---May 1, 1997---
STATEMENT ON IMMUNE TOXINS
[Here we present, verbatim, a consensus statement about toxic chemicals and the immune system written by 18 scientists[1] and published in the summer of 1996.[2] The scientists met at a workshop in Racine, Wisconsin, February 10-12, 1995, to discuss the issue "because of the pervasive contamination of the environment by compounds... [having] the potential to disturb the immune system of wildlife and humans.... introduced into the environment by human activity...."[2] The statement is not easy reading, so we have added a few clarifications and commentaries of our own inside square brackets.]
Consensus Statement
The following consensus was reached by participants[1] at the workshop.
A) We are certain of the following--
A competent immune system is essential for health.
Experimental lab studies demonstrate that certain synthetic chemicals affect the immune system (e.g., aromatic hydrocarbons; carbamates [a class of pesticides]; heavy metals [for example, mercury]; organohalogens [for example, many chlorine-containing compounds]; organophosphates [a class of pesticides]; organotins [chemicals containing tin and carbon atoms]; oxidant air pollutants, such as ozone and nitrogen dioxide; and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [often produced by combustion of coal, oil, gasoline, garbage, medical waste]). These effects are manifested as alterations in the immune system that may lead to a decreased quality of life. These alterations include immune modulation [changes in the immune system] expressed as an increase or decrease in measured immune parameters [for example, the number of T cells or B cells in blood], hypersensitivity, and autoimmunity.
[In other words, from experiments on laboratory animals, it is known with certainty that many classes of common chemicals can change the immune system and can cause hypersensitivity and autoimmune diseases. In humans, hypersensitivity is often expressed as an allergic reaction.[3,pgs.81-106] Autoimmune diseases include diabetes, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and a dozen other diseases.[3,pg.123]]
Changes in the characteristics of the immune system in humans and certain wildlife species have been associated with both therapeutic and environmental exposure to synthetic chemicals, e.g., diethylstilbestrol (DES), dioxin, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
Impairment of the immune system can result from alterations in the development [before and shortly after birth or hatching] of the immune system and may be long-lasting. The effects may not be manifested at hatching or birth and may not be expressed until the animal or human reaches adulthood.
Life-long capacity for immune response [i.e., healthy functioning of the immune system] is determined early in development, during prenatal and early postnatal development in mammals and prehatching and early posthatching development in egg-laying species.
Alterations in the developing and mature immune systems may not be recognized as an adverse health effect until long after the exposure.
Some wildlife and human populations are exposed to elevated levels of certain synthetic chemicals.
The widespread exposure of populations of humans and wildlife to many man-made chemicals has made it difficult, if not impossible, to find control populations that have no exposure level. True control populations for human and wildlife epidemiological studies are thus lacking. [In other words, we are all now exposed to many chemicals that can change our immune systems, so it is not possible to find a "control group" of people who have truly healthy, unaffected immune systems that can be studied.]
B) We estimate with confidence that--
Certain synthetic chemicals, such as those listed above, released or reintroduced into the environment act upon the developing and mature immune systems in humans and other vertebrates.
Prenatal and early postnatal mammals and the immature and early life stages of amphibians, reptiles, fishes, and birds are likely to be the most vulnerable life stages to immunomodulation [changes in the immune system].
Vulnerability upon exposure varies among gender, species, and stages of the life cycle. In addition to embryos, fetuses, and the newborn, children, the very old, and certain populations (e.g., chronically ill, poorly nourished, HIV positive) are also likely to be more at risk. [Naturally, this makes it difficult to study the effects of chemicals on the immune system because the effects vary greatly, depending on the stage of life of the person or animal being studied.]
In certain instances, humans and wildlife are experiencing immune alterations. Data suggest that immune alterations seen in wild animals and humans are consistent with those produced by synthetic chemicals identified as immunotoxic in studies with laboratory animals.
Immunotoxic effects expressed in individuals could therefore be expressed at the population level thus affecting biodiversity at the community or ecosystem level. [In other words, so many individuals might be affected that entire populations could have their immune systems degraded.]
Immune system effects reported in wildlife, in parallel with IN VITRO [test tube] and IN VIVO [living animal] experimental studies, support the possibility for qualitative prediction of human effects.
Current predictive capability for immunomodulation is limited to identification of qualitative changes not quantitative changes.
C) Based on our current understanding we predict--
Certain synthetic chemicals can cause alterations of the developing immune system.
Alterations in immunologic function whether occurring prenatally or embryologically or later in life can translate into altered host resistance and susceptibility to disease, including autoimmune disease. Disease patterns are thus likely to be affected by immune modulation induced by immunological toxicants.
D) There are uncertainties in our understanding because--
More needs to be learned about how the immune system develops.
Few well-controlled human or wildlife ecoepidemiological studies that document immune modulation [immune system changes] have been completed.
The lack of sensitive tests and the uncertainty about exposure have been impediments in many of these studies. Exposure is well known for some wildlife studies.
Information on exposure is limited. Little is known about the effects of long-term, low-level exposure.
Little is known about the effects of exposure to chemical mixtures. Most published studies use single agents when testing for the effects of environmental exposure. The specific components of environmental mixtures are rarely defined.
The pharmacokinetics of many immunotoxic compounds in target organs is understood in experimental animals but not in humans and wildlife. [Pharmacokinetics refers to the precise details, at the level of the cell, of how chemicals affect living things.]
Data are lacking about the persistence of the effects of immunomodulators.
For regulatory purposes, the current lack of knowledge about the mechanisms leading to immunomodulation makes cause-and-effect linkages extremely difficult.
Uncertainty exists about whether the right questions have been asked concerning the mechanisms of immune modulation.
E) Our judgment is that--
The potential exists for widespread immunotoxicity in humans and wildlife species because of the worldwide lack of appropriate protective standards. This is based on documented immune effects from high-level exposure, plus a large amount of anecdotal data on humans and wildlife, and strong experimental animal data.
Although exposure is widespread, it varies from region to region and individual to individual. Based on anecdotal information, it is presumed that exposure is greater in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union and especially in developing countries because of lack of adequate environmental regulations and enforcement.
The lack of human epidemiological studies in the developing world makes it impossible to determine the scale of immune modulation and/or autoimmune disease among these populations. The consequences of chemical exposure in developing countries may be severe because of multiple confounders such as poverty, malnutrition, and poor medical care. The consequences will be difficult to identify because of the lack of adequate control cohorts.
The risk of exposure to known immunomodulators is sufficient to warrant regulatory approaches that would limit exposure. [In other words, we already know enough to justify taking regulatory action.]
F) To improve our predictive capacity--
More basic research is needed on the development of the immune system of diverse animal species and the factors that drive its maturation and senescence [loss of power with age]. Further study is needed to understand the mechanistic role of synthetic chemicals in the alteration of these processes.
Priority needs to be given to developing assays [tests] predictive of disease resistance for a variety of species. It is important to know how immune modulation affects increased prevalence of infectious diseases among humans and wildlife.
More emphasis must be placed on developmental immunotoxicology. This can be accomplished through collaborative research efforts to standardize protocols, share specimens, and to develop inexpensive, rapid biomarkers of immunotoxicity. The use of the Internet and other online systems to apprise researchers of planned and ongoing experiments will increase collaborative opportunities.
Models based on "real world" situations (dose, duration of exposure, timing) that include metabolism, pharmacokinetics, route of exposure, and target effects in a number of indicator species should be developed for extrapolation to humans and other species.
Ecoepidemiological criteria that include dose-response, time order (exposure precedes effect), specificity, strength of association, coherence, and predictability combined with laboratory validation are needed to improve the level of certainty in epidemiological studies.
More epidemiological research among susceptible populations, especially in developing countries, is needed. [End of consensus statement.]
--Peter Montague
A GLOOMY YEAR FOR NUCLEAR POWER
The nuclear power industry is having another bad year.
** A study published in January in ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES (a federal government journal) concludes that people who lived near the Three Mile Island (TMI) nuclear plant in Pennsylvania in 1979 are more likely to get lung cancer, leukemia and all cancers combined, compared to people living further from the plant.[1] The TMI nuclear reactor released radioactivity into the surrounding air in March, 1979 during a loss-of-coolant accident that crippled the plant. A 1990 study had concluded that certain cancers were occurring among nearby residents at unusually high rates, but that radiation released during the accident was probably not the cause.[2] The latest study, by Stephen Wing and others, says those rising cancer rates WERE caused by radiation.[3]
The nuclear power corporations are working overtime to discredit Wing and the other authors of the new study. The industry's attacks on Wing are deflecting attention away from the real issue: both the 1990 study and the 1997 study agree that cancers are occurring at unusually high rates among people who lived near the TMI nuclear reactor in 1979. Whether radiation released during the accident caused these cancers, or whether the TMI plant caused them in some other way is an interesting sidelight, but is not the central issue.
After the authors of the 1990 study concluded that radiation released during the 1979 accident probably wasn't causing the cancer increases near TMI, they did a second study. They found that the cancers might have been caused by accident-related stress.[4]
Stress is definitely known to damage the immune system, and a damaged immune system may fail to prevent cancers.[5] If your immune system is damaged, even routine low-level releases of radioactive gases from a nearby nuclear power plant might be sufficient to cause cancers.
There was plenty of reason to feel stress back in 1979 if you lived within 100 miles of TMI. Shortly after the initial accident, government and industry officials got caught telling the public a series of bald-faced lies, compounding the public's initial distress. Meanwhile, hydrogen gas was building up inside the TMI containment vessel and reputable scientists were taking bets on whether it would explode and breach the containment, releasing more radioactivity. Meanwhile, a hot, heavy mass of melted fuel was beginning to burn its way through the bottom of the reactor, threatening to contact the soil below and perhaps set off a steam explosion. Either of these scenarios could have released large quantities of radiation into the surrounding countryside.[6]
Sensibly, the governor of Pennsylvania evacuated women and children within a 5-mile radius of the plant. Many local people never fully recovered from the whole experience and never regained trust in officialdom as the damaged reactor's twin was put into service. Some local people were studied years later and, sure enough, they registered high stress levels at least five years after the accident.[7]
So take your choice. Cancers are increased among people who were living near TMI when the accident occurred. That much is known and is not in dispute. Maybe radiation released during the accident caused the cancers. Or maybe the very real threats of a hydrogen explosion and a full-scale meltdown (the "China syndrome") worried people sick. Either way, TMI will not soon be forgotten.
** Two fires occurred on the same day at a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in Tokai, Japan March 11, 1997, 70 miles from Tokyo. According to the NEW YORK TIMES the Tokai plant contains 4.4 tons of plutonium. One fire started at 10 a.m. and was quickly snuffed out, authorities said. However, 10 hours later a second fired erupted, accompanied by an explosion that blew out all the windows and one of the doors in the concrete building, exposing at least 30 workers to radioactivity and releasing radiation into the atmosphere.[8,9] Radioactive materials from the plant, including plutonium, were detected 23 miles away. A citizens watchdog group in Tokyo reported that radioactive iodine-129 was released as well.[10] Radioactive iodine tends to accumulate in the thyroid gland of humans, where it can cause cancer.
Japan produces 34% of its electricity using 51 nuclear power plants.
At the time of the Tokai fires and explosion, Japan's state-run nuclear industry was under a cloud; a serious accident in December, 1995, had closed the Monju experimental fast-breeder reactor. The Monju plant, 220 miles from Tokyo, was supposed to demonstrate that a nuclear plant could safely and affordably "breed" plutonium fuel for other nuclear power plants. However, a leak in the liquid sodium coolant system in December, 1995, closed the demonstration plant, bringing disgrace upon the government corporation that ran it --the same corporation that operates the Tokai plant.
According to the NEW YORK TIMES, "The Government-run nuclear energy company was harshly criticized for its slow response to the Monju accident and for its attempt to cover it up. The company's top executive was replaced, safety manuals were revised and other reforms were supposedly introduced. But many of the same types of mistakes were made in the Tokai accident."[8] The TIMES said of the Tokai fires and explosion, "A seeming comedy of errors in responding to the fire and informing the public was more disturbing to some than the amount of radiation released."[8]
** On February 2, 1997, two accidents occurred within 24 hours at the Sellafield nuclear complex in Cumbria, England, just across the Irish sea from Ireland. Irish authorities summoned the British ambassador to send a formal message "not to proceed" with the creation of a nuclear waste dump at Sellafield. In the first accident February 2nd, six workers were "slightly contaminated" at the Sellafield fuel reprocessing plant. Less than 24 hours later, radioactive liquids spilled from a storage tank. The NEW YORK TIMES reported February 8 that, "A scientists' report earlier this week indicated that radioactive material from the proposed underground waste storage site at Sellafield could seep into the Irish sea."[11]
Other problems
Frightening accidents are not the only problems plaguing the nuclear power industry. Plutonium can be recovered from the highly-radioactive waste created by a nuclear plant. The plutonium can then be fashioned into an atomic bomb. The U.S. turned its back on "waste reprocessing" (to extract plutonium) 20 years ago, but other nations such as Japan and Britain have not.
Without the plutonium-extraction step, nuclear waste must be kept somewhere "safe" for an eternity (240,000 years) --something humans have never done before. Modern humans (HOMO SAPIENS) only appeared on Earth 100,000 years ago, so securing deadly wastes for 240,000 years is a novel idea, to say the least.
** February 6, 1997, U.S. authorities protested Russia's announced plan to sell two nuclear reactors to India. The U.S. says it fears India wants the reactors to make atomic bombs. India surprised the world by exploding a plutonium bomb in 1974, using plutonium scavenged from a research reactor supplied by Canada. India and Pakistan are bitter enemies and have fought three wars since 1947. Indian officials say they need the reactors to generate electric power and the U.S. is imposing a colonialist double standard.
The Russians had previously announced plans to sell a reactor to Iran, a country that definitely wants a bomb, U.S. officials say.[12]
Residents of Florida are expressing concern because Russia has said it wants to help Cuba acquire a nuclear power reactor. Floridians 90 miles from Cuba aren't worried about atomic bombs, but they fear that the Russian reactor may not be safe.[12]
The Russians say they can't afford to worry about the worldwide proliferation of nuclear weapons --they need to sell reactors to raise cash. Many Russian nuclear engineers have not been paid in months. Last December, more than a dozen employees at a St. Petersburg nuclear power plant seized the reactor's control room and threatened to shut down the plant if they weren't paid[12] --inadvertently suggesting a new kind of instability that can plague nuclear power technology.
** Extreme poverty has driven North Korea to agree to take radioactive waste from Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have not been able to overcome local opposition to the siting of a nuclear waste dump, so they have signed a contract with North Korea to take 200,000 barrels of their nuclear waste at $1135 per barrel. This has set off alarm bells in South Korea, 40 miles from the chosen disposal site. The waste would reportedly be buried in old coal mines, and South Korea is concerned about possible water pollution.[13]
Japan has reportedly been considering paying the Marshall Islands to take Japan's radioactive waste, but such talk created political opposition among Marshall Islanders and Japan backed off.[13]
** In Germany March 5, 1997, nuclear waste from two German power plants and a French reprocessing plant were trucked 12 miles from a railway station at Dannenburg to the Gorleben waste burial site in northern Germany, setting off huge protests. Five thousand demonstrators set up blockades to stop the trucks, which were carrying six 90-ton containers of intensely radioactive spent fuel rods. German police had to organize what the NEW YORK TIMES called "Germany's largest postwar security operation" to protect the trucks.[14]
It seems clear that wherever nuclear power technology gains a foothold, serious trouble follows close behind.
--Peter Montague
