How Earth has its own toxicity of heavy metals, arsenic, powders, and other elements

(Note: There are no warranties or guarantees – expressed or implied – regarding the safety of the URL web links listed in this write-up. Viewer assumes own responsibility for computer safety. Links presented only for general information and to encourage further technical and Statistical Science studies).  Are there really major problems with arsenic in foods or lead in materials or powders like talc?  Is Asbestos the ONLY cause for Mesothelioma Cancers, or are there other true “Causes” of Mesothelioma not addressed by the Courts of Law?  Are there other feminine types of products that could have caused ovarian cancers other than talcum?  How come there have been many studies on coffee that conflict with each other?  How come some studies say that coffee is good for  you while other studies say that coffee causes various diseases?  How were many highly educated Ph D scientists able to obtain their advanced university degrees when they were raised in homes with lead water piping, lead paint, and many exposures to toxic elements and materials? Are all the scientific studies correctly done without any errors or possibility of incorrect results and conclusions?

How were many highly educated Ph D scientists able to obtain their advanced university degrees when they were raised in homes with water in lead piping, lead paint, and many exposures to lead, toxic elements and toxic materials? At the various campuses of the University of California, there were many thousands of Ph D scientists, researchers, engineers and other highly educated people. Multiple millions of scientific papers and reports were written before 1980 by scientists and researchers who had varying exposures to lead metal ions in water and paint and other sources.

The recent problems with toys, foods, and other items having arsenic and consumer items from China having lead metal on them reminds many of us of deeper problems with scientific research and Federal regulations in issues related to toxicity of arsenic, mercury, other heavy metals, ceramics, natural powders, and non-metal elements on the Periodic Table. There have been problems found in research papers and reports from Dept of Energy (DOE), OSHA, EPA, NIH, FDA, and Agencies in regards to their research methods, design of experiment processes, laboratory quality controls, material purity, chemical equivalencies, correct diagnosis, and statistical analyses to filter out various causes from the observed effects. This is a review and response to the research done by scientists and regulators who do not consider all of the factors (i.e. “Causes”) in the toxicity of heavy metals, ceramics, and other minerals and elements found in nature. For example, there is a report by Dartmouth College on arsenic toxicity (an area that does not have a high rate of cancers in the residents of Amargosa Valley, California, even with it high arsenic content in its drinking waters):

http://www.wateronline.com/doc/dartmouth-study-finds-that-arsenic-inhibits-d-0001

Over the years, many of us in the R&D world have talked to other researchers and Federal regulators about their methods of designing their research, experimental procedure, and methods of analyses on the toxicities of heavy metals, ceramics, and other minerals and elements (arsenic, quartz, non-asbestos silicates, magnesium silicates found in talc, etc.). There are some major problems with the basic methods and scientific “assumptions” that these people have made. One thing that these scientists and regulars frequently did not consider is that natural processes have put heavy metals and other elements in most of the drinking water, even in the USA, long before there were ever any industrial activities (mining, etc.).

For example, questions arise on experimental research done on arsenic that apply to all research done on heavy metals, ceramics, and other minerals and elements. Just what was the ionic concentration of the arsenic used in the experiment? What chemical species was the arsenic associated with, or was it as free ions? Was this equivalent to the concentration found in normal human blood after drinking water with groundwater arsenic? Too often experimenters in the past have made the concentration of the arsenic (As) ion way too high for what is found in humans (blood and urine and other types of samples) after they drank groundwater with high arsenic content. Were the chemistry, ionic composition, chemical species, environmental temperature and pressure in the experiments truly equivalent that found in human blood after groundwater ingestion and the resulting biochemical interactions that take place in the digestive tract, blood, arteries, tissues, etc.? Were the chemical solubility products (Ksp) at truly “equivalent” values throughout the whole experiment as would be expected for in-vitro chemical species compositions and concentrations? Did these researchers and regulators properly prevent unwanted “confounding” of the Factors / Causes that would have made it easy to mistake the true Cause and point to one Cause when another Cause was the real culprit? Did they properly estimate and review the changes in fugacity and other chemical thermal / thermodynamic characteristics? These types of questions apply to all research done by every university, research center, and Federal regulators.

We have seen many other experimenters use arsenic tests in the past that did not have the same blood chemistry, ionic composition, chemical environment, and chemical species as found in human blood after ingesting. They used “tissue samples”, but are these conditions truly equivalent in every way to what humans have in terms of the tissues that receive their ions from blood and plasma through the arteries and other biochemical processes within the human bodies? See also the issues with biological models:

http://www.ramas.com/modeling-tips 

and

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0378475482906383

See also the problems with biological models:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/25184/title/The-Trouble-with-Animal-Models/

In addition, there has been controversy over the change in the US government’s arsenic (As) standards and in Mercury (Hg) standards as examples of revised regulations that come after inputs from a limited number of peers. If those who want tighter arsenic standards in drinking water had true geologic knowledge, they would know that both arsenic and mercury are some of the many elements that Nature put in the earth and that the groundwater has picked up over the thousands of years. Often, arsenic (As) is associated with gold deposits, even low grade, and other sulfide ore deposits. In many places in the USA, there are geological deposits of the mineral cinnabar (mercury sulfide) and pure mercury, such as the Big Bend area of Texas near the Rio Grande River. Over geological time, the groundwater has picked up mercury and other heavy metals in many places over thousands of years. There are also geological formations in many US areas that contain trace amounts of mercury in their sediments that for eons were washing into the rivers, groundwater, and soils. There are several hundred naturally-occurring lead deposits (lead sulfide and lead carbonate) in the USA that were in existence long before any Europeans explorers came around in the 1500s and 1600s. In many drinking water sources, there are a number of other elements in natural drinking water, such as uranium, lead, molybdenum, nickel, sulfur, etc. that originated from natural mineral deposits.

Some researchers have been giving statements that are not based upon complete analysis, but come across as fear. One EPA researcher publicly stated several years ago that “all the time people were dying of cancers now associated with drinking that arsenic-contaminated water”. Later on, some OSHA regulators used that logic to support new rules on arsenic exposures that were soon promulgated in the Code of Federal Regulations. But we would have to assume that all autopsies of ancient and modern humans has shown a 100% Statistical Correlation to arsenic and not to any other factors, such as other chemicals, other metals, diet, sun exposure, prescription drug effects, genetics, other elements, age, effects of psychology and stress on the body, etc. In addition, a number of other studies did not show good statistical analysis / correlation on the level of arsenic (percent or parts per million) and health effects. The residents of Amargosa Valley and Beatty in Nevada and the Death Valley areas in California have elevated levels of arsenic in their drinking waters, but cancers are not prevalent there. A number of residents several of us know have lived to the age of 80s and 90s, cancer-free. How do we explain that?

In talking to the environmental and biological scientists on the West Coast and Federal regulators at OSHA and EPA about the issues with arsenic research and regulations, a peculiar point was brought up. Most of them have mathematically matched arsenic levels to human health affects through traditional simple regression methods. These are the same types of methods used on Lead and Mercury research, as seen in the scientific publications. These methods “assume” a straight statistical correlation (both linear and non-linear) between the input of arsenic and the output (health affects). But how could they have known what other elements in the drinking water were doing in conjunction with arsenic? None of these scientists we talked to have filtered out those inputs (i.e., “Causes”) that are either not affecting the output, or are affecting in minor ways, or are affecting in combined effects that do not show up until certain conditions are correct. There are methods such as the Analyses of Variances and several other advanced Statistical Techniques, which do not appear to be well known by these scientists and Federal regulators.

Few scientists and researchers know how to use Statistics properly to be able to filter and view data for the actual, true Cause-and-Effects (inputs to outputs). Too many times researchers use the old traditional and statistical regression methods that assume a direct or somewhat direct relationship between only the particular causes that the researchers chose to look at and the resulting effect, which may not be real. Advanced techniques that even the FDA mentions (and requires of manufacturers) such as ANOVA can see which of the Causes are directly responsible for the “Outcome” (i.e. disease) and those Causes that are either weakly causing the disease or NOT at all.  Although there are several books on the market, one of the best books that can help researchers, analysts, and scientists is a book entitled, “Statistics for Experimenters,” by Box, Hunter, and Hunter.

The issue of heavy metals, minerals, talcum, fluoride and other controversial compounds is similar to the fact that there are multiple causes for mesothelioma than just asbestos.  There is now the mesothelioma cancer risk associated with contaminated simian virus 40 polio vaccine in years past:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10472327

http://www.sv40foundation.org/CPV-link.html

Italian pathologist, Dr. Michelle Carbone, discovered in the 1990s an actual and proven link between the SV40 virus and major cancers such as mesothelioma and certain cancers of the brain, bone, and lymphatic system.  He tested lung tissue from human cancer patients that revealed the presence of the SV40 virus.  And every single hamster that was tested with the virus then developed mesothelioma and died within seven months. He found that the virus is present in many cases of both osteosarcoma bone cancer and increasingly prevalent lung cancers such as mesothelioma. Carbone identified SV40 in about a third of all osteosarcoma cases studied, and also in 40 percent of other bone cancers.  The same was true for 60 percent of all cases of mesothelioma.

The British journal “The Lancet” showed that SV40 was mainly responsible for at least 25 thousand annual cases of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

How many lawsuits for mesothelioma victims addressed that there are other causes to Mesothelioma Cancer besides asbestos?  Maybe not every mesothelioma victim had cancer from asbestos:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=916534

Even the scientists cannot determine everything about ovarian cancer:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-finds-surprising-gaps-in-whats-known-about-ovarian-cancer/?linkId=21856417

Scientists are not always able to trace to the true causes of cancer every time:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/45493/title/Can-Talc-Cause-Cancer-

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/talcum-powder-and-cancer

http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/86105/cancer-information/general-information-cancer-information/cancer-questions-myths/clothing-cosmetics-tattoos/there-is-inconclusive-evidence-that-using-talcum-powder-can-cause-cancer/

FDA found NO asbestos material in talc:

http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/ProductsIngredients/Ingredients/ucm293184.htm

How did scientists differentiate the real “effects” of other chemicals found in feminine douche products on ovarian cancers?  Did anyone ever consider that these chemicals could have caused the ovarian cancers even when talcum powder particles were found on cancerous ovaries, and that perhaps talcum powder had nothing to do with the cancers?

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/122-a70/

https://www.rt.com/usa/feminine-products-dangerous-chemicals-345/

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/07/the-toxins-in-feminine-hygiene-products/398948/

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/68993/20150715/feminine-hygiene-products-for-douching-may-contain-harmful-chemicals.htm

https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/know-douching-bad-idea-why-234100193.html

https://mic.com/articles/134671/what-is-douching-and-is-it-bad-for-you#.g2JGwUYtn 

http://www.healthandenvironment.org/cgi-bin/fertilitylibrary.cgi

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-women-douching-idUSKCN0PP01520150715

http://www.medicaldaily.com/vaginal-douche-use-tied-chemicals-associated-serious-health-problems-343038

http://www.wallstreetotc.com/douching-linked-to-high-levels-of-hazardous-chemicals-in-womens-bodies/219524/

https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-015-0043-6

See also the book entitled, “The Pure Cure: A Complete Guide to Freeing Your Life From Dangerous Toxins”.

NIH article that shows talcum powder may not have caused ovarian cancers! READ the Abstract first:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3621109/

Alaskan volcanoes throw out sulfur and heavy metals from time to time into the rivers and oceans and groundwaters, but the environmentalists don’t bother with that:

http://www.sitnews.us/0905news/091405/091405_shns_salmon.html

Native peoples have been drinking water here in America and many other places for centuries with arsenic and other “contaminants,” (like arsenic and lead) long before there ever was a Federal government to protect us from the Earth’s own contamination of groundwater and rivers. Why don’t the environmentalists understand basic Earth Sciences?

Natural arsenic and heavy metals in Alaskan waters from geological deposits:

http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/fs/fs-083-01/

See this link also:

http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/periodicals/earthmatters/2/n2/em_v2_n2.pdf

And then sulfur also:

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/leads.asp?ID=713#990

(shame on nature for doing that……)

How is it that there are mercury metal mines in places such as the Big Bend National Park and heavy metal mines in nearby Wilderness Areas, Monuments, and National Parks that were supposedly “reclaimed” and are now presented as “naturally wild” areas?

http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/media/22611/texasamlprojects.pdf

https://www.asmr.us/Portals/0/Documents/Conference-Proceedings/1997/0175-Rhodes.pdf

https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/dkm02

P. S. Did the researchers on mesothelioma cancers and talcum powder cancers follow the FDA’s own advice and directions and requirements???

Checking out Bioequivalence:

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/…/Guidances/ucm070244.pdf

Biostatistics and Biometrics:

http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CDER/ucm166250.htm

http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ScienceResearch/ucm294601.htm

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/…/Guidances/ucm073511.pdf

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm073137.pdf

FDA’s Basic Statistics and Data Presentation

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ScienceResearch/FieldScience/UCM092179.pdf

Some FDA studies using Statistical ANOVA to filter “Causes” to the “Effects” (end results, diseases):

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DevelopmentResources/UCM446012.pdf

http://www.bls.gov/osmr/symp2013_campbell.pdf

Just some of the many publicly-available references and web sites on Statistical Methods to filter out the various “Causes” (like talcum powder) to the “Effect” (end results, diseases, cancers, etc.).  These are only for INFORMATION ONLY:

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-statistical-correlation-and-causation-are-diff.html

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-06/uom-nsa062116.php

https://explorable.com/cause-and-effect

https://nbsubscribe.missouri.edu/news-releases/2016/0621-new-statistical-approach-will-help-researchers-better-determine-cause-effect/

http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/a3121120.nsf/home/statistical+language+-+correlation+and+causation

http://www.statisticssolutions.com/establishing-cause-and-effect/

http://www.emathzone.com/tutorials/basic-statistics/cause-and-effect-relation.html

http://www.stats.org/causation-vs-correlation/

http://www.healthknowledge.org.uk/e-learning/epidemiology/practitioners/causation-epidemiology-association-causation

Fraud in asbestos court cases and litigation and among some lawyers:

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/01/21/354588.htm

http://www.instituteforlegalreform.com/resource/what-the-silver-conviction-reveals-about-asbestos-litigation-fraud

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/examiner-editorial-judge-finds-pervasive-fraud-by-trial-lawyers-in-asbestos-litigation/article/2548442

http://www.law360.com/articles/500707/garlock-sues-5-law-firms-for-asbestos-fraud

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sara-warner/outlier-garlock-case-give_b_8147618.html

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2007/05/23/79944.htm

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

NOTE: The write up for this blog was started in 1992 during my tenure at the Univ of California in the US Dept of Energy Complex and later with support contractors to the U of C with the DOE research projects.

Tags: #lead, #uranium, #arsenic, #nickel, #mercury, #sulfur, #toxic, #toxicity, #poison, #scientific, #OSHA, #NIH, #EPA, #FDA, #regulations, #scientificinvestigation, #statistics, #statistical, #asbestos, #mesothelioma, #talcum, #talcumpowder, #fraud, #asbestosfraud