Skip to content
Archive of entries posted on March 2009

just around the corner

a recent wall-to-wall conversation sparked over facebook with an old school mate about the upcoming elections. now, in all fairness i won’t hold it against him that he’s involved with the liberal party…we all choose our paths…anyhow, long story short, i started to throw various comments at him in regards to the elections and some of the decisions made by the current provincial government.

may 12th is approaching quite fast. it’s election day in bc…for the right to govern this tourism province into the olympics (or better yet…during the olympics). as russell peters put it last night at the juno’s (yes i watched 15 minutes of them…and essentially only saw the introduction…which was enough i’d say…)…the winter olympics were awarded to the only canadian city that doesn’t have a winter…

anyhow…looking on the information webpage about the elections, i’m a bit stunned as to the number of political parties registered in bc. we even have a sex party, a work less party…and by now you all are aware of the marijuana party. i wonder what their mandates are…and probably i’m a bit to lazy to look into it…simply because i’m certain they won’t get that many votes…so might as well waste my time reading the mandates 0f the parties that are expeced to battle it out for the right to ‘lead’ us through the olympics.

so, the way i see things for the last 9 years since the liberals have been in power…and yes this is subjective…first shock i had with them was the ‘unfreezing’ of the tuition fees around 2002…this after it was promised the tuition freeze will last. so over the following 3 years…my tuitition essentially doubled…now, without going into how that got paid…i’ll simply say…thanks campbie!

then, there were healthcare cuts…funding cuts to the education system….school closures…and essentially increase in class sizes in highschool/elementary…so yes…thanks campbie! oh and let’s not forget the carbon tax…yes it’s ‘neutral’…but looking at it it’s hard to see how it doesn’t actually benefit the big corporations more than it benefits the small ‘people’…like the common folks. argue all you’d like…but the tax cuts to the big corporations…are essentially based and can be done because the larger share of the incoming dollars are based on taxation of the common folks. yes, you’re paying for it out of your gas purchase (last i recall it’s about 5.7cents/liter this year…to increase in the following years).

some of the latest…well let’s see the plan to make a prison in the middle of burnaby? in close proximity to not only a high school, but a education institute, numerous businesses, residential areas…and oh yeah…close to public transport. correcting myself, they only looked at 58 sites not 80 as i stated in a previous post, but how come out of 58 sites…one chooses the middle of a city to place a prison? the reasons…it will be easy to transport the prisoners to and from courts by public transport…thus cutting emissions….what about public safety? so yes…thanks campbie for thinking of the public on this one…

another mindblower…is the decision to replace the portmann bridge - the highway 1 bridge connecting surrey to coquitlam…essentially…in order to expand the bridge they want to build a new one…why not just add a few lanes to the already exisiting one…and instead of wasting all that money…put them to better use…like fixing pattulo…which had a few fires as of late.

a tuition increase for university is about to pop up any time now…however…voting on it will probably not occur until after the elections…so…if you’re planning to go to school in this ‘economic crisis’ you’re about to pay more starting next fall….thanks campbie!

on that note…remember the proposal from translink on how to increase their profit margin? well…the voting on that probably won’t happen until after the elections…

now, i’m sure there’s more things that can be mentioned…i just simply won’t waste my time anymore…given the politics over the last decade in the province have been on how to increase profit for the big corporations at the loss of the common folks…anybody know an obama like candidate for these elections?

edit: so at the 6pm news…here’s some more developments…currently british columbia has the second to last minimu wage ($8/hour). it’s been frozen at that since 2001…yup…that’s right 9 years…ever since the liberals came into power…so thanks again campbie! on top of that…the mandate for the new campaign…does not include an increase to minimum wage…better yet…the current premier doesn’t even wanna hear about it. and since we’re on the subject…let’s add another stat that was given on the news…at this point british columbia has the highest teenage poverty (a stagerring 16%)…if i recall correctly, the canadian average stated was around 7%…so thanks again campbie!…thanks for looking after the common folks…

let’s not forget…the current premier…tried to use his stature as a provincial premier while on vacantion in hawaii…after he was caught driving under the influence of alcoohol…he tried to get out of it by telling the officer…’i'm the premier’…abuse of power anyone?

parabens…

the second group of chemicals identified a couple of days ago was parabens. this is a group of chemicals used as preservatives. their use ranges from cosmetics to pharmaceutical and are widely used in foods. the concentrations allowed as preservatives in food must be up to 0.1%. (as a side note, the average human intake estimated in 1984 was to be 4-6 mg/kg per day). in the same year, it was estimated that 13,200 different cosmetic formulations contained parabens; while in 1995 a survey of cosmetic products occured (215 products in total) and 99% of the leave-on products contained parabens.
just as phthalates, there are a bunch of different compounds that are included in the parabens family. some information can be found on: wikipedia (some common parabens are listed) and united states food and drug administration (FDA – updated last in 2006). i’ve ran across a site with a pretty good description of parabens and the worry about them; ‘the good human‘ it’s called. another site i came across had a story about the ndp mla gregor robertson’s mandate back in 2007, worth a read if you have the time.

the use in cosmetic products, according to the fda, includes anything from makeup to shaving products and antiperspirants. it is however law in the states to label parabens on the ingredients list if in the product. so, theoretically one should see them (keep in mind these things have aliases, so even if they are posted they may be hidden even to a trained eye).

most literature until now regarded parabens as ‘safe’. they are rapidly absorbed, metabolized and excreted. this essentially means they enter the body pretty quick…get used up and transformed (i’m not going to go into the mechanism at this point) and then excreted (in other words it leaves the body quite quick…so less chance of accumulation in the body). however, this is based on gastrointestinal track absorption (which is very quick). the absorption of parabens into the body and their metabolic pathway differs when they are absorbed through skin and into the fatty tissue. it’s assumed that the more hydrophobic the paraben is, the more likely it is that it will accumulate in fatty tissue (essentially the bigger the R group, the more likley it is to accumulate in fatty tissue because it won’t be as soluble in water).

sensitization occured after products containing parabens awere applied to broken skin. however, one might question if it was the parabens or not. however, some recent reports have reported adverse reproductive effects due to parabens (done in animals). they are thought to active estrogen receptors, and their capability of doing so depends on the shape and size of the alkyl group attached to the ester (the size of the R on the O – oxygen – see picture above).

to fuel the controversy, overall, they are thought not to be mutagenic; yet some reports exist that state parabens can cause chromosomal aberrations. limited animal experiments showed that parabens bind to oestrogen receptors. parabens were found in breast tumor tissue samples from animals. furthermore, levels of parabens were extracted from human breast tissue (mean concentration reported from a 20 human breast tumor study was found to be 20.6 ng/g +/-4.2). the parabens found were a combination of a few different paraben compounds. they can increase growth of human breast cancer cells. there has been a theory thrown out there, that since parabens are present in cosmetics applied to the underarm and breast area, that they can influence and are associated with breast cancer; according to the canadian cancer agency website this is not the case, no direct association has been shown. males are not quite that special, experiments on male rodents showed that butylparaben can alter reproductive function in male rates (including decrease sperm count). however, based on current literature it was conclucled that it is biologically implausible that parabens can increase the risk of breast cancer and effects on male reproductive effects.

at this point, the data associating parabens to various health outcomes is limited. more is definitely needed. the precautionary principle seems to have been applied by health canada when talking about the presence of parabens in cosmetic products. they probably have had some access to some things i either haven’t found, haven’t cam across or simply haven’t had access to. at this point, this one is a bit harder to link to specific health outcomes than phthalates. parabens are widely present in our daily lives, they are quickly absorbed if ingested…and seem to be absorbed rapidly through the skin. their ability to dissolve and stay in fatty tissue is dependant on the size of the R group (essentially the longer it is, the more organic it is…the more non-polar the molecule becomes).

phthalates…

based on yesterday’s post, today i’ll spent some time on phthalates. this is a group of chemicals used to soften and make plastics more flexible and durable. they are often called ‘plasticizers’. some quick general information can be found on the following sites: wikipedia, canadian cancer society, environmental working group (seems to me like an activist site), and many more. don’t be afraid to google the word if you want more information. as i said before, this is a group of particular compounds, so there’s more than one type of phthalate. a list of most common types of phthalates used is found on wikipedia. keep in mind though, chemical compounds most often have synonyms (or aliases).

why should we be concerned about these? well, phthalates are known to cause tumors and other abnormalities in livers of rats and mice (see canadian cancer society website). furthermore the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) has classified some phthalates (Di (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate or DEHP) as ‘probable human carcinogens’. phthalates are known endocrine-disruptors in rodents (animal studies). animal fetal adverse effects have been noticed (specifically to di-butyl phthalate). fetal exposure occured through exposure to the mother. some of the effects on the male fetus include: decreas testosteron production, reduce sperm production and other problems with the reproductive system. other studies have reported association between exposure to some phthalates (monobenzyl- and mono-isobutyl phthalate) and small genital size in male off-springs. other abnormalities have been reported in rodent studies (growth of extra ribs in off-springs due to exposure to the mother) with exposure to higher levels. some human studies have been reported, and for the most part they tend to agree with animal study results, however…keep in mind the data on human exposure and effects is a bit scarced. associations have been noticed between mother levels of phthaltes in urine and effects in off-springs; however, association does not imply causation. there are currently cohort studies going on in the united states in regards to exposure of phthalates to pregnant women; so at some point these results will be available.

exposure of the population occurs to many consumer products, such as, but not limited to: clothing, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, children’s toys, glow sticks, building materials, lubricants, food packaging, etc. i haven’t placed these in any particular order. keep in mind, you shouldn’t jump off your seat and over-react. these chemicals are present, but you must realize that just because they are in the environment it does not necessarily mean they enter our body. the concern is, when they do enter and which products increase our potential exposure. there are various pathways of exposure, and they include: ingestion, inhalation, skin absorption and potentially intravenous injection.

exposure by injestion occurs if you put them in your mouth, meaning it mostly happens through food. however, these plasticizers are present in children toys…so if you baby likes to place his/her toys in her mouth…this is a potential pathway. food exposure, is reported to probably be the largest pathway of exposure to these compounds, however the levels vary with foods. the united states and canada are looking into exposure, studies are happening and they are looking to regulate it (i’m not sure of europe as i didn’t have time to look into that…).

inhalation exposure is possible if these compounds become airborne (either gas phase, or as part of dust). baking of polymer clays will cause these plasticizers to become airborne…which will increase potential inhalation. there have been reports of phthalates being present in household dust and working environment dust (office). however, there have been some reports that reported no correlation between household dust concentration to one particular phthalate (DEHP) and urine concentration in boys of that particular phthalate or its metabolites.

skin absorption can essentially occur if one comes into contact with these compounds through the skin. that’s where the cosmetics come in. cosmetic products (ranging from: sunscreens, personal care products, make-up, etc.) have been reported to contain phthalates. although in canada manufacturers are required to state the ingredients, this may not happen all the time. products brought in from other countries by the consumer may not meet these regulations. a report from 2005 (from the united states) stated that about 70% of the cosmetic products they purchased from the store contained phthalates, yet this was not identified on the label. the products included in them were: deodorants, fragrances, hair gels, mousses, hair sprays, hand and body lotions, nail polish. however, it’s great to see canada is taking a leader role and pushing for the ingredient list…

absorption depends on the following factors: concentration of phthalates in the product, lenght of time the product is in contact with the skin, solubility of particular phthalate (remember, just because it’s in the same class it does not mean it acts or behaves the same), chemical structure. it also depends on the place where the body comes into contact with the products, as for example the face, axilia and scrotum have an absorption 10 times higher than the absorption rate of the arm skin. some studies have estimated the rate of absorption through skin to phthalates, and overall the permeable rate is low. however…the longer the contact…the more will be absorbed.

furthermore, levels of various phthalates have been detected in the urine of pregnant women as well as in the breast milk (i can just hear one of my profs asking me to state the level and not simply say levels have been found. however…if anyone is interested in levels i’ll be more than happy to state them). at this point, there are still large data gaps: outdated diet exposure levels, a dose-response relationship has not been determined (not to my current knowledge), contribution of dermal exposure to overall exposure is not yet quantified, fetal exposure is known to potentially cause problems, but causation is yet to be established. given all these data gaps, it is quite hard to estimate or guess if the human levels to phthalates reported in humans are of concern, better yet of great concern at this point.

what can you do about if you’re concern about absorption through skin from cosmetics? well…look at the factors that contribute to skin absorbance and see which ones you can control. reduce time you wear the cosmetics, if they are not required, and see how much is need to get the desired effect (soften skin, etc.).

dietary intake, which is thought to be the major pathway of exposure to these compounds…keep an eye on the ingredients (even though given some of the regulations…some products will not have a list of ingredients). phthalates are used in plastic manufacturing…so if you’re afraid of it leaching (similar story to bisphenol A), then reduce usage of plastic containers or bottles…

word of caution, no need to over-react at this point. however, it’s worth it to stay informed and look up information about the products you use.