A doctor administers a blood test. Yvonne Hemsey / Getty Images
Cancer survival rates dramatically increase when the disease is caught early, but there has not been an effective, non-invasive test that will detect most types of cancer early.
<p>Now, an international team of researchers has developed a blood test that can diagnose certain cancers years before symptoms occur.</p><p>"What we showed is: up to four years before these people walk into the hospital, there are already signatures in their blood that show they have cancer," study coauthor and University of California bioengineer <a href="http://igm.ucsd.edu/faculty/profiles/kun-zhang.shtml" target="_blank">Kun Zhang</a> told <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/experimental-blood-test-detects-cancer-up-to-four-years-before-symptoms-appear/" target="_blank">Scientific American</a>. "That's never been done before."</p>
<p>The test is part of a larger effort to create a "liquid biopsy" for early cancer detection, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/jul/21/researchers-unveil-test-that-can-detect-cancer-years-before-symptoms" target="_blank">The Guardian explained</a>. While other studies have reported positive results for blood tests that detect cancer relatively early, few can detect it before any symptoms develop.</p><p>But the new test, called PanSeer, detected cancer in 95 percent of asymptomatic patients who went on to receive a diagnosis.</p><p>The study, published in <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17316-z" target="_blank"><em>Nature Communications</em></a> Tuesday, is also unique because of how the test was developed, Scientific American explained.</p><p>Most tests are developed by taking blood samples of people already diagnosed with cancer and then seeing if they can find a way to detect the cancer they already know is there.</p>
<p>"The best you can prove is whether your method is as good at detecting cancer as existing methods," Zhang explained. "You can never prove it's better."</p><p>So Zhang's team worked with blood samples collected from more than 123,000 healthy people in Taizhou, China, around 1,000 of whom went on to develop cancer over 10 years.</p><p>The researchers decided to focus on detecting five of the most common types of cancer: stomach, esophageal, colorectal, lung and liver.</p><p>In 2018, those cancers were responsible for 783,000, 508,000, 862,000, 1.76 million and 782,000 deaths respectively, <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/blood-test-finds-cancers-before-standard-diagnosis-study/" target="_blank">AFP reported</a>.</p>
<p>The researchers developed their test based on 414 blood samples of people who remained cancer-free five years later, 191 people who later developed one of the five cancers and 223 patients who had already been diagnosed, according to The Guardian.</p><p>The test uses something called DNA methylation analysis to look for genetic signatures common to tumors, AFP explained.</p><p>The researchers developed their method using around half of the samples and tested it on the other, The Guardian reported. The tests were accurate for 88 percent of people already diagnosed, 95 percent diagnosed later and 96 percent of those who were cancer-free.</p><p>Outside researchers said that the results showed promise, but both they and the research team agreed that the method needed to be tested further.</p><p>"The PanSeer test has achieved encouraging initial resulte," Samantha Harrison, a senior early diagnosis manager at Cancer Research UK, told The Guardian. "Promisingly, the test may be able to detect cancer in blood samples taken years before diagnosis. But these are early results that now need to be validated in larger studies."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Blood Test Detects More Than 50 Types of Cancer - EcoWatch ›
- Modern Medical Techniques Reveal Malignant Cancer in 77-Million Year-Old Dinosaur Bone - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Study Links Pesticide Exposure to Childhood Central Nervous System Tumors
07 April
Health + Wellness
A helicopter sprays pesticide on a crop field in California. Jeff Foott / Photodisc / Getty Images
A new study adds to the evidence that pesticides harm children's health.
<p>The study, published in <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935121003728#tbl1" target="_blank">Environmental Research</a> last week, found that children were more likely to develop central nervous system (CNS) tumors if their mothers had lived within 2.5 miles of land where pesticides were being sprayed when they were born.</p><p>"This study is the first, to our knowledge, to estimate effects for a large number of specific pesticides in relation to CNS tumor subtypes," Julia Heck, a study coauthor and the associate dean for research at the University of North Texas College of Health and Public Service said, as <a href="https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/study-cites-childhood-tumor-risk-for-pesticide-exposure-during-pregnancy/2565696/https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/study-cites-childhood-tumor-risk-for-pesticide-exposure-during-pregnancy/2565696/" target="_blank">NBC Los Angeles reported</a>.</p>
<p>The research looked at the California Cancer Registry to identify cases of certain <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/cancer" target="_self">cancers</a> in children under six years old, the study explained. They focused on mothers who lived in rural areas and gave birth between 1998 and 2011 to identify 667 cases of childhood central nervous system tumors and 123,158 controls. They then compared these cases to data from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation's (CDPR) Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) system to identify whether <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/chemicals" target="_self">chemicals</a> classed as possible carcinogens by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had been sprayed within 2.5 miles of the mothers' homes at birth.</p><p>One important implication of the study is that the mothers did not have to be directly working in <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/agriculture" target="_self">agriculture</a> in order for their children to face dangerous exposure.</p>
<p>"California's agricultural work force numbers more than 800,000, according to <a href="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fescholarship.org%2Fuc%2Fitem%2F3qt5n6t1&data=04%7C01%7CJulia.Heck%40unt.edu%7C32414441535d41f7a65308d8f555248e%7C70de199207c6480fa318a1afcba03983%7C0%7C1%7C637529093332138948%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=I5wDhhneyBfHkqdcbywIIjYwK9qTwbOfasnrC4aVa7M%3D&reserved=0" target="_blank">state estimates</a>," Dr. Christina Lombardi, study co-author and epidemiologist with the Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, told <a href="https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2021/04/living-within-2-5-miles-of-chemical-farming-increases-risk-of-childhood-brain-tumors/" target="_blank">Beyond Pesticides</a>. "In addition to the negative health effects of pesticides on workers there are large numbers of pregnant women and young children living adjacent to treated fields who may experience detrimental health effects as well."</p><p>This risk is exacerbated by the fact that farmland and residential land is not always clearly delineated in the state.</p><p>"This transition from farmland to residential neighborhoods is abrupt across California, and, of course, constantly changing as farmland is developed," study co-author Myles Cockburn of the University of Southern California told Beyond Pesticides.</p>
<p>The researchers found that some of the chemicals they studied increased tumor risk as much as 2.5 times. Overall, exposure to the pesticides chlorthalonil, bromacil, thiophanate-methyl, triforine, kresoxim-methyl, propiconazole, dimethoate and linuron all increased tumor risk.</p><p>This is far from the first study to show that pesticide exposure is a danger to pregnant mothers and children. In fact, researchers have been studying the link between pesticides and childhood cancer since the 1970s, according to NBC Los Angeles.</p><p>The report authors called for government action to better protect mothers and children.</p><p>"Policy interventions to reduce pesticide exposure in individuals residing near agricultural fields should be considered to protect the health of children," coauthor and UCLA's Fielding School of Public Health epidemiology professor Beate Ritz told NBC Los Angeles.</p>
From Your Site Articles
Read More
Show Less
boonchai wedmakawand / Moment / Getty Images
Delta-8 THC is a cannabis product that has become a bestseller over the past few months, as many consumers find they can legally purchase it from CBD retailers. Its proponents say that Delta-8 THC will give you a nice little buzz, minus some of the more intense feelings (including paranoia) that are sometimes associated with marijuana.
Delta-8 THC is being marketed as a legal option for consumers who either don't live in a state with legal cannabis, or are a little apprehensive about how traditional psychoactive THC products will affect them. But is it all it's cracked up to be? Let's take a closer look, exploring what Delta-8 THC is, how it differs from other THC products, and whether it's actually legal for use.
<h2>What is Delta-8 THC?</h2><p>To better understand <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/27/health/marijuana-hemp-delta-8-thc.html" target="_blank">Delta-8 THC</a>, it helps to cover some basics about THC and cannabis.</p><p>Cannabis plants come chock full of different <a href="https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/cannabis-marijuana-and-cannabinoids-what-you-need-to-know" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><em>cannabinoids</em></a>. These are naturally-occuring chemical compounds that bind with receptors throughout your body. They can offer a wide range of mental, emotional, and physical effects; indeed, the healing and therapeutic properties marijuana or <a data-linked-post="2648563694" href="https://www.ecowatch.com/strongest-cbd-oil-2648563694.html" target="_blank">CBD products</a> offer can be attributed to cannabinoids.</p><p>One of the most common cannabinoids is what's known as Delta-9 THC. Simply put, this is the part of marijuana that gets you "high." It's worth noting that Delta-9 THC remains illegal in many states, except for in the most minute doses, and is still illegal at the federal level. CBD products are made with trace amounts of THC, ensuring that consumers can enjoy positive health effects in a perfectly legal way, without the risk of getting high.</p><p>On a chemical level, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/27/health/marijuana-hemp-delta-8-thc.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Delta-8 THC</a> is not too different from Delta-9 THC; the distinction comes down to just a few molecules. But those molecules make a big practical impact: Delta-8 THC will give you a buzz, but the psychoactive effects are considerably milder than with Delta-9 THC.</p><p>More specifically, many cannabis enthusiasts report that Delta-8 THC helps them feel good but also leaves them relatively clear-headed; and, it doesn't produce the anxiety or jitteriness that often characterize a Delta-9 THC high.</p><p>Additionally, because of the way the law is written regarding Delta-9 THC, some CBD companies now sell Delta-8 THC products in places where traditional cannabis is still illegal.</p><h2>What's the Difference Between Delta-9 THC and Delta-8 THC?</h2><p>Here are the primary differences to note between Delta-9 and Delta-8 THC:</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li>Delta-9 THC is the primary psychoactive ingredient found in marijuana. In other words, it's the part that gets you high.</li><li>Though some states have found workarounds, Delta-9 THC is still illegal under federal law.</li><li>Delta-8 THC is also found in the cannabis plant, though it's not quite as powerful or as well-known. </li><li>Delta-8 THC is milder in its psychoactive effects. And, it's not <em>technically </em>illegal under current law.</li></ul><p>These are just a few of the key distinctions to keep in mind. Delta-8 THC is popular among consumers who want a smoother high, and don't want to violate federal law.</p><h2>Is Delta-8 THC Legal?</h2><p>We noted that Delta-8 THC is not <em>technically </em>illegal. Here, we need to get into some of the nuanced legal considerations that surround this substance.</p><p>First of all, there are plenty of cannabis companies that actively promote Delta-8 THC as a legal way to get high. Again, that's technically true, but is still a point of debate for some.</p><p>For one thing, it's not explicitly listed as an illegal substance. While federal laws, and some state laws, specifically ban Delta-9 THC, Delta-8 THC is never mentioned. More to the point, though, many proponents will cite the<a href="https://www.usda.gov/farmbill" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"> 2018 Farm Bill</a>. This law legalized several industrial hemp products on a national level, including CBD.</p><p>The Farm Bill also includes some fairly nuanced positions regarding THC. In summary, the law says that hemp and cannabis-derived products are legal so long as they contain less than 0.3 percent Delta-9 THC.</p><p>With that said, some lawyers contend that Delta-8's heyday may soon come to an end. That's because the Farm Bill clears it only so long as it's derived directly from hemp; most of the Delta-8 THC products sold today aren't made from hemp, but rather from synthetically-altered CBD.</p><p>Some of these issues are a little fuzzy, and <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/delta-8-thc-legal-weed-explained-1113859/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">the legal future of Delta-8 THC</a> remains a little uncertain. For now, though, many experts would argue that it is legal to purchase.</p><h2>What Kinds of Delta-8 THC Products Are Available?</h2><p><em>Each product featured here has been independently selected by the writer. If you make a purchase using the links included, we may earn commission.</em></p><p>If you're looking to try Delta-8 THC products, you'll certainly find plenty of different products. Dispensaries and legal cannabis stores currently have a trove of products that use this cannabinoid. Some examples include:</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li>Vape cartridges, tinctures, and capsules.</li><li>Beverages made with Delta-8 THC, including some seltzers.</li><li>Edibles, including Delta-8 THC gummy bears, chocolate bars, and more.</li></ul><p>The cannabis industry has really been running with Delta-8 THC, finding creative ways to bring it to market. And chances are, even more products will be springing up in the weeks and months to come. </p><p>It's very important to note that you should only purchase Delta-8 THC products from reputable brands and established cannabis retailers. We do not recommend purchasing any products that contain Delta-8 THC from gas stations or vape shops. If you are looking for a reputable place to explore these products, here are a few brands that we trust and recommend:</p>
<h2>What are the Pros and Cons of Delta-8 THC?</h2><p>As you consider whether Delta-8 THC is worth your time, it may be helpful to weigh the pros against the cons.</p><p><strong>Pros</strong></p><p>Let's start with some of the positives:</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li>Delta-8 THC does have psychoactive effects, but it's a milder effect than with traditional Delta-9 THC.</li><li>Delta-8 THC is currently legal and widely accessible in multiple states.</li><li>There are a wide number of products that use Delta-8 THC.</li></ul><p><strong>Cons</strong></p><p>Now, a few of the downsides.</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li>Delta-8 THC isn't quite as commonplace as other cannabis products, including CBD, and some of the options on the market are expensive.</li><li>While this substance is technically legal, there are plenty of uncertainties over its legal future. It's something you want to keep in mind.</li><li>As a relatively new product, Delta-8 THC products are not regulated by the FDA and there is not independent testing in place to verify that it is safe or pure.</li></ul><p>As with any cannabis product, Delta-8 THC has its pros and cons. As you seek the cannabis product that's best for you, it's largely a matter of personal preference.</p><p>Also note that smoking, vaping, or otherwise imbibing any kind of cannabis-related product can carry some medical risks and negative health consequences. If you have any specific concerns, we recommend consulting with your doctor before you try any Delta-8 THC product.</p><p><em><strong>Josh Hurst </strong></em><em>is a journalist, critic, and essayist. He lives in Knoxville, TN, with his wife and three sons. He covers natural health, nutrition, supplements, and clean energy. His writing has appeared in Health, Shape, and Remedy Review.</em></p>
NuLeaf Naturals Full Spectrum Delta 8 THC Oil
<img class="rm-lazyloadable-image rm-shortcode" type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNjAzNjAyMy9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzMTMxMjAyNX0.wRpb_E9ZFZFNgkYsYh6cleNbTezo16rUeTmifcP_yCk/img.jpg?width=980" id="60683" width="400" height="400" data-rm-shortcode-id="32630bf41fd6909a232194b540c570eb" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />nuleafnaturals.com
<p><a href="https://nuleafnaturals.com/product/full-spectrum-delta-8-thc-oil-30mg-ml/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">NuLeaf Naturals Full Spectrum Delta 8 THC Oil</a> is made from organic hemp and organic virgin hemp seed extract. It's available in a 150 mg bottle and a 450 mg bottle, which both provide 15 mg of Delta 8 THC per serving. This formula is also available in a soft gel.</p>
$20
Botany Farms Delta-10 THC Vape Cartridge
<img class="rm-lazyloadable-image rm-shortcode" type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNjAzNjE2Ni9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2OTcwNTgzM30.opm4l5-rSqV1HfvrbVE16EEVZvqxI42xgqnsQfL9p2M/img.jpg?width=980" id="2c749" width="400" height="400" data-rm-shortcode-id="a678e76d8cd5e13bae95d9c3ae664b85" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />botanyfarms.com
<p>The <a href="https://www.botanyfarms.com/product/delta-10-thc-vape-cartridge/?aff=14" target="_blank">Botany Farms Delta-10 THC Vape Cartridge</a> actually contains both Delta-10 and Delta-8 THC.This is designed to provide the desired effects of Delta-8 THC but without the drowsiness. They also offer a vape cartridge with a 1:1 concentration of <a href="https://www.botanyfarms.com/product/delta-10-delta-8-thc-vape-cartridge/?aff=14" target="_blank">Delta-8 THC</a> and Delta-10 THC. Note that while vape products can be used to aid in smoking cessation, we do not recommend vaping or smoking because of the negative health effects they can cause.</p>
$60
Read More
Show Less
A new UK study links eating meat with increased risks for heart disease, diabetes and more. nata_zhekova / Getty Images
The World Health Organization has determined that red meat probably causes colorectal cancer in humans and that processed meat is carcinogenic to humans. But are there other health risks of meat consumption?
<p>A new study published in <a href="https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-021-01922-9" target="_blank">BMC Medicine</a> on Tuesday sought to find out. Researchers investigated whether meat consumption was linked to any of the 25 leading causes of hospital admission in the UK, besides cancer. They found a connection between regularly eating red or processed meat with five non-cancerous diseases, including heart disease, diabetes and pneumonia. Meanwhile, frequent poultry consumption was associated with six different diseases, including gallbladder disease and diabetes.</p><p>"We have long known that unprocessed red meat and processed meat consumption is likely to be carcinogenic and this research is the first to assess the risk of 25 non-cancerous health conditions in relation to meat intake in one study," Dr. Keren Papier from the Nuffield Department of Population Health at the University of Oxford and lead author said in a <a href="https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-03-02-regular-meat-consumption-linked-wide-range-common-diseases#" target="_blank">press release</a>.</p><p>The researchers surveyed 474,985 middle-aged adults in the UK and asked them to complete a dietary questionnaire assessing how often they ate meat on a weekly basis. Researchers then compared the participants' meat consumption to hospital admission and mortality data.</p><p>In addition to the above findings, researchers determined that for every 70 grams of red or processed meat someone ate a day, their risk of developing heart disease increased 15 percent and their risk of diabetes increased 30 percent.</p>
<p>For every extra 30 grams of poultry someone consumed in a day, their diabetes risk increased 14 percent.</p><p>However, eating meat did have one health benefit: reducing the risk of iron deficiency. Researchers estimated a 20 percent risk reduction for every 50 extra grams of red meat a day and 17 percent for every 30 extra grams of poultry a day.</p><p>The researchers did find that people who ate meat three or more times a week were also more likely to engage in unhealthy behaviors such as smoking, drinking alcohol or eating fewer fruits and vegetables. They were also more likely to have a high body mass index. The researchers adjusted their calculations to remove those factors, and learned that the health risks from meat consumption were reduced after factoring out body mass index. </p><p>"Additional research is needed to evaluate whether the differences in risk we observed in relation to meat intake reflect causal relationships, and if so the extent to which these diseases could be prevented by decreasing meat consumption," Papier said.</p>
<p>The results don't mean that people should stop eating meat, according to <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/public-health" target="_self">public health</a> experts.</p><p>Instead, Public Health England recommended that anyone who eats more than 90 grams of meat a day should reduce it to 70 grams, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/food/2021/mar/02/eating-meat-raises-risk-of-heart-disease-diabetes-and-pneumonia?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1614714138" target="_blank">The Guardian reported</a>.</p><p>"Globally the evidence suggests that people who eat red and processed meat should limit their intake," Dr. Alison Tedstone, the agency's lead nutritionist, told The Guardian. "While it can form part of a healthy diet, eating too much has been linked to increased risk of developing bowel cancer."</p><p>However, there are also environmental and ethical reasons one might choose to stop eating meat. Some studies have found that cutting out animal products is the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/vegan-earth-footprint-2574241439.html" target="_self">single biggest step</a> a person can take to limit their environmental impact. Papier has advice for those who do so.</p><p>"The result that meat consumption is associated with a lower risk of iron-deficiency anemia, however, indicates that people who do not eat meat need to be careful that they obtain enough iron, through dietary sources or supplements," she said.</p>
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Nobel Prize for Medicine Goes to Trio Behind Hepatitis C Discovery
05 October 2020
Health + Wellness
The Nobel Assembly announces the three winners of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine on Oct. 5, 2020. JONATHAN NACKSTRAND / AFP via Getty Images
As the world continues to battle one deadly virus, the Nobel Assembly is honoring three scientists who discovered another.
<p>The assembly announced Monday it was awarding the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine to Harvey J. Alter, Michael Houghton and Charles M. Rice for the discovery of the Hepatitis C virus.</p><p>"Prior to their work, the discovery of the Hepatitis A and B viruses had been critical steps forward, but the majority of blood-borne hepatitis cases remained unexplained," the Nobel Assembly said in a <a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2020/press-release/" target="_blank">statement</a>. "The discovery of Hepatitis C virus revealed the cause of the remaining cases of chronic hepatitis and made possible blood tests and new medicines that have saved millions of lives."</p>
<div id="6b5e6" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="1bdff32b713fdf28946e2bcce6db49a3"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1313049505802194945" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">BREAKING NEWS:
The 2020 #NobelPrize in Physiology or Medicine has been awarded jointly to Harvey J. Alter, Michael… https://t.co/fzchOMYudC</div> — The Nobel Prize (@The Nobel Prize)<a href="https://twitter.com/NobelPrize/statuses/1313049505802194945">1601890372.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>The three researchers each contributed to solving a deadly medical mystery.</p><p>Hepatitis, or liver inflammation, is typically caused by viral infections. By the 1940s, researchers had discovered two: Hepatitis A, which is food-and-water-borne and does not typically cause lasting harm, and a blood-borne hepatitis that can cause cirrhosis and liver <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/cancer" target="_self">cancer</a>. In the 1960s, scientists identified one blood-borne virus that they called Hepatitis B. But, after diagnostic tests and a vaccine were developed, people continued to catch a form of hepatitis after blood transfusions.</p><p>What follows is a timeline of how the winning researchers uncovered the culprit, according to <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54418463" target="_blank">BBC News</a>.</p><p>1972: Professor Harvey Alter discovered while working at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that people were still getting liver disease after blood transfusions. He injected chimpanzees with the blood of infected patients and showed that the chimps also developed the disease.</p><p>1989: While working at the pharmaceutical firm Chiron, professor Michael Houghton isolated the genetic sequence of the mystery virus, which was then called Hepatitis C.</p><p>1997: Professor Charles Rice conducted an experiment at Washington University in St. Louis in which he genetically engineered a Hepatitis C virus and injected it into a chimpanzee, proving that the virus did in fact cause hepatitis.</p>
<p>The discoveries enabled the creation of diagnostic tests for Hepatitis C, which have stopped it from being passed through transfusions in much of the world, the Nobel Assembly explained. Further, the findings have made possible the development of antiviral treatments. While blood-borne hepatitis still claims more than a million lives a year, the winners' work may contribute to a world in which that is no longer the case.</p><p>"For the first time in history, the disease can now be cured, raising hopes of eradicating Hepatitis C virus from the world population," the assembly wrote.</p><p>The scientists all kept on researching after their discoveries. Alter continues to study Hepatitis C and other blood transfusion risks at the <a href="https://irp.nih.gov/pi/harvey-alter" target="_blank">NIH</a>. Houghton is a virology professor at the University of Alberta, Canada, where he directs the Li Ka Shing Applied Virology Institute, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/05/health/nobel-prize-medicine-hepatitis-c.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">The New York Times reported</a>. Rice teaches at Rockefeller University in New York and directed its Center for the Study of Hepatitis C from 2001 to 2018.</p><p>Nobel Assembly secretary-general Thomas Perlmann told BBC News he was only able to reach Rice and Alter with the news of their win.</p><p>"They were definitely not sitting by the phone because I called them a couple of times before without any answer," Perlmann said. "But once I reached them, they were extremely surprised and they were really happy and speechless almost, so it was really fun to talk to them."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Pioneering Black Scientist to Win Nobel Prize of Climate Change ... ›
- What's the Difference Between Pandemic, Epidemic and Outbreak ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
About 30,000 claims contending that Roundup caused non-Hodgkin's lymphoma are currently unsettled. Mike Mozart / CC BY 2.0
Bayer's $10 billion settlement to put an end to roughly 125,000 lawsuits against its popular weed killer Roundup, which contains glyphosate, hit a snag this week when a federal judge in San Francisco expressed skepticism over what rights future plaintiffs would have, as the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
<p>The $10 billion settlement does not actually need judicial review and is set to move forward. The issue is that $1.25 billion from the settlement does need a court order to be approved. That part deals with future lawsuits by <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/cancer" target="_self">cancer</a> patients who have not yet gone to court and by others who have not yet been diagnosed. The U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria said in an order Monday that he had questions about the legality and fairness of the agreement and was "tentatively inclined" to reject it, as the <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/SF-judge-questions-Bayer-s-1-25-billion-plan-15391982.php" target="_blank">San Francisco Chronicle</a> reported.</p><p>In a court filing on Monday, the judge described a plan to create a class action for future litigants as problematic, and he set a July 24 hearing date to address the matter, as <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-07/bayer-s-roundup-cancer-settlement-plan-hits-snag-as-judge-balks" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a> reported.</p>
<p>"We appreciate the judge's order raising his preliminary concerns with the proposed class settlement, which we take seriously and will address" at the hearing, Chris Loder, a U.S.-based spokesman for the Germany-based chemical and pharmaceutical giant Bayer, said in an interview.</p><p>Chhabria said he "is skeptical of the propriety and fairness of the proposed settlement." He raised concerns about the creation of a scientific panel to decide whether the key ingredient, glyphosate, causes cancer and whether the agreement unfairly limits potential plaintiffs from suing, according to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/business/roundup-lawsuit-settlement.html" target="_blank">The New York Times</a>.</p><p>Right now about 30,000 claims contending Roundup caused non-Hodgkin's lymphoma are left unsettled. Some lawyers in the U.S. have vowed to file another wave of new suits that could add tens of thousands to the logjam of existing cases, according to Bloomberg.</p>
<p>"Thankfully, Judge Chhabria has seen the ruthless plan as an outrageous attempt to deprive every future victim of Monsanto's killer Roundup of their right to fair and full compensation and to a jury trial," Tom Kline and Jason Itkin, plaintiffs' attorneys for users of the weedkiller who haven't settled their suits, said in an emailed statement to Bloomberg on Tuesday.</p><p>Bayer has lost a series of high-profile multi-million dollar cases for Roundup's role in causing non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in people who used the Monsanto brand herbicide. That series of losses has seen investors flee from Bayer since it acquired Monsanto for $63 billion in 2018.</p><p>To stem the tide of suits, Bayer insisted that the protection against future suits is a linchpin of the current settlement. Without it, the bulk of the $10 billion deal has the potential to fall apart, according to The New York Times.</p>
<p>In addition to the $8.8 billion to $9.6 billion to cover about 95,000 cases, $1.25 billion was set aside to finance the scientific panel and assist impoverished Roundup users with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. As The New York Times described, that panel would then decide whether glyphosate caused cancer and, if so, what exposure level was dangerous. Both Bayer and claimants would be bound to accept the findings in future litigation.</p><p>New York-based lawyer Hunter Shkolnik opposed the novel class-action idea from the onset. He described it as "nothing more than a legally infirm, backroom deal to protect Monsanto rather than compensating Roundup cancer victims," in an emailed statement to Bloomberg.</p>
<p>Judge Chhabria asked on Monday whether it was lawful to remove judges and juries from the equation and to shift the question of whether Roundup caused cancer to a panel of scientists.</p><p>According to The New York Times, he also noted the three previous multimillion-dollar verdicts and asked, "Why would a potential class member want to replace a jury trial and the right to seek punitive damages with the process contemplated by the settlement agreement?"</p><p>Furthermore, Chhabria also worried that the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/science/">science</a> on glyphosate's cancer-causing properties is still evolving. That led him to question whether it would pass legal muster to have claimants bound by one study that didn't find toxicity when a future, more rigorous study may find the opposite, as Bloomberg reported.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Judge Blocks California From Putting Cancer Warning on Roundup ... ›
- Bayer Settles Roundup Cancer Suits for Over $10 Billion - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
One of the largest civil settlements in U.S. history will still allow Bayer to sell Roundup without adding any cancer warnings. Mike Mozart / CC BY 2.0
In one of the largest civil settlements in U.S. history, Bayer agreed Wednesday to pay more than $10 billion to resolve around 95,000 cases claiming its glyphosate-based weedkiller Roundup causes cancer.
<p>The deal will still allow Bayer to sell Roundup without adding any warnings, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/business/roundup-settlement-lawsuits.html" target="_blank">The New York Times reported</a>. It comes after three juries in early, high-profile trials awarded more than $2.4 billion to plaintiffs who developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after long term Roundup use.</p><p>"Even Bayer's billions can't magically make glyphosate's well-documented links to cancer disappear," <a href="https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/" target="_blank">Center for Biological Diversity</a> (CBD) senior scientist Nathan Donley said in a statement reported by <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jun/24/bayer-109bn-settlement-monsanto-weedkiller-roundup" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>. "Bayer only settled after three multi-million-dollar verdicts over the past year from jurors who, unlike the EPA, wisely put more trust in the safety assessments of independent scientists than in <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/monsanto" target="_self">Monsanto</a>/Bayer's confidential reviews of its own product."</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Even as they settle, <a href="https://twitter.com/Bayer?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Bayer</a> officials continue to deny Monsanto’s glyphosate herbicides cause cancer. “The extensive body of science indicates that Roundup does not cause cancer, and therefore, is not responsible for the illnesses alleged...”<a href="https://t.co/45xQPai62f">https://t.co/45xQPai62f</a></p>— carey gillam (@careygillam) <a href="https://twitter.com/careygillam/status/1275864794734768129?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 24, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>The debate over Roundup's safety is ongoing, The New York Times explained. In 2015, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer said that glyphosate could "probably" cause cancer, but other regulatory bodies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), have ruled it safe. However, critics point out that many of these safe rulings were based on studies provided by Monsanto, the company that developed and sold Roundup before it was <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/bayer-monsanto-merger-2575082668.html" target="_self">acquired</a> by Bayer in 2018.</p><p>Per the terms of the settlement, the question of Roundup's safety will now pass to an independent "Class Science Panel," <a href="https://usrtk.org/uncategorized/bayer-settles-u-s-roundup-dicamba-and-pcb-litigation-for-more-than-10-billion/" target="_blank">U.S. Right to Know (USTK) reported</a>. The panel will decide if Roundup use can cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma and at what levels of exposure. Both Bayer and any future plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit will be bound by its findings. Until those findings are released, a process likely to take years, plaintiffs cannot bring any claims or seek punitive damages.</p>
<p>In the deal, Bayer earmarked $8.8 billion to $9.6 billion to settle 75 percent of current cases and $1.25 billion for any future claims. The three cases already decided by juries, currently in appeal, are not included.</p><p>Both plaintiff lawyers and Bayer celebrated the agreement.</p><p>"After years of hard fought litigation and a year of intense mediation I am glad to see our clients will now be compensated," Mike Miller of the Miller law firm told USRTK.</p>
<p>Bayer, meanwhile, seemed eager to escape the shadow cast on the company after it acquired both Monsanto and its legal challenges. Bayer's stock price plummeted after the three juries ruled against it, The New York Times pointed out.</p><p>"First and foremost, the Roundup™ settlement is the right action at the right time for Bayer to bring a long period of uncertainty to an end," Bayer CEO Werner Baumann said in a <a href="https://media.bayer.com/baynews/baynews.nsf/id/Bayer-announces-agreements-to-resolve-major-legacy-Monsanto-litigation" target="_blank">statement</a>.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Bayer has reached a series of agreements to resolve major legacy Monsanto litigation in the U.S. <br>Learn more: <a href="https://t.co/crqNTLIkVd">https://t.co/crqNTLIkVd</a></p>— Bayer AG (@Bayer) <a href="https://twitter.com/Bayer/status/1275833690984198145?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 24, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>However, not all the plaintiffs bringing claims against Bayer agreed to the settlement. The company still faces at least 30,000 claims, according to The New York Times.</p><p>"This is nothing like the closure they're trying to imply," Fletch Trammell, a Houston-based lawyer who represents 5,000 of the people bringing those claims, told The New York Times. "It's like putting out part of a house fire."</p><p>Also on Wednesday, Bayer settled two other lawsuits inherited from Monsanto, The Guardian reported. First, it will pay $400 million to settle claims related to <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/dicamba">dicamba</a>, another herbicide that can drift to other crops and kill them.</p><p>"The settlement announced today is an important step to making things right for the farmers who just want to be able to put food on the table of America and the world," lawyer Joseph Peiffer of Peiffer Wolf law firm, which represents farmers with dicamba claims, told USRTK of the second herbicide settlement.</p><p>Bayer will pay a further $820 million to settle "most" claims related to PCB, a toxic chemical that Monsanto produced until 1977 that contaminated U.S. water supplies, The Guardian reported.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Man Who Developed Cancer After Roundup Use Awarded More ... ›
- Trump's EPA Backs Bayer's Appeal in Roundup Verdict Appeal ... ›
- More Monsanto Roundup Cancer Trials Expected to Be Postponed ... ›
- Former Monsanto CEO Ordered to Testify at Roundup Cancer Trial ... ›
- Roundup Cancer Settlement Hits Snag With Judge Over Future Plaintiffs' Rights - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A ruling that permanently bars California from affixing a cancer label to Roundup is separate from ongoing civil suits that claim glyphosate caused blood cancers. Mike Mozart / CC BY 2.0
A federal judge in California ruled on Monday that the state cannot put a cancer warning on the label of the popular herbicide Roundup, as The Associated Press reported.
<p>The world's most widely used weed killer has faced nearly 125,000 lawsuits by plaintiffs who claim their non-Hodgkins lymphoma and other forms of blood cancer were caused by repeated exposure to Monsanto's signature product, which is now owned by the German chemical and pharmaceutical giant Bayer AG.</p>
<p>Since Bayer bought Monsanto, the spate of lawsuits and their legal fees have weighed on Bayer and made the company lose 40 percent of its value. To try to contain the damage, Bayer made a verbal agreement to settle 50,000 to 85,000 cases in May, awarding plaintiffs anywhere from a few thousand dollars to a few million, according to <a href="https://fortune.com/2020/05/25/bayer-roundup-cancer-lawsuit-settle/" target="_blank">Fortune</a>.</p><p>Those lawsuits have been aided by a <a href="https://www.iarc.fr/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-glyphosate/" target="_blank">2015 finding by the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer</a> (IARC), which said that <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate" target="_self">glyphosate</a>, the chemical in Roundup, is a probable human carcinogen.</p><p>Despite that categorization, U.S. District Judge William Shubb called California's cancer warning misleading and said the state's label is not backed up by regulatory findings, according to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bayer-glyphosate-lawsuit/u-s-court-blocks-california-cancer-label-on-bayers-roundup-weed-killer-idUSKBN23T38Y" target="_blank">Reuters</a>.</p>
<p>Regulators around the world have determined Roundup, or glyphosate, to be safe, even though the IARC labeled it a probable carcinogen. That includes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa" target="_self">EPA</a>). Late last year, when a judge reduced an $80 million jury award, the EPA filed papers in court that fully and unequivocally supported Bayer's claim that <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate" target="_self">glyphosate</a> does not cause cancer, as <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-epa-backs-bayer-2641674057.html" target="_self">EcoWatch</a> reported.</p><p>Since the EPA and its European counterparts have not found a connection between glyphosate and cancer, the judge said the state could not require the company to put a cancer warning on its label, according to the <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Judge-prohibits-California-from-putting-cancer-15358663.php" target="_blank">San Francisco Chronicle</a>.</p><p>Shubb said the state, under Supreme Court rulings, cannot require a private company to change its label or say anything about its products unless the statement is "purely factual and non-controversial," as the <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Judge-prohibits-California-from-putting-cancer-15358663.php" target="_blank">San Francisco Chronicle</a> reported.</p>
<p>The ruling, which permanently bars California from affixing a cancer label to Roundup, is completely separate from the ongoing civil suits that claim glyphosate caused blood cancers, according to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bayer-glyphosate-lawsuit/u-s-court-blocks-california-cancer-label-on-bayers-roundup-weed-killer-idUSKBN23T38Y" target="_blank">Reuters</a>.</p><p>So far, juries in three trials have ordered the company to pay billions after concluding that the product did cause cancer. Plaintiffs alleged that Bayer manipulated studies and deceived the scientific community to make glyphosate seem safer than it actually is, according to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bayer-glyphosate-lawsuit/u-s-court-blocks-california-cancer-label-on-bayers-roundup-weed-killer-idUSKBN23T38Y" target="_blank">Reuters</a>.</p><p>Bayer has consistently denied those claims and has insisted that glyphosate does not cause cancer, and it got help on Monday when Shubb said, "the great weight of evidence indicates that glyphosate is not known to cause cancer," as <a href="https://apnews.com/cf17840fc93b59f68751de92b5d4de9a" target="_blank">The Associated Press</a> reported.</p>
<p>As the <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Judge-prohibits-California-from-putting-cancer-15358663.php" target="_blank">San Francisco Chronicle</a> reported, the lawyers for the plaintiffs in the jury trials that have awarded cancer patients over $200 million argued that the EPA's insistence that Roundup does not cause cancer is spurious since there was evidence the company had unduly influenced the federal agency and had "ghost-written" purported research studies on the product's safety.</p><p>In the case, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra proposed to reword the label warnings to include both the IARC and EPA findings and a reference to a website for further discussion, but the judge unequivocally rejected that compromise, according to the <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Judge-prohibits-California-from-putting-cancer-15358663.php" target="_blank">San Francisco Chronicle</a>. Becerra's office said it would review the ruling and plan its next step.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- More Monsanto Roundup Cancer Trials Expected to Be Postponed ... ›
- Trump's EPA Backs Bayer's Appeal in Roundup Verdict Appeal ... ›
- California Scientists: Safe Level of Roundup Is 100x Lower Than ... ›
- Judge Says Public Doesn't Need Cancer Warning Label - EcoWatch ›
- Roundup Cancer Settlement Hits Snag With Judge Over Future Plaintiffs' Rights - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
15 Best Foods for Detoxing Your Body
22 January 2016
Actress Jessica Smith gets her make-up done at the Point De Vue Salon on March 1, 2006 in Los Angeles, California. Marsaili McGrath / Getty Images
California became the first state in the nation to ban two dozen toxic chemicals from cosmetics Wednesday when Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill to that effect into law.
<p>The Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act, or <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB2762" target="_blank">Assembly Bill 2762</a>, targets 24 toxic chemicals including <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/mercury" target="_self">mercury</a> and formaldehyde that have been linked to <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/cancer" target="_self">cancer</a>, birth defects, hormone disruption and other negative health impacts, <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/california-first-state-ban-24-toxic-chemicals-personal-care-products-and-cosmetics?utm_campaign=EWG%20Content&utm_content=1601499406&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR0RfuFMZMMoF3cHBcF-JY934c7B_X9MMDJUt-rKeSLJGkkn3S9o3un8uj4" target="_blank">Environmental Working Group (EWG) reported</a>. While these ingredients have been barred from cosmetics and personal care products in the EU, they are not regulated in the U.S. on the national level.</p><p>"Every day, Californians are exposed to hazardous chemicals hiding in their cosmetics and personal care products. Children, communities of color and pregnant women are especially vulnerable to these ingredients, which are not actively regulated by the federal government," Newsom said in a <a href="https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/09/30/governor-newsom-signs-legislation-making-california-first-in-the-nation-to-ban-toxic-chemicals-in-cosmetics/" target="_blank">press release</a>. "California is leading the nation by banning toxic ingredients from our cosmetics. This legislation will save lives and keep Californians and our environment safe."</p>
<p>The bill was introduced by Democratic Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi and will go into effect in 2025, <a href="https://apnews.com/article/california-legislation-cosmetics-gavin-newsom-e8895b4a711194f6f41b16622859cdef" target="_blank">The Associated Press reported</a>.</p><p>"The science is clear on the harmful nature of these chemicals and AB 2762 will provide Californians with the same consumer protections already provided in the European Union," Muratsuchi said in the press release.</p><p>Cosmetics regulations have not been significantly updated in the U.S. since <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/michelle-pfeiffer-safer-cosmetics-2638043856.html" target="_self">1938</a>. Currently, the makers of beauty products do not have to register their products with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), supply the government with an ingredients list, follow safe manufacturing standards or report safety records and any adverse health impacts.</p><p>This lack of regulation is an issue of health and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/environmental-justice" target="_self">environmental justice</a>, supporters of the California bill pointed out.</p>
<p>"Some of the most toxic ingredients are being aggressively marketed to Black women," <a href="https://www.bwwla.org/" target="_blank">Black Women for Wellness</a> policy director Nourbese Flint told EWG. "Levels of formaldehyde that could be used to embalm a body are being used in hair straighteners, and Black women who dye their hair are 60 percent more likely to develop breast cancer. That's why we demand safe cosmetics now. This law means we can finally protect women from the toxic exposures they currently face on every trip to the salon."</p><p>The law will also protect salon workers, who are 47 times more likely to develop fragrance skin allergies than people in other professions, the California government pointed out.</p>
<p>Also on Wednesday, Newsom signed <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB312" target="_blank">Senate Bill 312</a>, which mandates that cosmetics makers report any harmful fragrances or flavors to the California Department of Public Health Safe Cosmetics Program.</p><p>"I thank Governor Newsom for signing SB 312 which will ensure that consumers in California know what ingredients are in the beauty and personal care products they bring home to their families and use on their bodies," Democratic State Senator Connie Leyva, who introduced the bill, said in the press release. "This first-in-the-nation legislation empowers consumers and underscores the belief that no toxic ingredients should be kept secret."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Chemicals in Cosmetics Linked to Lung Damage in Children, New ... ›
- 33 Toxic Hair Straighteners Under International Recall Still Sold in US ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A boy plays basketball in front of an oil well covered with large colorful flowers and located next to Beverly Hills High School. Wells like this have been hidden throughout Los Angeles. Faces of Fracking / Flickr
While the hazards of fracking to human health are well-documented, first-of-its-kind research from Environmental Health News shows the actual levels of biomarkers for fracking chemicals in the bodies of children living near fracking wells far higher than in the general population.
<p>The research fills a gap in the science between the <a href="https://nexusmedianews.com/top_story/racism-gas-flaring-preterm-births/?swcfpc=1&utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=113718159&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--IeKYsJkanyv2krbRsHJYxOkofQcR7PNdbAKUOWyWVgo641V3oi78yiiALF6Bs_6g-0ll4FRFpZfIBzg4iuv0d4TxgvA&utm_content=113718159&utm_source=hs_email" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">health harms</a> <a href="https://newsletter.climatenexus.org/e2t/tc/VWl5n_3q5CJ8W1vkcM622ZDlgW8LzBkh4nHcKTN3V8l9V3p_9LV1-WJV7CgDHwW5-d9Tn58WbjLW29YYkj1XKTLxW6fxzrF5qVzLQW728zK68hv09gW6XMg5S6P2pm4W8H7t2g7fkYbxW7LK3Rj3lBqjhW6psXpd6BW69mW4LxNjC1fBkckW6zrLg869tPj5VBjczC3NL9KdW3Y7c8w60yrFXW6pQ6db7hmyZbV24BBj6k-9gQW3p45qg1l9h8tVVCGK-https://nexusmedianews.com/top_story/texas-fracking-well-racial-equity/?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=113718159&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9HnKTZpGsUpmqPPGaK4yztwgHCQlDwqY7CdovXbWiGnBCvO1jjWXhqUUD1EBXlzR4hXse4J1GNm47XfPzFkOsdqPs5GA&utm_content=113718159&utm_source=hs_email" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">experienced by</a> those <a href="https://nexusmedianews.com/top_story/fracking-causes-radiation/?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=113718159&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_Z9oDs8ErdTJkOBGkw6yk4DqDqbSJbq4c6Cn32fWeLj3YeiEB6S_IUkDKTaBN4cw4yzClKvupyBMWiQOv4d78IjZrttQ&utm_content=113718159&utm_source=hs_email" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">living near fracking</a> and the known harms caused by fracking chemicals: whether fracking chemicals were actually in people's bodies. They are. Of the southwestern <a href="https://nexusmedianews.com/top_story/frack-attack-fail/?swcfpc=1&utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=113718159&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9Ac7K45kaZuV9bo0mx6c4YENox9oKgEpZX0jkcmR3SCs8X7yL0MjwvSPhqa3ymTYnvF-oIYfh-bQThZp7c5YmULwelNQ&utm_content=113718159&utm_source=hs_email" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Pennsylvania</a> families who participated in the study, those who lived closer to fracking wells had higher levels of fracking chemicals or their biomarkers than those who lived far away. </p>
<p>One nine-year-old boy had biomarkers for toluene, which can damage the nervous system or kidneys, 91 times higher than the average American. Another had biomarkers for ethylbenzene and styrene, 55 times higher than the average American. Exposure to ethylbenzene and styrene is linked to skin, eye, and respiratory tract irritation, reproductive harm, endocrine disruption, and increased cancer risk. The research is part one of a multi-part series by Environmental Health News exploring the multifaceted "body burden" of fracking.</p>
<p>As reported by <a href="https://www.ehn.org/fractured-harmful-chemicals-fracking-2650428324/family-video" target="_blank">Environmental Health News</a>:</p><blockquote>In Texas, researchers found that babies born near frequent flaring—the burning off of excess natural gas from fracking wells—are <a href="https://www.ehn.org/fracking-preterm-births--2646411428.html" target="_blank">50 percent</a> more likely to be premature. In Colorado, the state Department of Health <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ST8yZ0bUBrEzIkWsalOWCMHNjHNXarHO/view" target="_blank">found</a> that people living near fracking sites face elevated risk of nosebleeds, headaches, breathing trouble, and dizziness. In Pennsylvania, researchers found that people living near fracking face <a href="https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=75575&PageSpeed=noscript" target="_blank">increased rates of infant mortality</a>, <a href="https://www.ehn.org/pennsylvanians-who-live-near-fracking-are-more-likely-to-be-depressed-2590186370.html" target="_blank">depression</a>, and <a href="https://www.ehn.org/fracking-linked-to-increased-hospitalizations-for-skin-genital-and-urinary-issues-in-pennsylvania-2630649093.html" target="_blank">hospitalizations</a> for skin and urinary issues. <a href="https://www.ehn.org/health-impacts-of-fracking-2634432607.html" target="_blank">Studies of fracking communities</a> throughout the country have found that living near fracking wells increases the risk of premature births, high-risk pregnancies, asthma, migraines, fatigue, nasal and sinus symptoms, skin disorders and <a href="https://www.jacc.org/doi/full/10.1016/j.jacc.2020.10.023" target="_blank">heart failure</a>; and laboratory studies have <a href="https://academic.oup.com/endo/article/156/12/4458/2422671" target="_blank">linked</a> chemicals used in fracking fluid to endocrine disruption—which can cause hormone imbalance, reproductive harm, early puberty, brain and behavior problems, improper immune function, and cancer.</blockquote><blockquote>"We have enough evidence at this point that these health impacts should be of serious concern to policymakers interested in protecting public health," Irena Gorski Steiner, an environmental epidemiology doctoral candidate at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told <em>Environmental Health News</em> (EHN).</blockquote>
<img
class="rm-lazyloadable-image rm-shortcode" lazy-loadable="true"
data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTcwNjM4My9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0NDY3MjcwM30.AYi_2gzgqE9i4HLu995WAMYiYDZiIbQiAS8nWHXm2xg/img.jpg?width=980"
id="15f12"
width="800"
height="531"
data-rm-shortcode-id="ceb23146786dc26925fa0c4cc45ef75d" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
<p><strong>For a deeper dive:</strong><br/></p><p><a href="https://www.ehn.org/fractured-harmful-chemicals-fracking-2650428324.html?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=113718159&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9O7c9gr0YQxB-7EgWVqaoE01Bpt_vt5POEcj-_cXeFCr8B40TWI__h7eT2FqSJjb30O5mEqc32t8GiONxzhkBMhF4Sog&utm_content=113718159&utm_source=hs_email" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Environmental Health News</a>; Series overview: <a href="https://www.ehn.org/fractured-series-on-fracking-pollution-2650624600/fractured-fracking" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Environmental Health News</a></p><p><em>For more </em><a href="http://ecowatch.com/climate-change-news/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><em>climate change</em></a><em> and </em><a href="http://ecowatch.com/business/renewables/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><em>clean energy</em></a><em> news, you can follow Climate Nexus on </em><a href="https://twitter.com/ClimateNexus" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><em>Twitter</em></a><em> and </em><a href="https://www.facebook.com/ClimateNexus/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><em>Facebook</em></a><em>, sign up for daily </em><a href="https://www.linktrack.live/hot-news-sign-up" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><em>Hot News</em></a><em>, and visit their news site, </em><a href="https://nexusmedianews.com/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><em>Nexus Media News</em></a><em>.</em></p>A man stands with his granddaughter in front of the Murphy Oil site located next door to his apartment in West Adams, Los Angles, California on July 16, 2014. Sarah Craig / Faces of Fracking
From Your Site Articles
- Total Ban on Fracking Urged by Health Experts: 1,500 Studies ... ›
- Every Parent Concerned About Their Kids' Health Should Read This ... ›
- 650,000 Children in 9 States Attend School Within 1 Mile of a ... ›
- Fracking Chemicals Remain Secret Despite EPA Knowledge of ... ›
- Study: Fracking Chemicals Harm Kids' Brains - EcoWatch ›
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Trump's Latest EPA Rollback Lets Polluters Spew More Lead, Arsenic, Mercury
02 October 2020
Politics
A new Trump administration rollback of EPA regulations could allow plants to emit two to ten times more hazardous air pollutants than before. BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / AFP via Getty Images
Trump's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has weakened yet another safeguard against air pollution in the midst of a respiratory pandemic.
<p>The agency finalized a rollback Thursday of the Clinton-era "once in, always in" policy that required major polluters like industrial plants and refineries to maintain the highest possible levels of pollution controls as long as they continued to operate, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-environment-airtoxics-idUSKBN26M7EU?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A%20Trending%20Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR3DnYWkKalEHiFeBQRhFzRZPVWl2Z1Eb_F0rUc9czINsYwTV53qjgwLwDU" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Reuters reported</a>.</p><p>"This is a lawless action that will undoubtedly increase carcinogens and other deadly pollution in our air," Clinton EPA administrator Carol Browner said in a statement reported by <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/519181-epa-finalizes-rule-allowing-some-major-polluters-to-follow-weaker" target="_blank">The Hill</a>. "Taking this action during a global pandemic that preys upon people with existing respiratory ailments further confirms that for <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/andrew-wheeler" target="_self">Andrew Wheeler</a> and the political leadership of the EPA the cruelty is the point."</p>
<p>The agency <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-clean-air-act-2528831006.html" target="_self">first proposed</a> reversing the rule in 2018, according to Reuters. The 1995 policy required that major polluters use maximum achievable control technology standards (MACT) throughout the lifetime of their operations. The new policy will allow these facilities to use less stringent standards after they reduce emissions. The so-called "major sources" that reduce their emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) will be reclassified as "area sources," emitters like gas stations or dry cleaners that emit less than 10 tons of a single pollutant or 25 tons of multiple pollutants each year.</p><p>"This action reduces regulatory burden and provides a level of fairness and flexibility for sources that reduce HAP emissions below major source thresholds and reclassify as area sources," the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/documentation-reclassification-major-sources-area-sources-under" target="_blank">agency explained</a>.</p>
<p>EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler argued that the change would incentivize companies to invest in better technology to reduce emissions.</p><p>"Today's action is an important step to further <a href="https://thehill.com/people/donald-trump" target="_blank">President Trump</a>'s regulatory reform agenda by providing meaningful incentives for investment that prevents hazardous air pollution," he said in a statement reported by The Hill.</p><p>However, <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Natural Resources Defense Council</a> (NRDC) senior attorney John Walke said the reversal was entirely unnecessary. He said plants had already installed emission-reduction technology and had been maintaining the requirement that they reduce pollution 95 to 98 percent for decades.</p><p>"It's the triumph of extreme ideology over <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/public-health" target="_self">public health</a>, common sense and the law," he told The Hill.</p><p>Walke further said <a href="https://twitter.com/NRDC/status/1311759616393572356" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">on Twitter</a> that the rollback would allow plants to emit two to ten times more hazardous air pollutants than before. This includes toxins like <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/mercury" target="_self">mercury</a>, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/lead" target="_self">lead</a>, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/arsenic" target="_self">arsenic</a>, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/asbestos" target="_self">asbestos</a> and benzene that can cause <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/cancer" target="_self">cancer</a>, brain damage, fetal damage and premature death.</p>
<p>The EPA itself acknowledged the new policy could cause as many as 1,258 tons of additional pollutants to enter the air every year.</p><p><a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2020/10/sierra-club-vows-fight-repeal-once-always-framework" target="_blank">The Sierra Club</a> pointed out that the change would disproportionately impact low income communities and communities of color that tend to live closer to polluting plants. It comes as scientists <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/coronavirus-air-pollution-fatality-2645656760.html" target="_self">warn</a> that exposure to air pollution might increase the risk of dying of the new <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coronavirus" target="_self">coronavirus</a>, and Black and Hispanic Americans are <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/black--hispanic-americans-coronavirus-2645677258.html" target="_self">contracting and dying</a> of the new virus at higher rates.</p><p>"Despite … the renewed national focus on <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/environmental-justice" target="_self">environmental justice</a>, Wheeler is showing there is no level that he will not stoop to in order to placate polluters and carrying out the wishes of his disgraced predecessor, <a href="https://debbiedingell.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1315" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt</a>," <a href="https://twitter.com/maryannehitt" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">national director of campaigns for the Sierra Club</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/maryannehitt" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Mary Anne Hitt</a> said in a statement. "Sierra Club, however, will continue to fight for the communities Wheeler has chosen to ignore. We will fight this reckless and unlawful rollback, in order to ensure that the American public is safe from dangerous air pollution."</p>The NRDC also <a href="https://twitter.com/NRDC/status/1311759521929453570" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">promised</a> to fight the change, and the <a href="https://www.edf.org/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Environmental Defense Fund</a> told Reuters it would sue to reverse the rollback.
From Your Site Articles
- EPA Chief Previews a Second Trump Term: More Deregulation ... ›
- Trump's Hand-Picked Scientists Rebuke EPA Rollbacks - EcoWatch ›
- Trump's EPA Seeks Deadly Air Pollution Loophole for Dirty Trucks ... ›
- Trump's EPA Is Changing Its Math to Make Clean Power Plan ... ›
- Trump's EPA Weakens Justification for Life-Saving Mercury Pollution ... ›
- Appeals Court Hears Arguments on Trump's Clean Air Rollback - EcoWatch ›
- Trump EPA Hinder Biden Efforts to Address Climate and Pollution ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
MIT engineers have designed a concept airplane that could eliminate 95 percent of toxic emissions. Aaron Foster / Getty Images
Air travel is a major source of air pollution. A new concept hybrid-electric airplane could reduce dangerous emissions by 95 percent and potentially save thousands of lives every year.
<p>Generally, the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/environmental-cost-of-air-travel-2644915801.html" target="_self">environmental cost of flying is high</a>. At cruising altitude, planes emit a steady stream of nitrogen oxides (NOx) into the troposphere, which eventually convert into ozone and fine particulates, an <a href="https://news.mit.edu/2021/hybrid-electric-plane-pollution-0114" target="_blank">MIT press release</a> noted.</p><p>According to the <a href="https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=84&t=11#:~:text=Ozone%20is%20technically%20a%20greenhouse,found%20in%20the%20earth's%20atmosphere.&text=The%20protective%20benefit%20of%20stratospheric,effect%20and%20to%20global%20warming." target="_blank">U.S Energy Information Administration</a>, an independent statistic and analysis organization, ozone in the troposphere is harmful to human health and adds to the climate crisis. <a href="https://www.worldwildlife.org/initiatives/cutting-aviation-pollution" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">WWF</a> estimated that if the entire aviation sector were a country, it would be one of the world's top 10 carbon-polluting nations. The compounded effect of ozone at such a low altitude and NOx, which acts as a precursor greenhouse gas, means that aviation is responsible for around <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/environmental-cost-of-air-travel-2644915801.html">five percent of global CO2 emissions</a> annually, at a minimum.</p><p>A separate <a href="https://ioppublishing.org/news/aviation-emissions-impacts-on-air-quality-larger-than-on-climate-study-finds/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">2019 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) study</a> found that aviation emissions' impact on air quality is two to four times worse than its climate impact. NOx, the same poisonous gas generated by diesel vehicles, is a major air pollutant, and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fine-particulates" target="_self">fine particulate matter (PM2.5)</a>, one of the compounds formed from NOx, is an inhalable air pollutant that causes hazy air. As a result, flying generated enough air pollutants to cause 16,000 premature deaths each year.</p><p>According to the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/particulate-matter-pm-basics" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">EPA</a>, of all particulate matter, PM2.5 poses the greatest risk to human health because it enters the bloodstream after getting inhaled or swallowed and can cause damage throughout the body. Nitrogen oxides have been linked with <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/wildfires-asthma-us-2649587812.html" target="_self">asthma</a>, respiratory disease, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/air-pollution-cardiac-arrests-2644941669.html" target="_self">cardiovascular disorders</a> and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/air-pollution-causes-cancer-world-health-organization-says-1881802043.html" target="_self">cancer</a>. They have also recently been <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/air-pollution-macular-degeneration-2650176061.html" target="_self">linked to permanent vision loss</a>.</p>
<p>Now, MIT engineers have designed a concept airplane that could eliminate 95 percent of aviation's NOx emissions, thereby reducing early deaths by 92 percent, the MIT release said. Researchers published their findings in the journal <a href="https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2020/ee/d0ee02362k#!divAbstract" target="_blank">Energy and Environmental Science</a>.</p><p>The new hybrid-electric plane employs a similar design that diesel vehicles use to clean their NOx exhaust. Traditionally, a plane's gas turbines, located under the wings, are what power its propellers. In the hybrid version, the gas turbines would be relocated to the cargo hold, where they would power propellers or fans via an electricity-producing generator, <a href="https://www.zdnet.com/article/mit-proposes-hybrid-electric-plane-able-to-eliminate-95-of-nox-emissions/" target="_blank">ZD Net</a> reported the team saying.</p><p>A redesign would allow for the same power generation of the existing system without air pollution. At the same time, emissions from the generators would be fed into an emissions-control system, which would clean exhaust and convert NOx into nitrogen and water before ejecting them into the atmosphere, <a href="https://www.energylivenews.com/2021/01/19/mit-designs-hybrid-electric-jet-that-could-fly-with-95-less-nox-emissions/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Energy Live News</a> reported.<br></p><p>"This would still be a tremendous engineering challenge, but there aren't fundamental physics limitations," Steven Barrett, one of the study's authors and an MIT professor of aeronautics and astronautics, said in the press release. "If you want to get to a net-zero aviation sector, this is a potential way of solving the air pollution part of it, which is significant, and in a way that's technologically quite viable."</p>
<p>The bulk of the hybrid-electric system would still fit within the cargo of a commercial plane, where there is ample space. In the study, researchers calculated that their new hybrid-electric system on a Boeing 737 or Airbus A320-like aircraft would require an additional 0.6 percent more fuel to carry the extra weight and fly the plane.</p><p>"This would be many, many times more feasible than what has been proposed for all-electric aircraft," Barrett said in the release. "This design would add some hundreds of kilograms to a plane, as opposed to adding many tons of batteries, which would be over a magnitude of extra weight."</p><p>While the plane is still just a concept, the team is already taking their research to the next level by designing a zero-impact plane that could fly without creating air pollution or carbon emissions, the MIT release said.</p><p>"We need to get to essentially zero net-climate impacts and zero deaths from air pollution," Barrett said in the release. "This current design would effectively eliminate aviation's air pollution problem. We're now working on the climate impact part of it."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- World's First Electric Helicopter Takes Flight - EcoWatch ›
- Every Toyota, Lexus Model to Have Electrified Option by 2025 ... ›
- Norway Aims for Electric Planes to Help Slow Climate Change ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Pump jacks draw crude oil from the Inglewood Oil Field near Los Angeles, California, on March 9, 2020. DAVID MCNEW / AFP via Getty Images
More than 1,600 gallons of oil have spilled in the Inglewood Oil Field — the largest urban oil field in the country, where more than a million people live within five miles of its boundaries, the Sierra Club wrote in a statement on Wednesday.
<p>The spill was caused by a human error when a valve was left open, the <a href="https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-04-07/inglewood-oil-field-spill" target="_blank">Los Angeles Times reported</a>. It was also not the field's first spill. Past spills at the Inglewood Oil Field, located in Culver City and Los Angeles County, have occurred in 2019, 2018, 2010, 2006 and 2005, exposing residents in the area to toxins and carcinogens, the Sierra Club added.</p><p>After a history of community organizing, Tuesday's spill arms activists with further momentum to fight against this major public health and environmental crisis in California's largest county.</p>
<p>"Yesterday's oil spill is a deadly reminder that the environmental racism that's shaped and harmed Black, Indigenous, and people of color continues to put our health at risk," Martha Dina Argüello, of the STAND-LA Coalition, an environmental justice coalition, and Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles, said in a Sierra Club <a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2021/04/oil-spill-inglewood-oil-field-sends-over-1600-gallons-flowing-near#:~:text=Oil%20Spill%20at%20Inglewood%20Oil%20Field%20Sends%20Over%201%2C600%20Gallons%20Flowing%20Near%20Communities,-Yesterday's%20spill%20is&text=In%202018%2C%20a%20containment%20tank,the%20oil%20field%20fence%20line." target="_blank">statement</a>.</p><p>Of the people living in the area, 52 percent are Black, which is a much higher percentage than the countywide eight percent, the Sierra Club reported. The oil field is also located alongside homes and schools, putting families at risk for health outcomes from <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/air-pollution">air pollution</a> like lung disease, leukemia, lymphoma, lung cancer and asthma. In Baldwin Hills, asthma related ER visits are <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/13QB6uYXKKyeZccdU8jB9WUGI_SdL-Z2R/view" target="_blank">4.4 times higher</a> than the Los Angeles County average.</p>
<p>"A pattern of oil spills and the daily and 'authorized' toxic emissions both demonstrate that oil extraction is [an] inherently dangerous practice that has no place in our region. We look forward to working with Los Angeles County to take immediate steps to phase out oil and gas production," Argüello added, according to the Sierra Club.</p><p>Last fall, Culver City approved a resolution to take initial steps to phase out oil in the area, the <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/media/2020/200814" target="_blank">NRDC wrote in a statement</a>. Similar actions are also occurring citywide in Los Angeles.</p><p>In December, the Los Angeles City Council's Energy, Climate Change, and Environmental Justice Committee voted unanimously to pass a motion to begin a citywide phase-out of oil drilling, the <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/damon-nagami/angeles-edges-closer-phasing-out-urban-oil-drilling" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">NRDC wrote in a statement</a>. "We're not over the finish line, but we're closer than ever," Argüello added, according to the <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/los-angeles-moves-closer-to-forcing-oil-gas-drillers-out-of-city/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Courthouse News Service</a>.</p>
<p>Currently, there are 1,071 active oil wells in the city — 759 of which are located less than 1,500 feet from homes, schools, churches and hospitals, STAND-LA, which has been leading the fight against oil in the city of Los Angeles, <a href="https://www.stand.la/drill-sites-in-la.html" target="_blank">wrote</a>.</p><p>Although no injuries were reported at the Inglewood oil spill on Tuesday, environmental groups have expressed concerns about toxins released in the air from the spill that could harm nearby communities, the Los Angeles Times reported, adding to the often unknown and unreported health impacts of oil spills.</p><p>"What's terrifying about health dangers like this is that the average person living nearby rarely has any way of knowing it even happened," Ethan Senser, Southern California Organizer with Food & Water Watch told the Sierra Club. "This is an ongoing crisis we can't keep sweeping under the rug - it's time that the County commits to partnering with frontline communities and supporting the real solutions they are putting forward." </p>
From Your Site Articles
- Kinder Morgan Pipeline Spills up to 42,000 Gallons of Gasoline Into ... ›
- Chevron Refinery Dumps Oil Into San Francisco Bay - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less