I suffer from multiple chemical and food intolerances that have undermined my health for years. I have migraines, myofascial pain syndrome and fibromyalgia, all, I believe, the result of these various sensitivities. I am the veritable "canary in the mine," the bird that warns miners of danger. My sensitivies are, I think, warnings of things to come.
So I was very interested to read a study released today that says: "Unborn U.S. babies are soaking in a stew of chemicals, including mercury, gasoline byproducts and pesticides..."
New York Rep. Louise Slaughter, who has posted here frequently, plans to hold a news conference today to publicize these findings. The article quotes her as saying:
If ever we had proof that our nation's pollution laws aren't working, it's reading the list of industrial chemicals in the bodies of babies who have not yet lived outside the womb
The study was done using cord blood which reflects what substances pass from the mother to the unborn baby. A startling 287 chemicals were detected in the cord blood and 180 of those are known cancer-causing agents.
Among the chemicals found in the cord blood were methylmercury, produced by coal-fired power plants and certain industrial processes. People can breathe it in or eat it in seafood and it causes brain and nerve damage.
Also found were polyaromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs, which are produced by burning gasoline and garbage and which may cause cancer; flame-retardant chemicals called polybrominated dibenzodioxins and furans; and pesticides including DDT and chlordane.
When I read studies such as this, I get angry. If I am already feeling the health effects of pollution and chemical overload, what does that predict for my grandchildren who are as yet unborn? Conservatives and even the religious right fight the most basic efforts to control the pollution of our environment and the use of unsafe chemicals in our daily lives. Do they think that their children and grandchildren can be protected from damage?
I am reminded of a statement made by Robert Kennedy, Jr. in his book "Crimes Against Nature." He said that he had his own blood tested for mercury. When he got the results back, the physician said (I'm going from memory here), "If a pregnant woman had mercury levels this high, she would give birth to a damaged baby." Kennedy responded, "You mean she MIGHT have a damaged baby?" No, the doctor said, at levels as high as his, he could say with some certainty that a woman would give birth to a damaged baby. So, if someone with the resources of Robert Kennedy can't protect himself from high mercury levels, what makes the conservatives working to take apart the EPA think their lives will be spared?
A diary was posted earlier today on the incidence of autism and the possible influence of the mercury-based medium used in many vaccinations. This connection is controversial among the medical profession because the empirical data that is collected never statistically documents a cause and effect relationship between the mercury and autism. But, what researchers fail to acknowledge is that not everyone is equally affected by pollutants and chemicals. My husband and I live in the same environment -- the highly polluted area of northern Ohio -- and he is perfectly healthy with no obvious environmentally driven health problems while I react to everything. Obviously, there is a genetic factor at play.
Many recent polls have indicated that the issue of health care costs and health coverage has risen to the top of our national priority list. I hope that the inevitable national discussion about national health care policy acknowledges the heavy influence of the insidious pollution that we encounter in our daily lives. In my opinion, if something isn't done to alter the path we are on, we may be facing an expensive explosion of environmental illness