deleterious effects of xenoestrogens

x-no-archive: yes

I'm on a mission to eliminate plastic food and beverage containers from
my life.

Susan

Environ Health Perspect. 2005 Apr;113(4):431-9. Links
Xenoestrogens at picomolar to nanomolar concentrations trigger membrane
estrogen receptor-alpha-mediated Ca2+ fluxes and prolactin release in
GH3/B6 pituitary tumor cells.Wozniak AL, Bulayeva NN, Watson CS.
Department of Human Biological Chemistry and Genetics, University of
Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas 77555-0645, USA.

Xenoestrogens (XEs) are widespread in our environment and are known to
have deleterious effects in animal (and perhaps human) populations.
Acting as inappropriate estrogens, XEs are thought to interfere with
endogenous estrogens such as estradiol (E2) to disrupt normal estrogenic
signaling. We investigated the effects of E2 versus several XEs
representing organochlorine pesticides (dieldrin, endosulfan,
o',p'-dichlorodiphenylethylene), plastics manufacturing
by-products/detergents (nonylphenol, bisphenol A), a phytoestrogen
(coumestrol), and a synthetic estrogen (diethylstilbestrol) on the
pituitary tumor cell subline GH3/B6/F10, previously selected for
expression of high levels of membrane estrogen receptor-alpha. Picomolar
to nanomolar concentrations of both E2 and XEs caused intracellular Ca2+
changes within 30 sec of administration. Each XE produced a unique
temporal pattern of Ca2+ elevation. Removing Ca2+ from the extracellular
solution abolished both spontaneous and XE-induced intracellular Ca2+
changes, as did 10 microM nifedipine. This suggests that XEs mediate
their actions via voltage-dependent L-type Ca2+ channels in the plasma
membrane. None of the Ca2+ fluxes came from intracellular Ca2+ stores.
E2 and each XE also caused unique time- and concentration-dependent
patterns of prolactin (PRL) secretion that were largely complete within
3 min of administration. PRL secretion was also blocked by nifedipine,
demonstrating a correlation between Ca2+ influx and PRL secretion. These
data indicate that at very low concentrations, XEs mediate
membrane-initiated intracellular CCa2+ increases resulting in PRL
secretion via a mechanism similar to that for E2, but with distinct
patterns and potencies that could explain their abilities to disrupt
endocrine functions.

PMID: 15811834 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

On Jul 22, 6:11 pm, Susan <neverm...@nomail.com> wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> I'm on a mission to eliminate plastic food and beverage containers from
> my life.
>
> Susan
>
> Environ Health Perspect. 2005 Apr;113(4):431-9. Links
> Xenoestrogens at picomolar to nanomolar concentrations trigger membrane
> estrogen receptor-alpha-mediated Ca2+ fluxes and prolactin release in
> GH3/B6 pituitary tumor cells.Wozniak AL, Bulayeva NN, Watson CS.
> Department of Human Biological Chemistry and Genetics, University of
> Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas 77555-0645, USA.
>
> Xenoestrogens (XEs) are widespread in our environment and are known to
> have deleterious effects in animal (and perhaps human) populations.
> Acting as inappropriate estrogens, XEs are thought to interfere with
> endogenous estrogens such as estradiol (E2) to disrupt normal estrogenic
> signaling. We investigated the effects of E2 versus several XEs
> representing organochlorine pesticides (dieldrin, endosulfan,
> o',p'-dichlorodiphenylethylene), plastics manufacturing
> by-products/detergents (nonylphenol, bisphenol A), a phytoestrogen
> (coumestrol), and a synthetic estrogen (diethylstilbestrol) on the
> pituitary tumor cell subline GH3/B6/F10, previously selected for
> expression of high levels of membrane estrogen receptor-alpha. Picomolar
> to nanomolar concentrations of both E2 and XEs caused intracellular Ca2+
> changes within 30 sec of administration. Each XE produced a unique
> temporal pattern of Ca2+ elevation. Removing Ca2+ from the extracellular
> solution abolished both spontaneous and XE-induced intracellular Ca2+
> changes, as did 10 microM nifedipine. This suggests that XEs mediate
> their actions via voltage-dependent L-type Ca2+ channels in the plasma
> membrane. None of the Ca2+ fluxes came from intracellular Ca2+ stores.
> E2 and each XE also caused unique time- and concentration-dependent
> patterns of prolactin (PRL) secretion that were largely complete within
> 3 min of administration. PRL secretion was also blocked by nifedipine,
> demonstrating a correlation between Ca2+ influx and PRL secretion. These
> data indicate that at very low concentrations, XEs mediate
> membrane-initiated intracellular CCa2+ increases resulting in PRL
> secretion via a mechanism similar to that for E2, but with distinct
> patterns and potencies that could explain their abilities to disrupt
> endocrine functions.
>
> PMID: 15811834 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


always trying to avoid plastics. does asking people for stainless
steel water bottle recommendations seem ridiculous given that i sleep
with the aforementioned plastic biteguard? is that like buying
organic food even while living in one of the most polluted counties in
the country?

ellen

Susan wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> I'm on a mission to eliminate plastic food and beverage containers from
> my life.
>
> Susan
>
> Environ Health Perspect. 2005 Apr;113(4):431-9. Links
> Xenoestrogens at picomolar to nanomolar concentrations trigger membrane
> estrogen receptor-alpha-mediated Ca2+ fluxes and prolactin release in
> GH3/B6 pituitary tumor cells.Wozniak AL, Bulayeva NN, Watson CS.
> Department of Human Biological Chemistry and Genetics, University of
> Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas 77555-0645, USA.
>
> Xenoestrogens (XEs) are widespread in our environment and are known to
> have deleterious effects in animal (and perhaps human) populations.
> Acting as inappropriate estrogens, XEs are thought to interfere with
> endogenous estrogens such as estradiol (E2) to disrupt normal estrogenic
> signaling. We investigated the effects of E2 versus several XEs
> representing organochlorine pesticides (dieldrin, endosulfan,
> o',p'-dichlorodiphenylethylene), plastics manufacturing
> by-products/detergents (nonylphenol, bisphenol A), a phytoestrogen
> (coumestrol), and a synthetic estrogen (diethylstilbestrol) on the
> pituitary tumor cell subline GH3/B6/F10, previously selected for
> expression of high levels of membrane estrogen receptor-alpha. Picomolar
> to nanomolar concentrations of both E2 and XEs caused intracellular Ca2+
> changes within 30 sec of administration. Each XE produced a unique
> temporal pattern of Ca2+ elevation. Removing Ca2+ from the extracellular
> solution abolished both spontaneous and XE-induced intracellular Ca2+
> changes, as did 10 microM nifedipine. This suggests that XEs mediate
> their actions via voltage-dependent L-type Ca2+ channels in the plasma
> membrane. None of the Ca2+ fluxes came from intracellular Ca2+ stores.
> E2 and each XE also caused unique time- and concentration-dependent
> patterns of prolactin (PRL) secretion that were largely complete within
> 3 min of administration. PRL secretion was also blocked by nifedipine,
> demonstrating a correlation between Ca2+ influx and PRL secretion. These
> data indicate that at very low concentrations, XEs mediate
> membrane-initiated intracellular CCa2+ increases resulting in PRL
> secretion via a mechanism similar to that for E2, but with distinct
> patterns and potencies that could explain their abilities to disrupt
> endocrine functions.
>
> PMID: 15811834 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Jeez - nanomolar and picomolar concentrations - billionth and
trillionths of moles are what one might call "trace"
concentrations. And yet they affect the cell membranes enough to
trigger a neural response.

What, specifically, are you doing to eliminate plastic food and
beverage containers? What things have you turned up that are so
common that we wouldn't even be likely to think about or notice
them? And where are you finding substitutes?

I'm thinking of things like frozen foods - the packaging is now
almost exclusively plastic. Many foods that used to come in
glass bottles are now in plastic ones, or at least have plastic
lids. Milk and juice containers are plastic or plasticized
cardboard. Yogurt comes in plastic tubs. "Paper" cups are now
plasticized, not waxed. Probably the same for "paper" plates?
Many cans have a plasticky looking lining. Even my stainless
steel traveling mug has a plastic lid. My toothbrush is plastic.
So is the toothpaste tube. And the mouthwash bottle.

I don't know if I want to think about this any more!!!

"I want to say one word to you. Just one word.... Plastics."
(The Graduate)

FurPaw
--
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and are not clothed."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

To reply, unleash the dog.

FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote in news:V-
mdneaaD_Ln_jjbnZ2dnUVZ_q2hnZ2d@comcast.com:

> What, specifically, are you doing to eliminate plastic food and
> beverage containers? What things have you turned up that are so
> common that we wouldn't even be likely to think about or notice
> them? And where are you finding substitutes?

What about the original packaging? Jeepers, even milk comes in plastic.

Chak

--
Ninety-Ninety Law: The first 90% of the code accounts for the first 90%
of the development time. The remaining 10% of the code accounts for the
other 90% of the development time.

ellen <epdpster@gmail.com> wrote in news:1185241314.475814.176100
@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

> always trying to avoid plastics. does asking people for stainless
> steel water bottle recommendations seem ridiculous given that i sleep
> with the aforementioned plastic biteguard? is that like buying
> organic food even while living in one of the most polluted counties in
> the country?

We do what we can, that's all.

Chak

--
Ninety-Ninety Law: The first 90% of the code accounts for the first 90%
of the development time. The remaining 10% of the code accounts for the
other 90% of the development time.

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:27:03 -0600, FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com>
wrote:

>> Environ Health Perspect. 2005 Apr;113(4):431-9. Links
>> Xenoestrogens at picomolar to nanomolar concentrations trigger membrane
>> estrogen receptor-alpha-mediated Ca2+ fluxes and prolactin release in
>> GH3/B6 pituitary tumor cells.Wozniak AL, Bulayeva NN, Watson CS.
>> Department of Human Biological Chemistry and Genetics, University of
>> Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas 77555-0645, USA.
>>
>> Xenoestrogens (XEs) are widespread in our environment and are known to
>> have deleterious effects in animal (and perhaps human) populations.

Deleterious effects on the offspring, maybe, not the parents.

>> Acting as inappropriate estrogens, XEs are thought to interfere with
>> endogenous estrogens such as estradiol (E2) to disrupt normal estrogenic
>> signaling. We investigated the effects of E2 versus several XEs
>> representing organochlorine pesticides (dieldrin, endosulfan,
>> o',p'-dichlorodiphenylethylene), plastics manufacturing
>> by-products/detergents (nonylphenol, bisphenol A), a phytoestrogen
>> (coumestrol), and a synthetic estrogen (diethylstilbestrol) on the
>> pituitary tumor cell subline GH3/B6/F10, previously selected for
>> expression of high levels of membrane estrogen receptor-alpha.

Note it says [repeat]

"on the pituitary tumor cell subline GH3/B6/F10, previously selected
for expression of high levels of membrane estrogen receptor-alpha."

IOW, this is an interesting exercise, but certainly doesn't mean much
to you and me in regard to the use of plastic food containers. The
FOOD in the containers would likely contain phyto and xeno estrogens
enough to have an endocrine effect MUCH greater than this. Should we
give up eating?

The abstract ends by saying

>> that could explain their abilities to disrupt
>>endocrine functions.

could

Kathryn

>
>Jeez - nanomolar and picomolar concentrations - billionth and
>trillionths of moles are what one might call "trace"
>concentrations. And yet they affect the cell membranes enough to
>trigger a neural response.
>
>What, specifically, are you doing to eliminate plastic food and
>beverage containers? What things have you turned up that are so
>common that we wouldn't even be likely to think about or notice
>them? And where are you finding substitutes?
>
>I'm thinking of things like frozen foods - the packaging is now
>almost exclusively plastic. Many foods that used to come in
>glass bottles are now in plastic ones, or at least have plastic
>lids. Milk and juice containers are plastic or plasticized
>cardboard. Yogurt comes in plastic tubs. "Paper" cups are now
>plasticized, not waxed. Probably the same for "paper" plates?
>Many cans have a plasticky looking lining. Even my stainless
>steel traveling mug has a plastic lid. My toothbrush is plastic.
> So is the toothpaste tube. And the mouthwash bottle.
>
>I don't know if I want to think about this any more!!!
>
>"I want to say one word to you. Just one word.... Plastics."
>(The Graduate)
>
>FurPaw

x-no-archive: yes

kathryn wrote:

>
> Deleterious effects on the offspring, maybe, not the parents.
>

I doubt that's true. THe endocrine system is exquisitely fine tuned for
feedback.

Susan

x-no-archive: yes

FurPaw wrote:

> Jeez - nanomolar and picomolar concentrations - billionth and
> trillionths of moles are what one might call "trace" concentrations.
> And yet they affect the cell membranes enough to trigger a neural response.
>
> What, specifically, are you doing to eliminate plastic food and beverage
> containers? What things have you turned up that are so common that we
> wouldn't even be likely to think about or notice them? And where are
> you finding substitutes?

I've just begun to make minor changes, because I'm so overwhelmed by the
enormity of the undertaking. I no longer will store liquids or marinate
in Ziplocks; I bought a glass fridge pitcher for iced tea instead of
plastic. Bottled water is going to be a problem. Food storage and
nuking in glass, ceramic, not plastic. Milk in waxed cartons only.

>
> I'm thinking of things like frozen foods - the packaging is now almost
> exclusively plastic.

Yes, I'm not giving it up, but I'm hoping that the lack of acidity and
miosture means less seepage with frozen fish/meat?

Many foods that used to come in glass bottles are
> now in plastic ones, or at least have plastic lids. Milk and juice
> containers are plastic or plasticized cardboard. Yogurt comes in
> plastic tubs. "Paper" cups are now plasticized, not waxed. Probably
> the same for "paper" plates? Many cans have a plasticky looking
> lining. Even my stainless steel traveling mug has a plastic lid. My
> toothbrush is plastic. So is the toothpaste tube. And the mouthwash
> bottle.
>
> I don't know if I want to think about this any more!!!
>
> "I want to say one word to you. Just one word.... Plastics." (The Graduate)

Yeah, prescient, wannit?

Susan

kathryn wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:27:03 -0600, FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Environ Health Perspect. 2005 Apr;113(4):431-9. Links
>>> Xenoestrogens at picomolar to nanomolar concentrations trigger membrane
>>> estrogen receptor-alpha-mediated Ca2+ fluxes and prolactin release in
>>> GH3/B6 pituitary tumor cells.Wozniak AL, Bulayeva NN, Watson CS.
>>> Department of Human Biological Chemistry and Genetics, University of
>>> Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas 77555-0645, USA.
>>>
>>> Xenoestrogens (XEs) are widespread in our environment and are known to
>>> have deleterious effects in animal (and perhaps human) populations.
>
> Deleterious effects on the offspring, maybe, not the parents.

Do you have anything to support this? Your statement confuses
me. If some xenoestrogens can affect the ova, sperm or prenatal
environment, are they not also affecting the parents? Or is it
more a matter that the effects on parents are less studied, or
possibly less obvious, than effects on offspring?

>>> Acting as inappropriate estrogens, XEs are thought to interfere with
>>> endogenous estrogens such as estradiol (E2) to disrupt normal estrogenic
>>> signaling. We investigated the effects of E2 versus several XEs
>>> representing organochlorine pesticides (dieldrin, endosulfan,
>>> o',p'-dichlorodiphenylethylene), plastics manufacturing
>>> by-products/detergents (nonylphenol, bisphenol A), a phytoestrogen
>>> (coumestrol), and a synthetic estrogen (diethylstilbestrol) on the
>>> pituitary tumor cell subline GH3/B6/F10, previously selected for
>>> expression of high levels of membrane estrogen receptor-alpha.
>
> Note it says [repeat]
>
> "on the pituitary tumor cell subline GH3/B6/F10, previously selected
> for expression of high levels of membrane estrogen receptor-alpha."
>
> IOW, this is an interesting exercise, but certainly doesn't mean much
> to you and me in regard to the use of plastic food containers. The
> FOOD in the containers would likely contain phyto and xeno estrogens
> enough to have an endocrine effect MUCH greater than this. Should we
> give up eating?

Any foods that have been treated with pesticides are more likely
to contain xenoestrogens. Wouldn't you expect that the TYPE of
xenoestrogen would play a role in its potential for disruptive
activity? Would you expect that genetic differences between
people might render some more susceptible to endocrine disruption
by artificial xenoestrogens?

> The abstract ends by saying
>
>>> that could explain their abilities to disrupt
>>> endocrine functions.
>
> could
>
> Kathryn

Scientists wouldn't be likely to say "prove;" they regularly
speak in terms of probabilities and possibilities, and usually
end their articles with a statement about how further research is
needed. And rightly so.

I wouldn't pooh-pooh this type of research. This article alone
isn't enough to sound the alarm, but taken with many other
studies of deleterious effects of xenoestrogens, it ought to
raise a warning flag at least. I know that a lot of the fringe
snake-oil crowd has jumped on the xenoestrogen bandwagon, and
googling on xenoestrogen turns up numerous sites that have
something to sell you to counteract their effects. But that's
not a reason not to take a close look at the research and its
implications, nor to look at your own exposure and wonder just
how healthy or unhealthy they can be.

IIRC, lots of people pooh-poohed the early research on the
effects of DDT exposure and contamination, too.

FurPaw

--
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and are not clothed."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

To reply, unleash the dog.

x-no-archive: yes

FurPaw wrote:
>
>
> IIRC, lots of people pooh-poohed the early research on the effects of
> DDT exposure and contamination, too.
>
Here's just one of many citations I've seen connecting xenoestrogens to
prostate cancer.


[Cancer Research 65, 54-65, January 1, 2005]
© 2005 American Association for Cancer Research
Molecular Biology, Pathobiology and Genetics
Xenoestrogen Action in Prostate Cancer: Pleiotropic Effects Dependent on
Androgen Receptor Status
Yelena B. Wetherill1, Nicola L. Fisher1, Ann Staubach1, Mark Danielsen3,
Ralph W. de Vere White4 and Karen E. Knudsen1,2

1 Department of Cell Biology and 2 Center for Environmental Genetics,
University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio; 3
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Georgetown University,
Washington, District of Columbia; and 4 Department of Urology,
University of California at Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California

Requests for reprints: Karen E. Knudsen, Department of Cell Biology,
University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Vontz Center for Molecular
Studies, 3125 Eden Avenue, ML 0521, Cincinnati, OH 45267-0521. Phone:
513-558-7371; Fax: 513-558-4454; E-mail: Karen.Knudsen@uc.edu.

Androgen is critical for prostate development, growth, and survival.
Therapies for advanced prostate cancer aim to block androgen receptor
(AR) action. However, recurrent tumors ultimately arise, which harbor
restored AR activity. One mechanism of such reactivation occurs through
AR mutations, rendering the receptor responsive to noncanonical ligands.
We have shown previously that a known xenoestrogen, bisphenol A (BPA),
activates a tumor-derived AR mutant (T877A), leading to
androgen-independent prostate cancer cell proliferation. Here, we show
that BPA cooperates with androgen to activate AR-T877A as shown by both
reporter assays and increased levels of prostate-specific antigen
expression. Further investigations using both yeast and mammalian model
systems revealed that multiple AR alleles are responsive to BPA, thus
expanding the potential influence of xenoestrogens on prostate cancer.
Moreover, in vitro radioligand binding assay revealed that BPA alters
5{alpha}-dihydrotestosterone binding to AR-T877A likely through
noncompetitive inhibition. We also show that higher concentrations of
BPA block proliferation of AR-positive, androgen-dependent prostate
adenocarcinoma cells (LNCaP and LAPC-4), with a more modest inhibitory
effect on androgen-independent cells (22Rv-1). By contrast, AR-negative
prostate cancer cells failed to show growth inhibition after exposure to
high BPA dose. Together, these data show that BPA can serve as a
potential "hormone sensitizer" of the mutant ARs present in advanced
prostate adenocarcinomas, thereby possibly contributing toward
therapeutic relapse in advanced prostate cancer patients and supporting
the notion that nonsteroidal environmental compounds can alter the
function of nuclear receptor complexes.

Key Words: bisphenol A • endocrine disruption • LNCaP • LAPC-4 • 22Rv-1
• androgen independence • mutant androgen receptor



Susan

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:13:57 -0600, FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com>
wrote:

>kathryn wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:27:03 -0600, FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Environ Health Perspect. 2005 Apr;113(4):431-9. Links
>>>> Xenoestrogens at picomolar to nanomolar concentrations trigger membrane
>>>> estrogen receptor-alpha-mediated Ca2+ fluxes and prolactin release in
>>>> GH3/B6 pituitary tumor cells.Wozniak AL, Bulayeva NN, Watson CS.
>>>> Department of Human Biological Chemistry and Genetics, University of
>>>> Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas 77555-0645, USA.
>>>>
>>>> Xenoestrogens (XEs) are widespread in our environment and are known to
>>>> have deleterious effects in animal (and perhaps human) populations.
>>
>> Deleterious effects on the offspring, maybe, not the parents.
>
>Do you have anything to support this? Your statement confuses
>me. If some xenoestrogens can affect the ova, sperm or prenatal
>environment, are they not also affecting the parents? Or is it
>more a matter that the effects on parents are less studied, or
>possibly less obvious, than effects on offspring?
>
It's a matter of degree, a tiny exposure to a rapidly developing fetus
can have a much greater effect than on that of a mature animal which
has no noticeable lasting effects. A single drink of alcohol, at the
wrong point of time during a pregnancy can result in fetal alcohol
syndrome for the child for example.

>>>> Acting as inappropriate estrogens, XEs are thought to interfere with
>>>> endogenous estrogens such as estradiol (E2) to disrupt normal estrogenic
>>>> signaling. We investigated the effects of E2 versus several XEs
>>>> representing organochlorine pesticides (dieldrin, endosulfan,
>>>> o',p'-dichlorodiphenylethylene), plastics manufacturing
>>>> by-products/detergents (nonylphenol, bisphenol A), a phytoestrogen
>>>> (coumestrol), and a synthetic estrogen (diethylstilbestrol) on the
>>>> pituitary tumor cell subline GH3/B6/F10, previously selected for
>>>> expression of high levels of membrane estrogen receptor-alpha.
>>
>> Note it says [repeat]
>>
>> "on the pituitary tumor cell subline GH3/B6/F10, previously selected
>> for expression of high levels of membrane estrogen receptor-alpha."
>>
>> IOW, this is an interesting exercise, but certainly doesn't mean much
>> to you and me in regard to the use of plastic food containers. The
>> FOOD in the containers would likely contain phyto and xeno estrogens
>> enough to have an endocrine effect MUCH greater than this. Should we
>> give up eating?
>
>Any foods that have been treated with pesticides are more likely
>to contain xenoestrogens. Wouldn't you expect that the TYPE of
>xenoestrogen would play a role in its potential for disruptive
>activity? Would you expect that genetic differences between
>people might render some more susceptible to endocrine disruption
>by artificial xenoestrogens?
>
You added the word 'artificial'. I consider phyto chemicals in foods,
such as soy, that can mimic estrogen, to be xenoestrogens too. A few
years ago there was some concern based on test tube studies (since
alleviated) about soy based infant formulas leading to later
infertility in males.

Xeno=foreign.

>> The abstract ends by saying
>>
>>>> that could explain their abilities to disrupt
>>>> endocrine functions.
>>
>> could
>>
>> Kathryn
>
>Scientists wouldn't be likely to say "prove;" they regularly
>speak in terms of probabilities and possibilities, and usually
>end their articles with a statement about how further research is
>needed. And rightly so.
>
>I wouldn't pooh-pooh this type of research. This article alone
>isn't enough to sound the alarm, but taken with many other
>studies of deleterious effects of xenoestrogens, it ought to
>raise a warning flag at least. I know that a lot of the fringe
>snake-oil crowd has jumped on the xenoestrogen bandwagon, and
>googling on xenoestrogen turns up numerous sites that have
>something to sell you to counteract their effects. But that's
>not a reason not to take a close look at the research and its
>implications, nor to look at your own exposure and wonder just
>how healthy or unhealthy they can be.
>
>IIRC, lots of people pooh-poohed the early research on the
>effects of DDT exposure and contamination, too.
>
Not once Silent Spring was published, but that too was because of the
effects of DDT on reproduction, (thinning egg shells) not on the
deleritous effects to meno aged birds.

DES is another interesting story of endocrine disruption.

>FurPaw

Kathryn

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:13:57 -0600, FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>IIRC, lots of people pooh-poohed the early research on the
>effects of DDT exposure and contamination, too.
>
>FurPaw

New study, posted online today:

http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2007/10260/abstract.pdf

>EHP-in-Press
>Research

>DDT and Breast Cancer in Young Women: New Data on the Significance of Age at Exposure
>
>Barbara A. Cohn, Mary S. Wolff, Piera M. Cirillo, and Robert I. Sholtz

Note that, in this group, the risk of DDT exposure and breast cancer
was limited to those women who were age 14 or younger when exposed.

Kathryn