The Impacts of Environmental Toxins On Children's Development
A recent study from researchers at the University of Texas has renewed attention to the idea that environmental toxins are at least partially to blame for the rapidly escalating rates of emotional and behavioral disorders in children. The study used data from each school district in Texas, and found a strong relationship between the amount of mercury released into the environment locally and the rates of autism and special education services in the school district. For each 1000 pounds of environmentally released mercury, the study estimated a 61% increase in the rate of autism and a 43% increase in the rate of special education services. (The largest sources of environmentally released mercury are coal-fired power plants and medical and municipal incinerators.)
Autism rates across the nation have been skyrocketing. A report this year from the Government Accounting Office concludes that, over the past decade, there has been more than a 500% increase in the number of children diagnosed with autism and served by schools under IDEA. In addition to the public health implications of the increase in autism diagnoses, the costs associated with meeting the needs of these children are stretching school budgets: The report estimates that it costs, on average, $18,000 per year to educate a child with autism.
Rates of ADHD (attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder) and conduct problems have also been increasing in recent years. Researchers caution that increased rates of diagnosis does not prove that the true prevalence of these problems is increasing. It is possible, for example, that symptoms which formerly went undiagnosed now receive a diagnosis. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that environmental toxins do interfere with brain development, and accumulating evidence makes it appear likely that they do contribute to the prevalence of emotional and behavioral disorders and mental retardation currently being identified in children.
In addition to mercury, lead, PCBs (polycholorinated biphenyls-currently banned but formerly widely used for insulating electrical equipment), and PBDE ( polybrominated diphenyl ether , a widely-used flame retardant) are agents with known neurological toxicity that are disbursed widely in the environment. Many common pesticides, particularly organophosphates, were designed to kill insects by poisoning their nervous systems. Not surprisingly, they appear to have neurotoxic effects in children. Developing fetuses and children are particularly at risk from toxins, since a very small dose of a toxin during a critical window in development can have a far more devastating effect than a much larger dose later in life. Childhood exposure to each of these contaminants has been linked to adverse neuro-developmental effects, including inattentiveness and lowered intelligence.
Perhaps most concerning is the fact that the very large majority of chemicals-including those that are produced in highest volumes-are not tested for their effects on children's health and development. For example, PBDE's effects were not discovered as part of routine testing of new chemicals, but rather because scientists noticed its effects and went searching for a cause.
This kind of information argues for a much higher level of caution about chemical compounds we allow to be released into the environment. It is also clear that we need to increase our knowledge about how these chemicals actually impact development, and how they interact with genes to produce adverse effects. One autism researcher described children as being like canaries in the coal mine. We need to create an environment that keeps our canaries singing.
We invite you to post your opinions or comments related to the topic of environmental toxins and neurological problems in children. Here are some questions you might want to consider:
- Have you had any direct experience with children exposed to environmental toxins? Does that have an impact on how you view research results and policy discussions about toxins in the environment?
- Does your personal experience support the idea that the "real" prevalence of emotional and behavioral disorders in children is increasing?
- Do you have a sense of alarm about this issue? Why or why not?
As always, we look forward to hearing from you!
Your thoughts…
Comments:
 I wonder how this effects children adopted from other countries where the problem may be even greater? Posted Wednesday, June 15, 2005 at 10:20 AM
It's all a very sad commentary on the absolute failure of the EPA & the big buisiness serving agenda of our federal government. Does anybody remember asbetos? Have we learned nothing from that nightmare? Or do we simply not care enough to do the proper testing on new chemical compounds before we expose them to the world? There is an even more sinister health risk-getting elected to public office- it seems to be a terminal illness of the conscience for the one elected Posted Wednesday, May 25, 2005 at 04:54 PM
I have to say this is all very new, and very frightening, information for me. Thanks for alerting me to this issue. Posted Tuesday, May 17, 2005 at 04:32 PM
One might think that reducing mercury emissions would be a priority for the government-- after all, the dangers of mercury have been known at least since it was linked to the "mad hatters" of the felting industry. But the current administration actually wants to weaken controls on mercury. This is from the Nation magazine, March 15 2005 (Written by REbecca Clarren): Current law requires that power plants reduce mercury, sulfur and nitrogen no later than 2010. Bush's Clear Skies Initiative sets new emission targets for pollutants, allowing five times more mercury emissions, one and a half times more sulfur dioxide emissions and hundreds of thousands more tons of the smog-forming nitrogen oxides than allowed under current law. It also creates a loophole that would allow an extra decade for the more than 400 grandfathered power plants built before the 1977 Clean Air Act to be retrofitted with pollution controls. The Administration spins this legislation as the most historic cleanup in history; the truth is that if it simply enforced the current Clean Air Act, it would cut as many as five times more emissions up to a decade sooner. Posted Tuesday, May 17, 2005 at 08:19 AM
I looked at the report and, while I couldn't follow all of it, there was a list of the "top" four states in terms of mercury emmissions: California, Oregon, West Virginia, and Texas. Seems like folks in those states should be paying special attention and maybe helping educate activists and legislators. Posted Monday, May 16, 2005 at 04:52 PM
Reading this essay and looking at the reports had crystallized my sense of alarm about these topics. Of course it only makes sense that releasing chemicals with known malicious effects into the environment would cause harm to all of us. SHen I think of all the chemicals and solvents and pesticides that are produced, and then realize that eventually they are all disposed of somewhere.... it's actually a wonder we aren't worse off than we are. YES, we need to take a more cautious view and investigate effects of chemicals BEFORE they are in widespread use. We already know that trying to clean them up afterward is nearly impossible. Unfortunately, particularly in the US and particularly under the current administration, precautions are never seen as worthwhile, particularly if they impede profit making. Posted Monday, May 16, 2005 at 01:01 PM
Post a Comment:
Return to
Current Featured Discussions Page
Top |
