Planet DFW

Exercising as a teen can help you avoid the risk of breast cancer

If you're reading this, and you are a teenage girl, or you have a teenage daughter, get her up off of the couch and in the gym. It may save her life some day

New research led by the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis shows exercise during the teen years -- starting as young as age 12 -- can help protect girls from breast cancer when they are grown, the Associated Press reports. Women who were physically active as teens and young adults were 23 percent less likely to develop premenopausal breast cancer than women who grew up sedentary, researchers report in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. The biggest impact was regular exercise from ages 12 to 22, according to the story.

Why does exercise help? According to the story, a big point of exercise in middle age and beyond is to keep off the pounds. After menopause, fat tissue is a chief source of estrogen. In youth, however, the theory is that physical activity lowers estrogen levels. Studies of teen athletes show that intense exercise can delay onset of menstrual cycles and cause irregular periods. If you were a bookworm as a teen, it's not too late, researchers say. The story notes that other research on the middle-age benefits of exercise shows mom should join her daughters for a bike ride or game of tennis or at least a daily walk around the block.

-- Scott Streater

Nail polish brands that work -- without as many chemicals

As you probably know by now, I link quite a bit to articles in Grist, the online environmental magazine. They have this series where they test eco-friendly products to see how well they stack up against traditional brands, and to determine which ones work the best. This entry tests nail polishes that have removed the toxic chemicals toluene, formaldehyde, and Dibutyl phthalate, a controversial plastic softener that is slowly being linked to a whole host of health problems.

Why? Because these chemicals are potentially dangerous, and they are widely used. The article starts out like this: "If you've ever gone in for a manicure and, getting a good whiff of the stuff, wondered what sort of chemicals create a smell like that, you've hit the nail polish issue on the head."

So in the spirit of presenting "news you can use," the top rated eco-friendly nail polish is ... drum roll please ... Revlon Sheer Translucide nail enamel, $4.99 for a .5 fl. oz. bottle.

-- Scott Streater

Many beauty products are loaded with synthetic chemicals

I wanted to guide you to this Question and Answer in Grist with the author of the book Not Just a Pretty Face regarding the myriad synthetic chemicals in everyday beauty products like shampoos and lipstick. The interview is with Stacy Malkan, the co-founder of Campaign for Safe Cosmetics.

What does she recommend? Look for products with fewer synthetic chemicals, use fewer products overall, try to avoid synthetic fragrances, and use the Environmental Working Group's Skin Deep Database to look up product safety.

-- Scott Streater

Ants, the nemesis of any picnic, may be the key to fighting some diseases

Well, now I have heard everything.

A new study suggests that Chinese ants may be a key to battling arthritis, hepatitis and other diseases. That's right, Chinese ants. Chemists in China have identified for the first time the substances in the ants that show promise for fighting diseases. The study is scheduled for the April 25 issue of American Chemical Society's Journal of Natural Products.

For centuries, ants have been used as a health food or drink ingredient in China to treat a wide range of health conditions, including arthritis, according to a chemical society article. Researchers suspect that these health effects are due to anti-inflammatory and pain-killing substances in the ants. However, the exact chemicals responsible for its alleged medicinal effects are largely unknown -- until now.

-- Scott Streater

Does industrial pollution make people fat? New research suggests the answer is yes

Now here's a study we can all sink our teeth into. If you battle keeping your weight under control, you'll be glad to know that you can blame industrial pollution, along with your sedentary lifestyle and all those Krispy Kreme doughnuts.

Recent studies suggests that the obesity epidemic in the U.S. is actually due, at least in part, to industrial pollution, according to the Portland Tribune. Specifically, the story notes, it's partly due to exposure to low levels of toxic compounds researchers call “obesogens.” Just as exposure to carcinogens can trigger cancer, researchers at the University of California, Irvine and other researchers say exposure to obesogens can trigger a dramatic increase in the amount of fat produced in a person’s body, leading to excess weight and obesity.

Bruce Blumberg, an associate professor of developmental and cell biology at UC Irvine who is studying the issue, told the paper that "diet and exercise are simply not adequate to explain the explosion of obesity in Western countries."

Now, if only I could blame industrial pollution for my addiction to Diet Coke and my thinning hair.

-- Scott Streater

Do killer bacteria lie in wait inside your refrigerator?

Lions and tigers and bears (and pigs), oh my!

Scientists believe that the dangerous bacterium MSRA, which is known to thrive in hospitals but was recently found for the first time in live pigs in North America, has entered the food chain, according to Discover magazine.

OK, the possibility of antibiotic-resistant superbugs in my refrigerator is scary. So who's to blame for this? As the miscreants on South Park famously sang, "Blame Canada." According to the article, our neighbors to the north supply 80 percent of the pork we import into the U.S. each year. And wouldn't you know it, a strain of MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, for all you med-school types) was found not only in a sample of pigs, but -- get this -- in their farmers, too, according to the article.

A quarter of the 285 pigs studied were infected, according to a report in Veterinary Micro­biology, with a 20 percent rate of transmission to the pig farmers. One in five pig farmers tested (25 total) also were found to carry MRSA, a much higher rate than in the general North American population.

An estimated 9 million Canadian hogs will be imported into the U.S. this year.

A study published last year in the Journal of the American Medical Association estimated almost 100,000 MRSA infections in 2005, and nearly 19,000 deaths in the U.S. In comparison, HIV/AIDS killed 17,000 people that year.

The moral of the story: Properly cook all the pork you eat. This will kill the bacterium.

-- Scott Streater

Study to focus on deadly radon gas and its connection to lung cancer

When I wrote a story in January's Star-Telegram about the dangers of radon gas -- a carcinogen that can get into your house through cracks in your foundation like the one pictured left -- the state was overwhelmed by folks calling the 800-324-5928 number to order a free radon testing kit. Somebody out there cares about this issue.

Now comes word that a University of Ottawa researcher is launching the largest-ever study examining environmental factors -- mainly radon -- related to the rates of lung cancer deaths, according to the Ottawa Sun.

Michelle Turner in the university's Population Health program, is setting out on a three-year study looking at the role of residential radon and air pollution in the deaths of Americans over a 20-year period. Radon, a colorless, odorless and tasteless radioactive gas, is emitted from the earth and collects in houses. Other studies have linked radon and air pollution to lung cancer but the research has focused mostly on workers in specific, high-risk jobs, like mining, according to the story.

The study, which will use data from the American Cancer Society, will look at 1.2 million Americans in the general population, including 450,000 non-smokers. Cigarette smoking accounts for 80 percent of all lung cancer deaths, but it's estimated exposure to radon caused the death of 10 percent of lung cancer victims in 2006, according to the story.

-- Scott Streater

When it comes to toxic pollution in Midlothian, it appears everyone got it wrong

A group of scientists last week ripped into a controversial public health consultation of Midlothian that concluded more study is needed to gauge "the extent of the public health hazard" posed by pollution there. They determined the consultation is deeply flawed, at best, and intentionally misleading, at worst. And they judged there's enough data in the health consultation to conclude that pollution does contribute to health problems in Midlothian.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality also has problems with the health consultation, which was conducted by state and federal health officials to determine whether pollution from cement plants and other sources is harming people in Midlothian. But the TCEQ takes issue with the consultation's vague conclusions for totally different reasons.

In comments submitted to the federal Environmental Protection Agency, TCEQ accuses the health officials who conducted the consultation of "major errors" interpreting the state air monitoring data on which the 131-page consultation is based. The TCEQ, in its comments submitted last month, says there's enough data to conclude air pollution in Midlothian is not negatively impacting health.

In comments attributed to Tracie Phillips, a toxicologist in TCEQ's Toxicology Section, she writes: "The Indeterminate Public Health Hazard finding regarding air toxics in Midlothian may lead citizens and elected officials to believe the air quality is causing health impacts when air toxics monitoring in the Midlothian area not only indicates acceptable air quality but also better air quality than most monitored areas of the country."

This troubles the state agency because the uncertainty "could lead to pressure on TCEQ to shift resources from areas of concern in order to expend more resources in the Midlothian area."

Does this sound like state regulators are worried that they may actually have to address long-standing pollution concerns in Midlothian? Or do they really believe, as Phillips writes, that "air monitoring data from the Midlothian area compose an impressively rich data set" that rule out health problems from pollution?

At the very least, this should put a spotlight on the state's air monitoring devices, which some accuse the state of locating upwind of the industrial pollution sources to guard against a large number of high pollution readings. Something to think about.

-- Scott Streater

Do dirty homes expose you to toxic pollutants?

Moms and dads beware: If you don't keep your home clean, you could be exposing your children and yourselves to some potentially dangerous toxic chemicals.

That's the conclusion of a new study that found people can be exposed to chemical flame retardants in the dust inside a home. That's bad because these flame retardants -- called polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or PBDEs -- are suspected of damaging the nervous system and causing reproductive problems.

If you don't think this can affect you, think again. In December 2006, the Star-Telegram published results of a project in which the paper had the blood samples of 12 Tarrant County residents analyzed for a host of toxic chemicals. We found at least trace amounts of the brominated flame retardants in all of them. This mirrors national studies that have found the flame retardants in virtually every U.S. resident at levels that are far and away the highest in the world.

Environmental Science and Technology reports on the study led by researchers at Duke University and the Boston University School of Public Health. Researchers found the flame retardants on the hands of 33 U.S. volunteers, including six children. They used sterile gauze pads in a hand-wipe procedure developed for assessing exposure to contaminants like pesticides in occupational settings, according to the story. When the researchers began the project, they weren't certain they would detect any of the flame retardants adhering to people's hands, Webster recalls. To their surprise, they found them on every wipe sample collected, and in some cases the levels were quite high. Because PBDEs are used in many consumer products and have been found in house dust, many researchers suspect that dust is a major source of exposure.

The researchers hypothesize that contact with products containing the flame retardants, such as TVs, remote controls and cellphones, and/or house dust may lead to the adsorption of these chemicals to hand or skin oils, according to the story. From there, the PBDEs on the skin may be inadvertently ingested if people put their hands in their mouths. According to the story, the researchers say that eating oily finger foods such as French fries, sandwiches, and chips with unwashed hands is a likely route by which people could unwittingly consume PBDEs. The research paper also points out that PBDEs may be absorbed directly into the body via the skin.

So, wash those hands and keep those book shelves and televisions dust free.

-- Scott Streater

The danger of jet airplane noise

It may interest you to know that the Federal Aviation Administration and NASA have been researching for some time now ways to reduce the thunderous noise of jet airplanes. They have been doing so in the hopes that if they could reduce engine noise it would help airports that are hemmed in by the surrounding community -- such as Boston's Logan International Airport -- expand to relieve air traffic congestion. As you might imagine, when new runways are proposed that take low-flying planes directly over communities that are currently out of the flight path, people tend to get angry. Public opposition can kill an expansion project.

But we here at Planet DFW are interested in this issue for another reason, outside the purview of the Federal Aviation Administration and NASA. That has to do with the health consequences of significant aviation noise -- the kind an estimated 500,000 people nationwide are exposed to each day.

Last month, a study found that if you live near an airport, you're going to have health problems. Why? Because the loud noise raises your blood pressure -- even when you sleep. The European Commission-funded study found loud noise instantly boosts a sleeping person's blood pressure. That's a concern, according to the story, because high blood pressure can lead to stroke, heart failure, heart attack and kidney failure. It affects more than a billion adults worldwide. You can find the published study in European Heart Journal. 

Both the Federal Aviation Administration and NASA have set noise reduction goals. But don't get too excited. A Government Accountability Office report this week found problems with the work of both agency. Click here to read a summary of the report. The FAA wants to reduce significant aviation noise by 4 percent a year through 2012. But the GAO reports that "the likelihood of achieving these goals is uncertain." NASA, on the other hand, wants to introduce successively quieter aircraft into service starting in 2015, on through 2035. Once again, according to the GAO, the success of meeting that target appears uncertain.

-- Scott Streater