Jury awards school groundskeeper $289 million for exposure to Roundup

Via Reuters and The New York Times: 

A California jury on Friday found Monsanto liable in a lawsuit filed by a school groundskeeper who said the company’s weedkillers, including Roundup, caused his cancer. The company was ordered pay $289 million in damages. 

The case of the groundskeeper, Dewayne Johnson, 46, was the first lawsuit to go to trial alleging that Roundup and other glyphosate-based weedkillers cause cancer. Monsanto, a unit of the German conglomerate Bayer following a $62.5 billion acquisition, faces more than 5,000 similar lawsuits across the United States. 

Mr. Johnson’s lawyers said he developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after using Roundup and Ranger Pro, another Monsanto glyphosate herbicide, as part of his job as a pest control manager for a California county school system. 

The jury in Superior Court of California in San Francisco deliberated for three days before finding that Monsanto had failed to warn Mr. Johnson and other consumers of the cancer risks posed by its weedkillers. 

It awarded $39 million in compensatory and $250 million in punitive damages...

As one might imagine, I'm pretty skeptical about the carcinogenicity of glyphosate. Nevertheless, I think that most typical people feel very much otherwise.

A very long time ago, I got into an online argument (always a great use of time) about the toxicity of Roundup. The original post said something like "I cannot believe something as toxic as Roundup is out on the market" - trying to convince the fellow "actually, it's not very toxic" was a tough thing to do. As you might imagine, I had no success.

Here's my theory as to why this is true: if you get out a bottle of Roundup and you spray it on plants, they die in a particularly visible way. Even if people understand the concepts behind amino acid synthesis and enzyme inhibition, they're just never really going to not believe their eyes, and make the conclusion that, if it kills plants, it won't kill people.

All of this to say: I have a feeling that Monsanto/Bayer is going to be in trouble, if these jury trials continue. 

"The truth is, all of nature contains chemicals"

Unusual tack for a consumer products company. Here's hoping S.C. Johnson has success with this.

(TIL Fisk Johnson has a Ph.D. in physics.)

What to do about Nick Kristof?

Over the weekend, a rather bizarre column (calmly titled "What Poisons Are In Your Body?") from the New York Times' Nick Kristof where he tests his urine for endocrine disruptors: 

Finally, I heard back from Silent Spring Institute. I figured this was a report card I had aced. I avoid all that harmful stuff. In my columns, I had advised readers how to avoid it. 

Sure enough, I had a low level of BPA, best known because plastic bottles now often boast “BPA Free.” 

But even a diligent student like me failed the test. Badly. I had high levels of a BPA substitute called BPF. Ruthann Rudel, a toxicologist who is the head of research at Silent Spring, explained that companies were switching to BPF even though it may actually be yet more harmful (it takes longer for the body to break it down). BPF is similar to that substance that made those mice do back flips.

I am a little at wit's end to understand how to help intelligent people like Mr. Kristof see past their clear fear of chemicals, the distrust they have of chemical companies and their seeming dismissal of regulatory agencies. It seems to me that he is all too credulous to the claims of organizations like the Silent Spring Institute that are incentivized to generate as much fear and doubt around chemicals as possible.

Readers, what do you think? 

"Forever Chemicals"

Via random clickings on Twitter, a really depressing op-ed in the Washington Post from an assistant professor of exposure assessment science at Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public Health:

...They are now in nearly all of our bodies, are found in the air and water around the globe, and they never go away. They are "Forever Chemicals." 

These are stain-repellent chemicals that we use in products throughout our homes, offices, schools, hospitals, cars and airplanes. They are characterized by a fluorine-carbon backbone. And the F-C bond, the Forever-Chemical bond, is quite amazing, representing one of the strongest bonds in all of organic chemistry. 

When several F-C bonds are strung together, some really useful industry properties appear, including allowing air to pass through while blocking things such as grease, oil and dirt.  

...But this property comes with a pernicious dark side. The F-C bond is so strong that these chemicals never fully degrade. Ever. Like, for millennia ever. 

[snip] 

And it may get worse. In every chemical with a carbon-hydrogen bond (the fundamental unit of organic chemistry), you can theoretically replace the "H" with an "F," creating a Forever Chemical. Thus, the number of Forever Chemicals that can be made is close to infinite. Scientists could study these indefinitely and not make any progress. It's job security that I don't want....

A more irritating mauling of chemistry and chemicals you will not read today. (The fundamental unit of organic chemistry is the C-H bond? whiskey tango over?)*

*I think the thing that gets me about articles like this is how much chemophobic articles like this belittle the good that chemistry and chemicals do and how much they use uncertainty and doubt to get people to fear the chemical-to-be-feared of the moment. 

(Should we as an industry be more careful with the compounds that we manufacture and sell as articles of commerce? Absolutely. Is the PFOA/PFOS story one that we as an industry need to come to terms with? Undoubtedly. Does this article help with that? No.) 

Tips for getting through to the public about chemicals

Also in this week's C&EN, a helpful article by Professor Baruch Fischhoff of Carnegie Mellon University, talking over best practices for communicating science to the public, especially with regards to various scientific issues where there is controversy:

My experience suggests that programs applying our science to communicating technology risks and benefits are often rewarded. For example, my colleagues and I developed a widely distributed brochure about potential negative health effects of 60-Hz electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from both high-voltage power lines and home appliances, just as the issue had begun to boil in the 1980s. 

As required by our science, we first summarized the evidence relevant to lay decisions and then interviewed people about their beliefs and concerns. Finally, we tested draft communications, checking that they were interpreted as intended. Among other things, those communications addressed a common bug in lay mental models: how quickly EMFs fall off with distance. We also candidly described the limits to current evidence regarding possible harm and promised that new research results would not be hidden. It is our impression that we contributed to a measured societal response to the risk. 

The EMF case had conditions necessary for securing a fair hearing for the chemical or any other industry:

• A good safety record. For example, public support for nuclear power rose over the long period of safe performance preceding the Fukushima accident.
• Talking to people. The chemical industry’s outreach programs supporting local emergency responders have enhanced trust in many communities.
• A scientific approach to communication. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is creating disclosures designed to improve trust in banking and insurance products.

Developing scientifically sound communications is not expensive. However, it requires having the relevant expertise and evaluating the work empirically. Such communication often faces three interrelated barriers among some of those responsible for its adoption:

• Strong intuitions about what to say and how to say it, discounting the need to consult behavioral science and evaluate communications.
• Distrust of the public, perhaps fed by commentators who describe the public as incapable of understanding (that is, being chemophobic).
• Disrespect for the social sciences as sources of durable, useful knowledge.

There is a kernel of truth underlying these barriers. People do have some insight into how other people think, the public can be unreasonable, and social scientists do sometimes oversell their results. To help outsiders be savvy consumers of behavioral research, my colleagues and I have tried to make our science more accessible, for example, through a Food & Drug Administration user guide and via Sackler Colloquia in 2012 and in 2013 on the science of science communications, with accompanying special issues of Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA.

Professor Fischoff has raised some very interesting points. I wonder if the problem with the chemical industry's communications to the public is that this conversation is usually only happening under the shadow of various chemical industry incidents, i.e. removing the safety record required to sustain a basic level of trust.

Also, I think it's interesting that the EMF project involved trying to communicate the one essential fact (that EMG falls off dramatically with distance). I wonder if there is one essential fact (or two, or three?) that chemists need to always be communicating with non-chemists?

Your morning Food Babe troll

Courtesy of @UnstableIsotope, Food Babe lets her chemophobe flag fly:

For several years, I’ve started my day with warm lemon water and cayenne pepper. Lemon water is very alkaline and can stimulate the liver. It can change your taste buds so you don’t crave sugary foods, and instead crave alkaline ones like fruits and vegetables. The cayenne pepper has been proven to boost your metabolism. But both of those ingredients together strengthen the immune system. I’ve gotten fewer colds because of following this habit. An acidic body promotes disease and inflammation. I try to make my diet mostly alkaline. And with water, you want to make sure it’s not contaminated. Unfortunately, our water is contaminated with everything from chlorine to fluoride.... 

...There are people who want to keep the chemicals in our food and keep us dependent on chemicals. They’re chemical activists. I am a consumer activist. I think we can empower ourselves with this information. You don’t have to be a nutritionist or scientist to know how to eat. We have the ability to empower ourselves. And the people who are speaking out are saying that we can’t empower ourselves. They assume that we are too stupid to figure this out....

I'm proud to be a chemical activist. 

Anyone want to explain the chemistry of diapers?

This week's C&EN also brings us a rebuttal to a recent Newscripts column on diapers:

...Newscripts recently waxed enthusiastic about Charlie’s Soap, “a laundry detergent brand that is popular among folks concerned about laundry residues” (C&EN, July 7, page 40). Charlie’s Soap is good, we are told, because it contains fewer ingredients than other detergents. It seems to contain only soap and soda ash. 

Charlie’s Soap might actually work—if you are washing in distilled water. That would include approximately none of us. Any hardness in the water at all will precipitate the soda ash as calcium and magnesium carbonate. Even worse, the soap will precipitate as scum. 

Those diapers you were trying to wash to a residue-free condition will be loaded with sharp-edged crystals of calcium carbonate, which will abrade the fibers of the diaper, shortening its life. Additionally, that residue will be alkaline in nature, and hence irritating to the poor child of the ignorant parent. The diapers will also be loaded with soap scum that, in the short term, will make them appear gray and dingy. In the long run, the accumulated scum will make the diaper harsh to the feel and no longer absorbent. 

Formulating any kind of product to the fewest number of ingredients is a truly bizarre, and wholly irrational, goal. Ask anyone who has ever said it for the reason why. I have yet to hear an answer to that question. Mother Nature doesn’t hold herself to such an unrealistic goal. In a recent issue of Inform (published by the American Oil Chemists’ Society), the ingredient list of a common chicken egg was published. The list, almost certainly not exhaustive, contained about 100 different ingredients. 

Unfortunately, the statement about the fewest ingredients goal is never challenged. It’s the kind of thing you would expect to see from Consumer Reports or Greenpeace. But it’s not the way to get things clean. It’s disappointing that C&EN reported it unchallenged. 

I could go on and on about this one little story. Dryer sheets add so little hydrophobic wax to fabrics that they have virtually no effect on absorbency. (Rinse-cycle fabric softeners are a different story.) The ammonia stink from diapers is not due to microbes not removed during washing. The diapers do not come out of the dryer sterile, of course, but they are sanitary. The microbial load comes from what the baby deposits in the diaper. 

The next time you need to know how to get something clean, contact Walt or me. Don’t depend on someone who is trying to make a buck by pandering to the public’s fear of chemicals. 

Dave McCall
Detroit

I don't really know if calcium carbonate deposits happen in diapers that have been washed with Charlie's Soap -- anyone up for doing some wet chemistry with diaper residues? I didn't think so.

As someone who has been through the cloth diaper wars with 2 kids, the problem really seems to arise from two places:

Diaper rash: Diaper rash shows up mysteriously with your kid, so you start by changing one parameter (the laundry soap). It either goes away or it doesn't, and then you start changing multiple parameters, including having the kid run around naked. Finally, you settle on something that seems to work for you.

Diaper wear: Cloth diapers are a rather high capital cost, so you're tempted to keep re-using them. As the diapers get older, they seem to absorb less and less (as the kid seems to produce more and more waste). So, you start changing the washing routines (detergents, hot/cold washes) to start removing whatever seems to be building up in the fabric... or you buy new ones.

There's probably a lot of science out there about this that I don't know about -- readers?

One final note: I thought it was interesting for Dr. McCall to address the root cause of these concerns to be chemophobia on the part of parents. I tend to agree with him; however, I suspect he misses the emotional appeal of having fewer chemicals touching the nether regions of one's children. Sure, simplicity in diapers is probably a fallacy, but the temptation is understandable. 

Don't know how I feel about this letter on azodicarbonamide

An interesting one from this week's C&EN on azodicarbonamide and bread. (Here's a bit of background on the "yoga mat chemical" as the news has begun to call it.): 

As insight into the desirability of using azodicarbonamide in bread making, consider how many of C&EN’s readers would use this ingredient when making bread for themselves (C&EN, Feb. 17, page 9). Few would, I daresay. There are two reasons: First, it is unnecessary. Although it functions as a dough conditioner, azodicarbonamide’s purpose is to decrease the cost of making large amounts of bread quickly. Second, with the notable exceptions of salt, water, and a few necessary minerals, many people, if not most, find the use of ingredients in their food that are not derived by simple processes from living things to be offensive. 

The focus solely on the safety of ingredients is often used to frame the discussion of an issue so as to preclude consideration of this second point as a valid reason for opposition to their use. This is usually followed up by claims that the public is uneducated in such matters, implying that they are not fit to make decisions about what they eat. 

David Lane
Davis, Calif.

I think this is an interesting perspective and one not usually seen in the pages of C&EN.

I think he gets at something that chemists will have a difficult time escaping: if framed in the correct manner, much labor-and cost-saving activity in the food preparation sector ('pink slime', etc.) triggers the "ick factor"*. That it's scientifically irrelevant or inaccurate doesn't really matter, and efforts to convince the general public otherwise have a low probability of success.

*I'm reminded of Haidt's Moral Foundations Theory, specifically "sanctity/degradation."

Here we go again

Those of us who get irritated at media coverage of the chemical industry will be especially excited with this coverage from The Atlantic Monthly of Landrigan and Grandjean's latest publication in The Lancet Neurobiology, titled "Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity." Here's those authors' list of bad compounds:

In 2006, we did a systematic review and identified five industrial chemicals as developmental neurotoxicants: lead, methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, arsenic, and toluene. Since 2006, epidemiological studies have documented six additional developmental neurotoxicants—manganese, fluoride, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and the polybrominated diphenyl ethers. 

Here's how The Atlantic has chosen to illustrate them:

Within the article, Landrigan suggests that fluoride should not be taken out of toothpaste, but I doubt that's going to be noted by those sharing this article on Facebook. Also, who's going to tell them about the typos in the top graphic, and this one?: 

Also, I am terribly amused that ethanol is listed as a neurotoxicant, and yet the article does not touch on it at all. You can imagine America saying "FROM MY ICY COLD, DEAD HANDS." 

BREAKING: 4-methylcyclohexylmethanol is NOT made of (or from!) methylcyclohexane and methanol

Thanks to a very intrepid reader in the Charleston area, you are privy to the first of many (well-deserved, to be honest) lawsuits against Freedom Industries, the company whose leaking tank disrupted lives for thousands/millions of people in West Virginia. Amusingly, the lawyer appears to believe that 4-methylcyclohexylmethanol is made of methylcyclohexane and methanol. (page 9) Below is my annotated comments on his assertions:

Ultimately, this lawsuit doesn't matter. Freedom Industries will be hounded into bankruptcy for their negligence and their failure to respond adequately. Sad for those who will lose their positions through no fault of their own.

UPDATE: That didn't take long. The Wall Street Journal reports Freedom Industries has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. 

The link between pesticides and genetics and Parkinson's disease

A really fascinating article by Lauren Wolf on the link between pesticides and Parkinson's. To me, this is the key passage:

Still, “the vast majority of us are not getting Parkinson’s, and the vast majority of people who work with pesticides don’t get Parkinson’s,” Goldman says. “So there’s obviously something else at play.” 

That “something,” today’s scientists believe, is genetic susceptibility. Along with Tanner and Kamel, Goldman explored this gene-environment interaction recently by surveying a group of male farmers. The researchers genotyped the participants’ DNA to determine which subjects had mutations in a gene coding for glutathione S-transferase T1. This type of enzyme is responsible for cleansing cells of foreign substances such as pesticides and protecting against oxidative stress. 

Men who were exposed to paraquat and who had nonfunctional glutathione S-transferase were 11 times more likely to have Parkinson’s disease than nonexposed men who had functional enzymes (Mov. Disord. 2012, DOI: 10.1002/mds.25216). 

Another recent study examined the association of pesticides, Parkinson’s, and mutations to a protein pump called P-glycoprotein. This macromolecule sits on cells lining blood vessels in the brain, defending a person’s gray matter by pushing out molecular intruders. 

Agricultural workers in France who were exposed to organochlorine insecticides and who had gene mutations affecting P-glycoprotein’s performance were three to seven times more likely to have Parkinson’s than those who weren’t exposed (Arch. Neurol. 2010, DOI: 10.1001/archneurol.2010.101).

I am always looking for the mechanism behind chemical/epidemiological studies. Genetic variation in how we deal with xenobiotics makes sense to me; when I say to my non-chemist friends, "you have a liver and it does its job well", there's something to the thought that well, different people have different livers.

[This will also lend itself to lots of #chemophobia-tinged scares, where members of the general public may/will diagnose themselves with inefficient/insufficient CYP450, etc. Can't win 'em all.]

Help wanted: the American Council on Science and Health needs a new president

Josh Bloom is a former Wyeth medicinal chemist and a friend of the blog. He's now the Director of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Sciences at the American Council on Science and Health, which is a non-profit that presents industry viewpoints on issues of science and medicine. He's asked for some help with finding a president for his organization: 

Job description: The President of ACSH acts as the primary spokesperson for the organization and determines the overall direction and execution of the organization’s mission, operations and strategic plan. The successful candidate will have an advanced degree (Ph.D., M.D., J.D.).  He or she should have a strong interest in public health, science and medicine.   

Desired Skills and Experience: The successful candidate will possess an advanced degree, have excellent writing and presentation skills, a strong interest in public health, science and medicine. An established record of managerial experience is required. Some fundraising experience a plus. 

Send resume and cover letter to Dr. Josh Bloom, bloomj -at- acsh/dot/org

I like ACSH a lot, since they counter a lot of nonsense out there about chemophobia, and the chemical and pharmaceutical industry, so I'm happy to help them with this search. It's also a chance (any time you have a leadership opening) to make a good organization better.

It seems to me that they're looking for someone who's relatively senior (i.e. not my age), who has leadership experience and doesn't have a problem asking people for money. But here's the key: this person should really enjoy getting in front of a camera and defending science and medicine as a field and as an industry.

For the right person, I would think such a position would be fun -- that said, it'd probably be a lot of hard work and you'd have to enjoy arguing with people. Readers, have any ideas? 

Fight chemophobia -- be a chemistry ambassador!

George Heard, Chair of the ACS Committee on Community Activities on why it's important to do chemistry outreach (emphasis mine):

In its most elemental form (pun intended), outreach is a way to engage with the citizens of the world, young and old, and awaken their scientific curiosity. It is also one of the best ways to increase the public’s science literacy. We are all aware of the good, bad, and ugly stereotypes about chemistry that are perpetuated by society. Outreach is a way to reinforce the good that chemistry does for our life and health, for the environment, and for the future. Every time we engage in outreach, we provide firsthand evidence that refutes the stereotype that all chemistry is bad. 

With this goal in mind, no interaction is too small. Outreach can occur with one box of supplies and a group of 20 kids. Or it can take place on a larger scale, through participation in activities such as science festivals. Whether their outreach involves working individually or in concert, chemists’ impact on the community can be significant.

Paul convinced me that outreach is probably one of the best ways to combat chemophobia; I'm going to do my best to sign up for my local National Chemistry Week activities. 

Does this anti-chemophobia tactic work?

John Hickenlooper is the governor of Colorado and he visited Washington recently to talk about hydraulic fracturing. To demonstrate its safety, he told them that he drank some:

State Capitol veterans loved the story coming out of Washington, D.C., on Tuesday about Gov. John Hickenlooper drinking fracking fluid because it reminded them of the time a state transportation chief swilled a mixture of magnesium chloride. The drinks were intended to show the stuff is safe. 

Then-Department of Transportation director Tom Norton drank his concoction in a legislative committee in 2002 after getting complaints about the magnesium chloride sprayed on Colorado's roads to fight ice and snow. 

Hickenlooper on Tuesday told a U.S. Senate committee that he swigged fracking fluid once. His admission came when he testified that states and not the federal government should lead in regulating natural gas production, a sentiment that angered environmentalists and drew applause from energy groups fighting the Environmental Protection Agency.

I don't think that there are huge acute/chronic human toxicity issues around hydraulic fracturing fluid -- that said, you don't see me volunteering to have a rig next to my house any time soon. I believe that shale gas is, on balance, a positive development for our country and is having/will have good effects on US chemical manufacturing.*

Drinking a glass of hydraulic fracturing fluid (which is mostly water and salt with some various other things (polyols, I'm guessing)) doesn't really demonstrate anything other than a lack of acute toxicity -- presumably, that's not really the issue that people care about. I believe that chemophobia is mostly based on concern about long-term health effects, not short-term ones. (i.e. my couch will give me cancer in twenty years, not that it is killing me right now.) So, nice try, Gov. Hickenlooper, but I don't think folks are buying it.

Readers, what's the best demonstration of non-toxicity that you've seen?

*Let me go on the record: I think hydraulic fracturing is good news, and like most resource extraction issues in the United States, there will be hard-working men and women in this country who will exploit those resources to the very, very fullest. That's the story of our country, from the coal mines of West Virginia on west, good, bad and ugly. I don't believe very many of the acute/chronic toxicity issues that arise around hydraulic fracturing fluid (especially in the popular press), but I don't think that they've been studied particularly well. We could always use more research. 

Podcast: Chemistry Avengers: anti-chemophobia and chemistry outreach

At Science Online 2013, Dr. Rubidium was co-moderator with Carmen Drahl of the "Chemophobia and Chemistry in the Modern World" session. It was really, really impressive and so See Arr Oh and I decided to talk to her about chemophobia, among other things.

There was so much to talk about (Dr. Rubidium is a former forensic chemist, so we had a great time chatting about Annie Dookhan) that we've divided the podcast into 3 parts, with today's section being on chemophobia and science outreach.



Thanks to See Arr Oh for these timepoints, which have been lightly altered by me:

0:08 - Intro
1:29 - Y'know, we should probably define the Deficit Model
3:43 - Talking to the right people, at the right time on the right subject
6:32 - Diff'rent viewpoints: contextual understanding and #chemophobia
9:49 - CJ's falls in love with hazmat suits in National Geographic
11:25 - Are we listening enough? "In-reach" vs. Outreach
13:04 - The Carl Sagan / Neil de Grasse Tyson problem
14:05 - "And that's the name of the podcast!"
16:08 - The diversity of chemistry fields
18:08 - SAO blames Jurassic Park for being too 'cool'
20:30 - The Science Museum contradiction
23:16 - Quit viewing non-traditional careers as a consolation prize!
24:32 - Beating the Feynman drum
27:07 - Wanted: "Outreach Infrastructure"
28:15 - Time to put up the $$$
29:32 - 2 million bucks? Chicken feed for the ACS.
29:55 - Bonus outtake

Podcast: Dr. Rebecca Guenard and Chemjobber on chemophobia, parenting

A couple of weeks ago, Rebecca Guenard (a Ph.D. chemist and freelance writer) wrote an insightful post on the rational and irrational roots of chemophobia and how chembloggers communicate chemistry to each other and the public. She concludes with:

By reducing chemistry’s spotlight to an argument about the good and the bad of chemicals, you lose the bigger, beautiful picture of chemistry.  Argument outreach, lovable chemicals outreach, neither are affective because chemistry is not just about chemicals.  Maybe it is not that big of an issue, most of what I read seems choir directed anyway.  But as a member of that choir, I would like to request a different tune.  

As the author of the occasional post that cracks wise about the ignorance of chemicals and the public's chemophobia, I thought this might be a fun opportunity to talk to her about it. She also had a fantastic section in her post on chemophobia and parenting, which (as a parent), I was in profound sympathy with.

Better yet, this coming Saturday will be Carmen Drahl and DrRubidium's session at ScienceOnline 2013 on chemophobia, so this is our contribution to the pre-conversation:



(I was a little more aggressive with the editing, and I'm concerned that it shows. Any oddities with the sound are my responsibility, and not Dr. Guenard's.)

Timepoints:

0:00 - 1:44: Introduction, parenting and chemicals
3:03: Rational concern about chemicals for your offspring
3:30: Rebecca and the phosgene plant
4:20: Parents and BPA
6:30: CJ, his kids and kilo-scale work
8:35: CJ dislikes "Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families"
11:45: Rebecca: "Dose makes the poison", not matter how true, isn't particularly effective
14:00: Did you have a Nalgene bottle?
17:10: Are some adults just lost to chemophobia?
18:30: CJ's rant about Facebook, and Rebecca's excellent response
21:09: Rebecca is going to #scio13 -- lucky!
22:00: CJ: Why ranting against chemophobia is fun
24:00: Rebecca: Different ways to talk about chemistry to different people (so true!)
26:00: Rebecca: "Chemists are nuts" -- a fun way to talk about chemistry is to talk about the chemists.
28:00: Who communicates chemistry well?*

*Rebecca also notes that Prof. Michelle Francl communicates chemistry well; I agree heartily. Sarah Everts' fantastic oral history of East German chemists is here. 

Is lead the cause of all of our troubles?

Pretty picture, bad molecule.

Kevin Drum is a political blogger for the progressive magazine Mother Jones; he's written a very interesting article about the drop in violent crime in the United States that we've seen over the last 30 years. Mr. Drum examines every alternate hypothesis (poverty, demographics, the Levitt/Dubner Roe v. Wade hypothesis, the end of the crack wars, etc.) and discards them in favor of his hypothesis: that the removal of tetraethyllead from gasoline is responsible for the drop in violent crime. Mr. Drum goes further and argues for a broad policy of lead abatement in older, poorer neighborhoods as a means of both improving public health and long-term economic output (I'm not kidding.)

I'll be very interested to see how far this article and its hypothesis will travel. It could just be the obsession of one Internet-famous blogger, or it could be the starting gun for a variety of interesting policy shifts. But I want to lay down a couple of markers:

Is there a difference between inorganic and organic lead? Mr. Drum does a little bit of sleight of hand (for this nitpicky chemist, anyway) and seems to equate alkylated lead in gasoline (tetraethyllead) with inorganic lead in house paint (lead carbonate, etc). It's probably because the public health folks tend to measure just for lead concentrations in the blood without reference to the source. (Also, how are different lead compounds metabolized?) (See update below.) 

The connection between low [lead] and neurotoxicity and the public health consequences: To quote Drum:

For starters, it turns out that childhood lead exposure at nearly any level can seriously and permanently reduce IQ. Blood lead levels are measured in micrograms per deciliter, and levels once believed safe—65 μg/dL, then 25, then 15, then 10—are now known to cause serious damage. The EPA now says flatly that there is "no demonstrated safe concentration of lead in blood," and it turns out that even levels under 10 μg/dL can reduce IQ by as much as seven points. An estimated 2.5 percent of children nationwide have lead levels above 5 μg/dL.

The most influential study that I am aware of (Lanphear et al., 2005) argues that the largest drops in IQ are seen with the lowest concentrations of lead. I'd love to know if this has been confirmed -- it seems like a really big deal. In case you think it doesn't really matter, one of the broader trends that we're seeing is young families with children moving back into urban cores and occupying older homes. While there's common defenses (lead abatement is supposed to be done with certified contractors, the classic "all the lead paint's been painted over a zillion times" line), I suspect that the actual effective treatments are more costly than the public health folks (and Mr. Drum) would like to admit.

A new front in the chemophobia wars: I found this quote in Mr. Drum's article from an economics professor rather chilling:

[Professor Smith] has a good rule of thumb for categorizing epidemics: If it spreads along lines of communication, he says, the cause is information. Think Bieber Fever. If it travels along major transportation routes, the cause is microbial. Think influenza. If it spreads out like a fan, the cause is an insect. Think malaria. But if it's everywhere, all at once—as both the rise of crime in the '60s and '70s and the fall of crime in the '90s seemed to be—the cause is a molecule. (emphasis mine)

I am familiar with Professor Smith and generally like his thoughts. I might even believe that this is a true-ish statement. That said, I find that last thought to be potentially disastrous for chemistry in the hands of an already chemophobic media and public.

UPDATE: A commenter challenges my question about the accuracy of treating organic and inorganic lead the same. A quick search of Google indicates that the commenter is correct, as you can see below, and that tetraethyllead is combusted into inorganic lead compounds.

So it's probably purely inorganic lead that folks are exposed to on a routine basis (the text notes that most actual tetraethyllead acute/chronic exposure is occupational.)

UPDATE 2: I suppose that I should actually say whether or not I agree with Kevin Drum. I agree with him that exposure to lead is bad, and I've read enough of the medical literature to conclude that (as I have noted in the past) I will do whatever it takes to avoid exposing my family to environmental lead (e.g. wiping down the old house I used to live in, monitoring blood lead levels in my children, selecting housing based on potential lead exposure, etc.) I see the avoidance costs as relatively low, and the benefits to my kids (a potential couple of IQ points, mebbe) as worth it.

Whether or not we should embark on nationwide urban lead abatement (and whether or not it will pay off) is a different story, and I am somewhat less convinced. That said, I could imagine worse places to spend the relatively small amount of money ($20 billion) that Mr. Drum is proposing. 

This is immature...

Based on this blogpost

...but quite satisfying to me, anyway.

Look -- there's a lot to be criticized about modern industrial agriculture and how it does things. But chemophobia and fear, uncertainty and doubt attacks are really annoying. 

But what do I know? I'm one of the people who makes money from chemicals. 

P.S. Bittman's "Minimalist" recipes are, indeed, pretty great. I like them a lot. 

Is Tritan estrogenic?

I've always found the BPA issue to be a bit of a tempest in a teacup. [That said, I made the decision in my family to go with glass bottles for our children (me a chemist, my sainted wife a health care professional -- we're not going to drop the bottles.) All the kid stuff is BPA-free, so actions speak louder than words, ya know?]

Anyway, I've been following the Eastman Chemical versus CertiChem/PlastiPure kerfluffle with some interest, which is why I'm bringing this article from this week's Chemical and Engineering News by Alex Tullo:

An obscure conflict over a plastic is raising big issues in the field of material safety assessment. Two related Texas-based firms, PlastiPure and CertiChem, are accusing Eastman Chemical of trying to “squelch” science they say shows that Eastman’s Tritan polymer exhibits estrogenic activity. In turn, Eastman charges that the two firms are trying to malign its product for commercial gain. 

The controversy hits at one of the selling points of Tritan—that it is free of bisphenol A, an estrogen-disrupting compound. Tritan is a copolymer of dimethyl terephthalate, 1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol, and 2,2,4,4-tetramethyl-1,3-cyclobutanediol. Eastman designed it as a clear, tough, dishwasher-safe polyester that could compete with polycarbonate, which is made with bisphenol A. 

Eastman introduced Tritan in 2007, just when the controversy over bisphenol A came to a head and retailers led by Walmart were banning polycarbonate in baby products, such as bottles and sippy cups. Tritan got a lift as a ready replacement, but the claims by PlastiPure and Certi­Chem now pose a challenge to its success. 

CertiChem, founded by George Bittner, a professor of neurobiology and pharmacology at the University of Texas, Austin, offers third-party testing of materials to detect estrogenic activity using an MCF-7 cancer-cell-line assay. Chemicals that bind to estrogen receptors in the cells cause them to proliferate. PlastiPure, also founded by Bittner, develops plastic compounds that are free of estrogenic activity, according to this test. PlastiPure’s work has received support from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.

I've always wondered what could be estrogenic about Tritan -- neither cyclohexanedimethanol or a cyclobutanediol moiety could be problematic. (I'm pretty sure I got my wife a Tritan water bottle in the last couple of years...) But the terephthalate might be an issue? Hard to say.

Also, I'm less than convinced by CertiChem's technique of calling just about all plastics estrogenic by using the MCF-7 assay. But I'm no endocrine scientist... Readers, what do you think? 

Dear Dave Sommers: You Are Wrong

For those of you who have had some basic medchem (as I have had, and no more), I thought you would enjoy this little tidbit. It's kinda funny when people get things exactly backwards.

(Incidentally, here's a wonderful refutation of this graphic by SkepticRD, a registered dietitian.)