Why are children becoming more toxic?

Technological developments have dramatically reduced mortality resulting from many diseases. In many instances, however, disease incidence is increasing, although for some conditions without standardized tracking mechanisms, trends are difficult to determine accurately. The burden from current patterns of disease and disability is enormous and extracts a terrible toll from individuals, families, and communities. Nearly 12 million children in the U.S (17 percent) suffer from one or more developmental disabilities, including deafness, blindness, epilepsy, speech defects, cerebral palsy, delays in growth and development, behavioral problems, or learning disabilities. Learning disabilities alone affect 5 to 10 percent of children in public schools, and these numbers appear to be increasing.

Small exposures to substances like lead, mercury, or polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which have no discernible impact on adults, can permanently damage the developing brain of a child, if the exposure occurs during a window of vulnerability. Early exposures to dioxin or polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), chemicals from industrial activities that bioaccumulate in dietary fat, damage the developing immune system, making the child more prone to infections. Risks of asthma and high blood pressure are increased by early environmental exposures. Recent research from Sweden concludes not only that environmental factors play a more important role than genetic inheritance in the origin of most cancers, but also that cancer risk is largely established during the first 20 years of life.

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder conservatively affects 3 to 6 percent of all school children, and the numbers may be considerably higher. The incidence of autism seems to be increasing, though much of this apparent increase may be due to increased reporting. The age-adjusted incidence of melanoma, lung (female), prostate, liver, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, testis, thyroid, kidney, breast, brain, esophagus, and bladder cancers has steadily increased over the past 25 years.[ Some birth defects, including disorders of the male reproductive system and some forms of congenital heart disease, are increasingly common. Sperm counts and fertility are in decline in some areas of the U.S. and other parts of the world. Asthma is more common and more severe than ever before.

Genetic factors explain far less than half of the population variance for most of these conditions. Although smoking and sun exposure are well-recognized risk factors for some conditions, improved understanding of development of the brain and the immune, reproductive, respiratory, and cardiovascular systems leads to the conclusion that other environmental factors play a major role in determining current patterns of disease.

Infants of mothers who smoke may receive greater exposure to the products of tobacco smoke through breast milk than through environmental exposure, according to a study led by researchers at the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) and Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH). The study showed a 10-Fold Increase Over Environmental Exposure Alone According to the report appearing in the June issue of the American Journal of Public Health, urine levels of cotinine, a substance produced by the breakdown of nicotine in the body, were 10 times higher in breast-fed children of smoking mothers than in bottle-fed children of smoking mothers.

Maria A. Mascola, MD, MPH, first author of the study says, “While we don’t know for sure whether the compounds present in breast milk are related to any of the harmful health effects seen in some children of smoking women—from reduced lung function to greater incidence of asthma and other illnesses—this does stress how important it is to help mothers refrain from smoking both during pregnancy and while they are nursing.” Mascola is director of Perinatal Epidemiology in the Vincent Obstetrics and Gynecology Service at the MGH.

This investigation was part of the Maternal/Infant Lung Study, a long-term project conducted by the Channing Laboratories at BWH in collaboration with the East Boston Neighborhood Health Center. The researchers examined data from 330 mother/infant pairs who received prenatal, obstetric and pediatric care through the East Boston Center, analyzing information about maternal smoking and the presence of other smokers in the home along with results of urine tests taken from the infants in the first year of life. While cotinine, the substance tested for, is not known to have any harmful effects itself, it is generally used as a marker for the presence of nicotine and other tobacco products.

As expected, cotinine levels in bottle-fed infants of smoking mothers were about eight times higher than in bottle-fed infants of non-smoking mothers. But among children of smoking mothers, infants who were breast-fed had cotinine levels ten times higher than those of bottle-fed infants. Type of feeding had no effect on the cotinine levels of infants of non-smoking mothers.The researchers also found significantly higher cotinine levels in infants of non-smoking mothers who were exposed to tobaccco through smoking by another household member, with no difference related to feeding. For infants of smoking mothers, the presence of another smoker in the household caused a small, statistically insignificant increase in cotinine. In addition, children of mothers who smoked in the same room as their infants also had a small, statistically insignificant increase in cotinine over children of mothers who always smoked in rooms away from their infants.

“Our 10-year study has looked at a lot of factors related to the ways kids can be exposed to tobacco smoke on a prenatal and postnatal level,” says John P. Hanrahan, MD, MPH, of the respiratory epidemiology section at Channing Laboratories and BWH, the study’s senior author. “A lot of people have assumed that the inhalation of passive smoke is totally responsible for the adverse health effects seen in children of smoking mothers. This study has widened our view of the ways smoking may be detrimental to the health of children.”

What are we doing to protect our children?

Be well

Dr Sundardas

April 2, 2009 By : Category : affecting your child,childrens wellness Tags:, , , ,
18 Comments Print

18 Comments → “Why are children becoming more toxic?”


  1. matt

    11 years ago

    This blog’s great!! Thanks :).

    Reply

    • Darence

      9 years ago

      Fialnly! This is just what I was looking for.

      Reply

  2. syhofAsypetot

    11 years ago

    Great site this drsundardas.wordpress.com and I am really pleased to see you have what I am actually looking for here and this this post is exactly what I am interested in. I shall be pleased to become a regular visitor 🙂

    Reply

    • Berlynn

      9 years ago

      Thanks for sahrnig. What a pleasure to read!

      Reply

  3. Isondori

    11 years ago

    terrific site this drsundardas.wordpress.com rated to see you have what I am actually looking for here and this this post is exactly what I am interested in. I shall be pleased to become a regular visitor 🙂

    Reply

    • Roxy

      9 years ago

      Oh yeah, fbaulous stuff there you!

      Reply
  4. […] Why are children becoming more toxic? […]

    Reply

    • Kindsey

      9 years ago

      With all these silly websties, such a great page keeps my internet hope alive.

      Reply

    • Lilly

      9 years ago

      Hey, good to find soeomne who agrees with me. GMTA.

      Reply

  5. Isondori

    11 years ago

    excellent site this drsundardas.wordpress.com great to see you have what I am actually looking for here and this this post is exactly what I am interested in. I shall be pleased to become a regular visitor 🙂

    Reply

    • Savion

      9 years ago

      I was so cofnseud about what to buy, but this makes it understandable.

      Reply

    • Paulina

      9 years ago

      It’s much easier to undrestnad when you put it that way!

      Reply

  6. Links of London

    9 years ago

    That can happen if your computer clock has the incorrect date and/or time. You may have to reset it. Double click on the clock in your notification area (or system tray) and check the settings Gucci Jewelry,Links of London,Tiffany Jewelry

    Reply

  7. Clarence Gebauer

    9 years ago

    Thanks for the comment I feel that our man may well have meant that CG was in fact as bent as a two-bob note, but I will of course wait for CD or other more informed cinéastes to confirm

    Reply

  8. Frankie Fischel

    9 years ago

    Its BJ I feel the worst for. CI at least made some money over the past few years, but no one really gave Brandon much of a chance at the pros. He had a couple great games, but one or two bad plays cost him a shot at getting paid and maybe a long career. I hope the best for both of them

    Reply
  9. I think your blog is getting more and more visitors.

    Reply

  10. canada goose coats

    9 years ago

    I love the dear data you be offering in your articles. I will bookmark your weblog and feature my youngsters take a look at up right here generally. I am fairly positive they’re going to be told loads of new stuff here than any one else!

    Reply

  11. SUNTRUST

    9 years ago

    Yesterday, while I was at work, my sister stole my apple ipad and tested to see if it can survive a twenty five foot drop, just so she can be a youtube sensation. My iPad is now broken and she has 83 views. I know this is completely off topic but I had to share it with someone!

    Reply

Leave a Reply