71
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jan, 2008 02:13 pm
The point is this. GW or CLIMATE CHANGE will not change the plant life as must as the inverse. Pollution and runoff effects the eco system which plays a large part into our atmosphere's chemical makeup. You seem to acknowledge that at one extreme, killing off all our plant life creates a significant problem. It's not a ticking bomb example, the idea is to extrapolate between that extreme to where we are now, and my point becomes more clear. It's like taking a limit (did you ever take calculus?)

You seem to think that world's ecosystem can handle the byproducts of humans such as industrial runoff or carbon emissions. You seem to think this is irrelevant, but I've read nothing of yours which would compel me to believe you understand what relevance is.

Ask yourself how many gears can you take out of a watch before it stops working? The answer is none.

Anthropogenic factors change the chemical composition of the atmosphere, pollute the waterways, and deforest large areas. Put quite simply, we are stripping the gear bald. We are doing it with a gluttonous smile.

Oh and...
ican711nm wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
As for...
ican711nm wrote:
CO2 would increase and O2 would decrease and temperature would /\/~\/\/~\/\/\/~\/ ...

You science, is really super.

T
K
O

Your bigoted statements are really super.

You're cute attempt to use your vocabulary word of the week "bigoted" is really super adorable. You're precious. Start with the Bearinstien bears, and maybe someday work yourself up to the IPCC reports on climate change.

Time to fix the gear
K
Or at least just stop ******* up the gears we have already.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jan, 2008 03:22 pm
Diest TKO wrote:
The point is this. GW or CLIMATE CHANGE will not change the plant life as must as the inverse.

I agree. I've already implied that same point with my comment about the amount of CO2 increasing and O2 decreasing if all plant life dies.

Pollution and runoff effects the eco system which plays a large part into our atmosphere's chemical makeup. You seem to acknowledge that at one extreme, killing off all our plant life creates a significant problem. It's not a ticking bomb example, the idea is to extrapolate between that extreme to where we are now, and my point becomes more clear. It's like taking a limit. ...

Your point is clear. Inadequately controlled and processed pollution can stifle or destroy the growth of plant life

You seem to think that world's ecosystem can handle the byproducts of humans such as industrial runoff or carbon emissions. You seem to think this is irrelevant, ...

What you think I think is not correct. Some but not all toxic and noxious pollutants produced by humans are not adequately handled by the world's ecosystem. Those that are not adequately handled can and do harm human life.

Toxic and noxious pollutents produced by humans are not irrelevant to the preservation or development of quality human life. Toxic and noxious pollutents produced by humans are irrelevant to the answer to the question about who or what is the primary cause of global warming



Ask yourself how many gears can you take out of a watch before it stops working? The answer is none.

It would be a good idea to take some "gears" out of the world's current ecosystem so as to make it work better for us, if we could figure out how (e.g., minimizing the damage done by volcanoes, earthquakes, meteorites, hurricanes and tornados).

Anthropogenic factors change the chemical composition of the atmosphere, pollute the waterways, and deforest large areas. Put quite simply, we are stripping the gear bald.

...

Anthropogenic factors also improve the chemical composition of the atmosphere, clean the waterways, and make large forest areas grow. Put quite simply, we are repairing, rebuilding, replacing, inventing, and producing good "gears" too.

...

Nature has often done far more damage to the worlds ecosystem than anything done by humans (e.g., volcanoes, earthquakes, meteorites, hurricanes and tornados).

By the way, hysteria solves nothing!
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jan, 2008 08:19 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Toxic and noxious pollutents produced by humans are not irrelevant to the preservation or development of quality human life. Toxic and noxious pollutents produced by humans are irrelevant to the answer to the question about who or what is the primary cause of global warming

Because you say so I suppose. Research says (e.g. - IPCC) quite different.

ican711nm wrote:
It would be a good idea to take some "gears" out of the world's current ecosystem so as to make it work better for us, if we could figure out how (e.g., minimizing the damage done by volcanoes, earthquakes, meteorites, hurricanes and tornados).

LOL.

ican711nm wrote:
Anthropogenic factors also improve the chemical composition of the atmosphere, clean the waterways, and make large forest areas grow. Put quite simply, we are repairing, rebuilding, replacing, inventing, and producing good "gears" too.

So me anything that shows we are making a commitment to the cleaning of the gears. Better yet look at those who make themselves obstacles to this effort. You might recognize some of your bed-fellows.

I'd love to see the reforestation data showing the world over the last 100 years.

It's funny how you are skeptical about the negitive effects of anthropogenic factors (I believe you are fond of the phrase "trivial"), but are so quick to acknowledge the positive effects. Rolling Eyes

ican711nm wrote:
Nature has often done far more damage to the worlds ecosystem than anything done by humans (e.g., volcanoes, earthquakes, meteorites, hurricanes and tornados).

Strawman. I've never stated that they haven't.

ican711nm wrote:
By the way, hysteria solves nothing!

Then stop being hysterical. I'm trying to be solution oriented. What you are trying to achieve is unknown to me. It feels like you are trying your hardest to deny there is a problem to address. Perhaps you address your problems with hysteria, I don't know you. I prefer to be proactive and action based.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jan, 2008 08:24 pm
What a peculiar world you live in, ican.

"Anthropogenic factors also improve the chemical composition of the atmosphere, clean the waterways, and make large forest areas grows" says ican.

I can't think, offhand, of anything we add to the atmosphere or waterways that "improve" or "clean" them. At most we might be ameliorating some of the horrendous things we've done to them, but they're still worse off than they were before we started mucking about with them.

Let's see now, acid rain, lead pollution, ozone-depleting chemicals, greenhouse gases, mercury pollution, PCBs, raw or partially treated sewage, chemical runoff, salt runoff from winter roadways, fertilizer runoff which promotes algal growth and has turned much of the Gulf of Mexico into a dead zone. And that's just two minute's thought about our effects. Do explicate, ican.

I'm agog to know, what did you have in mind when you made that preposterous statement?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jan, 2008 08:47 pm
Diest TKO wrote:
...I'm trying to be solution oriented. What you are trying to achieve is unknown to me. It feels like you are trying your hardest to deny there is a problem to address. Perhaps you address your problems with hysteria, I don't know you. I prefer to be proactive and action based.

T
K
O

So do I prefer to be "proactive and action based." In doing that, I prefer to focus on debating facts and logic, and not debating whether I or those I debate are focused or unfocused, smart or dumb, honest or dishonest, informed or uninformed.

We were debating which of two historical trends (global warming and CO2 increase in the atmosphere) were causing the other, or whether both were being caused by something else. Recently, you switched your attention to a broader topic: the consequences of the trend of human pollution of the ecosystem, and what to do about it. I sense you believe that is what is causing one or the other or both of the first two trends.

I apologize in advance if I have misstated your position. Please help me better understand your position, if my understanding is wrong or incomplete.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jan, 2008 08:51 pm
I have switched topics. I'm trying to drive home the significance of anthropogenic factors (specifically human ones). I intend to return to specifically cliamte change, but first I thought it better to analyse the effects on the individual gears before looking back on how well the watch is functioning.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jan, 2008 09:00 pm
username wrote:
What a peculiar world you live in, ican.

"Anthropogenic factors also improve the chemical composition of the atmosphere, clean the waterways, and make large forest areas grows" says ican.

I can't think, offhand, of anything we add to the atmosphere or waterways that "improve" or "clean" them. At most we might be ameliorating some of the horrendous things we've done to them, but they're still worse off than they were before we started mucking about with them.

Let's see now, acid rain, lead pollution, ozone-depleting chemicals, greenhouse gases, mercury pollution, PCBs, raw or partially treated sewage, chemical runoff, salt runoff from winter roadways, fertilizer runoff which promotes algal growth and has turned much of the Gulf of Mexico into a dead zone. And that's just two minute's thought about our effects. Do explicate, ican.

I'm agog to know, what did you have in mind when you made that preposterous statement?


DiestTKO wrote:
I have switched topics. I'm trying to drive home the significance of anthropogenic factors (specifically human ones). I intend to return to specifically cliamte change, but first I thought it better to analyse the effects on the individual gears before looking back on how well the watch is functioning.


I measure human progress in improving our ecosystem in terms of human life expectancy. If excluding human violence against humans, it is increasing, we are generally improving our environment. If our life expectancy is decreasing, we are generally harming our environment. I'll research this tomorrow, but I recollect that the USA average life expectancy has increased from roughly 50 years to 80 years in the last 100 years. The Japanese and some others have done better. If true, then we should be debating how best to extend average human life expectancy worldwide as well as in the USA.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jan, 2008 09:40 pm
FOR EXAMPLE
Quote:

http://www.sunjournal.com/story/245372-3/OurView/As_2007_ends_many_reasons_for_optimism/

As 2007 ends, many reasons for optimism

Monday, December 31, 2007
2007 seems determined to end on a bitter, bloody and worrisome note: Assassination in Pakistan, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, genocide in Darfur, steroids in baseball and global warming everywhere.

But, the end of the year is also a good time to stand back and take the long view, the really long view. When we do, we see that life for all Americans, and many of the world's people, is better and brighter than it has ever been in human history.

In December of 1999, two men, Stephen Moore and Julian L. Simon, wrote an article for Policy Analysis magazine titled "The Greatest Century That Ever Was," they listed 25 "miraculous trends" of the past 100 years.

Furthermore, they predicted, despite Americans' general pessimism about the future, all these trends would continue into the next century.

So, if you are feeling a bit glum on the last day of the year, don't be. While tigers may attack teenagers, Britney's kid sister may be pregnant, and politicians continue to snipe at each other from cornfields in Iowa, life goes on, and it's getting better all the time!

Here are 15 of the trends cited by Moore and Simon:

1. For most of history, the average human life span was between 25 and 35 years. Today, in the U.S., it's about 77.

2. In 1900, 15 babies out of 150 died before their first birthday. Today only one baby in 150 does.

3. In 1900, 700 Americans per 100,000 died of an infectious disease. Today, it's only 50 per 100,000, a 14-fold decrease.

4. In 1950, 300 Americans in 100,000 died of heart disease. Today, it's fewer than 150.

5. Real gross domestic product in the U.S., in constant dollars, has gone from $.05 trillion in 1900 to about $9 trillion today.


6. In 1950, 58 percent of Americans 65 and older lived in poverty. Today, it's fewer than 10 percent.

7. The average American workweek was 50 hours in 1909. Today, it's 35.

8. For most of human history, more than half of people worked on farms. Today, fewer than 2 percent do.

9. In 1922, 20 percent of American households owned a radio. Today, 98 percent of American households own a color TV, and 40 percent own three.

10. In 1900, only 1 in 10 U.S. homes had an indoor toilet. Today, 99.5 percent of homes do.

11. In 1907, only 8 percent of homes had electricity, and the cost of electricity was, in constant dollars, 10 times higher than it is today.

12. At 1915 telephone rates, a coast-to-coast, 10-minute phone call would cost $65 today.

13. In 1900, there were 25 horses for every 100 Americans. Today, 91 percent of American households have at least one car.

14. In 1975, an IBM 370-168 mainframe computer sold for $3.4 million. Today, a personal computer with 1,000 times more computing speed costs less than $1,000.

15. In 1949, an ENIAC computer had 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighed 30 tons. Today, a far more powerful laptop computer can weigh less than 7 pounds.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jan, 2008 09:44 pm
One point I would like to inject here in the debate here, inasmuch as plants and animals were created with various characteristics to live and prey upon each other and so forth as part of the ecosystem, also as beavers building dams in creeks are part of the ecosystem, man was created with advanced brain function ability to invent and build machines and tools, which are also part of the ecosystem. We have been indoctrinated to believe that man is doing things unnatural or foreign to the ecosystem, or in other words bringing in factors foreign to the ecosystem, but perhaps this is the wrong way to look at it. Man's activities, hunting by cavemen, farming by more recent but primitive peoples, and now the activities of modern man, which includes advanced farming techniques, manufacturing, energy production, and all of the rest, are all part of the ecosystem by virtue of the fact that they were part of man's brain functions that are now more fully developed. These activities are all part of nature, and are not to be feared or squelched by the environmentalist whackos that think otherwise.

And icann, your pointing out that we live longer and better proves that some of the things predicted to poison and kill us all by past extremists have not come to pass.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jan, 2008 10:50 pm
okie wrote:
One point I would like to inject here in the debate here, inasmuch as plants and animals were created with various characteristics to live and prey upon each other and so forth as part of the ecosystem, also as beavers building dams in creeks are part of the ecosystem, man was created with advanced brain function ability to invent and build machines and tools, which are also part of the ecosystem. We have been indoctrinated to believe that man is doing things unnatural or foreign to the ecosystem, or in other words bringing in factors foreign to the ecosystem, but perhaps this is the wrong way to look at it. Man's activities, hunting by cavemen, farming by more recent but primitive peoples, and now the activities of modern man, which includes advanced farming techniques, manufacturing, energy production, and all of the rest, are all part of the ecosystem by virtue of the fact that they were part of man's brain functions that are now more fully developed. These activities are all part of nature, and are not to be feared or squelched by the environmentalist whackos that think otherwise.

And icann, your pointing out that we live longer and better proves that some of the things predicted to poison and kill us all by past extremists have not come to pass.



Are you saying that man CANNOT stray from god's original intention?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jan, 2008 10:12 am
No. I believe as the Judeo Christian belief teaches us, that man is to have dominion over the earth and all that is in it, however, that does not say that man has never abused that dominion, or does not abuse that dominion. For example, we are to treat animals with respect, even though they are for our use, to put it bluntly, to kill and eat. Also plants, we eat them, but we also are supposed to till and take care of the ground and plants. This is different than the environmental whacko belief, that we are no better than a rat.

To clarify, I believe in multiple use. We should be able to mine minerals, cut trees down, kill animals for our food, eat plants, build machines, and all of the rest, but we should manage it with common sense and respect for the environment that we live in. We can do all of that as part of the ecosystem because we have been given the brain to do it. Environmental whackos act as if we should go back to the caves.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jan, 2008 10:17 am
there is no doubt that improvements in medical and associated sciences have played a large role in increasing life expectancy .

there is , however , one problem that most of us have not paid that much attention to - particularly in the western world : the increased chemical pollution of soil and water .
there are often no noticeable immediate effects of the pollution on humans - long-term effects are a different matter - but most of us direct our attention to today and tomorrow , not what might happen 20 to 30 years down the road .

one of my neighbours is a retired biochemist who currently works at queen's university with a team of other scientists that is both trying to assess the long-term damage from chemicals leaching into the soil and water and trying to find ways of neutralizing/filtering/eliminating these substances .

most of us will likely feel no direct effects from that polluton - but years down the roaad , it will likely cause great concern and damage .
of course , we can simply say : "why should i worry about something that's not likely going to effectct me in my lifetime - let future generations worry about that " .

government funding for these projects seems to be scarce - and the chemical industry pretty well denies such pollution .

here is part of one of many articles drawing attention to the problem :

Quote:
Animals' Sexual Changes Linked to Waste, Chemicals
James Owen
for National Geographic News

March 1, 2004
Animals throughout the world are undergoing unnatural sexual changes in response to environmental pollution, according to a group of scientists. The scientists warn that the gender-bending effects of certain man-made substances and human sewage seriously threaten polar bears, alligators, frogs, mollusks, and other wildlife.

The group's concerns are set out in a new report compiled by an international research team for the Paris-based Scientific Committee on Problems in the Environment (SCOPE) and the North Carolina-based International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC). The scientists say the report represents the first major global investigation into body-altering chemicals known as endocrine active substances, or EASs.



full report :
GENDERBENDER
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jan, 2008 10:29 am
the problem of "genderbender" chemicals has actually been known for some years and been the subject of scientific studies , as this report from SCIENCENEWS 1994 shows :

Quote:
January 8, 1994



The Gender Benders
Are environmental "hormones", emasculating wildlife?
BY JANET RALOFF

Mother Nature. The term conjures up images of a warm, nurturing, bountiful environment. But this sobriquet is proving increasingly apt for another reason--one that should offer anything but comfort.

New studies suggest that through pollution and other environmental factors, Mother Nature is exerting a feminizing hormonal influence on the animal kingdom.

Over the past 15 years, research has unmasked a number of "environmental hormones"--chemicals and pollutants that disrupt biological processes, often by mimicking the effects of naturally produced hormones such as the female hormone estrogen. On the ever-growing list of these agents are several restricted or banned pesticides--including DDT (and its even more toxic metabolite, DDE), kepone, heptachlor, dieldrin, mirex, and toxophene. Some polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) exhibit these disruptive properties, as do certain combustion pollutants, ingredients in plastics, and breakdown products in detergents (SN: 7/3/93, p.10).

The hormonal activity of these chemicals usually bears little relationship to their intended function. Indeed, there is no way of predicting-based on structure or function--which compounds will exhibit a hormonal alter ego.

That fact troubles a number of scientists because such environmental hormones may be contributing to an increased risk of reproductive-system cancers in females. Moreover, prenatal exposure to hormone-like pollutants can derail the developmental processes that establish gender or ensure reproductive success.

While the health community has recently begun a host of studies to explore a possible link between estrogenic pollutants and cancers in women, few researchers have focused on the related reproductive risks such environmental hormones may pose for both sexes. That's unfortunate says Theo Colborn, a zoologist with the World Wildlife Fund in Washington, D.C., because reproductive effects are likely to be "much more widespread."

Indeed, she notes, animal data are beginning to suggest that far smaller exposures are needed to trigger reproductive effects than to induce cancers. And because some of these reproductive changes may be subtle, they could evade detection for decades--even a lifetime--unless hunted for explicitly.

Colborn has convened a number of symposia in the past few years for researchers who study reproductively impaired wildlife populations or laboratory animals exposed to environmental hormones. Most of these scientists, she says, describe the links they're finding between impaired reproduction and "hormonal" pollutants as sobering--if not downright scary.

Indeed, she and many other environmental scientists worry that if hormone-like contaminants can feminize male animals, these ubiquitous pollutants may also underlie troubling reproductive-system trends being witnessed in men.

Some of the earliest data on unexpected reproductive risks posed by commercial chemicals came in the early 1950s. DDT, a potent and persistent organochlorine pesticide, was shown to cause the eggshells of many birds to thin. In fact, long after the compound was banned in 1972, DDT-thinned eggshells continued to put many embryonic birds--including bald eagles--at risk of being crushed to death.


DDT even wreaked havoc among birds resistant to eggshell thinning, such as sea gulls. Recognition of the extent of these problems, however, didn't emerge until decades after the initial reports of eggshell thinning.


Though heavily contaminated gull embryos managed to hatch, reproduction in gull colonies exposed to large amounts of DDT began to decline precipitously in the late 1960s. Biologists observed not only that many female gulls in these communities were sharing nests with other females-the so-called lesbian gulls--but also that the young within these communities bore grossly feminized reproductive tracts. Female gulls, which should have developed mature reproductive organs only on the left side, also carried vestigial oviducts on the right side. Many males also bore feminine characteristics, such as oviducts, recalls avian toxicologist a Michael Fry of the University of California, Davis. Moreover, he notes, the males' left gonad "had tissues that were both ovarian and testicular--so it was an intersex, or hybrid, gonad."


To connect these effects with estrogenic pollutants, Fry and his colleagues conducted a number of experiments during the 1980s. In one, they injected eggs of contaminant-free gulls with estradiol or with an estrogenic pesticide such as DDT. When the hatchlings emerged, they exhibited the same array of feminized sex organs as DDT-contaminated Western gulls on Santa Barbara Island, off the coast of California.


In effect, DDT "chemically castrated" the males, Fry says. He suspects the males' likely lack of interest in mating explains not only why female gulls dominated Santa Barbara Island's breeding colony in the late 1960s and early 1970s, but also why the females cohabited.

More recently Fry has turned his attention to the effects of other estrogenic pesticides and PCBs. This summer he began studying common terns, a relative of the gull. Fry studied male embryos from nests along New Bedford Harbor, Mass., located near a toxic waste site contaminated with PCBs. Only four of the 15 males that he analyzed appeared normal. The rest exhibited varying degrees of feminized sex organs.

"I never set out to do any toxicology," maintains Louis J. Guillette Jr.a reproductive endocrinologist at the University of Florida in Gainesville. But the team he heads has recently distinguished itself as one of the foremost in environmental-hormone toxicology. It all began six years ago, when the state of Florida asked him to find out what makes a good alligator egg.


Alligator ranching has become a multimillion-dollar industry in Florida, and ranchers wanted to know how many eggs they could harvest from the wild without jeopardizing the survival of this once-endangered species. So Guillette's team began surveying the hatching rate of eggs on various lakes: in all, more than 1,200 nests accounting for more than 50,000 alligator eggs.

It didn't take long, Guillette says, "before we realized there was something fundamentally different about one lake." It was Apopka, Florida's fourth largest freshwater body.

Whereas 70 to 80 percent of the eggs in most alligator nests hatched, between 80 and 95 percent of those from Apopka failed to hatch. Moreover, of the alligators that did hatch at Apopka, roughly half died within two weeks--a mortality rate at least 10 times that expected for such neonates.

As one measure of the health of these animals, Guillette's team began two years ago to examine the fluid that leaks out of eggs at the time of hatching and to analyze it for estrogen and testosterone. In females, estrogen should predominate, whereas males should have more testosterone. Eggs from Lake Woodruff-with normal hatching rates-- displayed those classic patterns.


Apopka eggs didn't. One group showed what at first appeared to be the normal female pattern. Another group appeared to be "superfemales,"with ratios of estrogen to testosterone twice as high as normal. "We didn't have any group that looked like males:' Guillette recalls.


It turns out that there were indeed males--the gators emerging from eggsexhibiting the standard female ratio of hormones. But the concentrations of the hormones contributing to that ratio were not normal. "These animals were making almost no testosterone and almost no estrogen," Guillette explains.

Six months later, the researchers returned to Lakes Woodruff and Apopka to measure hormones in the young. "We found exactly the same condition that we had seen in the eggs," he says--"females with about twice the estrogen typical of a female and almost no testosterone in the males."


Apopka's animals also possessed feminized internal reproductive organs. The males bore what looked like ovaries, for example, while follicles inthe females possessed not only abnormal eggs, but also far too many eggs.


Last summer, Guillette's team collected more than 100 juvenile alligators--animals 2 to 8 years old--from each of five lakes. Apopka'sgators again distinguished themselves. The phallus on males was one- half to one-third the normal size, and the females' ovaries "looked burned out," Guillette says. Moreover, estrogen and testosterone production in all Apopka gators was minimal--as if, Guillette says, the ovaries and testes were indeed burned out.


What accounts for Apopka's feminized alligators? The culprit is estrogenic pesticides, Guillette testified at an Oct. 21 hearing before the House Subcommittee on Health and the Environment. Tower Chemical Co. for years made the pesticide dicofol--a molecule that he says looks like DDT with an extra oxygen atom. Production methods at the plant, situated on the shore of Lake Apopka, weren't always ideal, Guillette says. Spills occurred and much of the dicofol was laced with up to 15 percent DDT or DDE. Tower's defunct plant is now a toxic waste site.

While high concentrations of DDT have been measured in Apopka gators, Guillette cautions that this doesn't prove DDT is responsible for the observed feminization. To test that link, his team this summer painted gator eggs from Lake Woodruff with concentrations of DDE and dicofol to produce tissue contamination typical of hatchlings from Lake Apopka.

Though not all their tests have been completed yet, Guillette told SCIENCE NEWS that "we're finding hormone levels in these hatchlings that are almost identical to those in Apopka hatchlings." He adds, "That's about the closest thing to proof science is ever likely to give."

In the meantime, Apopka's gators continue to suffer. Since a catastrophic dicofol spill in 1980, there has been a 90-percent reduction in the number of juvenile alligators at the lake. And in a population of animals that can live to be 60 years old, that's not healthy, he says.

Another reluctant toxicologist, Brent Palmer of Ohio University in Athens, has begun studying a substance in the blood of egg-laying vertebrates that he suspects will one day prove a sensitive biomarker of exposure to estrogenic pollutants, at least in males. It's vitellogenin the egg-yolk protein.

When stimulated by estrogen, the liver produces this protein, then dumpsit into the blood. From there it circulates to the ovaries, where it isdeposited in an egg. Though males can produce vitellogenin, usually only females possess sufficient estrogen to do so.

That's good, Guillette points out, because "if you have enough estrogen in a male to turn on vitellogenin, then you probably have enough to shut off the normal functioning of the testes."

Working with the red-eared slider, America's most common turtle, Palmer has demonstrated that DDT can turn on vitellogenin production in males. But DDT doesn't elicit the same broad suite of changes that estrogen does. For instance, it fails to trigger the liver's production of two other proteins and it turns on the production of some other substances that estrogen doesn't. "So even though DDT is mimicking estrogen in some ways," Palmer points out, "it's not exactly the same."

"Certainly, if we can find vitellogenin in males in the wild, that's a sign they've been exposed to an environmental estrogen," he says. However, Palmer is not yet sure whether the converse also holds: that the lack of vitellogenin proves no estrogen was encountered. He says hisnew data "make me wonder if there might not still be an environmental estrogen present, just one that's having some other effect." Indeed, he says, interpreting the lack of vitellogenin "could prove a very sticky problem."

It's not a problem John Sumpter has had to cope with. The rainbow trout and carp that he and his colleagues have studied throughout the waterways of England and Wales have displayed plenty of vitellogenin-- even the males.

Sumpter and Charles R. Tyler, biologists at Brunel University in Uxbridge, England, collaborated with scientists from Britain's Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food to measure vitellogenin concentrations in fish that were caged and suspended for three weeks in the river outfalls of 30 different sewage treatment plants.

In the January CHEMISTRY AND ECOLOGY, these researchers describe finding widely varied production of vitellogenin by the fish. However, "in all cases," they say, "exposure of trout to effluent resulted in a very pronounced increase (500- to 100,000-fold, depending on the site) in the[blood] plasma vitellogenin concentration." In some cases, male trout exhibited vitellogenin concentrations in their bloodstreams typical of mature females during egg production. Carp showed similar, though far smaller, increases.

Attempts to isolate the agent responsible for these increases proved fruitless. However, at least one of the researchers strongly suspected that ethynylestradiol (EE)--the main estrogenic compound in birth- control pills--was responsible for much of the vitellogenin effect they observed. He reasoned that women on the pill excreted the EE in their urine and that some share of this chemical may have passed through the water-treatment plants.

To test the theory, the researchers incubated fish in aquariums containing dilute concentrations of either estradiol--the animal kingdom's primary estrogen--or EE. Concentrations of EE as low as 0.1 nanogram per liter of water caused a significant spike in the animals' production of vitellogenin--proving EE "very much more potent" than estradiol, Sumpter's team says. Indeed, they conclude, EE represents one of "the most potent of biologically active molecules."

If present in potable waters, however, EE must occur in concentrations below the limits of detection, the British team found. In fact, Sumpternotes, it was only after their research was completed that his team learned of another possible candidate: nonylphenols (SN: 7/3/93, p.12).

These are breakdown products of alkylphenol polyethoxylates (APEs), a class of surfactants first marketed in the 1940s. Today, APEs are used in detergents (including many U.S. dishwashing liquids), pesticides, herbicides, toiletries, and products that need to wet surfaces. Though the parent APEs are not estrogenic, Sumpter describes the nonylphenols as "directly estrogenic"--which means that they can bind to and activate the body's estrogen receptor.

Though nonylphenols occur in concentrations of more than 1 milligram perliter of water in poor-quality English rivers--especially downstream of textile mills--concentrations of 1 to 50 micrograms per liter (mu g/l) are more typical of waters in England and Europe, Sumpter says. US. concentrations, by contrast, tend to fall below 1 mu g/l.

"Because of their ubiquitous presence in the aquatic environment and the `high' concentrations," Sumpter told SCIENCE NEWS, "we consider them a good candidate to account for the estrogenic effects [found in the study with trout and carp]" Though only perhaps 1/10,000 as potent as EE, nonylphenols "are pretty resistant to degradation and [they] bioaccumulate, which will increase the likelihood of them producing physiological effects," he argues.

But nonylphenols are not the only products formed by the breakdown of APEs. And because many of those others are not monitored, Sumpter says,"the total concentration of all the closely related degradation products remains unknown."

Environmental estrogens are also suspected of playing a role in reproductive problems plaguing the Florida panther, a species whose surviving members total only 30 to 50 animals.

Between 1985 and 1990, 67 percent of male Florida panthers were born with one or more undescended testes, a condition known as cryptorchidism. Just 10 years earlier, only 14 percent of males were cryptorchid, observes Charles Facemire, an ecological geneticist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Atlanta. In addition, he notes, atleast one noncryptorchid male is sterile, and even some of the apparently normal males produce abnormal or deformed sperm.

Initially these problems were assumed to trace to a loss of genetic diversity in the heavily inbred species (SN: 9/25/93, p. 200), Facemire says. But a few months ago, he and Mike Dunbar, a veterinarian with theFlorida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission in Gainesville, decided to investigate whether estrogenic contaminants might also be contributing to these reproductive problems.

Their initial blood sampling program turned up males with unusual steroid hormone ratios. For instance, one male had nearly twice as much estrogen as testosterone. (This animal should have had two to three times as much testosterone as estrogen.) At least two other males had similarly skewed ratios; both of them were also cryptorchid. Equally perplexing, at least one female had more testosterone than estrogen.

"We don't know enough about the species to know if these hormone levels might be normal under certain circumstances. But we don't think they are," Facemire says. Though genetic problems cannot be ruled out, he acknowledges, "I suspect we're going to find that the problems are due more to estrogenic chemicals in the environment."

Working under that assumption, Facemire's office has just issued a prohibition on the use of estrogenic chemicals--principally pesticides--in the 100 or so federally managed wildlife refuges in the southeastern United States. At the same time, Facemire's office has initiated four other investigations into possible effects of environmental hormones on wildlife-including one involving the prothonotary warbler in Alabama andanother involving sea turtles in Georgia.

Nor are these the only animal studies linking reproductive changes with exposures to hormone-mimicking contaminants. Laboratory studies on fish at the University of Guelph in Ontario, for instance, have shown that white suckers exposed to paper mill effluent--often rich in dioxins and related compounds--took longer to mature, developed smaller gonads, experienced reduced fertility, and had lower than normal concentrations of steroid hormones in their blood. Moreover, Glen Van Der Kraak and his coworkers reported at an international meeting on the topic in September 1990, male fish exposed to papermill wastes developed reduced secondary sex characteristics.

Other researchers have begun linking reproductive problems in salmon to relatively high concentrations of hormone-like contaminants. And at a conference sponsored by the U.S. and Canadian governments three years ago, PCBs in such fish were linked to dramatic declines in the reproduction of minks and otters around the Great Lakes.

Finally, University of Wisconsin scientists demonstrated two years ago that low prenatal exposures to dioxin feminized the behavior of male rats during adulthood--and sharply reduced their production of sperm. Indeed, the researchers concluded, the developing male reproductive system appears to be more sensitive to the effects of this hormone-like toxicant that any other organ or organ-system studied (SN: 5/30/92, p.359).

"Because we're only just getting to the basics in this field," Palmer says, even simple questions about the reproductive effects of environmental hormones for most species must go unanswered. But he suspects that biologists are going to have. to move fast in finding those answers if some contaminated populations are to survive.

Toxic-pollutant concentrations in the environment have dropped to where they can seldom kill most adult animals outright, he says. However, in some species, he fears, "We. may have gotten to a point where the adults look healthy but are so reproductively impaired that that population may already be extinct--and we're just waiting for the last remaining adults to die [of old age]."





source :
SCIENCENEWS
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jan, 2008 01:22 pm
okie wrote:
This is different than the environmental whacko belief, that we are no better than a rat.

Please provide the post and the poster.

okie wrote:
Environmental whackos act as if we should go back to the caves.

Please provide the post and the poster.

Don't post BS like this.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jan, 2008 02:32 pm
Diest TKO wrote:
okie wrote:
This is different than the environmental whacko belief, that we are no better than a rat.

Please provide the post and the poster.

okie wrote:
Environmental whackos act as if we should go back to the caves.

Please provide the post and the poster.

Don't post BS like this.

T
K
O

Are you an environmental whacko? I never said anyone on this forum posted those things specifically. I simply point out what some of the extremists leading the movement think. And my statement about people acting as if we should go back to the caves, that is my interpretation of their stances on issues. Granted, you probably don't want to return to the caves, however, I would point out one huge problem with the global warming issue, if you believe one of the leading proponents of what you are preaching here, Al Gore, then there is currently no practical solution to fixing the problem in time without giving up modern technology and returning to the caves. You and Al Gore may not admit it, but it is nonetheless a fact. So Gore does not advocate returning to the caves, but the problem he claims will be catastrophic without fixing cannot be fixed with any solution that he has advocated. For example, Kyoto is nothing more than a political spit into the ocean. And other agreements will be more of the same.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jan, 2008 02:47 pm
okie wrote:
I simply point out what some of the extremists leading the movement think. And my statement about people acting as if we should go back to the caves, that is my interpretation of their stances on issues.


And whom do you mean be that?

And what is "the movement" - our federal Minister for the Environment, those from some other governments, the EU-commisioner for eenvironment ....?
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jan, 2008 03:02 pm
The global warming crowd is filled with left wingnuts that are big supporters of the U.N. and world government bodies. They absolutely hate the things that make Americans American, like our right to free assembly, free speech, and the right to bear arms.

It isn't difficult to conclude who we are dealing with. I think it's very interesting to be alive at a time when the climate could actually be changing. Nobody knows why, but some have adopted this religious like advocacy of the human effect. And those that have overwhelmingly don't believe in the things I believe in.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jan, 2008 03:03 pm
So what you're saying is that ou are rebutting against arguments which were not made here on A2K. I'm glad were clear on that.

I'm not sure what make-believe leaders you are referring to, nor what movement you are referring to.

Sounds to me like you are saying that ANYONE for addressing AGW or CC is a ""whacko" or an "extremist."

Since nobody here is making the arguments, it's pure straw.

We don't have to go back to caves, but we do have to start making changes in our enviromental policy.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jan, 2008 03:06 pm
Diest TKO wrote:


We don't have to go back to caves, but we do have to start making changes in our enviromental policy.

T
K
O


Uh, no, we don't. The last great sea change here was the 1973 creation of the EPA which has almost single handedly moved all manufacturing offshore to places with less environmental laws. If you keep this up, they will just build factories in space where you have even less jurisdiction.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jan, 2008 03:15 pm
cjhsa wrote:

The global warming crowd is filled with left wingnuts that are big supporters of the U.N. and world government bodies.

Supporters of the U.N.!!!! How terrible! That's like being into Satan or boybands! Rolling Eyes
cjhsa wrote:

They absolutely hate the things that make Americans American, like our right to free assembly, free speech, and the right to bear arms.

You are so full of ****. I have worked with a the MO deptartment of Conservation on multiple times. They support green policies and they are very supportive of the hunting/gaming community. As for assembly, and speech, that's just a bold faced lie.
cjhsa wrote:

It isn't difficult to conclude who we are dealing with. I think it's very interesting to be alive at a time when the climate could actually be changing.

Sure is interesting.
cjhsa wrote:

Nobody knows why, but some have adopted this religious like advocacy of the human effect.

It's called science, it'a not religion, and yes it is very convincing to the educated.

T
K
O
cjhsa wrote:

And those that have overwhelmingly don't believe in the things I believe in.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 10/05/2024 at 10:25:26