Fitness By Marilyn

Saturday, October 22, 2005

Katrina Disaster

This is the best coverage of this that I have seen!

http://gmagic.com/katrina/
http://www.fitnessbymarilyn.com
Independent AIM Member - Marilyn Wilson Price

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

60 Minutes To A Healthier Heart

Practical Prevention: 60 minutes to a Healthier Heart
by Elizabeth S. Smoots, MD

What would you say to 60 minutes of physical activity a week?

Many studies have revealed the health value of exercise. Now, new research has defined the minimal amount of physical activity it takes to see heart benefits in women—60 minutes per week. Would you be willing to commit to that amount of time? Since this decision is so important to your long-term health, before answering, consider why women even need to worry about their hearts.

Heart Disease is Common in Women

Heart disease is the number one killer of women in our country today. Nearly 400,000 women die from cardiac causes in the U.S. each year—this is ten times the number of women that die from breast cancer. Yet, according to a Gallup poll, four-out-of-five women are not even aware that they are at risk for heart disease.

It is true that estrogen produced by a woman's body helps prevent heart disease while we're young, but this advantage is lost after we pass through menopause. By age 65, one in four women—the same proportion as in men—ends up with coronary heart disease. So we need something more to keep our hearts healthy.

Studying Physical Activity in Women

Encouraging news from a recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) indicates that even light exercise is associated with a lower rate of coronary heart disease in women. The study followed 39,000 healthy women aged 45 and older for an average of five years. At the end of the study, researchers found that women who walked at least one hour a week, regardless of pace, had half the rate of heart disease as women who did not walk regularly.

Vigorous activities also reduced heart disease risk. But the results suggest that time spent exercising and calories burned were more important than intensity for the women enrolled in this study.

Researchers noted exercise's beneficial effects extended to women at high-risk for heart disease. Those who smoked, were overweight, or had elevated cholesterol levels had similar improvements in their heart disease rate when they exercised as did low-risk women. For women with high blood pressure, however, the scientists said their findings indicate that more than mild exercise may be harmful.

Adding More Exercise To Your Life

How can you get the heart-benefits of exercise—including better cardiovascular function, lower blood sugar and cholesterol, and reduced weight and stress—even if you have cardiac risk factors or are not accustomed to exercising? Heed this heart-healthy advice:

Get your health care provider's okay before starting physical activities. This is especially critical for women with chronic illness or risk factors for heart disease.

Choose several activities you think you would enjoy. For most women a blend of exercise types is usually best.

These may include:

Aerobic activities like walking—the most popular leisure activity among women—and dancing, aerobics classes, swimming, or biking

Stretching exercises

Strengthening exercises such as using weights or body bands

For each activity, gradually increase your pace and time. Learn to listen to your body. If you don't feel right, stop and make adjustments, or see your doctor.

Building Protection For Your Heart

Over the years numerous studies have concluded that physically active people have a lower rate of heart disease than those who are inactive. For heart health, most experts recommend that women aim for at least 30 minutes of moderate exercise most days of the week. This equates to expending about 1,000 calories a week through exercise.

I encourage women who are physically fit to continue vigorous activities for the added health value. Even if you're sedentary, though, the latest findings suggest that light exercise for as little as 60 minutes a week can dramatically benefit your heart.

Now I ask you, do you think you can commit to giving your heart that much time?

Resources

American Heart Association
http://www.americanheart.org/

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/

American Academy of Family Physicians
http://familydoctor.org

"Physical activity and coronary heart disease in women: is ‘no pain, no gain' passé?" by I-Min Lee, MBBS, ScD, et al. Journal of the American Medical Association, March 21, 2001, Volume 285, pp. 1447-54.

"Coronary artery disease prevention: what's different for women?" by Joan Bedinghaus, MD. American Family Physician, April 1, 2001, Volume 63, pp. 1393-1406.

"One for 2001: take lifestyle to heart," Women's Health Watch, Harvard Medical School, January 2001, p.1.

"Benefits of physical activity for the heart." Journal of the American Medical Association, March 21, 2001, Volume 285, p.1536.

Fitness By Marilyn
Independent AIM Member - Marilyn Wilson Price

Monday, October 17, 2005

Health And Fitness Resources

Sunday, October 16, 2005

Dr. Michael Greger Newsletter Fall 2005

*******************************************************

Fall 2005 issue of Dr. Michael Greger's quarterly newsletter

*******************************************************

CONTENTS (online at http://www.DrGreger.org/newsletters.html )

I. Latest Updates in Human Nutrition

A. Ornish Takes on Cancer
B. Peppermint Oil for Irritable Bowel Syndrome
C. Atkins Diet: Dead Meat
D. Arteries--Open Sesame!
E. Childhood Brain Tumors and Maternal Diet

II. Personal Update

III. Mad Cow Update: FDA gutless, brainless;
Our food and cosmetic supply should be so lucky

IV. Bird Flu Update:
On a Wing and a Prayer

V. Mailbag: ""What sources do you use to write the newsletter?"

*******************************************************

I. LATEST UPDATES IN HUMAN NUTRITION

*******************************************************

A. Ornish Takes on Cancer

Until Dean Ornish published his landmark study in 1990, most
cardiologists saw heart disease as an inexorable part of old age and
treated it largely palliatively, going to great lengths--even open
heart surgery--to alleviate the pain and disability. What Dr. Ornish
showed was that heart disease could be not only slowed down, but
actually reversed with a plant-based diet and other lifestyle
changes.[1] People learned they could quite literally take their life
in their own hands and cure themselves of a debilitating
life-threatening disease once thought incurable. The broader
implication, of course, was that a plant-based diet could potentially
prevent heart disease in the first place.

Largely ignoring the evidence Ornish presented, physicians of today,
however, continue to talk of merely decreasing the risk of heart
disease. As Dr. William Roberts, editor of the American Journal of
Cardiology, points out "Pediatricians do not focus on decreasing the
risk of mumps, measles, pertussis, or rheumatic fever. They focus on
preventing these illnesses entirely. The same concept needs to be
applied to atherosclerotic events."[2] Having demonstrated we could
prevent and cure our number one killer without drugs and surgery,
Ornish has now decided to take on killer number two, cancer.
[To
continue reading please go to http://www.drgreger.org/fall2005.html]

******************************************************

B. Peppermint Oil for Irritable Bowel Syndrome

Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) affects millions of Americans with
painful abdominal cramps, bloating, gas, and bouts of diarrhea and
constipation. Eliminating dairy and caffeine often takes care of the
problem, but if not I often put patients on peppermint oil--and there
is finally now solid evidence to support this centuries-old
practice.[9]
[To continue reading please go to
http://www.drgreger.org/fall2005.html]

******************************************************

C. The Atkins Diet: Dead Meat

My latest book, "Carbophobia: The Scary Truth Behind America's Low
Carb Craze": published February 1st, 2005. The multibillion dollar
Atkins corporation: files for bankruptcy August 1st.[10] Six months.
Not bad (though I was hoping to topple them in four :). Seriously,
though, all the I-told-them-so satisfaction is lost upon reflection
of the thousands of families shattered by pork-rind and egg-yolk
fueled heart attacks spawned by these high-fat frauds. Americans are
now fattening at a rate never before seen, with a recent report
showing rising obesity rates across 48 states. Right now two thirds
of Americans are overweight. By 2008 the number is predicted to
approach 75%.[11] And just when we thought we couldn't get any fatter
comes the follow-up to the Framingham Heart Study published last week
in the Annals of Internal Medicine, suggesting that over the long
haul as many as 9 out of 10 men are likely to become overweight.[12]
The answer, according to two new studies piling onto the mountain of
evidence, is a plant-based diet.
[To continue reading please go to
http://www.drgreger.org/fall2005.html]

******************************************************

D. Arteries--Open Sesame!

People who have lived with me know about my "magic powder." I
sprinkle it on almost everything. It's a combination of ground flax
seed, dulse flakes, vitamin B12-fortified nutritional yeast and
toasted and ground sesame seeds. The flax is for my Omega 3 fatty
acids (although as little nutritional powerhouses they are much much
more); the dulse is for iodine since I don't use salt (I've always
wanted to include sea vegetables in my diet, because I knew they were
so amazing trace mineral-wise, but I never liked the taste. Dulse is
a gorgeous purple seaweed with but a mild flavor); and the
nutritional yeast is for my B12 (although again there's so much other
nutrition in this stuff it turns your pee yellow :). But the toasted
sesame seeds (just spread a layer of raw sesame seeds in a toaster
oven tray and toast until golden brown) are just to make the whole
thing edible. Sesame seeds are the first recorded seasoning ever,
dating back over 5000 years and no wonder--the rich sweet nutty
flavor and fragrance of freshly toasted sesame seeds is out of this
world. Little did I know that all this time they were helping to keep
my arteries clean. And I love hearing good news about my good habits.
[To continue reading please go to
http://www.drgreger.org/fall2005.html]

******************************************************

E. Childhood Brain Tumors and Maternal Diet

Cancer is second only to accidents as a leading cause of death for
our children these days. Brain tumors are the most common solid form
of pediatric cancer. The development of childhood brain tumors is a
chief reason why pregnant women no longer get X-rayed. Evidence has
been building, though, that the mother's diet during pregnancy also
plays a significant role.
[To continue reading please go to
http://www.drgreger.org/fall2005.html]

*******************************************************

II. PERSONAL UPDATE

Alas, what was once monthly is now sadly only quarterly. As much as I
really enjoy working on this newsletter it takes me at least a week
to research and write, and now with a more than full time job, on top
of the writing, and traveling, and speaking I just can no longer
afford to spend a quarter of my month on it. So, I'm now sadly down
to the seasons. You can expect the Winter issue this January
(hopefully with tellings of the hatching of my new bird flu book!).
I'll put a Spring issue out every April, a Summer issue out in July
and a Fall every October. It kills me to have to pass over so many
important juicy articles I see every month, and I miss the feeling of
more frequently reaching out to everyone that has reached out to me
over the years, entrusting me with a piece of their family's health.
I hope you can understand. [To continue reading please go to
http://www.drgreger.org/fall2005.html]

*******************************************************

III. MAD COW UPDATE:

FDA gutless and brainless; our food and cosmetic supply should be so lucky

Early last month, while all eyes were on Katrina, the FDA quietly
announced that it was even backtracking on the few rules it had
already put in place. You may remember my April 2004 mad cow update (
http://www.drgreger.org/april2004.html ) in which I encouraged
everyone to put pressure on the FDA to follow the European example
and exclude not only small intestine from the human food and
cosmetics supply, but all cow/calf colons and rectums as well. Not
only did they refuse to ban these potentially risky tissues, but the
exclusion of all smaller intestines was evidently so costly to the
sausage industry that they've decided to allow them back in, forcing
producers just to cut off the last few feet.[21] As one public health
commentator commentated: "So while the FDA may be gutless, your food
and cosmetics won't be."[22]
[To continue reading please go to
http://www.drgreger.org/fall2005.html]

*******************************************************

IV. BIRD FLU UPDATE:

On a Wing and a Prayer

Two weeks ago a Dr. "Frist" wrote an op-ed in the Washington Times
warning that the bird flu virus "poses an immense potential threat to
American civilization."[33] A threat to civilization? Who is this
guy? This "guy" is Bill Frist, M.D., Majority Leader of the United
States Senate. [To continue reading please go to
http://www.drgreger.org/fall2005.html]

*******************************************************

V. MAILBAG: "What sources do you use to write the newsletter?"

I love libraries. I grew up in libraries. I would actually skip class
in high school so I could spend more time in a basement--the science
library at the local state university. Let's just say I was an
uber-nerd.
[To continue reading please go to
http://www.drgreger.org/fall2005.html]

*******************************************************

REFERENCES at http://www.drgreger.org/fall2005.html

If anyone missed previous months, check out my newsletter archive at
http://www.DrGreger.org/newsletters.html

Until (hopefully) next month,
-Michael

(206) 312-8640
425 North Frederick Ave. #4A
Gaithersburg, MD 20877-2431

http://www.DrGreger.org
http://www.AtkinsExposed.org
http://www.organicconsumers.org/madcow.htm

HEART FAILURE: Diary of a Third Year Medical Student
(full text now available free): http://www.upalumni.org/medschool

My latest book:
CARBOPHOBIA: The Scary Truth Behind America's Low Carb Craze
http://www.lanternbooks.com/detail.html?session=a2bc38f2856ef73e88f55552a47cc4f8&id=1590560868

To subscribe to my free quarterly nutrition newsletter
send a blank email to: drgregersnewsletter-subscribe@lists.riseup.netg

Fitness By Marilyn
Independent AIM Member - Marilyn Wilson Price

Monday, October 03, 2005

Award Winner

A TOUGH OLD COWBOY ONCE COUNSELED HIS GRANDSON THAT IF HE WANTED TO LIVE A LONG LIFE, THE SECRET WAS TO SPRINKLE A PINCH OF GUNPOWDER ON HIS OATMEAL EVERY MORNING. THE GRANDSON DID THIS RELIGIOUSLY AND LIVED TO THE AGE OF 110. HE LEFT 4 CHILDREN, 20 GRANDCHILDREN, 30 GREAT-GRANDCHILDREN, 10 GREAT-GREAT GRANDCHILDREN AND A FIFTY FOOT HOLE WHERE THE CREMATORIUM USED TO BE.

Independent AIM Member - Marilyn Wilson Price

Sunday, October 02, 2005

Texans FOR Marriage NOV 8

We NEED your help. Vote Nov 8 FOR the Marriage Amendment to the Texas Constitution
- Please help get the word out!
(There are a total of 9 proposed amendments - see sample ballot.)

Sample Ballot - http:////:www.texansformarriage.org/SampleBallot.pdf

Analyses of the 9 Constitutional Amendments http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/pubsconamend/pubsconamend.html

Best Website - http://www.texansformarriage.org

Register to Vote - http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/voter/reqvr.shtml

Free Voters' Guides - http://www.freemarket.org/portal/index.php?option=displaypage&Itemid=165&op=page&SubMenu=
To reserve your copy of the Voters' Guides for the 2005 Constitutional Amendments or request a bulk shipment for your church, please call 972-423-8889 x104 or e-mail: programs@freemarket.org

Justice at the Gate

Building strategic partnerships to mobilize Christians
to pray effectively and to vote righteously
PO Box 681148
San Antonio, Texas 78268
Alice Patterson, President
(210) 677-8214
http://www.justiceathegate.org
JusticeAtTheGate@aol.com

September 27, 2005

SPECIAL ELECTION NOVEMBER 8, 2005

In May both houses of the Texas Legislature passed HJR6 stating that "that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage." Although our state had passed a "Defense of Marriage Act" a couple of years ago, our legislators understood that it was necessary to make marriage between one man and one woman a part of our state constitution so that it would be beyond the reach of activist judges who have struck down similar statutes in different states across the nation. The next step is for registered voters in Texas to approve the amendment, now known as PROPOSITION 2, in the Special Election on November 8, so that it can become a part of our constitution.

HOW DOES A HOMOSEXUAL COUPLE GETTING MARRIED AFFECT ME?

That's a question many pastors are asking. Intercessors Network of Sweden (Intercessors.Network@Comhem.se) reports the following:

"CANADIANS OPPOSED TO HOMOSEXUALITY FACE HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNALS

With the passage of legislation legalizing same-sex marriage in Canada and the inclusion of sexual orientation in the â€œhate propagandaâ€ sections of the Criminal Code of Canada, assurances were made by the federal government that those opposed to the legislation on religious grounds would not face recrimination. This assurance was questioned by many and this questioning appears to be justified with recent human rights complaints.

When same-sex marriage was legalized, marriage commissioners across the country raised questions about their obligations under the new legislation. The province of Saskatchewan has taken a particularly harsh stance, stating that all commissioners must either be willing to perform same-sex marriages or resign. Instead, Orville Nichols and two other commissioners filed a human rights complaint against the province. Nichols likewise faces a human rights complaint after he refused to marry a same-sex couple in May.

An Alberta pastor, Stephen Boissoin, also faces a complaint filed by an assistant professor of the University of Calgary and gay-rights advocate, Darren Lund. The complaint centers on Boissoinâ€™s letter to the editor published in the Red Deer Advocate in June 2002. The initial complaint was dismissed by the Alberta Human Rights Commission, but it has been appealed. The date of the hearing has not been set but is expected shortly.

Bishop Fred Henry from Calgary also faced similar action for a pastoral letter sent to his Catholic constituency, protesting the same-sex marriage legislation. This complaint was dropped in late August when the complainant, Norm Greenfield, admitted that his complaints were intended primarily to attract media attention.

Pray that Christians in Canada will be free to voice their position on ethical issues without the threat of legal action.
Pray that the federal and provincial governments will pass and enforce legislation protecting religious rights.
Pray for these and others facing complaints for raising their voice on ethical issues."

If same-sex marriage is legalized in Texas it would remove the "teeth" from the battle that many pro-family leaders and parents are engaged in concerning public schools teaching that "alternate lifestyles" are acceptable.

Supporting Proposition 2 and agreeing with God's righteous standard as the law of the land doesn't mean that our churches and our hearts are closed to homosexuals who need God's grace and ministry. We can stand for righteous laws and have a heart of compassion and open doors to any person trapped in sin in our congregations.

What does God say about it?

After the Lord commends the Church at Thyatira for her works, charity, service, faith and patience, He says this in Revelation 2:20, "Nevertheless I have a few things against you, because you allow (tolerate, permit) that woman Jezebelâ€¦to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immoralityâ€¦" We are not only judged for our compassion but for what we tolerate.

The church must weigh in on this election to insure that God's standard for marriage is the law of the land.

Will you do three things over the next five weeks?

1. Register Voters in your church through October 9?

Some tips about Voter Registration.

You must be a citizen, not just a legal resident to register to vote.

Individuals who will be 18 by November 8 can register to vote now.

Anyone who has moved, even in the same precinct must register to vote again.

In Texas a member of the immediate family can register members of their immediate households. So you can register your wife, husband and children.

It's not necessary to be deputized to register voters in your church. Just have your folks fill out the Voter Registration Cards, collect them in a box marked MAIL and DROP THEM IN THE MAILBOX. DO NOT DELIVER them to the Elections Office.

Don't be confused by the pocket on the new cards. It's not necessary to include a copy of your identification to register. You'll be asked to show ID the first time you vote in a federal election.

For your voter registration to be valid for the November 8 election, the Voter Registration Cards must be postmarked by October 11.

You may pick up Voter Registration Cards at your county elections office or call the Secretary of State's office at 1-800-252-8683 and they will mail them to you.

Visit http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/voter/reqvr.shtml to print a Voter Registration Card that requires postage to mail or to request a postage-free card be sent to you personally. You must call for bulk mailings.

Early Voting is October 24 â€“ November 4.

2. Deliver Voter Guides for Distribution in Churches October 23-November 6

One of the most important things you can do for the election is to distribute Voter Guides. Although Proposition 2 is the only moral issue on the ballot, there are 9 Constitutional Amendments on the ballot.

Free Market Foundation will print and distribute 3 million voter guides before the election. The Voter Guides give the PROS and CONS of Proposition 2 as well as the other 8 constitutional amendments that will be on the ballot.

Estimate one voter guide per household for those who attend on Sunday morning and order the number of VOTER GUIDES you need at the bottom of the attached form. Let us know the number you need in ENGLISH and the number of Spanish voter guides you need. The Voter Guides will be mailed by the beginning of Early Voting October 24.

Consider being a distribution point for churches in your city or county. Order enough voter guides for your area and send teenagers to deliver them to the churches right up until Election Day.

3. Get the word out to other pastors in your denomination, city and county

Most Texas pastors support marriage between one man and one woman. They just don't know there's an election in November.

Please get the word out to other pastors to:

Register voters

Distribute VOTER GUIDES

VOTE

YOU ARE FREE SO SPEAK ABOUT THIS FROM THE PULPIT, RADIO AND TV

Preach about it from your pulpit.
Announce it on your radio and TV program.
Write about it in your bulletin and church newsletter.
Unlike elections where candidates and political parties are involved, this election is legal for pastors and churches to ENDORSE Proposition 2 and GET OUT THE VOTE for marriage.
The restrictions that apply to elections where candidates and political parties are involved DO NOT APPLY to this election. Speak out about it.

A vote FOR Proposition 2 is a vote for God's righteous standard of marriage between one man and one woman.

Will you commit NOW to do MORE than just educate your own congregation? Get the word out to your sphere of influence, your denominational leader and other pastors in your city and county.

Passion is on the side of the opposition. We must overcome passivity to see a God's righteous standard as the law in Texas.

The outcome of this election may very well depend on YOU!

WEBSITE WITH EXCELLENT INFORMATION ABOUT THE NOVEMBER 8 ELECTION

Several pro-family leaders and groups, including Kelly Shackelford of Free Market Foundation, have collaborated together to give you accurate information and resources relating to the November 8 Special Election. It is http://www.texansformarriage.org. Several things of interest are:

Pastor Freedoms
Pastor Helps
Recent Studies
Scripture References
Sample Ballot

Fitness By Marilyn
Independent AIM Member - Marilyn Wilson Price

Sunday, August 14, 2005

Toxic Chemicals

When the front page of the Wall Street Journal covers it, you know it's time to take it seriously. Many chemicals that are ubiquitous and previously assumed to be safe are now being shown to have insidious health effects. More reasons to detoxify and alkalize your body every day!

Neil Carman, Ph.D.

Levels of Risk

Common Industrial Chemicals

In Tiny Doses Raise Health Issue

Advanced Tests Often Detect

Subtle Biological Effects;
Are Standards Too Lax?

Getting in Way of Hormones

By PETER WALDMAN
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
July 25, 2005; Page A1

First in a Series: TOXIC TRACES, New Questions about Old Chemicals

For years, scientists have struggled to explain rising rates of some cancers and childhood brain disorders. Something about modern living has driven a steady rise of certain maladies, from breast and prostate cancer to autism and learning disabilities.

One suspect now is drawing intense scrutiny: the prevalence in the environment of certain industrial chemicals at extremely low levels. A growing body of animal research suggests to some scientists that even minute traces of some chemicals, always assumed to be biologically insignificant, can affect such processes as gene activation and the brain development of newborns.

An especially striking finding: It appears that some substances may have effects at the very lowest exposures that are absent at higher levels.

Some scientists, many of them in industry, dismiss such concerns. But the new science of low-dose exposure is challenging centuries of accepted wisdom about toxic substances and rattling the foundation of environmental law.

Modern pollution restrictions aim to limit exposures to levels past studies have found safe. For example, it's known mercury can cause learning problems in children if it's above 58 parts per billion in the bloodstream. Dividing 58 by 10 to provide a margin of safety, U.S. regulators advise that children and young women not accumulate more than 5.8 parts per billion of mercury, by limiting consumption of certain fish such as tuna.

But what if it turned out some common substances have essentially no safe exposure levels at all? That was ultimately what the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concluded about lead after studying its effects on children for decades. Indications some other chemicals may have no safe limits have led regulators in Europe and Japan to bar the use of certain compounds in toys and in objects used to serve food. In the U.S., federal scientists are devising new tests that could be used to screen thousands of common chemicals to make sure they're safe at extremely low exposures.

Using advanced lab techniques, scientists have found that with some chemicals, traces as minute as mere parts per trillion have biological effects. That's one-millionth of the smallest traces even measurable three decades ago, when many of today's environmental laws were written. With some of these chemicals, such trace levels exist in the blood and urine of the general population.

Some chemical traces appear to have greater effects in combination than singly, another challenge to traditional toxicology, which tests things individually.

The human body is complex, and effects seen in tests on small laboratory animals and in human cells don't necessarily mean health risks to people. "The question is what do we do about these low levels once we know they're there," says Steve Hentges of the American Plastics Council, a trade association.

For their part, companies and industry groups have attacked low-dose research as alarmist and are challenging the findings with scientific studies of their own. Some industry studies have contradicted the low-dose findings of university and government labs. One reason, says Rochelle Tyl, a toxicologist who does rodent studies on contract for industry groups, is that academics seek "to find out if a chemical has an intrinsic capacity to do harm," while industry scientists try to measure actual dangers to people.

The result is that low-dose research has sparked a number of heated scientific and regulatory controversies:

* Tiny doses of bisphenol A, which is used in polycarbonate plastic baby bottles and in resins that line food cans, have been found to alter brain structure, neurochemistry, behavior, reproduction and immune response in animals. Makers and users of the chemical maintain, citing a Harvard review of 19 studies, that the chemical is harmless to humans at such levels. (See illustration)

* Minute levels of phthalates, which are used in toys, building materials, drug capsules, cosmetics and perfumes, have been statistically linked to sperm damage in men and genital changes, asthma and allergies in children. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has detected comparable levels in Americans' urine. Manufacturers say there is no reliable evidence that phthalates cause any health problems.

* A chemical used in munitions, called perchlorate, is known to inhibit production of thyroid hormone, which children need for brain development. The chemical has been detected in drinking-water supplies in 35 states, as well as in fruits, vegetables and breast milk. The EPA has spent years mulling what is a safe level in drinking water. The Defense Department and weapons makers maintain it is harmless at much higher doses than those that Americans ingest.

* The weed killer atrazine has been linked to sexual malformations in frogs that were exposed to water containing just 1/30th as much atrazine as the EPA regards as safe in human drinking water. The herbicide's main manufacturer, Syngenta AG, says other studies prove atrazine is safe. The EPA favors more study.

With so much still unknown, regulators are proceeding on different tracks in different countries. Japan's government designates about 70 chemicals as potential "endocrine disruptors" -- substances that may, at tiny doses, interfere with hormonal signals that regulate human organ development, metabolism and other functions. Japan has just completed a $135 million research push on endocrine disruptors, including setting up a national research center. The Japanese government also has banned certain phthalates in food handlers' gloves and containers, after detecting them in food. One manufacturer, Fujitsu Ltd., has pledged to phase out its use of most suspected endocrine disruptors over coming years.

The European Union has banned some kinds of phthalates in cosmetics and toys, and it is considering a ban on nearly all phthalates in household goods and medical devices. The EU also is planning to require new safety tests for thousands of industrial chemicals, many of which already exist in people's bodies at trace levels. Industry, which would have to bear the cost of proving countless current products safe, is fighting the measures, calling them a massive unnecessary burden.

In the U.S., there are divisions within the government. The White House plays down the issue, saying the low-dose hypothesis is unproved. But many federal scientists and regulators at the EPA and Health and Human Services Department are forging ahead with new methods for assessing possible low-dose dangers. Legislatures in two states, California and New York, are considering bills that would ban use of certain phthalates in toys, child-care products and cosmetics, while a California bill would restrict bisphenol A.

Earliest Concerns

One of the early scientists to focus on possible low-dose risks was biologist Theo Colborn of the World Wildlife Fund. Studying the decline of certain birds, mammals and fish in the upper Midwest, Dr. Colborn spotted some patterns: Species that struggled to survive in the industrialized Great Lakes thrived in inland areas that were less polluted. And some offspring in more-polluted regions had gender abnormalities, such as feminized sex organs in males. She theorized that trace amounts of chemicals in the environment were disrupting hormones.

Dr. Colborn and colleagues popularized low-dose concerns in a series of conferences, articles and a best-selling 1996 book called "Our Stolen Future." That year the EPA asked an outside advisory panel to consider ways of screening industrial chemicals for hormonal effects, a process still incomplete.

In 2000, a separate EPA-organized panel, after reviewing 49 studies, said some hormonally active chemicals affect animals at doses as low as the "background levels" to which the general human population is subject. The panel said the health implications weren't clear but urged the EPA to revisit its regulatory procedures to make sure such chemicals are tested in animals at appropriately small doses.

The EPA hesitated. It responded in 2002 that "until there is an improved scientific understanding of the low-dose hypothesis, EPA believes that it would be premature to require routine testing of substances for low-dose effects."

The Bush administration's regulatory czar, John Graham -- administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the White House Office of Management and Budget -- later publicly dismissed as unproven the idea that the hormonal system could be disrupted by multiple low-dose exposures to industrial chemicals. For the past two years, the administration has proposed funding cuts for EPA research on suspected endocrine disrupters, but Congress has kept the funding roughly level at about $10 million a year.

Since the review panel met in 2000, scientists have published more than 100 peer-reviewed articles reporting further low-dose effects in living animals and in human cells. These findings are generating some early insights in the thorny process of translating laboratory data into conclusions about human health.

Less Is More

One of the most provocative is that some hormonally active chemicals seem to have more effects at extremely low exposures than at higher ones. This challenges an axiom of toxicology stated by the Swiss chemist Paracelsus nearly 500 years ago: The dose makes the poison.

Toxicologists traditionally derive risk by exposing rodents to chemicals to find the lowest dose that leads to tumors, birth defects or other readily observable effects. Regulators then divide the highest "no-observable-effect" dose by an "uncertainty factor" -- anywhere from 10 to 1,000 -- to set a maximum human exposure they can be confident is safe.

But now researchers have found chemicals that have hormonal effects on lab animals and on human cells in much tinier amounts than their standard no-observable-effect levels. And with some of these chemicals, as the tiny doses given to animals are increased, the effects recede. Then, at much higher levels, broad systemic impacts appear, such as reduced body weight.

An example is bisphenol A, or BPA, the ingredient in polycarbonate baby bottles and food-can linings. It evidently is widespread in the environment. In the U.S., the CDC has found traces of it in 95% of urine samples tested. In Japan, researchers have detected BPA in fetal amniotic fluid and the umbilical cords of newborns.

Studying BPA in rats in 1988, the EPA concluded the lowest exposure with an "observed adverse effect" was 50 milligrams a day per kilogram of body weight (one kilogram = 2.2 pounds). Dividing 50 by an uncertainty factor of 1,000, the agency set a daily safe limit for humans of 0.05 milligrams of BPA per kilogram of body weight. Since then, however, academic scientists in several countries have done more than 90 studies that have found BPA effects on animals and human cell cultures from exposures well below this level.

The EPA used a relatively crude measure of the chemical's effects: changes in rodents' body weights. The new studies looked at subtler, hormone-related effects. Some studies found changes in rodents' reproductive organs and brains at doses as low as 0.002 milligram per kilogram of body weight per day. That is just one-25,000th the dose that the EPA said was the lowest exposure having an observable adverse effect.

Disrupting Hormones

Seeking to explain this pattern, scientists cite the endocrine system's exquisite sensitivity. Animals and humans secrete infinitesimal amounts of various hormones, such as estrogen, that trigger responses when they occupy special receptors on the cells of various organs. BPA is among numerous chemicals that can mimic estrogen by occupying cells' estrogen receptors. When they do this at critical phases of development, the chemicals can trigger unnatural biological responses, such as brain and reproductive abnormalities.

At higher doses, however, BPA and other endocrine disruptors -- instead of triggering the unnatural responses -- appear to overwhelm the receptors. That explains, scientists say, why some chemicals seem to have more potent hormonal effects at very low doses than at higher ones.

Mr. Hentges of the American Plastics Council says studies show BPA is harmless at the tiny levels to which humans are exposed. In 2001 the plastics council agreed to pay Harvard's Center for Risk Analysis, part of the Harvard School of Public Health, $600,000 to review BPA studies. The 10 panelists found "no consistent affirmative evidence of low-dose BPA effects" on the basis of 19 studies that were selected by April 2002 for review.

However, many more BPA studies kept coming out, and when the center published its report last fall, three of the 10 panelists declined to be listed as authors. "There are other papers published after the 'cut-off' date that the panel did not review that may have altered their conclusions," says one of the three, Paul Foster of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. A fourth, Claude Hughes of Quintiles Transnational Corp., a pharmaceutical consulting firm, signed but made the same point in a journal commentary criticizing the report and calling for a new EPA risk assessment. The Harvard risk center's executive director, George Gray, acknowledges that a "torrent of new papers on BPA" may have made it impossible for the panel to review everything by its deadline.

The plastics council's Mr. Hentges says his group reviews all studies on BPA and believes none have changed the basic conclusion of the Harvard report. "We continue to believe that the weight of evidence indicates BPA poses no risk to human health," he says.

Chemicals in Combination

Environmental chemicals don't exist in isolation. People are exposed to many different ones in trace amounts. So scientists at the University of London checked a mixture. They tested the hormonal strength of a blend of 11 common chemicals that can mimic estrogen.

Alone, each was very weak. But when scientists mixed low doses of all 11 in a solution with natural estrogen -- thus simulating the chemical cocktail that's inside the human body today -- they found the hormonal strength of natural estrogen was doubled. Such an effect inside the body could disrupt hormonal action.

"In isolation, the contribution of individual [estrogen-like chemicals] at the concentrations found in wildlife and human tissues will always be small," wrote the scientists, led by Andreas Kortenkamp, who directs research on endocrine disruptors for the EU. But because such compounds are so widespread in the environment, the researchers concluded, the cumulative effect on the human endocrine system is "likely to be very large."

To test chemicals, toxicologists traditionally dose animals with a single substance and then dissect them. But this method can't spot the subtle effects associated with today's multiple exposures to low-dose chemicals, says John Bucher, of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

Now he and his boss, Christopher Portier, are revamping the federal government's National Toxicology Program, which sets standards for how chemicals are tested. Over about seven years, they hope to develop a series of lab tests that will ultimately screen some 100,000 industrial compounds, individually and in mixtures, for biochemical "markers" such as effects on specific genes.

The chemicals then will be ranked by mechanism of action and suspected toxicity, and assigned priorities for further study. "It's taken us 25 years and $2 billion to study 900 chemicals," Dr. Portier says. "If this works, we can study 15,000 in a year."

Write to Peter Waldman at peter.waldman@wsj.com

Fitness By Marilyn
Independent AIM Member - Marilyn Wilson Price