Exclusive: Gulf Seafood Poses Long-Term Health Risks, Experts Say

The Raw Story
By Brad Jacobson

Despite repeated assurances from federal officials and President Obama, independent scientists and public health experts have serious concerns about the long-term safety of Gulf seafood consumption.

In particular, experts tell Raw Story, contaminants from the massive oil spill and unprecedented use of the dispersants employed to dissolve the spill have the potential to cause cancer and neurological disorders.

In interviews with Raw Story last week, scientists and public health experts expressed concerns over possible long-term risks from eating contaminated Gulf seafood.

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are cancer-causing chemicals found in crude oil that can accumulate in the food chain, absorbed by fish and shellfish. During the ongoing testing of seafood in the Gulf of Mexico by federal and state authorities, PAHs are of primary concern.

But crude oil also contains heavy metals such as lead, mercury and cadmium that can accumulate in the food chain as well, though at a slower pace than PAHs, and are toxic to the brain and nervous system.

Another potential long-term health concern left in the wake of BP’s catastrophic oil spill is the nearly two million gallons of dispersant unleashed into the Gulf, much of it subsurface, which made both the amount used and its use unprecedented.

In interviews with Raw Story last week, FDA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration officials said that all fish and shellfish in reopened federal and state waters have tested well beneath the level of concern for PAHs.

But what worries some scientists and public health experts is what these tests don’t -- and can’t -- reveal. They feel it’s “premature” for government officials to claim Gulf seafood poses no future health risks.

“Those are the short-term effects,” said Edward Trapido, the Wendell Gauthier Chair of Cancer Epidemiology at the Louisiana State University School of Public Health.

“We don’t know the long-term effects,” he explained. “And we don’t know, particularly related to cancer and particularly related to age and exposure, what the long-term effects will be.”

Trapido testified in June at a House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment hearing on the spill and is heading a research group at LSU that will look at a range of health effects, including psychiatric and behavioral effects, chronic diseases and cancers.

The issue we don’t know at this point, he said, is the extent to which these compounds may bioacccumulate in shellfish or fish and what the half-lives are.

“So you could imagine if a large fish feasted on several hundred small fish and each of those small fish have eaten a certain number of microorganisms which had a little of contaminant, there’s a possibility, certainly, that you could go over the current measurements.”

In interviews with Raw Story last week, NOAA and FDA officials, in general, tended to downplay bioaccumulation of PAHs in Gulf seafood. But in some cases they denied it’s occurring at all, or even that it could occur.

“We have not found it,” FDA spokeswoman Meghan Scott claimed. “Every sample that we have tested for PAHs has come back clean. It has the potential to [bioaccumulate]. But we have not found it, even from samples taken from inside of closure areas.”

Christine Patrick, NOAA spokeswoman for seafood safety, went so far as to tell Raw Story, “The concept that the oil bioaccumulates [in seafood] – that’s not correct. It’s metabolized and excreted.”

Raw Story confirmed, in consultation with independent scientists, that these two statements were, respectively, impossible and inaccurate.

Miriam Rotkin-Ellman, a staff scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a leading national environmental group, underscored two things that NOAA, FDA and Gulf state officials have been playing down.

“The monitoring that’s currently being conducted by both NOAA and various different state agencies, and compiled by FDA, show that there is PAH contamination of fish in the Gulf,” she said. “They are detecting various different levels of the various different PAH constituents.”

Ellman, who contributed to last month’s peer-reviewed Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) study, which identified a number of issues about the health of Gulf seafood, also noted, “There is a good body of literature showing that seafood can be impacted by these contaminants.”

The JAMA report cites a 2002 study in the peer-reviewed journal Marine Environmental Research on the lasting effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, which concluded: "Our data show that 10 years after the spill, nearshore fishes within the original spill zone were still exposed to residual hydrocarbons. All biomarkers [for contaminants] were elevated in fish collected from sites originally oiled, in comparison to fish from unoiled sites.''

Ellman added, “We understand that the different types of seafood – fish vs. crustaceans and bivalves – all have different capacities to retain the contaminants, and that’s important to note. But it’s not the basis on which to make a blanket statement that there’s no risk.”

“So it’s premature,” Trapido cautioned, “to say that it’s safe in the long-term.”

“We can say that it’s safe at this point based on what we know,” he continued. “But as a cancer epidemiologist, which is what I am, I have to maintain an air of skepticism and say, well, we don’t have any data to make a judgment on the long-term cases.”

The startling lack of data on the future health effects from oil spills on humans was a common lament among experts who spoke with Raw Story.

Trapido confirmed that the longest follow-up study that’s ever been done on people exposed to oil spills was just four years, and that was to track mental health only.

Two new areas of scientific research not being accounted for in the current risk assessments could also adversely impact future health, Ellman noted.

She said that studies have shown that early life exposure to the chemical benzo(a)pyrene, one of the most carcinogenic PAHs, increases the risk of cancer later in life. It wouldn’t have the same effect, she clarified, if the exposure came later in life.

“So because children’s bodies are different and they’re developing, exposures that happen early in life can have a more detrimental effect than if they were exposed later on,” said Ellman.

In addition to the cancer risks, Ellman told Raw Story that there’s also a new body of literature that has shown adverse developmental impacts from in utero exposure to PAHs, such as delayed growth, low birth weight and other indicators of impact during fetal development.

NOAA toxicologist John Stein said that he and other scientists within the agency have proposed to continue monitoring the Gulf waters to ensure seafood safety for the next three to five years. But Patrick confirmed that the agency has not made an official commitment to this.

Independent scientists and public health officials who spoke with Raw Story agreed that even if federal and state officials committed to such a time frame, it would still fall short of what's necessary.

They pointed out that due to bioaccumulation in the food chain, it's quite possible contamination levels in Gulf fish and shellfish may actually be higher in three to five years.

"If they were to completely suspend any monitoring prematurely," Ellman warned, "we wouldn't necessarily know whether levels of contaminants in seafood that we're most worried about have gone back down or remain elevated."

Brad Jacobson is a contributing investigative reporter for Raw Story.

Read Original Article

The Country Is Going Down and It Is Going Down Quick

The Country Is Going Down and It Is Going Down Quick

Canadians To Be Vaccinated With Live H1N1 Virus with MSG For The 2010/11 Flu Season

Prevent Disease.com

The Public Health Agency of Canada has once again given their seal of approval for the injection of a dangerous cocktail of toxic chemicals they call a trivalent vaccine. The 2010/11 recipients of AstraZeneca's FLUMIST will be exposed to several strains of live viruses including H1N1 and H3N2. The vaccine also contains MSG and other known neurotoxins and immunotoxins.

Similar to last year's Arepanrix Vaccine, FLUMIST was approved without evaluating its safety and effectiveness on a single Canadian.

The vaccines are especially being promoted for children since the nasal spray vaccine can be marketed as less invasive due its intranasal delivery that does not require needles. Ontario's chief medical officer of health said a non-injectable vaccine is an "attractive option." The product has been on the U.S. market for the last seven years.

AstraZeneca Canada is currently ensuring that all Canadian pharmacies are making preparations to stock the vaccine this fall. The influenza vaccine will be one of several vaccines to be offered on the Canadian market.

On August 26, 2010, Health Canada issued a Notice of Decision to AstraZeneca Canada for the FLUMIST vaccine.

The FLUMIST Trivalent vaccine product information:

Three Live Viruses:
- Influenza Virus Type A (H1N1);
- Influenza Virus Type A (H3N2); and
- Influenza Virus Type B

Route of Administration:
Intranasal Spray

Dosage Strength:
0.2 mL

Clinically Relevant Nonmedicinal Ingredients
- Gelatin hydrolysate (porcine Type A)
- sucrose
- arginine
- gentamicin

Additional Toxic Ingredients:
- Monobasic potassium phosphate: Immunotoxin
- Arginine hydrochloride: Toxic to lungs and mucous membranes
- Monosodium glutamate: Neurotoxin, Excitotoxin
- Gentamicin: Nephrotoxic

Discussion

There are currently NO clinical trials or results which have validated the long-term safety and efficacy of the FLUMIST vaccine. Regulatory health agencies are refusing to acknowledge this fact or the nature of toxicity levels associated with the FLUMIST and its ingredients. The well documented toxicity evidence for each ingredient presented above are simply ignored.

If you'll notice, most of the ingredients that are considered non-clinically relevant excipients are ALL TOXIC and yet still injected in every person that receives the vaccine.

No Pharmacokinetic, Carcinogenic or Fertility Studies

One of the most critical elements which defines the toxicity potential of any vaccine are its pharmacokinetic properties. AstraZeneca and Medimmune do not consider the study, analysis or evaluation of the pharmacokinetic properties of any vaccine ingredients or excipients including FLUMIST. This means that the bodily absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of ingredients within the vaccine are not known or even considered in safety assessments.

FLUMIST has not been evaluated for its carcinogenic or mutagenic potential or its potential to impair fertility. There have also been NO animal reproduction studies or studies in pregnant or lactating women and it is not known whether FLUMIST is excreted in human milk..

Hospitalizations and Deaths

An increased rate of hospitalizations (for any cause) through 180 days after final vaccination dose of FLUMIST was observed in children 6-11 months of age.

There were eight deaths reported within 180 days of FLUMIST
dosing. Of the 8 deaths, 4 occurred within 42 days after the last dose of FLUMIST. 43 and 180 days after FLUMIST dosing, deaths were due to diarrhea and sepsis, encephalopathy, suffocation, and posterior fossa tumor and malignant hyperthermia.

Adverse Reactions

- Pain
- Redness
- Swelling
- Fatigue
- Headaches
- Arthralgia (joint inflammation)
- Myalgia (muscle inflammation)
- Shivering
- Sweating
- Swollen lymph nodes
- Fever
- Vomiting
- Tingling or numbness of the hands or feet
- Shortness of breath
- Vasculitis (inflammation of the blood vessels)

Serious Adverse Reactions

Congenital, familial and genetic:
- Exacerbation of symptoms of mitochondrial encephalomyopathy (Leigh syndrome)

Immune system:
- Anaphylactic reactions, facial edema and urticaria

Nervous system:
- Guillain-Barré syndrome, Bell’s Palsy

Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal:
- Epistaxis

Skin and subcutaneous tissue:
- Rash

The information above clearly demonstrates that the Public Health Agency of Canada and Health Canada have no interest in meeting some of the most basic precautions to safeguard the health of Canadians.

Last year, just as flu activity increased across Canada, federal authorities warned Canadians not to buy natural remedies and to strictly confide in the anti-viral drugs and vaccines authorized by Health Canada.

172,000 doses were eventually recalled and withdrawn after serious adverse reactions, notably in the heart and lungs, and hundreds of deaths were reported.

Please protect yourself naturally from the flu. Learn what colds and flus really are and use common sense to the best of your ability.

Dave Mihalovic is a Naturopathic Doctor who specializes in vaccine research, cancer prevention and a natural approach to treatment.

•The Goal of Every H1N1 Swine Flu Vaccine:
Immunotoxicity, Neurotoxicity and Sterility
•9 Questions That Stump Every
Pro-Vaccine Advocate and Their Claims
•Flu Pandemic Archive

Read Article With Links