Modern environmental factors

Sorry my memories is so bad, but isn’t there the example of a South East Asian country with a high level of ME/CFS that is linked to a particular insecticide?herbicide? There was a thread on it here.

[added I was referring to South Korea, where Koreans with ME/CFS had been exposed to chemicals put into humidifiers to prevent microbial overgrowth resulting in increased levels of ME/CFS

See https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36916046/ for a study using two day CPET previously posted in a thread here. ]

 

Widespread impacts to precipitation of the East Palestine Ohio train accident
19 June 2024
David A Gay, Katelan Blaydes, James J Schauer, Martin Shafer

"From these two maps, it is very clear that extreme concentrations of multiple pollutants were present over a widespread area during the days after the accident, and resulted in enhanced deposition of these pollutants to aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, including the Lakes Michigan, Erie, Ontario, and likely Huron and Superior.

From Wikipedia:

"residents report that pets and animals as far as 10 miles (16 km) from the derailment site died overnight during the controlled release of vinyl chloride.[57] In late March, CBS News reported that inhabitants have continued to experience health symptoms, despite officials asserting that no harmful chemicals were detected in the air or water. Employees of the CDC who investigated the derailment in early March also experienced symptoms.[58]"

 

This may have been posted elsewhere but this article by Cort Johnson discusses recent research comparing GWI and ME/CFS in relation to exercise and environmental toxins:

The Great Divide: Are ME/CFS and Gulf War Illness Fundamentally Different When it Comes to Exercise?
https://www.healthrising.org/blog/2024/06/16/divide-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-gulf-war-ilness/

I don’t know if any of the research referred to requires its own thread.

[added the South Korean study Cort references on Korans with ME/CFS following exposure to chemicals used in humidifiers was previously posted on this thread ]

 

The potential link to humidifier disinfectants seems to be based on this survey, though I can't find it online:

----

Cort's blog is partly talking about how GWI and ME/CFS may be different because not all people with GWI have abnormal 2-day CPET:

But this seems like the same thing as long COVID vs. ME. After some inciting event (sarin gas/pesticides or SARS-CoV-2 exposure) many people develop long term symptoms, but not everyone has the symptom of exercise intolerance.

It's a weird comparison, like comparing "complications after falling off a cliff" and "brain damage" and saying these two are not the same thing because not all people who fell off a cliff have brain damage but all people who have brain damage do have brain damage.

A better comparison would be, how different are GWI and long COVID.

It's strange to say "while some GWI patients did report increased symptoms (PEM)" and then a couple sentences later "The finding of that no PEM after exercise in GWI".

This all is odd. Even if the Korean study used people that got ME after humidifier disinfectant exposure, which it's unclear they did, presumably not every person who got symptoms after HD exposure got ME. Likewise Cook's study found evidence of PEM in some people with GWI, not "no evidence".

And the last sentence ("symptomatically, GWI looks exactly like ME/CFS") doesn't even make sense if claiming one group has PEM and the other doesn't.

I fear people will take this blog to mean all people with GWI can or should exercise.

 

The Guardian: "Top Canadian scientist alleges in leaked emails he was barred from studying mystery brain illness", 3 June 2024

Follow up article: "Second Canadian scientist alleges brain illness investigation was shut down", 21 June 2024

 

I hope I don't come across as presenting anything in this thread as fact. My goal is to make people even aware it's a possibility so that maybe actual research can happen which actually can determine if it's a fact. As it stands, research or even discussion about environment causing ME seems to be virtually non-existent, but I think even a low estimate would put the possibility of it being true at least significantly higher than zero.

Of course there's the practical consideration that there is almost zero money to be made in this, as opposed to mechanism and medication research. And as you said, a lot of people that can lose a lot of money. Seems like an injustice to just sweep a real possibility under the rug for who knows how long, maybe forever, though. We do have government, which is theoretically supposed to do things for the public welfare, not to make money.

Is it counterproductive to advocate for it? Maybe, or maybe current mechanism research will never find a solution but looking for a toxin will have found it in ten years if we tried, and that should be a discussion all its own, assessing relative benefits and harms of advocating for environmental harms.

 

We have a thread discussion here

 

American Scientist: The Rise of Parkinson's Disease

Published 2020

By E. Ray Dorsey, Todd Sherer, Michael S. Okun, Bastiaan R. Bloem

"Neither our increased awareness of the disease nor our lengthening life spans can fully account for the upsurge in diagnoses that we now face. Our knowledge of another neurological disorder, multiple sclerosis, has increased too, and we have improved diagnostic tools for it. Rates for multiple sclerosis have indeed gone up, but that increase is nothing like the exponential rise of Parkinson’s (see figure below). As for aging, more people are, of course, living longer. For example, from 1900 to 2014, the number of individuals over age 65 in the United Kingdom increased about sixfold. However, over that same period, the number of deaths due to Parkinson’s disease increased almost three times faster."


The increase in the number of Parkinson’s disease cases in England cannot be explained by an aging population or better diagnosis alone. Multiple sclerosis, another neurological disease, also has comparably improved diagnostics, but has not seen the exponential rise observed in Parkinson’s deaths. Changes in coding in the 1980s likely contributed to the fluctuations in deaths recorded during this period. As for age, the rate of increase in Parkinson’s far outpaces the increase in the elderly population in the United Kingdom.
Figure adapted from R. Dorsey et al., 2020.

---

"While industrialization has increased incomes and life expectancies around the world, its products and by-products are also likely increasing the rates of Parkinson’s. Air pollution began to worsen in England in the 1700s, metal production and its harmful fumes increased in the 1800s, the use of industrial chemicals rose in the 1920s, and synthetic pesticides—many of which are nerve toxins—were introduced in the 1940s. All are linked to Parkinson’s—people with the most exposure have higher rates of the disease than the general population.

The evidence for this connection is overwhelming. Countries that have experienced the least industrialization have the lowest rates of the disease, whereas those that are undergoing the most rapid transformation, such as China, have the highest rates of increase. Specific metals, pesticides, and other chemicals have all been tied to Parkinson’s in numerous human studies. When animals are exposed to many of these substances in lab experiments, they develop the typical characteristics of the disease.

Agricultural areas have the highest rates of Parkinson’s. In Nebraska, the rates of the disease are two to four times higher in the state’s rural, agricultural parts than in urban Omaha, according to a 2004 study in Movement Disorders. In Canada, investigators have found an almost perfect correlation between areas with the highest pesticide use and the highest rates of disease, as documented in a 1987 study in the Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences. In France, rural areas have the highest rates of Parkinson’s, as do the regions with the most vineyards, which often require intense pesticide use, according to a 2017 study in the European Journal of Epidemiology.

Farmers who are exposed to certain pesticides have a higher risk of developing the disease. In one 1998 study published in Neurology, the risk of developing the disease for farmers was 170 percent greater than that for nonfarmers. And the longer farmers have worked with pesticides, the greater their risk."

---

"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had at one time proposed banning one of the chemicals that is tied to Parkinson’s, a solvent called trichloroethylene. But after lobbying by the chemical industry, the EPA decided in 2017 to postpone the ban indefinitely. The uses of trichloroethylene have been so numerous and widespread—in washing away grease, cleaning silicon wafers, removing spots in dry cleaning, and even, until the 1970s, decaffeinating coffee—that almost all of us have been exposed to it at some point in our lives. Some of these uses continue today. Almost half of Superfund sites—land so polluted that the EPA or the responsible parties have to clean it up—are contaminated with trichloroethylene. Thousands of other sites are polluted across the country.

As a result, as reported by the EPA, up to 30 percent of the U.S. drinking water supply has been contaminated with trichloroethylene. Because it readily evaporates from groundwater and soil, the solvent, like radon, can enter homes or offices through the air, undetected. Parkinson’s is not even the most concerning safety risk. According to the EPA, trichloroethylene also causes cancer.

But trichloroethylene is only one dangerous chemical that we have failed to protect ourselves against. Paraquat is a pesticide so toxic that 32 countries, including China, have banned it. Exposure to the chemical increases the risk of Parkinson’s by 150 percent, according to a 2011 study in Environmental Health Perspectives. Yet the EPA has done little. And as the agency charged with protecting our environment sits, paraquat’s use on U.S. agricultural fields has doubled over the past decade, according to data from the U.S. Geological Survey’s Pesticide National Synthesis Project.

The nerve toxin chlorpyrifos is the most widely used insecticide in the country, drenching golf courses and dozens of crops, including almonds, cotton, grapes, oranges, and apples. It has been linked not only to Parkinson’s but also to problems with brain development in children. Again, the EPA has shelved a ban. When a federal court stepped in to take action against the chemical, the Trump administration appealed. And in July 2019, in response to a court ordering a final ruling, the EPA decided that it would allow continued use of chlorpyrifos."

---

"Even though it was banned half a century ago, DDT persists in the environment—and in our food supply. It becomes more concentrated as it makes its way up the chain to human consumption. The pesticide is then stored in our fatty tissues.

In 2003 and 2004, more than 30 years after the insecticide was banned, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) tested the blood of about 2,000 people ages 12 and older. The researchers were looking for DDT and its metabolite, or breakdown product, dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE). They found in their 2009 report that “a small proportion of the population had measurable DDT [and] most of the [U.S.] population had detectable DDE” in their blood. For Parkinson’s, what matters more are the concentrations of chemicals in the brain, which may be several times those in blood, according to the Extension Toxicology Network, because DDT dissolves in fat."

---

"Vietnam veterans and up to 4 million Vietnamese came into contact with Agent Orange during the Vietnam War.

There has been no large-scale study of the effect of this exposure on the health of the Vietnamese or war veterans. Smaller studies, however, have linked Agent Orange to many problems in these populations, including birth defects, cancer, and Parkinson’s, as summarized in a 2007 paper in Science by Richard Stone of the Veterans Health Administration. The evidence is sufficient that veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange and now have Parkinson’s are eligible for disability compensation and health care from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs."

 

The more I learn, the more mad I get. The world is being drenched in thousands of newly created chemicals and every day more are being created. For some reason, the standard operating precedure is to release new chemicals after cursory safety studies, then decades later when people start dropping from disease, it's the people's responsibility to prove the chemical did it. And then if common sense manages to beat out the massive corporations and their expensive lawyers and their lobbyists, then maybe the chemical gets banned, and the company gets a little fine - cost of doing business. And then on to the next one.

It's not even practically possible to test for all the possible long term effects of the massive variety of chemicals being produced. The assumption is that they don't cause cancer or Parkinson's or Alzheimer's, until someone proves they do.

Maybe if the ones making these decisions were some unbiased altruistic machines, I would trust these risks and tradeoffs. But the ones making the decisions are extremely biased. And extremely powerful. They can pay to put their chemicals on the market and pay to keep them there. And pay for the propaganda to convince the world it's all good.

I am horrified. Until the world has some sort of awakening and paradigm shift, we'll be chasing our tails making drugs to treat symptoms as they come up one after another like whack-a-mole.

 

I found a couple journals that are dedicated to environmental toxicity and related topics.

Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology

"JESEE publishes novel results and significant advances in exposure science, exposure analysis, and environmental epidemiology to understand human health impacts of the full range of environmental stressors (chemical, biological, physical, psychosocial). JESEE is particularly interested in publishing research that integrates exposure knowledge with information from across scientific disciplines to contribute solutions for the most pressing environmental and public health concerns."

Environmental Toxicology

"Environmental Toxicology is an international journal providing a forum for academics to discuss the toxicity and toxicology of environmental pollutants. We investigate the substances affecting our air, dust, sediment, soil and water, covering ecotoxicity, soil contamination, air & water pollution, endocrine disruption, immunotoxicity, & more.

Our journal aims to improve all species lives on Earth. We consider natural toxins and their impacts as well as the impacts of anthropogenic chemicals. These topics are studied in relation to public health and environmental policies that keep us safe."

Edit: More journals:

Journal of Environmental Exposure Assessment

"Humans are exposed to a wide range of chemical contaminants from cradle to grave. Evaluating the risk to health from this requires accurate assessment of the timing, pathways, and magnitude of exposure. The Journal of Environmental Exposure Assessment welcomes high quality manuscripts that address all aspects of human exposure to organic and inorganic chemical contaminants. These include but are not limited to: exposure modelling, experimental biomonitoring studies, as well as those examining external exposure via different pathways such as diet, inhalation, drinking water, dermal uptake, and indoor dust ingestion."

Toxics

"The Journal accepts papers describing work that furthers our understanding of the exposure, effects, and risks of chemicals and materials in humans and the natural environment as well as approaches to assess and/or manage the toxicological and ecotoxicological risks of chemicals and materials. The journal covers a wide range of toxic substances, including metals, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, biocides, nanomaterials, and polymers such as micro- and mesoplastics."

 

Toward cleaner air and better health: Current state, challenges, and priorities

Wei Huang, Hongbing Xu, Jing Wu, Minghui Ren, Yang Ke, Jie Qiao

Published 25 July 2024

Abstract
The most up-to-date estimate of the global burden of disease indicates that ambient air pollution, including fine particulate matter and ozone, contributes to an estimated 5.2 million deaths each year. In this review, we highlight the challenges in estimating population exposure to air pollution and attributable health risks, particularly in low- and middle-income countries and among vulnerable populations. To protect public health, the evidence so far confirms urgent needs to prioritize interdisciplinary research on air pollution exposure and risk assessment and to develop evidence-based intervention policies and risk communication strategies. Here, we synthesize the emerging evidence supporting the monitoring and evaluation of the progress in implementation of the Global Air Quality Guidelines prepared by the World Health Organization.

Link (Science)

 

From above article:

"Globally, [noncommunicable diseases] have become the most common cause of death and disability, and they are increasing in incidence, accounting for nearly 41 million deaths per year, with 77% occurring in [low and middle income countries] (7). Although age-standardized rates of NCDs have been declining in LMICs such as China in response to advances in treatment and healthcare coverage, the overall burden of disease remains severe, in part because of lifestyle changes and aging (8, 9). Ambient air pollution is recognized as the single biggest environmental risk factor for NCDs, and currently nearly 99% of the global population is continuously exposed to poor air quality that exceeds [Global Air Quality Guidelines] limits (10)."

The article is from a just released special issue of Science dedicated to air pollution.

 

Jarred Younger just released a followup video to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUxUg3GciJY

AI generated summary:

• Introduction
  • Dr. Younger presents new results from his laboratory
  • Focus on how air quality may affect ME/CFS and fibromyalgia fatigue and pain
  • Results are pending peer review and publication
  • Study conducted by students Chloe Jones, Olivia Haskin, and Gregory Lashley
• Background on Air Quality and Health
  • Poor air quality is a known significant health risk
  • HEPA filters in central air systems help mitigate risks
  • Severe air quality issues can affect even healthy individuals
  • Less severe air quality problems can affect sensitive individuals
  • Conditions like rheumatoid arthritis, sickle cell anemia, and other chronic inflammatory/autoimmune disorders can be affected by air quality
  • No previous studies on air quality effects on ME/CFS
• Particulate Matter (PM) and Air Quality Index (AQI)
  • Particulate matter categorized by size: PM10, PM2.5, and PM1
  • PM10: Larger particles like construction site dust
  • PM2.5: Smaller particles like diesel combustion products
  • PM1: Very small particles, including some viruses and bacteria
  • HEPA filters typically target particles 3 microns and larger
  • AQI color-coded system: Green (good) to Purple (hazardous)
• Study Details
  • 58 women with ME/CFS participated
  • Data collected before COVID-19 pandemic
  • Participants reported symptoms for an average of 62 consecutive days
  • Atmospheric and climate data collected for corresponding days
  • Approximately 3,500 paired samples for analysis
  • Focus on self-reported pain and fatigue severity
• Key Findings
  • Fatigue severity positively correlated with PM10 levels
  • Pain severity positively correlated with AQI
  • Even small variations in air quality affected ME/CFS symptoms
  • Results were statistically significant despite limitations
• Study Limitations and Future Research
  • Limited to a few months in Alabama with relatively stable air quality
  • Did not assess microclimate (individual's immediate environment)
  • Future studies could:
    • Use proper monitoring equipment in participants' homes
    • Include participants from various global locations
    • Track indoor vs. outdoor time
    • Analyze blood samples for inflammatory markers
• Hypothesized Mechanism
  • Particulates in lungs may trigger inflammatory response
  • Systemic inflammation may cause exacerbation of fatigue and pain
  • Further analysis of blood samples for inflammatory markers planned
• Recommendations Based on Preliminary Findings
  • Regularly check and replace HEPA filters in central air systems
  • Consider using a home air quality monitor
  • Be cautious of cheaper monitors that may exaggerate sensitivity and accuracy
  • Professional house inspection for air quality can be expensive but comprehensive
• Conclusion
  • Air quality appears to contribute to ME/CFS symptom severity
  • Not likely a cause of ME/CFS, but may exacerbate symptoms
  • Further research needed to determine the extent of impact
  • Results support considering air quality as a factor in managing ME/CFS

---

Hopefully we see some good controlling for weather in the final paper, maybe like temperature in the days before the symptom log.

 

Food & Water Watch, Inc., et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
United States District Court, Northern District of California

Excerpts from FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (Filed 24 September 2024):

"There is little dispute in this suit as to whether fluoride poses a hazard to human health. Indeed, EPA’s own expert agrees that fluoride is hazardous at some level of exposure. And ample evidence establishes that a mother’s exposure to fluoride during pregnancy is associated with IQ decrements in her offspring."

---

"The pooled benchmark dose analysis concluded that a 1-point drop in IQ of a child is to be expected for each 0.28 mg/L of fluoride in a pregnant mother’s urine. This is highly concerning, because maternal urinary fluoride levels for pregnant mothers in the United States range from 0.8 mg/L at the median and 1.89 mg/L depending upon the degree of exposure. Not only is there an insufficient margin between the hazard level and these exposure levels, for many, the exposure levels exceed the hazard level of 0.28 mg/L."

---

"Thus, the Court finds Plaintiffs have met their burden in establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that community water fluoridation at 0.7 mg/L presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health under Amended TSCA and that the EPA is thus obliged to take regulatory action in response. The Court does not in this order prescribe what that response should be."

---

Edit: CBS News: Federal court rules against EPA in lawsuit over fluoride in water

Response to NIH report from American Academy of Pediatrics: AAP stands by recommendations for low fluoride levels to prevent caries

Edit 2: Shortened post

 

Possibly a real result here, but it's not the most convincing study because of the tiny sample size w/o control group, and the different results between genders and between arms. And they didn't mention doing multiple test correction.

First Evidence of the Possible Influence of Avoiding Daily Liquid Intake from Plastic and Glass Beverage Bottles on Blood Pressure in Healthy Volunteers, 2024, Geppner et al

Some other interesting research mentioned in the discussion section:

 

Given the abundance of micro/nano plastics in the watershed, and the plastics in the treatment/delivery systems, maybe tap water contains similar amounts of phthalates. I don't feel like reading the article, but did they analyse the "tap water"?

Since (I assume) this isn't double-blind, then the people who were convinced that water from plastic bottles was harming them might be less stressed when knowing they're drinking "safe" tapwater instead.

 

Here's the bit about their reasoning around tap water:

I agree, there may be a placebo effect. I mainly was interested in the quoted listing of previous research on the harms of phtalates, though I have yet to look at any of it.

 

Studies based on assumptions aren't properly scientific. If the study is about phthalates in water, they should do at least a couple of measurements of phthalate content of the waters consumed. Maybe one source of "clean" groundwater is actually heavily contaminated due to some forgotten landfill leaching into a forgotten well. It's probably fairly easy to create studies that lead to amazing headlines, but which are misleading or meaningless, just by making a few assumptions in the study.

 

[Medical clinical diagnostics for indoor mould exposure - Update 2023 (AWMF Register No. 161/001)]

Link

Edit: PDF of full review in German

Translated section on CFS: