My children have a lot of health problems, which gets me upset.”

The sisters aren’t alone. Tribal members who have grown up near the dump have high rates of thyroid disease, diabetes, and respiratory disorders – all suspected to be linked to PCBs. The Thompsons – and the tribal government – want General Motors to dig up the chemicals. And they want GM to truck them away…

“We’re just looking out over the cove. These are some homes and businesses of the Mohawks and to our right is the industrial landfill.”

Jim Hartnett stands on the GM side of the chain link fence. He’s managing the clean up for the company. He says the Environmental Protection Agency ordered GM to do three things: put a permanent cap on the landfill, monitor it for PCBs indefinitely, and dredge the PCBs from the river.

Hartnett says GM has wanted to move ahead with that plan for a decade. He says that would make the water clean again…

“My hope is that as we complete this clean-up, that people will come and use the cove and that it will be accessible and that people will be comfortable using it.”

David: “Do you think it’s realistic that within our lifetimes that the cove could be used for swimming?”

“I’m hoping that in the next two years we can have it ready to go. I’m not talking within our lifetime, I’m talking about as soon as we get access to that cove, we want to go in and remedy it.”

But the tribe won’t give them access. The St. Regis Mohawks say cleaning the cove isn’t the right answer. Ken Jock, the tribe’s environment director, has technical concerns with the plan.

But in the end, Jock says, the disagreement is more than technical. The tribe sees environmental cleanups differently. The EPA plans 30 to 50 years ahead. But the Mohawk tradition is to plan seven generations ahead…

“And so when you make a decision to clean up or to cover up at a site, you have to think is this area, are the PCBs going to be contained for the next 250 years. We have to think that way because this is the only land that we have left.”

The EPA wants everyone to stand behind the same solution. Anne Kelly is the EPA project manager of the site. She has commissioned more technical studies to try to prove the containment plan won’t poison the river in the future. She’s reassured the tribe the dump will be monitored in perpetuity.

“But that’s where we get into a sort of difficulty between our interpretation of time and the tribes. They don’t trust that we’re always going to be here, you know, that the EPA as it stands will not be what it is now. But they know they’re going to be there. So we say, ‘we’re going to monitor that forever’. They say, ‘you may not be here forever. Where are our guarantees?’ ”

Meanwhile, traces of PCBs are still leeching into the river. But the St. Regis Mohawks’ Ken Jock says he’ll wait on a clean up if it will ensure clean water and healthy fish for his grandchildren’s grandchildren.

For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m David Sommerstein.

Voters Love the Lakes

The Michigan Legislature voted recently to ban new oil and gas drilling under the Great Lakes. Until the ban was enacted, Michigan had been the only state considering to allow such drilling. As the nation heads into a new round of federal, state, and local elections, Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Cameron Davis says that the region’s drilling debate provides some invaluable lessons for candidates:

Transcript

The Michigan legislature voted recently to ban new oil and gas drilling under the Great Lakes. Until now, it had been the major holdout on such a ban. As the nation heads into a new round of federal, state, and local elections, Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Cameron Davis says that the region’s drilling debate provides some invaluable lessons for candidates.

The first lesson to our future leaders is to beware of one element of news “spin”- that if you repeat something long enough it will become true. In pressing their case, oil and gas interests said that drilling would not result in oil bubbling up to pollute Great Lakes water. As a result, they repeated, drilling was quote -“safe.” They failed to listen, however, to citizens troubled by something different: oil and toxic hydrogen sulfide leaks on land that could put human health and fragile coasts at risk. Given the small amount of oil and gas below the lakes, citizens said drilling wasn’t worth it. So, we get to lesson number one: Our future leaders should define public safety and environmental health broadly, not so narrowly that they gloss over legitimate concerns.

Lesson number 2: the debate was as much about the need for states to be credible leaders in natural resource protection as it was about drilling itself. The Lake Michigan Federation looked at 30 active wells in Michigan and found that eight of them had in fact contaminated water supplies. According to the same research, state oversight continues to fail in the clean up of any of those sites. In the drilling debate, citizens believed that without responsive agency action, the only way to prevent similar damage from shoreline drilling was to prohibit the practice in the first place. Congress responded to citizens’ concerns over the summer by suspending new drilling for two years. Candidates can take away from this that if states don’t want Congress stepping on their toes, they need to do a credible job themselves of protecting the Great Lakes.

Last, pro-drilling interests argued during the debate that other serious challenges besides drilling deserved more attention. While concerned citizens believed that a drilling ban was the best way to prevent new shoreline damage, advocates also agree that a number of other important threats need to be addressed. The third moral of the story is that people’s interest in protecting the Great Lakes environment from drilling is the beginning, not the end.

It’s time to move onto other pressing threats such as harmful water diversions in an increasingly thirsty world. We need to prevent future invasions of foreign pest species like the zebra mussel that throw the multi-billion dollar Great Lakes fishery out of whack. With women of childbearing age and other sensitive populations unable to eat certain fish because of contamination, it’s time to eliminate cancer-causing and other pollution once and for all. And, it’s time to restore fish and wildlife habitat, including the region’s precious wetlands, forests, and sand dunes.

Voters love the Great Lakes. Because of that, whoever commits first in upcoming elections to protect them, wins.

Stocking Up on Nuke Accident Pills

The federal government is offering to buy special anti-cancer pills for people who live near nuclear power plants. There are 24 nuclear power plants in the Great Lakes states… and state officials are now pondering whether to accept the offer. In Ohio, the debate reflects the pro and con arguments across the region. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Bill Cohen has details:

Epa’s Dioxin Report Flawed?

Within the next few weeks the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency is scheduled to release a controversial report on the health
effects
of dioxin. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports…
some scientists think the draft of the report is flawed:

Scientists Push for Tougher Arsenic Standards

Groundwater in some Great Lakes states has been found to meet or exceed
acceptable levels of naturally occurring arsenic. Growing concern about
the health effects of arsenic consumption recently prompted the U-S
Academy of Sciences to recommend that the federal government create more
stringent standards for human consumption of arsenic. The Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Marisa Helms has the story:

Cancer Research Misses the Big Picture

The year that Richard Nixon declared the war on cancer in 1971, the U-S
spent 170 million dollars on cancer research. This year, that
figure will top 3 billion. Despite this dramatic increase in funding,
cancer rates continue to rise. As Great Lakes Radio Consortium
commentator Suzanne Elston has discovered, the answer may lie in where
we are spending our cancer dollars:

Casting for Recovery

When a woman is diagnosed with breast cancer, she often feelsisolated. That’s why so many breast cancer survivors turn to supportgroups. Most are in church basements or classrooms. But the GreatLakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly visited a group that seeks solaceoutside – on the banks of a trout stream.

Algae: The Missing PCB Link?

Toxic chemicals known as P-C-B’s haven’t been used in the U.S. for morethan two decades. But dangerous levels of P-C-B’s remain in the naturalenvironment and pose a threat to human health. To address this problem,scientists are trying to understand how these chemicals get into thefood chain. Now, a scientist at Northwestern University has found alikely answer. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Steve Frenkelreports: