Subject: #576: Something is Terribly Wrong

=======================Electronic Edition========================
.                                                               .
.           RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #576           .
.                    ---December 11, 1997---                    .
.                          HEADLINES:                           .
.        1997 REVIEW Part 1: SOMETHING IS TERRIBLY WRONG        .
.                          ==========                           .
.               Environmental Research Foundation               .
.              P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD  21403              .
.      Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.clark.net       .
.                          ==========                           .
.  Back issues available by E-mail; to get instructions, send   .
.   E-mail to INFO@rachel.clark.net with the single word HELP   .
.    in the message; back issues also available via ftp from    .
.    ftp.std.com/periodicals/rachel and from gopher.std.com     .
.            and from http://www.monitor.net/rachel/kerry/books/com_guide/Cambodia.toc.html=20            .
. Subscribe: send E-mail to rachel-weekly-request@world.std.com .
.  with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message.  It's free.   .
=================================================================

1997 REVIEW--PART 1: SOMETHING IS TERRIBLY WRONG

During 1997, accumulating evidence indicated that something is
disrupting normal sexual development and function in humans.

Baby Boys Disappearing

The year began with a report from Canadian researchers that an
abnormal excess of baby girls were born in Canada and the U.S.
during the period 1970 to 1990.[1]  Normally, about 1057 males are
born for every 1000 females[2] for a sex ratio of 0.514, but in
Canada and the U.S. after 1970 the number of male babies
declined, according to nationwide birth records in both
countries.  The reasons for the shifting sex ratio are not known.

In Canada, over the 20 years the cumulative loss was 2.2 males
per 1000 live births; in the U.S., the cumulative loss was 1.0
males per 1000 live births.  These losses were statistically
significant.  (In the U.S. the loss was greatest in the Atlantic
coastal region where 5.6 males were lost for each 1000 live
births.)  Overall, in Canada during the period 1970 to 1990, 8639
liveborn males were lost.  In the U.S., with its much larger
population (250 million vs. 30 million), the total loss of
liveborn males was 37,840 during the 20 years. The sex ratio can
be affected by many factors including:[2] hormonally induced
ovulation, which tends to produce more females; race
(African-American couples tend to have more females); season of
the year (more males born in summer, more females in winter);
timing of fertilization in relation to the day of ovulation;
social class has a small observable effect (in England, royalty
tends to produce males and domestic servants tend to produce
females); war, which tends to produce more males; smoking, which
tends to produce more females; prostate cancer (tends to produce
males); non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in either parent (tends to produce
females); various drugs (some tend to produce males, others
females); toxemia during pregnancy or pre-eclampsia (tends to be
associated with male births); and DBCP (a pesticide used against
nematodes) diminishes sperm count and strongly tends to produce
females.

In 1986, William H. James of the Galton Laboratory (University
College London) hypothesized that sex ratio was determined by
hormone levels in the blood of the parents at the time of
conception.[3,4]  Sex ratio has been James's research specialty
for many years, and he has presented considerable evidence to
support his hypothesis.[5,6,7]

In 1996, a team of Italian and U.S. researchers provided
additional evidence supporting James's hypothesis: the sex ratio
of babies born after the explosion at Seveso, Italy, which spread
dioxin over a large area on July 10, 1976.  The researchers
studied live births from April 1977 (9 months after the
explosion) to December, 1984, among couples living in the most
contaminated area.  Of 74 births, only 26 were male and 48 were
female, for a sex ratio of 0.35 instead of the normal 0.514.
After 1984 the Seveso sex ratio returned to normal.[8]

Sperm Counts Have Declined

Toward the end of 1997, a re-analysis of sperm counts in the
U.S., Europe, and the rest of the world concluded that sperm
counts among men in the U.S. and Europe really have declined
steadily for 50 years.[9] In 1992, Elisabeth Carlsen and
co-workers had analyzed 61 separate studies of sperm counts and
reported a 50% average decline in sperm count in Europe, the
U.S., and elsewhere over the last 50 years.  (See REHW #343,
#369, #372, #432, #446, #448, and #492).  Carlesen's  study was
criticized from various viewpoints (though not by anyone who had
actually reviewed the 61 studies that formed the basis of the
British report).  In 1996 new studies revealed that enormous
differences existed in sperm counts in geographic regions.  After
that, skeptics concluded that the whole decline in sperm counts
was an artifact of statistical modeling and had no basis in
reality.  The NEW YORK TIMES favored the skeptics, leaving the
impression that the whole dispute resulted from math errors.[10]

Now Shanna H. Swan, chief of the reproductive epidemiology
section of the California Department of Health Services, has
re-examined the original 61 studies.  Swan conducted
straightforward statistical analyses that took account of
regional variations (which are, indeed, large --sperm counts in
New York are 131 million sperm per milliliter vs. 72 million per
milliliter in California.)  Swan's conclusion: AVERAGE sperm
counts in the U.S. and Europe during the past 50 years have
declined more steeply than the British first reported, but no
decline was found in less-industrialized countries of Asia and
Latin America.  In the U.S., sperm counts have declined 1.5% each
year and in Europe the annual decline has been twice as great.
Dr. Swan's study was published in ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
PERSPECTIVES (a U.S. government scientific journal) in
November.[9]  Swan told the LOS ANGELES DAILY NEWS, "My hope is,
this study will change the question of concern from if there is a
decline, to why there is a decline.  I think it's time we looked
at that."[11]  (The NEW YORK TIMES has so far ignored Dr. Swan's
new study.)

In the early 1980s, researchers with U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency identified 16 industrial chemicals that reduce
sperm counts.[12] In 1995, European researchers showed that
common industrial chemicals widely present in U.S. foods (because
of contact with plastics) cause reductions in size of testicles
and diminished sperm counts in exposed mice.[13]

Male Genital Defects Increasing

In late 1997, researchers with the federal centers for Disease
Control and Prevention in Atlanta reported that the occurrence of
hypospadias doubled in the U.S. between 1968 and 1993.[14]
Hypospadias is a birth defect of the penis.  Nine to 12 weeks
after conception, as a male grows inside the womb, the penis
develops a channel for urine, called the urethra; hypospadias is
a birth defect in which the urethra does not close but remains
open for a certain distance on the underside of the penis,
sometimes all the way to the scrotum.  Typically, hypospadias is
corrected surgically.

The new hypospadias data were gathered from two separate
surveillance systems, the Metropolitan Atlanta Congenital Defects
Program, and the Nationwide Birth Defects Monitoring Program.
The researchers found that, not only did hypospadias double
during the 25-year period, but the most serious forms of the
defect increased faster than the average. They concluded that the
increases are unlikely to result from improved sensitivity of the
surveillance systems.  They could not rule out the possibility
that the increases resulted from better identification of mild
cases by physicians; however, they noted that this explanation
should have increased the number of mild cases compared to severe
cases when, in fact, their data showed the opposite trend.

Hypospadias has been reported increasing in England and Wales,
Hungary, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, but most recently the trend
has leveled off in England, Sweden, and Hungary.

Our good friend Pat Costner, a chemist with Greenpeace
International, points out that hypospadias is considered a form
of hermaphroditism --a person having both male and female
reproductive organs.

Consider these trends: cancers of the reproductive system
(prostate, testicles, ovaries, endometrium and female breast)
account for 30% of all cancers, and are increasing in many
countries;[15] ectopic pregnancies increased nearly fourfold in
the U.S., 1970-1987;[16] in many countries, the incidence of
undescended testicles is increasing;[17] and now these 1997
studies reveal declining sperm, increasing hypospadias, and
disappearing baby boys.  Together, they suggest a picture of
something going terribly wrong with human sexual development and
function.

All of these aspects of human sexuality share one common feature:
all are strongly influenced by hormones. Therefore, many
researchers have suggested that industrial chemicals that
interfere with hormones may be responsible.[18]

One thing is certain: the chemical industry is conducting a
large-scale experiment on humanity.  Does this experiment
--conducted without our informed consent --not violate the
principles established at Nuremburg after World War II?  Does
this experiment not violate the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, which the United States signed in December, 1948?

Students of government, politics, administration, environmental
studies, gender studies, racial studies, chemistry, engineering,
philosophy, humanities, history, ethics, business, anthropology,
sociology, and law (among other relevant fields of study) might
do well to debate one question: where did the chemical industry
obtain the right to put us in the position we all now find
ourselves in: forced to wonder, "Is our children's health and
future being take from them as they are slowly poisoned?"

It seems reasonable and prudent to be asking, "Where did chemical
corporations obtain the right to do these things?"  A national
debate on that subject seems long overdue. In 1997, we inched
forward toward that debate.

                                                --Peter Montague
                (National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO)
===============
[1] Bruce B. Allan and others, "Declining sex ratios in Canada,"
CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL Vol. 156, No. 1 (January 1,
1997), pgs. 37-41.

[2] See, for example, William H. James, "The Human Sex Ratio.
Part 1: A Review of the Literature," HUMAN BIOLOGY Vol. 59, No. 5
(October 1987), pgs. 721-752.

[3] William H. James, "Hormonal control of sex ratio," JOURNAL OF
THEORETICAL BIOLOGY Vol. 118, No. 4 (February 21, 1986), pgs.
427-441.

[4] William H. James, "Male reproductive hazards and occupation,"
LANCET Vol. 347 (March 16, 1996), pg. 773.

[5] "Re: 'Total Serum Testosterone and Gonadotropins in Workers
Exposed to Dioxin,'" AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY Vol. 141,
No. 5 (1995), pgs. 476-477.

[6] William H. James, "Parental hormone levels and mammalian sex
ratio at birth," JOURNAL OF THEORETICAL BIOLOGY Vol. 139, No. 1
(July 10, 1989), pgs. 59-67.

[7] William H. James, "The hypothesized hormonal control of human
sex ratio at birth--an update," JOURNAL OF THEORETICAL BIOLOGY
Vol. 143, No. 4 (April 23, 1990), pgs. 555-564. And: William H.
James, "The Hypothesized hormonal control of mammalian sex ratio
at birth--a second update," JOURNAL OF THEORETICAL BIOLOGY Vol.
155, No. 1 (march 7, 1992), pgs. 121-128. And: William H. James,
"Evidence that mammalian sex ratios at birth are partially
controlled by parental hormone levels at the time of conception,"
JOURNAL OF THEORETICAL BIOLOGY Vol. 180, No. 4 (June 21, 1996),
pgs. 271-286.  And: William H. James, "Reproductive Effects of
Male Dioxin Exposure," ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES Vol.
105, No. 2 (February 1997), pgs. 162-162.

[8] Paolo Mocarelli and others, "Change in sex ratio with
exposure to dioxin," LANCET Vol. 348 (August 10, 1996), pg. 409.

[9] Shanna H. Swan and others, "Have sperm densities declined? A
reanalysis of global trend data," ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
PERSPECTIVES Vol. 105 (1997), pgs. 1228-1232.

[10] Gina Kolata, "Sperm Counts: Some Experts See a Fall, Others
Poor Data," NEW YORK TIMES March 19, 1996, pg. 10.  And: Gina
Kolata, "Are U.S. Men Less Fertile? Latest Research says No," NEW
YORK TIMES April 29, 1996, pg. A-14.  And: Gina Kolata, "How men
measure Up, Sperm for Sperm," NEW YORK TIMES May 5, 1996, Section
4, pg. 4.

[11] Brigid Schulte, "Huge Drop in Sperm Count Reported," LOS
ANGELES DAILY NEWS November 24, 1997, pg. N1.

[12] Andrew J. Wyrobek and others, "An evaluation of human sperm
as indicators of chemically induced alterations of spermatogenic
function," MUTATION RESEARCH Vol. 115 (1983), pgs. 73-148.

[13] Richard M. Sharpe and others, "Gestational and Lactational
Exposure of Rats to Xenoestrogens Results in Reduced Testicular
Size and Sperm Production," ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES
Vol. 103, No. 12 (December, 1995), pgs. 1136-1143.  The chemicals
tested were 4-octylphenol (OP), butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP), and
octylphenol polyethoxylate (OPP).  BPP is a phthalate, many of
which are common in the environment and in our food because they
are widely used as plasticizers.

[14] Leonard J. Paulozzi and others, "Hypospadias Trends in Two
US Surveillance Systems," PEDIATRICS Vol. 100, No. 5 (November
1997), pgs. 831-834.

[15] See REHW #562, #550, #547, #462, #447, and #412.

[16] Kees P. Nederlof and others, "Ectopic Pregnancy
Surveillance, United States, 1970-1987," MMWR [Morbidity and
Mortality Weekly Report] CDC Surveilance Suymmary Vol. 39, No.
SS-4 (December 1990), pgs. 9-17.

[17] Jorma Toppari and others, "Male Reproductive Health  and
Environmental Xenoestrogens," ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES
Vol. 104, Supplement 4 (August 1996), pgs. 741-803.

[18] For example, Tina Kold Jensen and others, "Do Environmental
Estrogens Contribute to the Decline in Male Reproductive Health?"
CLINICAL CHEMISTRY Vol. 41, No. 12 (1995), pgs. 1896-1901.

Descriptor terms:  studies; sex ratio; canada; u.s.; seveso;
italy; hormones; sperm count; elisabeth carlesen; shanna h. swan;
hypospadias; prostate cancer; testicular cancer; ovarian cancer;
endometrial cancer; breast cancer; ectopic pregnancy; undescended
testicles; cryptorchidism; nuremberg principles; universal
declaration of human rights; corporations;

################################################################
                             NOTICE
Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronic
version of RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY free of charge
even though it costs our organization considerable time and money
to produce it. We would like to continue to provide this service
free. You could help by making a tax-deductible contribution
(anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00). Please send
your tax-deductible contribution to: Environmental Research
Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036. Please do
not send credit card information via E-mail. For further
information about making tax-deductible contributions to E.R.F.
by credit card please phone us toll free at 1-888-2RACHEL.
                                        --Peter Montague, Editor
################################################################