AngryToxicologist is a scientist in the public health sector, knows plenty about toxicology, and is occasionally angry about it all. Drop me a line at tox@angrytoxicologist.com.
Any money I would have gotten from writing this blog is donated to the National Capital Poison Control Center. They rely on grants, save lives, and decrease health care costs. So read this blog every day!
Maybe, but you should certainly avoid deli meats for the listeria (If you follow through that link and read you'll know why). This isn't an abstract risk, Listeria out breaks are happening all the time (just ask a Canuck how their year went). Let's not go down that road and get back to the nitrates.
Nitrates can convert to nitrites in your gut if you have high pH. If you're normal almost all of the nitrates are not converted or absorbed into your body. Now, there's no good way to tell if you have a high pH gut so you're going to have to assume that you do. So, these converted nitrites get absorbed and do one of two things: they form N-nitrosamines which are cancer causing agents, or they latch on to hemaglobin to form methemoglobinemia, a condition that makes it so your blood can't carry oxygen around. When you're pregnant, you're worried about the second issue.
How that lack of oxygen leads to the effects nitrates are known for is unknown. Perhaps it through a different pathway. Regardless, from animal studies, we know that nitrate, nitrite, and N-nitroso compounds cross the placenta. Methemoglobin probably can't after the 4th month or so but this doesn't ease the problem of low oxygen delivery to the placenta.
The most consistent finding from nitrates is that of spontaneous abortion. This occurs in some studies at as little as 2.5mg/kg in not in others and seems to be about the break point. A pregnant rat is roughly 200 g or little under so that's about 0.5 mg/day for a rat. To convert to an equivalent human dose toxicologists (good ones anyway) use a mg/m^2 basis. So 2.5 mg/kg is about 15 mg/m^2 in a rat; 15 mg/m^2 in a human is about 24 mg/day for an average person. The amount of nitrates in meats has gone down quite a bit over the past couple years and meats have between 6-20 mg/kg of nitrate so you'd have to eat over a kg of a highly perserved meat (like salami for instance) to get close to this.
You can see where I'm going with this: if you eat a small amount of food with nitrates once in a while you're fine but it's a good idea to generally avoid them. Interestingly enough, most of your nitrate intake comes from really healthy things like dark green veggies that you need to keep eating especially while pregnant (although a daily spinach salad may be overboard). All things in moderation. Oh, one more thing. If you eat a lot of vitamin C with the nitrates, it reduces the amount that's converted to nitrites.
There is a better way.
Don't want high nitrates or listeria? Do what I do: make your own! Last year I posted on my favorite breakfast sausage recipie, and you can make your own small hams and bacon and use very little or no nitrates. An excellent source is Charcuterie (I've got their breakfast sausage beat, though). The thing about making your own sausage is that it tastes much, much better, you'll enjoy the product even more (and likely the process too), but best of all, you'll end up eating less because you recognize the work that went into it and will view these cured meats as the treats they are.
The evidence BPA (bisphenol A) is having toxic effects on humans is becoming more and more solid. Just recently a paper in JAMA found BPA may be associated heart disease and other probelms in humans. Other research has shown possible association with metabolic disorders (one thing I didn't note in the second post is that the two studies reinforce each other with the metabolic findings like diabetes). Furthermore, the FDA's own panel called FDA's okey-dokie/industry-studies-only assessment of BPA flawed and it was announced yesterday that the FDA has called a do-over.
Therefore, it may surprise you to know that there exist (and have existed for a while), FDA-approved alternative coatings as Chemical and Engineering News reports. Why aren't they being used? From the C&EN article it seems that the simple reason that BPA is still being used is that you would have to use different coating for different applications (gasp!) as opposed to the one-toxic-chemical-fits-all approach.
Sigh...
PS Reading the C&EN article, you now have another reason to buy the 'fresh' sauerkraut or make your own.
PPS Can a fermented product be classified as fresh? That doesn't seem right to AT.
Don't go to the ER.
So yesterday I was excersizing relatively strenously and after about 40 minutes I started to have some chest pain on the left side along with tightness in my neck and shoulder. Hmmm...good time to stop. It wasn't really severe so I took a shower but the tightness and some pain remained but decided to head home as it was likely just some pectoral strain. Then I realized that if I heard about me, I'd call me stupid so I thought I should go to the hospital just in case. Well, that was the dumb idea. I was directed to an urgent care: "You'll get seen right away, but in ER, unless you've lost a limb, are unconcious or got shot it'll probably be 6-8 hrs". How sad a statement is that? (The IOM agrees) I got the picture and went to an urgent care and got seen within 20 mins plus it was probably cheaper for my insurance. (I'm fine by the way, they also think some chest muscles are spasming). Today, I'm feeling fine, eating a doughnut, but exasperated with ERs to the point of laughing.
The Gov from Illinois
You've all heard of this but I implore you to read the transcript if you haven't. It's just way too good. (the first part is dull, you've got to get to the wire tapped stuff). Rod isn't stepping down (just like you don't name your daughter Candy if you don't want her to be a stripper, you don't name your son Rod if you don't want him to be a mafia hit man, foulmouthed corrupt pol, or crack-showing plumber). Why isn't he stepping down? He doesn't say. I've been trying to contemplate his possible defenses.
1) I was rehersing for a play called "Rod Blagojevich sells his soul and Illinois down the river".
2) My wife made me do it (reading the transcript this may be 10% true).
3) Um, isn't that how politics work, you [expletive] [expletive]?
4) Do your worst, my hair will protect me.
Others?
Weekly Aural Pleasure
Yes, it's Mr Scruff again. I love his music and find his videos...um, charming is the word I think I want. The pear dance at 2:31 especially makes me smile. Happy Friday.
PS That's the wonderful Alice Russell on vocals in case you're curious.
Overall, a prediction accuracy of about 82% was achieved, which is only a little lower than was obtained during the validation of the local lymph node assay (LLNA) (NIH, 1999), although some might be concerned by the failure of this in vitro system to detect almost 20% of the sensitizers. The authors address this issue by invoking the conduct of complementary assays, such as peptide binding or in silico methods. For example, an example of a chemical class that is not well predicted is aldehydes, where the possibility of employing an existing predictive Quantitative structure activity relationships is suggested. Of course, such devices are most easily implemented for chemicals where we already know what the answer should be, whereas the most critical assessment is for new substances where we do not already know the answers.
Preach on. With out huge and complete data sets we are only training a system to catch stuff we only know about. A reply (not by the authors of the critiqued article) that was published this month contains, among other arguments, the argument that boils down to, "Hey, it actually works near 100% of the time for the right chemical classes". Now, I get their point, that it could be restricted for use in those classes but that's not really where the need or the problem exists for alternative animal testing. We need something that's comprehensive. Beyond that they say that you could use other models, structure/activity models (QSAR), for the classes that don't work. But, that's why they're trying to develop in vitro tests in the first place! Because QSAR doesn't work well enough! I'll end by saying, 'keep trying guys and gals!' and echoing the statements of Dr Basketter in his reply to the reply:
I note an accusation of pessimism and I would simply respond that generally speaking, a pessimist is merely a well-informed optimist.
You've probably heard that a F/A-18D jet crashed in San Diego on approach to Miramar, killing 3 on the ground (the pilot ejected and is fine). A lot of the news reports noted that ~20 homes were evacuated due to 'toxic chemicals'. What sort of chemicals would you be worried about?
First Responders and Bystanders
Beyond the physical hazards (things under pressure like hydraulics, O2 canisters,...etc), there's all kinds of stuff to worry about like fuel, oils, hydraulic fluids, beryllium, lithium, chromium, mercury, and possibly radioactive compounds. But the biggest hazard is simply the burning of Advanced Composite Materials (ACM). According to the military, aircraft can contain anywhere from about 175-33,000 lbs of ACM. Upon burning, a lot of these Advanced Composite Materials release lots of carbon monoxide (obviously), nitrous oxides, sulfur dioxide, and hydrogen cyanide. An air craft explosion could produce these chemicals above levels that would kill you in short order as long as the temp was above 300 deg F. The F-18 has a lot of Graphite-epoxy ACM which is probably better short term than if an Apache helicopter crashed due to the kevlar/graphite-epoxy used on that aircraft. So, in short, you're most worried about death from CO or cyanide poisoning. After that you'd worry about the more exotic stuff, but it's not likely that you'd be exposed to this junk after the crash so it's not as big of a concern.
Clean-up crew
The Clean-up crew would have to think about all the exotic chemicals abounding but would not have to worry so much about the CO/NO/SO/CN issues. They would, however, have to worry about all the respirable fibers that may be floating around due to the ACM. Particularly troubling are the boron-epoxies since they are able to penetrate protection to some degree. These fibers cause long-lasting harm if inhaled in sufficient amounts.
Bonus explainer: How do you respond to an aviation crash?
If we're talking about you the citizen, the answer is to stay inside, close all windows, doors or other air intakes and wait for instruction. If you're talking about the responders, they evacuate the area around the crash and smoke plume, and cool the crash site down while trying not to break apart the plane further with high pressure. They do not use aircraft (such as helicopters) around a crash because it disperses the chemicals downward and in an unpredictable manner. Once they've identified the immediate hazards (always using proper industrial hygiene, of course), they spray a fixicant like acrylic floor wax over the crash to keep fibers and chemicals where they are.
The EPA held a "Public Workshop to Discuss Management of Underground Injection of Carbon Dioxide for Geologic Sequestration Under the Safe Drinking Water Act" last week. I've talked about this issue before here. This process continues to not get the attention it deserves as it may drastically effect drinking water quality. The workshop is a decent look at part of the 'sausage making' process so here are some random thoughts (the quotes aren't quotes, they're paraphrased but I blockquoted them for clarity).
EPA:
We can regulate the injection but can't use the Safe Drinking Water Act to regulate indirect risks to drinking water.
Isn't it nice when they just come out and tell you they can't protect drinking water? I find this refreshing. And yes, I RO the drinking water in my house.
EPA:
Maybe the states can do it!
Punting when you're down by 40 rarely saves the game.
Dude for BP:
Very pure CO2 is needed for injection. CO2 is ~15% out of the stack so it will take a lot of energy to purify it.
So we need to produce more energy to clean up the energy we are producing. How's the view from down the rabbit hole? Also, does this remind anyone else of using ethanol for fuel?
Mutiple people:
CO2 wont necessarily contaminate ground water.
Well, I feel better.
Panelist (I think AWWA):
We may need even currently non-potable water in the future (I think he was refering to salty water in the west) and we should be careful about putting CO2 near any areas that might be used in the future.
Didn't you hear the EPA? We can't protect water! It's not like it's a precious resource or anything. Kudos.
Panelists (now using brains):
Speaking of salty water, wont the high pressure injections make salt leach into current water sources making them non-potable?
Other panelists (not using brains; or using them for evil):
You don't know that. Maybe good things, like better water, will be leached in.
Yeah, that's the way it always works. Someone injects some crap into your ground water and you've got better water and less cancer. It's like that hcivokcorB nirE movie.
Mitigation is actually pretty easy. Just decrease the pressure.
Hey, that's actually some good news. Does it make me too cynical to admit that I don't really believe it can be that easy?
Group discussions:
It seems that some drinking water will be contaminated no matter what.
Um, what about earthquakes
Who takes care of a mess once the injection is done?
I'm going to stop here but to give you an overall sense for what these things are like: Everybody seems to think that there are a lot of reasons for not allowing this to go forward, but the very fact that there is a process almost assuredly means it's going forward in some manner. It's like an avalanche, it's quite possible you could divert it the smallest bit by massive amounts of work, but it's going to the bottom of the hill whether you like it or not. A couple of times people mentioned that someone should weigh the risks of injected CO2 to the risks of keeping it in the air. Although no friend to global warming, it seems pretty stupid to inject it. But it sounds cool, so let's just go with the flow.
I was discussing with some friends last night what I think is the most important item on Obama's adgena. Getting working on the Daylight bailout. We were saving daylight hours all summer long. I presume all those hours went into some daylight bank. But now, we find ourselves in a daylight credit crisis; the winter solstice being very stingy with it's daylight. However, it seems that all the hours we saved are nowhere to be found - likely a daylight bank failure. I propose that the government bail us dark-dwelling denizens out and then make sure it never happens again by creating an daylight savings deposit insurance similar to the FDIC. Please contact your representitive immediately.
Repeal Day!
On December 5th, 1933, the 21st admendment was ratified, which allowed all right thinking citizens to partake in a short one (read more here). I'll celebrate tonight with a pear sidecar. I had one last night with ginger but I prefer it like this:
4 parts pear brandy
2 parts pear juice or nectar (preferably non-sweetened
1 part lemon juice
1 part simple syrup (if your pear juice is sweetened, omit this syrup which is equal parts sugar and water heated till disolved)
2 thin slices of fresh pear as garnish
Mix in cocktail shaker and pour into a martini glass.
Like you need more blogs to read. But, seriously you can't miss this.
Two Indian guys, Rinku Singh, 20, and Dinesh Kumar Patel, 19, were signed by the Pirates. They won a competition called the "Million Dollar Arm". They are blogging about their experience in the US and it's a funny, insightful, and heartwarming read. Take this from their Thanksgiving experience:
The choices of foods was crazy. Everyone is just stuffing their heads. I like sweet potato pie. Very tasty. All the people were very nice to us and we have a good time.
Dinesh and I still not understand why they have this festival, but it is good for eating.
I think he understands better than he thinks (stuffing ourselves in pleasant company is probably as good a reason as giving thanks). Also, one of my favorites from when Rinku cut his hand:
I reeled at the bill they produced for some simple bandaging and a tetanus shot. 300 bucks! It's whooping. They took me to the emergency room for such a clear-cut case (pun intended). I didn't get any meds and neither did they do anything to ease the pain. To put salt to injury, we had a stack of forms to sign as a procedure. Deepesh sir and I went into hysterics and laughed our guts out. It was crazy. Back home in India, we would've gotten treated just fine for a mere twenty rupees. Healthcare here is indecently expensive. I hope I don't make another visit to a hospital here for whatever reasons.
Welcome to the USA. Nice people, expensive health care.
Weekly Aural Pleasure.
The very lyrical and harmonic quality of the song is what draws you in, but it's the odd lyrics - I think he's saying "fence" the whole time...At least I hope he is - that keep you coming back. That and the guitar hero sections are surprisingly seamless. Or maybe it's the lab outfits in a wood shop. Who knows. Just enjoy. Happy friday.
NRC (part of the NAS) released a report saying that EPA's risk assessment is bogged down with all the details they don't know and burdened with assumptions that aren't helpful. Since they were piling on the agency, they threw in the fact that it was silly to look at chemicals in isolation as opposed to a mixture. Well, they were right. As to the issue of always wanting more information, I've wrote about that before, this, I think, is a huge issue for public health today (Science: the enemy of public health).
They are right about the other stuff too. If you're interested, you can go read the report. However, spend some time to shed a tear for the EPA because while the recommendations make sense, some are completely impractical given the statues that give authority to the EPA. For one, how in the heck do you regulate a mixture. Let's say that chemical A, B, and C all contribute to some disease through drinking water. They are all produced by different companies.
Problem 1: Who should have to pay for the research into the mixture? Dividing up this cost is likely to take a long time. Especially since EPA doesn't have very good ways of forcing companies to do toxicology tests on single chemicals.
Problem 2: If each one alone isn't enough to cause the problem, how do you decide how to regulate them. There isn't a way that is obviously fair and therefore, every decision will be fought in court saying that the EPa can regulate it and once that winds it's way through the courts, we'll start another round saying the other company should be the one cleaning it's act more.
Problem 3: How do you test mixtures that exist in different proportions in different communities? You can't do tox tests on every combination that exists and a method that tries to determine what the combinations will do is near impossible (we don't know how to do it for one chemical. How much luck do you think we'll have with a handful?)
I could go on about other practical barriers that the EPA has in implementing these results. But suffice it to say, the EPA can't apply these recommendations under the current laws. But that's not enough; as the NAS notes, the carcinogen TCE has had risk assessment in progress since 1980 and it is projected to be done in 2010. One could rightly ask why bother doing risk assessments at all? It seems that we can either watch the toothless EPA become more and more irrelevant, or Congress can rethink the laws that govern the EPA. And it's not as hard as you would think. Only a few miles away, the FDA does full reviews on drugs to be marketed with greater scrutiny in 9 months or less. There's no reason why the government should make timely and sound decisions about chemicals we take intentionally, but not those that we are involuntarily exposed to.
Well, if MacGuire was talking about getting into toxicology research on plastics, he was right on. EHP has published a study showing that the additive BPA can cause cells to suppress adiponectin. That would cause insensitivity to insulin and may be behind "metabolic syndrome". Let's pause for a moment and think about that name. That's got to be the worst name for a syndrome ever. It could only be more vague by being called 'syndrome'. I prefer something that creates a nice visual, like bronchiolitis obliterans. Nothing like an obliterated lung to get your attention. I propose cardiolipoinsulinobesity disease. Hmmm...okay, we'll stick with metabolic syndrome...or the slightly more technical, "F'ed up". Seriously, it's also called insulin resistance syndrome. It's symptoms include obesity, heart disease, diabetes, general inflammation, prothrombic state (meaning you're more likely to stroke out). Sweet.
It's not clear how the BPA does this, though it's likely due to it's ability to disrupt hormones. In the study, estradiol (the potent estrogen) had the same effects on breast and abdominal fat tissue. They used human fat tissues that were removed from patients undergoing other procedures. The one issue I have here is that it may be that those undergoing the procedures have cells that react differently than the rest of the population. The samples came from patients getting breast reduction sugery, a tummy tuck, or gastric bypass. The people may have bodies that like to build up fat anyway, especially in the last two. Even if this is true, however, it at least means that some people are effected by BPA; in fact, it may be those who can least afford it.
There was a wide variety of effect of BPA (i.e. some patient's tissues were sensitive to it and others weren't). However, on average, BPA was more potent than estradiol at equimolar doses (that's an equivalent dose based on the number of molecules, not weight, for those of you who didn't take or don't remember chemistry). Yikes!
Anyway, here's the kicker. The levels were environmentally relevant. 1-10 nM are common in people (some up to 20 nM). The study found effects at 0.1 and 1.0 nM. Good 'ole plastics. Is there anything they can't do?
AngryToxicologist is a scientist in the public health sector, knows plenty about toxicology, and is occasionally angry about it all. Drop me a line at 
