I wanted to post this research I was reading about connecting toxic waste dump sites and autism clusters in the state of NJ.  Scientists working for the state came up with a map to show how close autism clusters are to these toxic waste sites.  DuPont was one of the violators; they dumped and hid info they had linking PFOA/PFOS contamination to birth defects until they were massively sued.

http://www.imusenvironmentalhealth.org/ ... ew-jersey/

https://www.politifact.com/health-check ... ays-withi/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3091342/

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... oss_States

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4929984/

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/27da/3 ... 37e614.pdf

A-L-E-X wrote:

I wanted to post this research I was reading about connecting toxic waste dump sites and autism clusters in the state of NJ.  Scientists working for the state came up with a map to show how close autism clusters are to these toxic waste sites.  DuPont was one of the violators; they dumped and hid info they had linking PFOA/PFOS contamination to birth defects until they were massively sued.

http://www.imusenvironmentalhealth.org/ ... ew-jersey/

https://www.politifact.com/health-check ... ays-withi/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3091342/

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... oss_States

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4929984/

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/27da/3 ... 37e614.pdf

TL;DR? I don't see what waste has to do with autism.

longname wrote:

A-L-E-X wrote:

I wanted to post this research I was reading about connecting toxic waste dump sites and autism clusters in the state of NJ.  Scientists working for the state came up with a map to show how close autism clusters are to these toxic waste sites.  DuPont was one of the violators; they dumped and hid info they had linking PFOA/PFOS contamination to birth defects until they were massively sued.

http://www.imusenvironmentalhealth.org/ ... ew-jersey/

https://www.politifact.com/health-check ... ays-withi/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3091342/

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... oss_States

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4929984/

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/27da/3 ... 37e614.pdf

TL;DR? I don't see what waste has to do with autism.

The toxic waste sites are correlated to hot spots where autism is more common.  The chemicals dumped there have been known to cause changes in the brain.  That state has the most toxic waste dump sites and the highest rates of autism by a wide margin, and it's growing.  It's part of the environmental component of autism.  According to the scientific research, autism is about two thirds genetic and one third environmental.  There are also certain pesticides like organophosphates like chlorpyrifos (banned in Europe and Canada not banned yet in America) that have been directly linked to both autism and ADHD in farming communities where children and pregnant mothers get exposed to it.  Companies like Dow and Dupont basically get away with murder when they bribe politicians to bend regulations for them.  In the class action lawsuit that Dupont lost (covered in the movie Dark Waters) papers were uncovered where Dupont knew that PFOA was causing birth defects in their pregnant female employees and killing livestock where they were dumping the stuff for over 50 years, much like the Monsanto fiasco in Anniston, AL.  Bayer, which bought Monsanto has been trying to improve their image, but it's not working because Bayer already has a horrible track record with causing environmental damage to pollinators with neonics and is losing billions now with all the Glyphosate lawsuits and Non Hodgkin's Lymphoma.  And now the Trump administration's colluding EPA has been implicated as taking part in the coverup when a whistleblower came forward with papers that were published in the NY Times and Washington Post showing what they were doing for the chemical lobby in unbanning dangerous chemicals like chlorpyrifos and not regulating PFOA in the water supply.  So in NY State we now have our own regulations to remove PFOA from the water supply, much stronger than the federal regulations, which are useless.  Pesticides like chlorpyrifos and chemicals like PFOA have been found in the blood supply of most animals, including humans.

If it's too long for you to read, you shouldn't be commenting on it.

Seems to me the user was simply asking exactly what you just wrote.

Mosfet wrote:

Seems to me the user was simply asking exactly what you just wrote.

Oh okay in that case I just summarized it with that paragraph   I'm glad he asked because I was going to write a blog post about this and wanted to condense my thoughts.
I was going to post this later but might as well put it in here:
Looks like the Florida Keys will be permanently underwater within a few decades- ditto parts of the Louisiana coast.

https://t.co/HWaooJD5ek?amp=1

https://t.co/HWaooJD5ek

Watch the new Meet the Press episode, they talked to John Kerry and Arnold Schwartzeneggar who joined together to make a bipartisan group about climate change and Arnold mentioned that California has the strongest environmental regulations and yet has the fastest growing economy too.  They mentioned that job growth is fastest in the solar panel and wind power industry over everything else and people are leaving the oil fields to go work there.  He also said he got many conservatives to join by framing the discussion in terms of pollution and disease (like higher asthma rates) rather than solely focusing on climate change.  The health care costs alone of not going renewable are already $55 billion!

‘Bleak’ U.N. Report on a Planet in Peril Looms Over New Climate Talks
With world leaders gathering in Madrid next week for their annual bargaining session over how to avert a climate catastrophe, the latest assessment issued by the United Nations said Tuesday that greenhouse gas emissions are still rising dangerously.

“The summary findings are bleak,” said the annual assessment, which is produced by the United Nations Environment Program and is formally known as the Emissions Gap Report. Countries have failed to halt the rise of greenhouse gas emissions despite repeated warnings from scientists, with China and the United States, the two biggest polluters, further increasing their emissions last year.

The result, the authors added, is that “deeper and faster cuts are now required.”

As if to underscore the gap between reality and diplomacy, the international climate negotiations, scheduled to begin next week, are not even designed to ramp up pledges by world leaders to cut their countries’ emissions. That deadline is still a year away. 

Rather, this year’s meetings are intended to hammer out the last remaining rules on how to implement the 2015 Paris climate accord, in which every country pledged to rein in greenhouse gases, with each setting its own targets and timetables.

“Madrid is an opportunity to get on course to get the speed and trajectory right,” said Rachel Kyte, a former United Nations climate diplomat who is now dean of the Fletcher School at Tufts University. “What the Emissions Gap Report does is take away any remaining plausible deniability that the current trajectory is not good enough.”

The world’s 20 richest countries, responsible for more than three-fourths of worldwide emissions, must take the biggest, swiftest steps to move away from fossil fuels, the report emphasized. The richest country of all, the United States, however, has formally begun to pull out of the Paris accord.

Global greenhouse gas emissions have grown by 1.5 percent every year over the last decade, according to the annual assessment. The opposite must happen if the world is to avoid the worst effects of climate change, including more intense droughts, stronger storms and widespread hunger by midcentury. To stay within relatively safe limits, emissions must decline sharply, by 7.6 percent every year, between 2020 and 2030, the report warned.

Separately, the World Meteorological Organization reported on Monday that emissions of three major greenhouse gases — carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide — have all swelled in the atmosphere since the mid-18th century.

“We are sleepwalking toward a climate catastrophe and need to wake up and take urgent action,” said Alden Meyer, director of policy and strategy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, on a phone call with reporters Tuesday after the publication of the report.

Even if every country fulfills its current pledges under the Paris Agreement — and many, including the United States, Brazil and Australia, are currently not on track to do so — the Emissions Gap Report found average temperatures are on track to rise by 3.2 degrees Celsius from the baseline average temperature at the start of the industrial age. 

According to scientific models, that kind of temperature rise sharply increases the likelihood of extreme weather events, the accelerated melting of glaciers and swelling seas — all endangering the lives of billions of people.

The Paris Agreement resolved to hold the increase in global temperatures well below 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit; last year, a United Nations-backed panel of scientists said the safer limit was to keep it to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/26/clim ... arbon.html

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rare-earth ... 019-11-17/

talking about the elements used in manufacturing evs, there's a much easier and automated way to get them- mining them off the ocean floor.  Every nation (except the US) has mining rights now, and the US shouldn't hesitate or we'll be left behind.  Mining the sea floor with automated vehicles is also environmentally friendly (no drilling involved unlike what the fossil fuel industry does.)  There's an in-depth 60 Minutes story about this- check it out.

A-L-E-X wrote:

longname wrote:

A-L-E-X wrote:

I wanted to post this research I was reading about connecting toxic waste dump sites and autism clusters in the state of NJ.  Scientists working for the state came up with a map to show how close autism clusters are to these toxic waste sites.  DuPont was one of the violators; they dumped and hid info they had linking PFOA/PFOS contamination to birth defects until they were massively sued.

http://www.imusenvironmentalhealth.org/ ... ew-jersey/

https://www.politifact.com/health-check ... ays-withi/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3091342/

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... oss_States

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4929984/

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/27da/3 ... 37e614.pdf

TL;DR? I don't see what waste has to do with autism.

The toxic waste sites are correlated to hot spots where autism is more common.  The chemicals dumped there have been known to cause changes in the brain.  That state has the most toxic waste dump sites and the highest rates of autism by a wide margin, and it's growing.  It's part of the environmental component of autism.  According to the scientific research, autism is about two thirds genetic and one third environmental.  There are also certain pesticides like organophosphates like chlorpyrifos (banned in Europe and Canada not banned yet in America) that have been directly linked to both autism and ADHD in farming communities where children and pregnant mothers get exposed to it.  Companies like Dow and Dupont basically get away with murder when they bribe politicians to bend regulations for them.  In the class action lawsuit that Dupont lost (covered in the movie Dark Waters) papers were uncovered where Dupont knew that PFOA was causing birth defects in their pregnant female employees and killing livestock where they were dumping the stuff for over 50 years, much like the Monsanto fiasco in Anniston, AL.  Bayer, which bought Monsanto has been trying to improve their image, but it's not working because Bayer already has a horrible track record with causing environmental damage to pollinators with neonics and is losing billions now with all the Glyphosate lawsuits and Non Hodgkin's Lymphoma.  And now the Trump administration's colluding EPA has been implicated as taking part in the coverup when a whistleblower came forward with papers that were published in the NY Times and Washington Post showing what they were doing for the chemical lobby in unbanning dangerous chemicals like chlorpyrifos and not regulating PFOA in the water supply.  So in NY State we now have our own regulations to remove PFOA from the water supply, much stronger than the federal regulations, which are useless.  Pesticides like chlorpyrifos and chemicals like PFOA have been found in the blood supply of most animals, including humans.

If it's too long for you to read, you shouldn't be commenting on it.

And they just happen to cause autism out of all the thousands(?) of mental illnesses.

longname wrote:

Source of the post And they just happen to cause autism out of all the thousands(?) of mental illnesses.

They probably cause a lot of other diseases. But probably no research has been done on that yet.

longname wrote:

Source of the post And they just happen to cause autism out of all the thousands(?) of mental illnesses.

This is a point that deserves further emphasis.  One of the papers Alex linked showed a correlation between number of superfund sites in a state and the frequency of autism cases, with a correlation coefficient of 0.345 with 49 data points, which means a P-value of .0186, or 98.1% chance of not being a statistical fluke.

The trouble?  That's a 1 in 53 chance that it is a statistical fluke.  And there are a lot more than 53 diseases and disorders you could choose.  Pick any 53 random diseases or disorders, rare or common, and plot each one's frequency against the number of superfund sites in each state, and you expect to find a stronger correlation for one of them, purely by chance!  

So is this really linked to autism?  Or are we suffering from the correlation =/= causation fallacy?  

By the way, abusing this aspect of statistics is called "p-hacking", and it is incredibly scientifically unethical.  I do not believe that is what is happening here.  And since it is not completely crazy that there could be a causal relationship, I think it deserves a closer look, but we should also be skeptical.

Watsisname wrote:

longname wrote:

Source of the post And they just happen to cause autism out of all the thousands(?) of mental illnesses.

This is a point that deserves further emphasis.  One of the papers Alex linked showed a correlation between number of superfund sites in a state and the frequency of autism cases, with a correlation coefficient of 0.345 with 49 data points, which means a P-value of .0186, or 98.1% chance of not being a statistical fluke.

The trouble?  That's a 1 in 53 chance that it is a statistical fluke.  And there are a lot more than 53 diseases and disorders you could choose.  Pick any 53 random diseases or disorders, rare or common, and plot each one's frequency against the number of superfund sites in each state, and you expect to find a stronger correlation for one of them, purely by chance!  

So is this really linked to autism?  Or are we suffering from the correlation =/= causation fallacy?  

By the way, abusing this aspect of statistics is called "p-hacking", and it is incredibly scientifically unethical.  I do not believe that is what is happening here.  And since it is not completely crazy that there could be a causal relationship, I think it deserves a closer look, but we should also be skeptical.

I think JD is right, they probably cause many other conditions (ADHD was also mentioned in a Columbia University study).  Plus I think he missed the part about PFOA causing birth defects, which was found in employees that worked for DuPont.  Rather than own up to it, DuPont just transferred the female employees to a different division of the company.  All this is moot anyway, PFOA is banned through in most countries now, and DuPont lost a major class action lawsuit when a whistleblower came forward showing DuPont knew about what PFOA was doing and chose to cover it up by dumping it in waterways in WV and OH where it killed off cattle and other wildlife.  It was also being dumped in sites in NJ.  I dont think you support that kind of illegal behavior by corrupt corporations, do you, Wat?

There was an independent statistical analysis done that showed a significant correlation (that's in the Politifact article).  More study needs to be done to prove causation, but honestly would you actually condone the illegal dumping off this stuff, Wat?  Who cares if casusation can be proved or not, corrupt corporations like this should have to PAY to clean this stuff up.  And they will, because they lost the lawsuit, as well as paying for the medical bills of their employees and the cattle that were killed when they dumped it in the waterways.

In NYS we now have strict regulations for PFOA in drinking water, which is much more than can be said for the corrupt Trump EPA, which the whistleblower showed helped DuPont with the coverup to get a $1 BILLION bribe.

As for chlorpyrifos (the organophosphate pesticide that I mentioned earlier), the scientists working for the EPA under the Obama administration had already accumulated enough research to show it caused brain damage to children and were going to ban it, but when the Trjmp EPA took control, they took a significant bribe from the chemical lobby to keep it unbanned, unlike the rest of the civilized world, which has it banned.  That's currently being held up in court because farming communities where children and pregnant mothers are being exposed to it are suing the federal government.

This is pretty toxic stuff, and I haven't even mentioned what it does to pollinators like bees or other wildlife.  It's manufactured by Dow, which also gave many millions to the Trump administration, so it's no surprise that as soon as Trump changed the leadership at the EPA they refused to ban it until they were sued by California.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorpyrifos

Chlorpyrifos is considered moderately hazardous to humans by the World Health Organization based on its acute toxicity.[7] Exposure surpassing recommended levels has been linked to neurological effects, persistent developmental disorders, and autoimmune disorders. Exposure during pregnancy may harm the mental development of children, and most home uses of chlorpyrifos were banned in the U.S. in 2001.[8] In agriculture, it is "one of the most widely used organophosphate insecticides" in the United States, and before being phased out for residential use it was one of the most used residential insecticides.[9]

On March 29, 2017, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt denied a petition to ban chlorpyrifos.[10] However, on August 9, 2018, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the EPA to ban the sale of chlorpyrifos in the United States within 60 days,[11] though this ruling was almost immediately appealed by Trump administration lawyers.[12]

On May 2019 the California Department of Pesticide Regulation announced it will "cancel the registration that allows chlorpyrifos to be sold in California", a process that could however take up to two years.[13]

Human exposure
In 2011, EPA estimated that, in the general US population, people consume 0.009 micrograms of chlorpyrifos per kilogram of their body weight per day directly from food residue.[63] Children are estimated to consume a greater quantity of chlorpyrifos per unit of body weight from food residue, with toddlers the highest at 0.025 micrograms of chlorpyrifos per kilogram of their body weight per day. People may also ingest chlorpyrifos from drinking water or from residue in food handling establishments. The EPA's acceptable daily dose is 0.3 micrograms/kg/day.[63] However, as of 2016, EPA scientists had not been able to find any level of exposure to the pesticide that was safe.[64] The EPA 2016 report states in part "...this assessment indicates that dietary risks from food alone are of concern..." The report also states that previous published risk assessments for "chlorpyrifos may not provide a sufficiently health protective human health risk assessment given the potential for neurodevelopmental outcomes."[65]

Humans can be exposed to chlorpyrifos by way of ingestion (e.g., residue on treated produce, drinking water), inhalation (especially of indoor air), or absorption (i.e., through the skin). However, compared to other organophosphates, chlorpyrifos degrades relatively quickly once released into the environment. According to the National Institutes of Health, the half-life for chlorpyrifos (i.e., the period of time that it takes for the active amount of the chemical to decrease by 50%) "can typically range from 33-56 days for soil incorporated applications and 7-15 days for surface applications"; in water, the half-life is about 25 days, and in the air, the half-life can range from four to ten days.[66]

Children of agricultural workers are more likely to come into contact with chlorpyrifos. A study done in an agricultural community in Washington State showed that children who lived in closer proximity to farmlands had higher levels of chlorpyrifos residues from house dust.[70] Chlorpyrifos residues were also found on work boots and children's hands, showing that agricultural families could take home these residues from their jobs.[70] Urban and suburban children get most of their chlorpyrifos exposure from fruits and vegetables.[71] A study done in North Carolina on children's exposure showed that chlorpyrifos was detected in 50% of the food, dust, and air samples in both their homes and daycare, with the main route of exposure being through ingestion.[72] Certain other populations with higher likely exposure to chlorpyrifos, such as people who apply pesticides, work on farms, or live in agricultural communities, have been measured in the US to excrete TCPy in their urine at levels that are 5 to 10 times greater than levels in the general population.[73][74][75]

As of 2016, chlorpyrifos is the most used conventional insecticide in the US and is used in over 40 states; the top five states (in total pounds applied) are California, North Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, and Texas. It is used on over 50 crops, with the top five crops (in total pounds applied) being soybeans, corn, alfalfa, oranges, and almonds. Additionally, crops with 30% or more of the crop treated (compared to total acres grown) include apples, asparagus, walnuts, table grapes, cherries, cauliflower, broccoli, and onions.[76]

Air monitoring studies conducted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) documented chlorpyrifos in the air of California communities.[77] Analyses indicate that children living in areas of high chlorpyrifos use are often exposed to levels that exceed EPA dosages.[78][79] A study done in Washington state using passive air samplers showed that households who lived less than 250 meters from a fruit tree field had higher levels of chlorpyrifos concentrations in the air than households that were further away.[80] Advocacy groups monitored air samples in Washington and Lindsay, California, in 2006 with comparable results.[81][82] Grower and pesticide industry groups argued that the air levels documented in these studies are not high enough to cause significant exposure or adverse effects,[83] but a follow-up biomonitoring study in Lindsay showed that people there display above-normal chlorpyrifos levels.[84][85]

 

longname wrote:

A-L-E-X wrote:

longname wrote:

TL;DR? I don't see what waste has to do with autism.

The toxic waste sites are correlated to hot spots where autism is more common.  The chemicals dumped there have been known to cause changes in the brain.  That state has the most toxic waste dump sites and the highest rates of autism by a wide margin, and it's growing.  It's part of the environmental component of autism.  According to the scientific research, autism is about two thirds genetic and one third environmental.  There are also certain pesticides like organophosphates like chlorpyrifos (banned in Europe and Canada not banned yet in America) that have been directly linked to both autism and ADHD in farming communities where children and pregnant mothers get exposed to it.  Companies like Dow and Dupont basically get away with murder when they bribe politicians to bend regulations for them.  In the class action lawsuit that Dupont lost (covered in the movie Dark Waters) papers were uncovered where Dupont knew that PFOA was causing birth defects in their pregnant female employees and killing livestock where they were dumping the stuff for over 50 years, much like the Monsanto fiasco in Anniston, AL.  Bayer, which bought Monsanto has been trying to improve their image, but it's not working because Bayer already has a horrible track record with causing environmental damage to pollinators with neonics and is losing billions now with all the Glyphosate lawsuits and Non Hodgkin's Lymphoma.  And now the Trump administration's colluding EPA has been implicated as taking part in the coverup when a whistleblower came forward with papers that were published in the NY Times and Washington Post showing what they were doing for the chemical lobby in unbanning dangerous chemicals like chlorpyrifos and not regulating PFOA in the water supply.  So in NY State we now have our own regulations to remove PFOA from the water supply, much stronger than the federal regulations, which are useless.  Pesticides like chlorpyrifos and chemicals like PFOA have been found in the blood supply of most animals, including humans.

If it's too long for you to read, you shouldn't be commenting on it.

And they just happen to cause autism out of all the thousands(?) of mental illnesses.

You completely failed to comprehend the enormity of what happened.  Read the previous post.  There were MANY other conditions that had been reported for years by employees who worked for that company, including babies born with physical birth defects and dead farm animals where the company illegally dumped the toxic material.  DuPont lost the class action when a whistleblower came forward and leaked internal papers from the company proving the coverup, so all this is moot anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid#

A study of workers living near a DuPont Teflon plant found an association between PFOA exposure and two kinds of cancer as well as four other diseases. A positive exposure-response trend for kidney cancer is supported by many studies. PFOA has been detected in the blood of more than 98% of the general US population in the low and sub-parts per billion (ppb) range, and levels are higher in chemical plant employees and surrounding subpopulations. How general populations are exposed to PFOA is not completely understood. PFOA has been detected in industrial waste, stain-resistant carpets, carpet-cleaning liquids, house dust, microwave popcorn bags, water, food, and Teflon (PTFE) products.

As a result of a class-action lawsuit and community settlement with DuPont, three epidemiologists conducted studies on the population surrounding a chemical plant that was exposed to PFOA at levels greater than in the general population. Studies have found correlation between high PFOA exposure and six health outcomes: kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, hypercholesterolemia (high cholesterol), and pregnancy-induced hypertension.[9]

The primary manufacturer of PFOS, the 3M Company (known as Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company from 1902 to 2002), began a production phase-out in 2002 in response to concerns expressed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).[10]:2 Eight other companies agreed to gradually phase out the manufacturing of the chemical by 2015.[10]:3

By 2014, EPA had listed PFOA and perfluorooctanesulfonates (salts of perfluorooctanesulfonic acid, PFOS) as emergent contaminants:

PFOA and PFOS are extremely persistent in the environment and resistant to typical environmental degradation processes. [They] are widely distributed across the higher trophic levels and are found in soil, air and groundwater at sites across the United States. The toxicity, mobility and bioaccumulation potential of PFOS and PFOA pose potential adverse effects for the environment and human health.[10]:1
Rob Bilott investigation
In the fall of 2000, lawyer Rob Bilott, a partner at Taft Stettinius & Hollister, won a court order forcing DuPont to share all documentation related to PFOA. This included 110,000 files, consisting of confidential studies and reports conducted by DuPont scientists over decades. By 1993, DuPont understood that "PFOA caused cancerous testicular, pancreatic and liver tumors in lab animals" and the company began to investigate alternatives. However, products manufactured with PFOA were such an integral part of DuPont's earnings, $1 billion in annual profit, they chose to continue using PFOA.[11] Billott learned that both "3M and DuPont had been conducting secret medical studies on PFOA for more than four decades", and by 1961 DuPont was aware of hepatomegaly in mice fed with PFOA.[11][26][27] Later research eventually found that PFOA had an outsized effect based on gender on several negative health outcomes in mice that had been exposed to the chemical. The PFOA exposure in these mice led to a modification of genetic expression. This led to the development of fatty tissue which caused the exposed mice to develop varying rates of hypercholesterolemia (high cholesterol). The impact of PFOA on this health outcome varied greatly between mice of different genotypes across relevant parts of the genome. Also, notably, female mice across all genotypes saw significantly higher rates and more severe cases of hypercholesterolemia.[28]

Bilott exposed how DuPont had been knowingly polluting water with PFOAs in Parkersburg, West Virginia since the 1980s.[11] In the 1980s and 1990s, researchers investigated the toxicity of PFOA.[27]

U.S. state government actions
In 2007, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) issued a preliminary health-based guidance level of 0.04 ppb in drinking water, due to PFOA being found at "elevated levels in the system's drinking water near DuPont's massive Chambers Works chemical plant".[174] In November 2017 NJDEP announced plans to develop regulatory drinking water standards for PFOA and PFNA, in the absence of federal standards.[101]

In 2007, the Minnesota Department of Health lowered its Health Based Value for PFOA in drinking water from 1.0 ppb to 0.5 ppb,[175] where "the sources are landfilled industrial wastes from a 3M manufacturing plant".[174]

In 2018 the New York State Department of Health adopted drinking water standards of 10 ppt for PFOA and 10 ppt for PFOS, effective in 2019 after a public comment period.[102]

United Nation action
The United Nation’s Stockholm Convention’s Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee (POPRC) recommended to eliminate PFOA, its salts, and PFOA-related compounds in September 2018. This decision was made by over 150 chemical experts from all UN regions. The committee and scientist stated there was enough evidence to link the chemical with negative environmental and human health outcomes to pave the way for a global ban of PFOA use. This recommendation will be reviewed in April–May, 2019, at the Conference of the Parties (COP) meeting in Geneva.[176]
For his work in the exposure of the contamination, lawyer Rob Bilott received The Right Livelihood Award in 2017.[29] This battle with DuPont is featured in the documentary The Devil We Know, which premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in 2018,[30] and Dark Waters (2019 film), directed by Todd Haynes.

A-L-E-X wrote:

Source of the post Who cares if casusation can be proved or not

I do.  And so should you.

Any scientist who says what you just did has ceased to be a scientist.  "Correlation = causation" is one of the most pervasive fallacies in science and human psychology, and it is absolutely important to understand it, the meaning of statistical significance, and how hypothesis and model testing actually works.  Otherwise we might as well believe that green jelly beans cause acne.

One of the most famous plots in climate science is the one showing correlation between prehistoric temperature variations and atmospheric CO2 variations.  They correlate extremely well, and this is often presented as a way to argue that CO2 changes drive planetary temperature changes.  But is the correlation enough to convince us?  No.  A skeptic might look at the correlation and say the opposite -- that temperature variations drive the CO2 changes.  In fact, that is partially right!  The temperature distribution over the Earth changes first by obliquity variations, which then affects carbon cycling, which then drives global temperature change, and so forth.  How do we know the change in CO2 concentration further drives the temperature change?  Physics!  We understand the thermodynamics of the greenhouse effect, and that's how we demonstrate the causation behind the correlation.

Back to the subject at hand, do I care about companies evading regulations on dumping known toxic chemicals?  Absolutely.  But does the research you presented convince me that living near these sites increases the risk of autism specifically?  No. The correlation wasn't strong enough to convince me that it wasn't a statistical fluke that could be found just by looking at a large number of diseases and disorders until you found one that happened to correlate by chance.  It was strong enough to convince me that it warrants a closer look to see if it is real, and if so, to understand it.

Watsisname wrote:

A-L-E-X wrote:

Source of the post Who cares if casusation can be proved or not

I do.  And so should you.

Any scientist who says what you just did has ceased to be a scientist.  "Correlation = causation" is one of the most pervasive fallacies in science and human psychology, and it is absolutely important to understand it, the meaning of statistical significance, and how hypothesis and model testing actually works.  Otherwise we might as well believe that green jelly beans cause acne.

One of the most famous plots in climate science is the one showing correlation between prehistoric temperature variations and atmospheric CO2 variations.  They correlate extremely well, and this is often presented as a way to argue that CO2 changes drive planetary temperature changes.  But is the correlation enough to convince us?  No.  A skeptic might look at the correlation and say the opposite -- that temperature variations drive the CO2 changes.  In fact, that is partially right!  The temperature distribution over the Earth changes first by obliquity variations, which then affects carbon cycling, which then drives global temperature change, and so forth.  How do we know the change in CO2 concentration further drives the temperature change?  Physics!  We understand the thermodynamics of the greenhouse effect, and that's how we demonstrate the causation behind the correlation.

Back to the subject at hand, do I care about companies evading regulations on dumping known toxic chemicals?  Absolutely.  But does the research you presented convince me that living near these sites increases the risk of autism specifically?  No. The correlation wasn't strong enough to convince me that it wasn't a statistical fluke that could be found just by looking at a large number of diseases and disorders until you found one that happened to correlate by chance.  It was strong enough to convince me that it warrants a closer look to see if it is real, and if so, to understand it.

I do too, but decisions need to be made more quickly than the time it takes to prove that.  Going back to climate change, the same is the case there.  We KNEW what was happening to the climate back in the 80s, we should have taken strong action then rather than waiting for the science to catch up.  Because based on the material coming out of the UN, it looks like we wont meet any of the goals set at the Paris conference Instead it looks like our warming will accelerate and reach +3-5C?

Looking back at the research that Dow and Dupont were both covering up (much like what Exxon did with climate change), it was a smoking gun and they deserved to be massively punished for it (and they were.)

When I read those papers and the articles that were written about them, they came to the same conclusions you did that there was a significant correlation but causation has yet to be proven so they're doing further research.  But meanwhile, those sites need to be cleaned up and the people who dumped the toxins need to pay for it and for the medical bills of those affected (including their employees).  These are scientists who work for the state of NJ DEP so they do have plenty of funding to conduct the research, plus there has been a huge kick against the Trump EPA in states like NJ, NY and CA because of his firing of scientists and placing his own people in charge of the EPA.

Proving causation will take a mechanism for showing exactly how chemicals like PFOA and chlorpyrifos affect the brain.  We're already partially there with chlorpyrifos because we already know how it affects the brains of insects by blocking acetylcholine, an important neurotransmitter.  And both of these chemicals have been found in the blood of people living in areas where they've been used and also (in the case of chlorpyrifos) in those who consume produce that was sprayed with them.  Interesting thing is that PFOA has been found in the blood of over 98% of humans and even in other animals like polar bears and the eggs of birds.  Both look like their effects are very pervasive throughout our environment.

This is the alarming new report on the increase in emissions:

Global Warming Prediction Sounds Alarm for Climate Fight
The world’s average temperature is rising faster than previously thought, headed for a gain that may be triple the goal almost set by almost 200 countries.

The findings by the World Meteorologic Organization suggest an increase of 3 degrees to 5 degrees Celsius (5.4 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century. It’s another indication of how far off track the planet is in meeting its target to contain global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius since the dawn of the industrial revolution.

That was the ambition in the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change, a level that scientists identify as one where the worst impacts on the environment could be avoided. While a fluctuation of that level hardly registers during the course of a day, when applied to the climate it would mark the biggest shift in temperatures since the last ice age ended some 10,000 years ago.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ium=social

Here's some of the Columbia Univ research into chlorpyrifos

https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/prenatal-exposure-insecticide-chlorpyrifos-linked-alterations-brain-structure

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/ ... 9.abstract


WHILE NO LONGER REGISTERED FOR HOUSEHOLD USE IN THE U.S., THE INSECTICIDE IS WIDELY USED AROUND THE WORLD AND IN U.S. AGRICULTURE
Even low to moderate levels of exposure to the insecticide chlorpyrifos during pregnancy may lead to long-term, potentially irreversible changes in the brain structure of the child, according to a new brain imaging study by researchers from the Columbia Center for Children's Environmental Health at the Mailman School of Public Health, Duke University Medical Center, Emory University, and the New York State Psychiatric Institute. The changes in brain structure are consistent with cognitive deficits found in children exposed to this chemical.

Results of the study appear online in the April 30 PNAS.

“”
Main Effects of CPF Exposure on Brain Surface Measures

The new study is the first to use MRI to identify the structural evidence for these cognitive deficits in humans,confirming earlier findings in animals. Changes were visible across the surface of the brain, with abnormal enlargement of some areas and thinning in others. The disturbances in brain structure are consistent with the IQ deficits previously reported in the children with high exposure levels of chlorpyrifos, or CPF, suggesting a link between prenatal exposure to CPF and deficits in IQ and working memory at age 7.

The study also reports evidence that CPF may eliminate or reverse the male-female differences that are ordinarily present in the brain. Further study is needed to determine the consequences of these changes before and after puberty, the researchers say.

Notably, the brain abnormalities appeared to occur at exposure levels below the current EPA threshold for toxicity, which is based on exposures high enough to inhibit the action of the key neurological enzyme cholinesterase. The present findings suggest that the mechanism underlying structural changes in the brain may involve other pathways.

some more about the research done at Columbia

https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/researcher-points-epa-failure-toxic-insecticide

https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public ... -structure

https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public ... tal-delays

https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public ... lorpyrifos


https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public ... 80%99s-way


https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public ... -pesticide

There's more research on this from Berkeley:

https://vcresearch.berkeley.edu/news/prenatal-pesticide-exposure-tied-lower-iq-children

In a new study suggesting pesticides may be associated with the health and development of children, researchers at the University of California, Berkeley’s School of Public Health have found that prenatal exposure to organophosphate pesticides – widely used on food crops – is related to lower intelligence scores at age 7.
The researchers found that every tenfold increase in measures of organophosphates detected during a mother’s pregnancy corresponded to a 5.5 point drop in overall IQ scores in the 7-year-olds. Children in the study with the highest levels of prenatal pesticide exposure scored seven points lower on a standardized measure of intelligence compared with children who had the lowest levels of exposure.
 

Organophosphate pesticides are approved for use in agriculture. Increasing evidence suggests that prenatal exposure to pesticides may have health impacts in later years.

“These associations are substantial, especially when viewing this at a population-wide level,” said study principal investigator Brenda Eskenazi, UC Berkeley professor of epidemiology and of maternal and child health. “That difference could mean, on average, more kids being shifted into the lower end of the spectrum of learning, and more kids needing special services in school.”
The UC Berkeley study is among a trio of papers showing an association between pesticide exposure and childhood IQ to be published online April 21 in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. Notably, the other two studies – one at Mt. Sinai Medical Center, the other at Columbia University – examined urban populations in New York City, while the UC Berkeley study focused on children living in Salinas, an agricultural center in Monterey County, California.
The studies in New York also examined prenatal exposure to pesticides and IQ in children at age 7. Like the UC Berkeley researchers, scientists at Mt. Sinai sampled pesticide metabolites in maternal urine, while researchers at Columbia looked at umbilical cord blood levels of a specific pesticide, chlorpyrifos.
“It is very unusual to see this much consistency across populations in studies, so that speaks to the significance of the findings,” said lead author Maryse Bouchard, who was working as a UC Berkeley post-doctoral researcher with Eskenazi while this study was underway. “The children are now at a stage where they are going to school, so it’s easier to get good, valid assessments of cognitive function.”
Organophosphates (OP) are a class of pesticides that are well-known neurotoxicants. Indoor use of chlorpyrifos and diazinon, two common OP pesticides, has been phased out over the past decade, primarily because of health risks to children.
The 329 children in the UC Berkeley study had been followed from before birth as part of the Center for the Health Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas (CHAMACOS), an ongoing longitudinal study led by Eskenazi. The new findings on IQ come less than a year after another study from the CHAMACOS cohort found an association between prenatal pesticide exposure and attention problems in children at age 5.
Researchers began enrolling pregnant women in the study in 1999. During pregnancy and after the children were born, study participants came to regular visits where CHAMACOS staff administered questionnaires and measured the health and development of the children.
During the visits, samples of urine were taken from the participants and tested for dialkyl phosphate (DAP) metabolites, the breakdown product of about 75 percent of the organophosphorus insecticides in use in the United States. Samples were taken twice during pregnancy, with the two results averaged, and after birth from the children at regular intervals between ages 6 months and 5 years.
The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) was used to assess the cognitive abilities of the children at age 7. The test includes subcategories for verbal comprehension, perceptual reasoning, working memory and processing speed.
In addition to the association with overall IQ scores, each of the four cognitive development subcategories saw significant decreases in scores associated with higher levels of DAPs when the mothers were pregnant. The findings held even after researchers considered such factors as maternal education, family income and exposure to other environmental contaminants, including DDT, lead and flame retardants.

https://news.berkeley.edu/2010/08/19/pesticide/

Children who were exposed to organophosphate pesticides while still in their mother’s womb were more likely to develop attention disorders years later, according to a new study by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley’s School of Public Health.

The new findings, to be published Aug. 19 in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP), are the first to examine the influence of prenatal organophosphate exposure on the later development of attention problems. The researchers found that prenatal levels of organophosphate metabolites were significantly linked to attention problems at age 5, with the effects apparently stronger among boys.

A tractor sprays pesticides on a food crop
A tractor sprays pesticides on a food crop. A new UC Berkeley study finds a link between prenatal exposure to pesticides and attention problems at age 5.

Earlier this year, a different study by researchers at Harvard University associated greater exposure to organophosphate pesticides in school-aged children with higher rates of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms.



Also, here's some research from UC Davis

https://serc.berkeley.edu/tag/chlorpyrifos/

https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/calif ... -won-t-epa

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi- ... story.html

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california ... velopment/

https://ensia.com/features/pesticide-ex ... -chamacos/

the UC Davis research

https://health.ucdavis.edu/health-news/ ... ng/2014/06


Pregnant women who lived in close proximity to fields and farms where chemical pesticides were applied experienced a two-thirds increased risk of having a child with autism spectrum disorder or other developmental delay, a study by researchers with the UC Davis MIND Institute has found. The associations were stronger when the exposures occurred during the second and third trimesters of the women’s pregnancies.

Janie Shelton  Janie Shelton
The large, multisite California-based study examined associations between specific classes of pesticides, including organophosphates, pyrethroids and carbamates, applied during the study participants’ pregnancies and later diagnoses of autism and developmental delay in their offspring. It is published online today in Environmental Health Perspectives.

“This study validates the results of earlier research that has reported associations between having a child with autism and prenatal exposure to agricultural chemicals in California,” said lead study author Janie F. Shelton, a UC Davis graduate student who now consults with the United Nations. “While we still must investigate whether certain sub-groups are more vulnerable to exposures to these compounds than others, the message is very clear: Women who are pregnant should take special care to avoid contact with agricultural chemicals whenever possible.”


http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1307044/

https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1307044

Abstract
Background: Gestational exposure to several common agricultural pesticides can induce developmental neurotoxicity in humans, and has been associated with developmental delay and autism.

Objectives: We evaluated whether residential proximity to agricultural pesticides during pregnancy is associated with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) or developmental delay (DD) in the Childhood Autism Risks from Genetics and Environment (CHARGE) study.

Methods: The CHARGE study is a population-based case–control study of ASD, DD, and typical development. For 970 participants, commercial pesticide application data from the California Pesticide Use Report (1997–2008) were linked to the addresses during pregnancy. Pounds of active ingredient applied for organophophates, organochlorines, pyrethroids, and carbamates were aggregated within 1.25-km, 1.5-km, and 1.75-km buffer distances from the home. Multinomial logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio (OR) of exposure comparing confirmed cases of ASD (n = 486) or DD (n = 168) with typically developing referents (n = 316).

Results: Approximately one-third of CHARGE study mothers lived, during pregnancy, within 1.5 km (just under 1 mile) of an agricultural pesticide application. Proximity to organophosphates at some point during gestation was associated with a 60% increased risk for ASD, higher for third-trimester exposures (OR = 2.0; 95% CI: 1.1, 3.6), and second-trimester chlorpyrifos applications (OR = 3.3; 95% CI: 1.5, 7.4). Children of mothers residing near pyrethroid insecticide applications just before conception or during third trimester were at greater risk for both ASD and DD, with ORs ranging from 1.7 to 2.3. Risk for DD was increased in those near carbamate applications, but no specific vulnerable period was identified.

Conclusions: This study of ASD strengthens the evidence linking neurodevelopmental disorders with gestational pesticide exposures, particularly organophosphates, and provides novel results of ASD and DD associations with, respectively, pyrethroids and carbamates.

Citation: Shelton JF, Geraghty EM, Tancredi DJ, Delwiche LD, Schmidt RJ, Ritz B, Hansen RL, Hertz-Picciotto I. 2014. Neurodevelopmental disorders and prenatal residential proximity to agricultural pesticides: the CHARGE study. Environ Health Perspect 122:1103–1109;  http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1307044

https://www.cencalhealth.org/news/2019/04/pesticide/

http://www.panna.org/press-statement/ai ... armworkers

https://ufw.org/chlorpyrifos8817/

Just one more series, this one is from Harvard and sums up the research rather well (also included is more research on PFOA and the flaws of industry-backed research exposed:

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/widely-used-pesticide-one-year-later/

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/ ... ear-later/

Chlorpyrifos was invented as an alternative to the pesticide DDT – which itself was a substitute for toxic lead arsenate – and has become part of a pattern known as “regrettable substitution”. Chlorpyrifos works by attacking insects’ nervous systems. At high doses, such as what farmers get exposed to when they spray pesticides,  it can cause people to experience nausea, dizziness, and confusion. Because of the potential health concerns, the EPA negotiated a deal with Dow Chemical to phase out all residential uses of chlorpyrifos in 2000, but this deal left the more profitable agricultural applications intact.

A natural experiment revealed the impact of chlorpyrifos on children’s health
The most disconcerting effect of chronic exposure to chlorpyrifos is its potential to impair children’s developing brains. When the residential use ban went into effect in 2000, it just so happened that a team of researchers at Columbia University was in the middle of recruiting participants for a study on childhood development. The ban allowed the researchers to split the study group in two halves, forming a natural experiment where the two groups of pregnant women were identical in every way except that the earlier group was exposed to household chlorpyrifos during pregnancy, and the latter group was not. The researchers found that when children were exposed in the womb, they tended to be smaller, have poorer reflexes, and show higher risks of having ADHD and other developmental disorders years after being exposed. Another team of researchers in Berkeley made similar findings. Since then, peer-reviewed publications have provided strong evidence for the neurodevelopmental toxicity of chlorpyrifos. Only Dow Chemical, the inventor of chlorpyrifos, disagrees with this well-established scientific evidence, citing its own “40 years of high-quality animal research.”

Most of Dow Chemical’s studies relied on standard toxicity testing recommended in the“OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals.” However, these methods cannot detect the more subtle effects caused by low doses and long-term exposures. Effects of chlorpyrifos on brain development are the focus of many academic research articles but not included in OECD guidelines. Therefore, these academic studies were not originally considered in regulatory decision making.


https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph- ... -or-worse/

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph- ... an-health/

Findings from industry-funded toxicity studies of the commonly used pesticide chlorpyrifos that showed the product had no effects on neurodevelopment may be biased, misleading, and inaccurate, according to a new study.

The study examined raw data from animal research sponsored by Dow Chemical Company on chlorpyrifos and the related substance chlorpyrifos-methyl and found evidence that the chemicals were associated with changes in brain dimension of animals at all dose levels tested, though the industry reports did not note this finding. The researchers also raised concerns that some of the dosages of the chemicals used in the studies were too low to have any impact on nursing pups.

“If all of this raw data had been scrutinized properly, it should have at least required further testing to see if these findings were abnormal,” Philippe Grandjean, senior author of the study and adjunct professor of environmental health at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, said in a November 16, 2018 article in Environmental Health News. “In our minds, their [Dow’s] data are not appropriate to prove that [chlorpyrifos] is not a neurotoxicant.”

Read the Environmental Health News article: Industry studies show evidence of bias and misleading conclusions on widely used insecticide: Scientists

Learn more

Risks of PFASs known decades before research revealed, says expert (Harvard Chan School news)

Health risks of widely used chemicals may be underestimated (Harvard Chan School news)

https://www.ehn.org/industry-studies-on ... 18322.html



PFASs, chemicals commonly found in environment, may interfere with body weight regulation (Harvard Chan School press release)

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph- ... grandjean/

Research on the dangerous health effects of perfluorinated alkylate substances (PFASs)—chemicals widely used in everything from carpets and nonstick cookware to firefighting foams—was kept hidden for decades, according to a new editorial by Philippe Grandjean, adjunct professor of environmental health at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

He wrote that industry-sponsored animal studies documented PFAS toxicity in 1978 but were not shared with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency until 2000. This delay prevented the development of proper guidelines for safe levels of the chemicals in drinking water, according to Grandjean.

The editorial was published in Environmental Health on July 31, 2018.

PFAS have been linked to a range of health problems, including testicular and kidney cancers, decreased birth weight, and thyroid disease. While most companies have stopped producing two forms of PFASs— perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS)—the chemicals persist in drinking water systems, and new forms of PFASs are raising concerns.

“It’s frustrating to be an environmental health researcher and spend years and years to characterize the exposures and the adverse health effects of these compounds, only to discover that most of that information was already known but had been kept secret,” Grandjean told Environmental Health News.

Read Environmental Health News article: Hidden studies from decades ago could have curbed PFAS problem: Scientist

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph- ... estimated/

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press ... dy-weight/

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/?p=111354846032

https://www.ehn.org/bpa-impact-on-human ... 34273.html

https://www.ehn.org/is-bpa-dangerous-fo ... 53205.html

https://www.ehn.org/is-the-toxic-legacy ... 88680.html

https://www.ehn.org/good-river-our-repo ... 29638.html



http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/?p=111354846216