So, here’s some research that is clearly aimed at getting our attention. Which I am giving it. But, please- read my entire blog before you go off (perhaps half-cocked) spouting some revelation that (in my opinion) is not really there.
Drs. Michael Thomas and Rebecca Klapper (research performed University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, but Thomas is now at Idaho State) just published an article in PlosOne. As I stated above, one aimed at gaining headlines…”Psychoactive Pharmaceuticals Induce Fish Gene Expression Profiles Associated with Human Idiopathic Autism”. In the vernacular, the title says that psychoactive drugs (antidepressants, among them) that find their way into the water supply trigger gene action- the genes associated with autism. In fish. With untreated water. That’s the premise.
Now, some facts. It is indeed true that our (America’s) obsession with drug treatment has allowed a dramatic increase in the use of antidepressants in our population. And, it is also true that some 80% of these doses can pass through our bodies unprocessed. Which means we excrete these drugs into our wastewater. And, many of these receiving wastewater systems do not remove these vestiges of chemicals before discharging them into our waterways. Which means that these chemicals are found in local waters (or at least in waters contiguous to the waste treatment facilities) in sub-therapeutic dosages.
So, given these hypotheses, the researchers prepared a “cocktail” of carbamazepine and fluoxetine and venlafaxine. Carbamazepine is an anti-epileptic drug; the latter two are SSRI (selective serotonin uptake inhibitors [antidepressants]), The dosages for these chemicals in this research study were 100, 10, and 50 μg/L, respectively, in their synthetic media.
This was then the milieu in which fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) were grown for 18 days. Then, the genes expressed in the fish brains were analyzed. Of these analyses, 324 associated with autism were found to be altered (all of which genes are related to early brain development and “wiring”), which were fewer than they expected. To some degree, this finding is in concert with finding that pregnant women who take SSRI have slightly elevated probabilities to birthing autistic children. To determine if these abnormalities had real-life ramifications, the researchers “startled” the fish- and found they tended to panic, behaving differently than their control group of fish.
The researchers admit this is preliminary research. And, there is no indication that similar behavior occurs in mammals. (They are conducting experiments now with pregnant mice and the same cocktails.) And, they are examining regions that have reported high dosages of such drugs to see if the fish- and perhaps the human population in the region- have similar gene expression patterns.
Now, let’s consider some facts. First of all, the researchers had expected more abnormalities. After all, they used pretty high dosages and the fish were “captive” and unable to be exposed to other waters. So, the “effects” were less pronounced than one would expect.
Secondly, even if 80% of a drug passes through our bodies untouched, and given the fact that we all take an SSRI, we must consider the real potential dosages in our waterways. Let’s assume there are 100 mg of active ingredient in the pills we take. And, we pass the drug over 4 hours (way too quickly, but we’re just hypothesizing). That would mean that 80 mg of SSRI would be excreted by our body over four hours. Which is then deposited in one flush (highly unlikely). And, let’s assume we are using urinals, so the volume of water in that flush is only 1 gallon (really low). So, we are sending 21 mg/L of the material to our sewage plant. And, let’s assume 100% of the population (say 150,000 people) in a given area are all on the same SSRI. And, they all urinate at the same time (so ridiculous a proposition, we must hold our laughter). So, the concentration of this SSRI in our toilet waste is the same in the treatment plant influent. And, none of it is treated at all. (Another unlikely supposition.) So, the discharge concentration will be the same as the influent wastewater. But, now, the discharge is generally no more than 1/1000 of the water flow in the area. (It is tyically much less, so that the wastewater does not contaminate streams- even if treated properly.) So, now the concentration in the river or stream right by the effluent will be 21 μg/L. That’s the level the researchers tested. So, you can see it’s a pretty high dose- one highly unlikely to be present in any local waters.
As a matter of fact, the researchers provided such data- but glossed over it. As you can see from this diagram, the HIGHEST observed concentrations of these drugs reported anywhere are listed. And, the concentrations provided the fish in these experiments were 2 to 3 orders of magnitude greater than those found in drinking water,which is where a human would be exposed to such residual chemicals.
Yup, you guessed it. This was an article derived to get your attention. And, I made sure it did. So that you would know that this experiment has no basis in reality. Because the tested levels exceed the highest reported levels found (by the author’s own definition) by orders of magnitude (making the levels even higher still).
I’m not saying it can’t happen. I’m saying it’s about as likely as me being hit by lightning… twice today.
A question was answered, maybe not fully, of why autism has increased over the years. It makes sense to a plausible degree that the answer may always be in the water.
Actually, PeggyLee, I think I had a blog (or two) already explaining that- or at least starting to explain that. And, another one (also reported here) has been in the news. The older we get as we have babies (the average of age of moms and dads having kids has been lifted by 5 or more years) means there are more partial and complete mutations that get passed on. That “junk” DNA, that turns out are regulators of other actions, also have mutations and changes. So, by waiting longer – so we can have more money and feel more settled- means we also subject our potential progeny to more risks.
Couple that with our desire to be medicated for everything. And, we never know when a child will be conceived… Those medications’ affects upon eggs and sperm….
OK, today is the last Friday of the year. It’s supposed to be uplifting. Enough of this subject…
The increase in the number of children diagnosed with autism is really alarming. The average person really has no idea about the chemicals and additives that are in their food and water. Maybe that is a good thing because I think this is something that the individual consumer has little control over.
I drink water from a water well…God only knows what is in it.
Janette Fuller recently posted..Camp Huntsville WWII Prisoner Of War Camp
It used to be, Janette, that your water well was among the best choices for drinking water. Now that we let fracking occur – and with little oversight- that is less true. Or, when various firms “farm” their hazardous materials on the ground, only to seep into the groundwater….
OK, today is not the day to turn everyone’s hair gray!
Scientists have been over dosing critters for years and then scaring the pants off humans. Nothing new.
Happy New Year.–Annie
Ann Mullen recently posted..Seniors Helping Seniors: Making a Difference Through Meals on Wheels
I don’t think that’s quite the “subject” involved here, though, Ann. See my comment to Bonnie, for example…
A very interesting study even if it’s not one that can easily be translated to the ‘real’ world in it’s effects. I can only say to this study that changes in the enviroment, subtle or otherwise has it’s effects. Small, big or cumulative…it is something we should be looking at. Having all these chemicals draining into rivers and oceans is of concern on some level.
Bonnie recently posted..Can You Get Out of A Learned Life Pattern?
I certainly agree, Bonnie. It’s just that these chemicals are not the ones to worry about.
I began warning folks about dumping pharmaceuticals down the toilet three decades ago. Now, we know – as my calculations predicted- that these folks have and are continuing to do real damage! 1 By not taking the proper dose of drugs (and length of time), they populate the world with microbes that have been attenuated and not killed- and can now (and have now) mutate[d] so they are unaffected by the drugs that were being used. 2 By dumping the remainder of the drugs they FAILED to take down the toilet, they introduce them to receiving waters where the microbes find methods to metabolize the drugs, become immune, and lead to the “superbug” infections of which we hear- and for which we have no treatment.
I appreciate you calling attention to the bigger picture here Roy, which is the contamination issue. I have a bag full of old drugs from my dad that he no longer takes. I have no idea how to dispose of them. The doctor told me to flush them and I had to remind him that we have an ordinance in Los Angeles that makes that a no no. Then he told me to bury them. What an idiot.
Someone needs to come up with a great idea of how to handle discarded drugs.
Julia Neiman recently posted..Top 3 Tips to Cultivate Gratitude
Some communities actually have a drug destruction day (or two). Here, in my area, we have designated days where they pick up the drugs. We run a pyrolysis center and it affects the destruction in a safe fashion. There are other means besides pyrolysis- and, yes, Julia, our communities need to insure the safe destruction by the means that makes economic sense. Disposal to the waste treatment plant may be “economical”, but it’s harmful beyond belief.
Roy
It seems like the people who make these statements is so sure that nobody is going to make the math. Of course, there are Roys Ackermans who do. The people need more Roys Ackermans, I say.
Do you have information about the residence time of these substances? I bet they are very low. I ask this to discard the long term accumulative argument which is true with very heavy elements.
Gustavo recently posted..Carl G. Jung.
Gustavo:
We have not yet ascertained fully the residence times (how long these recalcitrant chemicals exist in waterways before degradation is effected). And, you may notice the design experiment for which I would have wished in my reply to Nanette Levin. Perhaps, when such a study is done, we may learn sufficiently about the affects of these chemicals on our waterways and, by extension, upon us.
Roy
Thanks for putting some perspective on this study, Roy. I understand the concerns others are voicing, but think it behooves us all the work with full information. This reminds me of a situation I faced many years ago when working with a fishing industry association client. The media went crazy with a mercury warning. What they didn’t disclose is fish tested were ground up scales, bones and all (I haven’t encountered anyone who eats fish this way yet) to show carcinogen levels far lower (powers so) than a tablespoon of peanut butter (and many other common food items). The stories focused on sounding the alarm bell for cancer to anyone considering ingesting fish from this lake. It’s sad that fact checking takes a backseat to hype so often. There are always at least three sides to a story, aren’t there?
Nanette Levin recently posted..Marketing strategies are useless without people
I am not sure there are three sides to a story, Nanette. However, in this age of desperation for headlines, it is clear that some scientists are not immune from catering to the “whimsy of the moment”. (Of course, we know there are a slew of politicians who eschew logic and science, as well…)
i am not against this research at all. However, I think the study should have used the average levels found, and ten times the average levels, and the highest levels. then we could compare and contrast the results. And, we could perhaps draw correlations if these recalcitrant chemcials accumulate, where the results may lie…
But, of course, they did not consult me in this study design.
I’m not against research either, Roy – just appreciate full disclosure, which you have helped provide. On the three sides comment, this was something my dad instilled in me at an early age. The three sides involve each party’s perspective (assuming there are two) and the truth (if there ever is such a thing that’s not subjective). ‘There are at least three sides to every story’ is a saying that repeats in my mind every time I see an argument. It’s a good reality to consider when controversy or differing opinions present. Research findings have proven to be incredibly important in discoveries to improve our well being – but I’ve learned to check out who’s funding the studies to apply appropriate credence. Call me curious, skeptical or jaded – I’ve just seen how much damage an influenced finding can cause.
Nanette Levin recently posted..Marketing strategies are useless without people
Thanks for that share, Nanette…
Interesting concept about the three sides…
Roy
I believe that apart from increased awareness the increase in the numbers of autism diagnosis is environmental. Not just autism but so much contamination will create many health issues. I know studies need to be done but perhaps some are just justifying jobs and grants?
Carolina HeartStrings recently posted..BLUEBERRY – CREAM CHEESE “DUMP” CAKE
Can you hear my clapping all the way to the Carolinas, Alessa?
Hi Roy!
i think most of us don’t know the water and food which we take is healthy or not for us. it’s a very shame to us so should be aware with these contamination.and in this area mainly goverment can help us.i like your idea.
thanks for sharing this blog.
anshul recently posted..Online Banking Software
Anshul:
You are right! Our governments owe it to us to provide that information- plus the best quality water available.