Since we can't actually make definite links between environmental endocrine disrupters and human health problems due to the limited number of human studies, we can only begin to guess what human exposure to these endocrine-disrupting chemicals could be.
A toxicant is a chemical with adverse human health effects. They are classified into two different categories; acute toxicity defines the adverse effects that occur within a short period after exposure to a toxicant, and Chronic toxicity is the adverse effects that occur some time after exposure to a toxicant or after extended exposure to the toxicant. Toxicologists confirm that it is harder to predict the symptoms of chronic toxicity than acute toxicity, since the symptoms of chronic toxicity mimic those of other chronic diseases.
We measure toxicity by the extent of which adverse effects are produced by various doses of a toxicant. One way to determine an acute toxicity is to administer various doses of chemicals to the populations of laboratory animals, then measure the responses and use the data to predict how similar doses of these chemicals would affect humans. Several other techniques contribute towards identify toxic chemicals, such as extrapolation, which is estimating the expected effects at some dose of interest.
The lethal dose-50% to a population of test animals is inversely related to the acute toxicity of a chemical; the smaller the impact of the LD-50, the more toxic the chemical, and the greater the impact, the less toxic the chemical is likely to be.
The effective dose-50% causes 50% of a population to exhibit whatever is currently under study. ED-50s are used for studying stunted development in the offspring of a pregnant animal, reduced enzyme activity, or onset of hair loss.
Toxic substances usually lead to some form of cancer in human beings, such as how people develop lung cancer after years of smoking. It is traditionally the principle disease evaluated in toxicology because it is such a known and feared disease. However, environmental contaminants are also linked to birth defects, reproductive problems, and permanent damage to the nervous system or other body systems. In a worst case scenario, chemical exposure will actually cause stunted brain activity among children. In a study of who received more exposure to pesticides than others, the 17 children who lived far away from where pesticides were used could draw fully recognizable stick figures of people, while most of the 34 children who lived in an area where agricultural pesticides were commonly used could only scribble randomly. The group's exposure to pesticides clouded their brain activity and prevented them from developing normally the way the other group did.
What environmental catastrophe was largely responsible for replacement of the dilution paradigm by the boomerang paradigm?
People used to believe that the solution to the pollution problem was to let pollution dilute into the environment so that it didn't harm anybody. This idea was known as the dilution paradigm, and examples of this happened in places like Lake Washington, where dumping treated sewage caused a water pollution problem, and New York, where a chemical company dumped toxic waste into a pit near the town where many people lived. People assumed that they could just leave pollution out in the open, and it would take care of itself, but we know today that this is not the case at all.
In the solution that we have today, the boomerang paradigm, we know that everything that we put into the environment will come back to hurt us in the future, so we have to be more careful about what we do with our waste. This idea was adopted very recently, during the later half of the 20th century after several publicized demonstrations, such as the discovery of pesticide DDT accumulating in birds. The implications of something so far up in the food chain being contaminated helped to change people's minds and accept DDT as a threat to not just the health of the ecosystem, but our health as well.
Share your thoughts on the relationships between environmental pollution, human health, environmental health.
We have been waiting far too long for a solution that isn't going to come unless we find a way to change our habits. Thanks to countless tests and evidence that toxic pollution is a problem, we now know that not just the environment, but our own well being is at risk of mass illness. Studies show that a variety of chemicals can be beneficial and even cause positive effects when used in moderation, and only when used at much higher levels does it become a dangerous threat. This effect is called hormesis and occurs in animals that are exposed to lower levels of a chemical than most.
It can be possible to moderate our use of chemicals in such a way that they can achieve a positive effect, even though it most likely will still caused harmful problems if kept around for a longer period of time. In the case of additive mixtures, the interactions can cause even higher complexities in risk assessment, and since humans have synthesized and created a lot of different mixtures, the experiments can get very complicated. The best possible course of action for us as a human population is to refrain from using chemical compounds on the environment around us unless it is absolutely necessary. With the help of risk assessment methods and techniques to reduce negative health impacts, we have to focus less on looking out for our needs only and consider the needs of the entire planet.
No comments:
Post a Comment