Donate

City’s Priorities Out of Order; Citizens Punished for Doing the Right Thing (a new series)

City’s Priorities Out of Order; Citizens Punished for Doing the Right Thing (a new series)

Above: The city has prioritized replacing a paved segment of terrace with grass, over repairing a pothole where children slip on ice (see story below).

MEJO introduction to series:

City of Madison ordinances, or lack thereof, reflect the city’s priorities in regards to public and environmental health and safety. The city’s over-enforcement of some ordinances—while others are rampantly violated with no consequences—also says a lot about city priorities.

In our environmental justice work in Madison, we have learned that the city—in spite of years of citizen pressure to do so—will not improve its weak noise ordinance, largely due to business and industry resistance. The existing noise ordinance is regularly violated, with no consequences to violators; some are actually rewarded. An industry can spill high levels of PCBs along city bike paths, and the city has no obligation to notify path users of their presence. There’s no ordinance on that. So the city, or someone else, could spill toxic chemicals on the sidewalk in front of your house and the city has no legal obligation to notify you, your neighbors, or the public who use it. City pesticide and stormwater laws are rampantly violated, and the city looks the other way—a long story in itself. The list goes on…

Meanwhile, the city issues citations to some citizens for violating the city’s absurd and obsolete residential yard laws—while ignoring thousands of others who violate it. Below, we share another story by Janette Rosenbaum about over-enforcement of city ordinances and punishment of a resident who was just trying to do the right thing.

****************************

Resident Makes Repairs to Property, Asks City to Do Likewise – Ends Up Prosecuted

By Janette Rosenbaum

Bennett Ramage didn’t expect to be charged with violations of city ordinances for trying to improve his property.

Ramage bought a rundown home on Ravenswood Road, on Madison’s southwest side, about two and a half years ago. In short order, he set about making much-needed repairs.

A year into this to-do list, he contacted the city to report a low spot along the curb in front of his house. He had noticed that the dip in the pavement tended to fill with water, and that this was especially problematic in the winter, when kids walking to and from school slid on the ice while trying to cross the street

The city didn’t respond to Ramage’s request for repairs. Eventually, frustrated by the lack of action, Ramage asked his alder, Matt Phair, for help.

In mid-September of this year, city inspector Bill McGuin finally came to look at the problem. Ramage explained his concerns, but McGuin didn’t feel the icy patch was a hazard, and said the city would not fix it.

Ramage can hire a contractor himself to repair the pavement, McGuin said, and the city would pay some of the costs of the work. But, any contractor chosen by Ramage would need to be approved by the city before work could be done, and after the pavement is fixed, if an inspection finds that the work is not up to the city’s standards, Ramage would be responsible for re-fixing it.

Ramage was disappointed by the outcome of this meeting, but he was astonished when, a week later, he received a letter from McGuin citing him for violations of city building code. The letter listed several issues.

First, McGuin had noted that a fence Ramage had recently installed along his backyard was exceeding height limits. Ramage has fixed the problem, and is awaiting re-inspection.

Second, the letter stated that Ramage’s driveway does not meet current requirements. The driveway, which extends beyond the edge of the house, has terrace and curb in front of this extra portion, instead of a widened apron. The section of terrace in front of the driveway is paved instead of grassed (see photo below).

The city has prioritized replacing a paved segment of terrace with grass, over repairing a pothole where children slip on ice.

Ramage says all of that is left over from the previous homeowner, who did not disclose the violation when they sold the property, probably because they didn’t know their driveway was illegal. Ramage is working on breaking up the pavement in the terrace, and plans to seed the area with grass.

The issue of the driveway itself is more complicated. The extra width is legal if it leads to an 8×18 parking spot alongside the house, according to city ordinances. Adding the parking spot would require Ramage to move his fence, and install additional gravel or pavement.

Ramage also could tear up the nonconforming asphalt, but this would leave him with insufficient parking. He could park in the street, but said it would look bad and create a hazard, while the widened driveway doesn’t seem to be hurting anybody.

In investigating the issue, Ramage found that his driveway is legal if it was widened prior to 1993, when the current ordinance went into effect. The city agrees with this, but says it’s Ramage’s responsibility to prove the age of the driveway.

Ramage was able to contact the previous owner of the house, who says the driveway was widened in 1992. No photos have turned up, though, and the city may not accept a statement unsupported by documentary evidence.

The previous owner also told Ramage that the low spot in the street was originally caused by an overloaded city truck riding too close to the curb.

Ramage plans to pursue the grandfathering exemption for the driveway. If that fails, he says he’ll install the extra parking spot.

The amount of work Ramage has put into the property is obvious. The kitchen looks like new, and even the garage appears to have been redone. Ramage says neighbors have been happy to see the house getting needed repairs. No one had complained about the violations McGuin cited, nor has the city claimed that any of the violations were creating a public hazard.

Ramage doesn’t mind adding the city’s requests to his to-do list, but can’t believe the citations were issued in the first place, apparently as punishment for asking the city to fix a problem in the public street.

Addendum 1, November 19 2016: Following a re-inspection, the city agreed that Ramage’s fence and terrace are in compliance. However, the city did not accept a signed, notarized affidavit from the previous homeowner, stating that the driveway was at its current width since 1992, as evidence that the driveway qualifies for the grandfathering exemption. The city continues to demand that Ramage either narrow the driveway or add the legal parking spot, and that he submit a highly-detailed plan, which must be approved by the city before any work can begin. Ramage is now consulting with a real estate attorney to explore other options.

Addendum 2, December 30, 2016. Despite the aid of a real estate attorney, Ramage was unable to persuade the city to accept the notarized affidavit or otherwise resolve the issue with the driveway. Instead, he will be forced to spend thousands of dollars tearing up legal pavement that no one ever complained about.
“The city was completely unreasonable and unwilling to do anything for me,” said Ramage. “The lesson I learned here was to NEVER report anything to the city.”

***

Ramage is not the only Madison resident with a story like this. While citations are issued much too rarely to constitute consistent enforcement of the ordinances, they are issued often enough to look like a pattern of targeting specific residents – often those who, like Ramage, called attention to themselves by making a request of local officials. Calling out this behavior on the part of the city can lead to further harassment. One property owner who was targeted declined to talk to me, fearing retaliation by city inspectors.

Have a similar story to share? Contact jrosenbaum3@wisc.edu.

 

 

Digg thisShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someonePrint this pageShare on RedditShare on TumblrTweet about this on TwitterPin on Pinterest

Kipp CEO refuses to answer questions about how company is addressing risks to factory workers

Kipp CEO refuses to answer questions about how company is addressing risks to factory workers

This is a followup to a previous post.

A month ago I emailed John Hausbeck at Public Health Madison Dane County for help answering a set of questions about Kipp factory workers’ exposures to volatile organic chemicals (VOCs)—especially trichloroethylene (TCE), which is more toxic than perchloroethylene (PCE). I copied Kipp’s Health & Safety Coordinator, Alina Satkoski. My original email is included in the previous post, and below. For more information about TCE’s toxicity, see my original email below and here.

The questions I asked? 1. What has been done to assess VOC levels in the Kipp factory? 2. What is being done to protect workers from exposures to these chemicals? 3. Does Kipp still use TCE? If they stopped using it, when did they stop? 4. What solvents does Kipp use now?

After about a month, I received no answer from Mr. Hausbeck or Ms. Satkoski.

I asked again, and on October 16, Alder Rummel followed up, asking Ms. Satkoski to address the questions. Satkoski answered that they had assessed vapor intrusion in the office portion of the plant in 2014. I reminded Ms. Satkoski that I had asked about exposures to the factory workers—not just the office workers.

At this point, Kipp CEO Tony Koblinski inserted himself into the email chain. He refused to answer the questions I posed. He accused me of “twisting the truth” and said he is “done with me” but I can “write whatever the hell I want.” The full email chain is below. The response I emailed him is here.

Given Mr. Koblinski’s evasion of the questions, it seems logical to conclude that: Kipp has not assessed VOCs in the factory or VI risks to factory workers (only office workers); Kipp is not doing anything to protect factory workers from exposures to VOCs/vapor intrusion; Kipp still uses TCE and; Kipp is not willing to tell elected officials, the public health department, and the public what solvents it uses currently.

If Kipp has assessed vapor intrusion risks to its factory workers, wouldn’t it be to their benefit to say so? Similarly, if Kipp was no longer using TCE, would they want to tell us that? If Kipp is willing to share a list of the solvents they currently use—and has nothing to hide—why haven’t they done so?

Chain of emails (most recent first):

On 10/18/2016 6:07 PM, Tony Koblinski wrote:

Ms. Powell.

You are wrong.

Again, what a truly strange distribution list I find myself in.

This, I assure you, is the last time that I (or any of my staff) will respond directly to you, as your motives have baffled me since the day I met you.

Concern for our workers safety and well-being is the highest priority we have here at Kipp.  Our actions to safeguard our team result in benchmark safety and workers compensation rates.

I (like all small business owners) have plenty of regulatory oversight and I don’t feel a need to satisfy your curiosities.

You have already demonstrated to me your keen ability to twist the truth and distort the facts and frankly, I’m done with you.  (I think the exact moment was when you tried to give people the impression that Kipp was responsible for the tragic death of one of our long time employees who died of heart failure).

So, if you want to continue to play investigative reporter, have at it, but Kipp is not talking directly to you or cooperating in any way.

You continue to publish whatever the hell you want, and I will continue to run this business lawfully, responsibility and strive to continue to be a positive force in the surrounding community.

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Maria Powell (MEJO) <mariapowell@mejo.us> wrote:

Mr. Koblinski:

To be clear, your unwillingness to answer my questions indicates that:

-Kipp has not assessed VOCs in the factory or VI risks to factory workers (only office workers).

-Kipp is not doing anything to protect factory workers from exposures to VOCs/vapor intrusion.

-Kipp still uses TCE.

-Kipp is not willing to tell elected officials, the public health department, and the public what solvents it uses currently.

If I am wrong, please do correct me.

Thanks! Maria

On 10/18/2016 2:29 PM, Tony Koblinski wrote:

All-

I am going to respectfully put an end to this email string.

The WDNR (as well as the EPA) have actively directed a comprehensive investigation of this site over the last several years.

We have spent millions of dollars testing and remediating the site with their oversight.

All pertinent information to the investigation is part of public record.

Tony Koblinski

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Maria Powell (MEJO) <mariapowell@mejo.us> wrote:

Hello:

I already have the indoor office results and have had them for years. They indicate there could be problems, but there weren’t enough tests to really say.

However, to be clear, I didn’t ask about assessments in the office portions of Kipp. I asked about how vapor intrusion risks related to VOCs,** but especially TCE, were assessed  in the factory portion of the plant.

I also asked some other questions. Here are the questions I asked–copied from below:

1. What has been done to assess VOC levels in the Kipp factory? 2. What is being done to protect workers from exposures to these chemicals? 3. Does Kipp still use TCE? If they stopped using it, when did they stop? 4. What solvents does Kipp use now?

I hope you can answer them as soon as possible.

Thanks,

Maria

**To be clear “VOCs” include PCE and its breakdown products (TCE, DCE, VC) as well as a number of other volatile chemicals that are known to be under the Kipp factory in soils and groundwater.

On 10/18/2016 7:36 AM, Alina Satkoski wrote:

Hi Marsha,

We have completed indoor air sampling for TCE and other VOCs. This work was completed in 2013 and 2014 and the work is summarized in a Summary of Office Indoor Air Sampling Activities (February 2014) the MKC 2014 annual report. These reports are publicly available through the DNR’s website.

Thanks,

Alina

On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Rummel, Marsha <district6@cityofmadison.com> wrote:

Alina-

Can you help provide answers?

Thanks-

Marsha

From: Maria Powell (MEJO) <mariapowell@mejo.us> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 10:07 AM To: Hausbeck, John Cc: Rummel, Marsha; Rep.Taylor@legis.wisconsin.gov; Alina Satkoski Subject: Re: Assessing risks to Kipp workers?

Hello John (and Alina): Attached is a 2014 EPA memo supporting what I said below. I am still awaiting your response to my questions. Thank you, Maria

On 9/19/2016 2:36 PM, Maria Powell (MEJO) wrote:

John: I and other community members are still concerned about chemical exposures to all Kipp factory workers, especially women who are or could become pregnant. As far as VOCs and exposures via vapor intrusion, TCE is of particular concern because it is more toxic than PCE–it is a carcinogen and also causes neurological, immune system, kidney, liver, reproductive, and developmental effects.  Many of the effects from fetal exposures may not show up until adulthood. Vapor intrusion RCLs for TCE are much lower than for PCE–see here.** Also, recently government risk assessors concluded that the weight of evidence indicates that TCE and/or its metabolites could cause cardiac defects in fetuses even if maternal exposure durations are short, one-time, and relatively low dose. 

Below my name, I pasted a summary from an EPA TCE risk assessment document re TCE and heart defects. You can find the IRIS info on TCE toxicity here and here.

We know Kipp used TCE as well as PCE at least into the 1980s. There are still high levels of it under the factory, along with many other toxic VOCs. PCE, of course, breaks down to TCE–so there is an endless source under the factory and in the plume beneath the larger neighborhood.

In light of the above, can you help us find out: 1. What has been done to assess VOC levels in the Kipp factory? 2. What is being done to protect workers from exposures to these chemicals? 3. Does Kipp still use TCE? If they stopped using it, when did they stop? 4. What solvents does Kipp use now? I copied Alina, since she certainly must know the answers to these questions.

Thank you,

Maria

**Workplace standards for PCE and TCE are thought by experts to be very inadequate and unprotective of workers’ health based on the science. Even Henry Nehls-Lowe agreed with this.

The below text is from EPA’s “TSCA Work Plan Chemical Risk Assessment,” EPA Document# 740‐R1‐4002, Environmental Protection Agency June 2014, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention–see here.

2.7 HUMAN HEALTH RISK CHARACTERIZATION (I highlighted key sentence) TCE and its metabolites are associated with adverse effects on cardiac development based on a weight‐of‐evidence analysis of developmental studies from rats, humans and chickens. These adverse cardiac effects are deemed important for acute and chronic risk estimation for the scenarios and populations addressed in this risk assessment. The rationale for using TCE associated fetal cardiovascular lesions for acute scenario is based on the relatively short critical window of vulnerability in humans, rodent and avian cardiac development.The rationale for using fetal cardiac effects for chronic risks estimation is also based on the fact that relatively low dose short term/acute exposures can result on long‐term adverse consequences on cardiac development persisting into adulthood. ‐‐

Summary of Weight‐of‐Evidence Analysis for Congenital Heart Defects

TCE exposure has been associated with cardiac malformations in chick embryos studies (Boyer et al., 2000; Bross et al., 1983; Drake, V. et al., 2006; Drake, V. J. et al., 2006; Loeber et al., 1988; Mishima et al., 2006; Rufer et al., 2008) and oral developmental toxicity studies in rats (Dawson et al., 1990, 1993; Johnson et al., 2005; Johnson, 2014; Johnson et al., 2003). In addition to the consistency of the cardiac findings across different species, the incidence of congenital cardiac malformation has been duplicated in several studies from the same laboratory group and has been shown to be TCE‐related (EPA, 2011e). TCE metabolites have also induced cardiac defects in developmental oral toxicity studies (Epstein et al., 1992; Johnson et al., 1998a, 1998b; Smith et al., 1989, 1992). For example, the Johnson et al. and Smith et al. studies reported increased incidences of cardiac malformation following gestational TCA exposures (Johnson et al., 1998a, 1998b; Smith et al., 1989). Similarly, pregnant rats exhibited increased incidence of cardiac defects following DCA exposure during pregnancy (Epstein et al., 1992; Smith et al., 1992).

A number of studies have been conducted to elucidate the mode of action for TCE‐related cardiac teratogenicity. During early cardiac morphogenesis, outflow tract and atrioventricular endothelial cells differentiate into mesenchymal cells (EPA, 2011e). These mesenchymal cells have characteristics of smooth muscle‐like myofibroblasts and form endocardial cushion tissue, which is the primordia of septa and valves in the adult heart (EPA, 2011e). Many of the cardiac defects observed in humans and laboratory species involved septal and valvular structures (EPA, 2011e). Thus, a major research area has focused on the disruptions in cardiac valve formation in avian in ovo and in vitro studies following TCE treatment. These mechanistic studies have revealed TCE’s ability to alter the endothelial cushion development, which could be a possible mode of action underlying the cardiac defects involving septal and valvular morphogenesis in rodents and chickens (EPA, 2011e). These mechanistic data provide support to the plausibility of TCE‐related cardiac effects in humans (EPA, 2011e).

Other modes of actions may also be involved in the induction of cardiac malformation following TCE exposure. For example, studies have reported TCE‐related alterations in cellular Ca2+ fluxes during cardiac development (Caldwell et al., 2008; Collier et al., 2003; Selmin et al., 2008).

Alina Satkoski

Environmental and Safety Coordinator

Madison-Kipp Corporation

asatkoski@madison-kipp.com

Office: 608-242-5200

Cell: 518-265-7183

 

Digg thisShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someonePrint this pageShare on RedditShare on TumblrTweet about this on TwitterPin on Pinterest

Huge societal costs of toxic chemicals

Huge societal costs of toxic chemicals

Brian Bienkowski, Environmental Health News

Researchers estimate the United States economy takes a $340 billion hit annually as endocrine-disrupting compounds lower IQs, increase behavior problems and exacerbate health woes like obesity and diabetes.

Read the rest of the story here.

Digg thisShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someonePrint this pageShare on RedditShare on TumblrTweet about this on TwitterPin on Pinterest

City of Madison not requiring Kipp to measure PCBs in raingarden?

City of Madison not requiring Kipp to measure PCBs in raingarden?
This pictogram was used in this post; the splash pad has since been completed

 

Since August we have tried to get the following information from the City of Madison on behalf of Kipp neighbors, to no avail.

The current City lease with Madison-Kipp Corp. for its rain garden property calls for annual testing for PCBs. The lease was signed June 4, 2015, so the first year’s baseline test results should be available.

The lease also calls for a storm water management annual maintenance certification.

We have asked the city for the annual PCB results and maintenance certification, and have received no response. The only conclusion that we can reach is that the City has not required Kipp to test the rain garden for PCBs nor has Kipp filed its required storm water management annual maintenance certification.

The tests and certification are important because 1) they’re required in Kipp’s lease, 2) Kipp’s pollution goes into the raingarden, down storm drains, and into Starkweather Creek and Lake Monona, and 3) there’s no evidence that toxic chemicals from Kipp are not continuing to pollute the watershed, let alone the raingarden, bike path, and areas adjacent to both. See this link.

The City owns the land in question, so it is choosing not to require that pollution be monitored and controlled on our public land.

If you would like to see the City follow the law and its own contract, please contact Ald. Marsha Rummel at district6[at]cityofmadison.com to request that it does so. The City drives this process and so has the power to make it so.

Digg thisShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someonePrint this pageShare on RedditShare on TumblrTweet about this on TwitterPin on Pinterest

What is Kipp doing to protect its workers from vapor intrusion? They won’t say.

What is Kipp doing to protect its workers from vapor intrusion?  They won’t say.

Photo: Workers in Madison-Kipp factory.

Kipp says they stopped using the highly toxic solvent tetrachloroethylene, also called perchloroethylene or PCE—the toxic chemical that was the main focus of the citizen class action lawsuit settled in 2013 (see more details about the lawsuit here and here).

However, in addition to PCE, Kipp also used the even more toxic solvent trichloroethylene, or TCE. TCE is a carcinogen and can cause neurological, immune, kidney, liver, reproductive, and developmental effects. It can also cause cardiac defects in fetuses whose mothers are exposed for even very short periods of time during pregnancy. See links to more information below

Did Kipp ever stop using TCE? What solvents is the company using now? How is Kipp protecting its factory workers from exposures to solvents used in the factory—and to PCE, TCE and other volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) seeping into factory air from the huge VOC plume below it? Sadly, this is just one of the many health and safety risks faced by Kipp’s workers, many of whom are minorities—see past stories here and here.

Last week, I sent the message below to John Hausbeck at Public Health Madison Dane County and Kipp’s environmental health and safety manager, Alina Satkoski. I have received no response.

Given this lack of response, I am assuming that Kipp is still using TCE—and is doing very little or nothing to monitor and protect its workers from exposures to the many volatile organic chemicals seeping into the factory from below. If Kipp is not using TCE anymore—and has been monitoring and protecting its workers from VOC exposures—why wouldn’t their health and safety manager say so right away?

Below–email message sent to Public Health Madison Dane County and Kipp environmental health and safety manager, Alina Satkoski:

Subject: Assessing risks to Kipp workers?
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 14:36:25 -0500
From: Maria Powell (MEJO) <mariapowell@mejo.us>
To: JHausbeck@publichealthmdc.com <JHausbeck@publichealthmdc.com>
CC: Rummel, Marsha <district6@cityofmadison.com>, Rep.Taylor@legis.wisconsin.gov <rep.taylor@legis.wisconsin.gov>, Alina Satkoski <asatkoski@madison-kipp.com>

John:

I and other community members are still concerned about chemical exposures to all Kipp factory workers, especially women who are or could become pregnant.

As far as VOCs and exposures via vapor intrusion, TCE is of particular concern because it is more toxic than PCE–it is a carcinogen and also causes neurological, immune system, kidney, liver, reproductive, and developmental effects.  Many of the effects from fetal exposures may not show up until adulthood. Vapor intrusion screening levels for TCE are much lower than for PCE–see here.** Also, recently government risk assessors concluded that the weight of evidence indicates that TCE and/or its metabolites could cause cardiac defects in fetuses even if maternal exposure durations are short, one-time, and relatively low dose.  Below my name, I pasted a summary from an EPA TCE risk assessment document re TCE and heart defects. You can find the IRIS info on TCE toxicity here and here.

We know Kipp used TCE as well as PCE at least into the 1980s. There are still high levels of it under the factory, along with many other toxic VOCs. PCE, of course, breaks down to TCE–so there is an endless source under the factory and in the plume beneath the larger neighborhood.

In light of the above, can you help us find out:

1. What has been done to assess VOC levels in the Kipp factory?

2. What is being done to protect workers from exposures to these chemicals?

3. Does Kipp still use TCE? If they stopped using it, when did they stop?

4. What solvents does Kipp use now?

I copied Alina, since she certainly must know the answers to these questions.

Thank you,

Maria

**Workplace standards for PCE and TCE are thought by experts to be very inadequate and unprotective of workers’ health based on the science. Even Henry Nehls-Lowe agreed with this.

The below text is from EPA’s “TSCA Work Plan Chemical Risk Assessment,” EPA Document# 740R14002, Environmental Protection Agency June 2014, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention–see here.

2.7 HUMAN HEALTH RISK CHARACTERIZATION (I highlighted key sentence) TCE and its metabolites are associated with adverse effects on cardiac development based on a weight‐of‐evidence analysis of developmental studies from rats, humans and chickens. These adverse cardiac effects are deemed important for acute and chronic risk estimation for the scenarios and populations addressed in this risk assessment. The rationale for using TCE associated fetal cardiovascular lesions for acute scenario is based on the relatively short critical window of vulnerability in humans, rodent and avian cardiac development.The rationale for using fetal cardiac effects for chronic risks estimation is also based on the fact that relatively low dose short term/acute exposures can result on longterm adverse consequences on cardiac development persisting into adulthood.

‐‐ Summary of WeightofEvidence Analysis for Congenital Heart Defects TCE exposure has been associated with cardiac malformations in chick embryos studies (Boyer et al., 2000; Bross et al., 1983; Drake, V. et al., 2006; Drake, V. J. et al., 2006; Loeber et al., 1988; Mishima et al., 2006; Rufer et al., 2008) and oral developmental toxicity studies in rats (Dawson et al., 1990, 1993; Johnson et al., 2005; Johnson, 2014; Johnson et al., 2003). In addition to the consistency of the cardiac findings across different species, the incidence of congenital cardiac malformation has been duplicated in several studies from the same laboratory group and has been shown to be TCE‐related (EPA, 2011e). TCE metabolites have also induced cardiac defects in developmental oral toxicity studies (Epstein et al., 1992; Johnson et al., 1998a, 1998b; Smith et al., 1989, 1992). For example, the Johnson et al. and Smith et al. studies reported increased incidences of cardiac malformation following gestational TCA exposures (Johnson et al., 1998a, 1998b; Smith et al., 1989). Similarly, pregnant rats exhibited increased incidence of cardiac defects following DCA exposure during pregnancy (Epstein et al., 1992; Smith et al., 1992).

A number of studies have been conducted to elucidate the mode of action for TCE‐related cardiac teratogenicity. During early cardiac morphogenesis, outflow tract and atrioventricular endothelial cells differentiate into mesenchymal cells (EPA, 2011e). These mesenchymal cells have characteristics of smooth muscle‐like myofibroblasts and form endocardial cushion tissue, which is the primordia of septa and valves in the adult heart (EPA, 2011e). Many of the cardiac defects observed in humans and laboratory species involved septal and valvular structures (EPA, 2011e). Thus, a major research area has focused on the disruptions in cardiac valve formation in avian in ovo and in vitro studies following TCE treatment. These mechanistic studies have revealed TCE’s ability to alter the endothelial cushion development, which could be a possible mode of action underlying the cardiac defects involving septal and valvular morphogenesis in rodents and chickens (EPA, 2011e). These mechanistic data provide support to the plausibility of TCE‐related cardiac effects in humans (EPA, 2011e).

Other modes of actions may also be involved in the induction of cardiac malformation following TCE exposure. For example, studies have reported TCE‐related alterations in cellular Ca2+ fluxes during cardiac development (Caldwell et al., 2008; Collier et al., 2003; Selmin et al., 2008).

 

 

Digg thisShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someonePrint this pageShare on RedditShare on TumblrTweet about this on TwitterPin on Pinterest

Scientists, Health Professionals Urge Action To Protect Children From Toxic Chemicals

Scientists, Health Professionals Urge Action To Protect Children From Toxic Chemicals

From Environmental Working Group. A distinguished group of 50 scientists, health professionals and advocates called for urgent action to protect children from the harmful effects of toxic chemicals, including organophosphate insecticides,PBDE flame retardants, particulate air pollution, lead, mercury, PCBs. Read their statement, published in the prestigious journal Environmental Health Perspectives here.

Read the Environmental Working Group article here.

Digg thisShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someonePrint this pageShare on RedditShare on TumblrTweet about this on TwitterPin on Pinterest