Parkinson's is the canary in the coal mine warning us that our environment is sick:
Parkinson's disease occurs worldwide, affects people of all ages and backgrounds, has an enormous societal impact, and is rising at an alarming rate. According to neurologist Bas Bloem, Parkinson's literally meets all the criteria of a pandemic, except that the disease is not infectious. In a recent publication in The Lancet Neurology, Bloem and a group of internationally recognised scientists place this development in historical perspective, beginning with James Parkinson, who first described the disease in 1817.
This historical view is needed, Bloem says, because the search for the causes of Parkinson's is anything but new. As early as the 1990s, researchers and pesticide manufacturers knew that the pesticide Paraquat was linked to Parkinson's—yet the substance is still used in parts of the world (for example, the United States). In the Netherlands, Paraquat has fortunately been banned since 2007. Two other environmental factors, dry-cleaning chemicals and air pollution, also occur on a large scale. This strengthens Bloem's conviction that this largely human-made disease can also be reduced through human intervention.
As a young medical student, Bloem found himself in the midst of groundbreaking research in California, where he worked at the age of 21. "I did not yet see the enormous impact of the research being carried out there," he recalls. One of the groundbreaking studies of that era was conducted by J. William Langston in 1983. He investigated seven young drug users who suddenly developed symptoms of advanced Parkinson's after using a contaminated heroin variant.
It turned out that this so-called designer drug contained the substance MPTP, which in the body is converted into a compound that closely resembles the pesticide Paraquat. The study demonstrated that an external chemical substance could cause Parkinson's disease. Whereas the heroin users had received a high dose all at once, most people in daily life are exposed to small amounts over long periods, with ultimately a similar effect.
During the same period, and at the same Parkinson Institute in Sunnyvale, California, researcher Carlie Tanner also carried out key work. Bloem explains: "Her hypothesis was simple: if Parkinson's is hereditary, then identical twins who share the same DNA should develop it far more often than fraternal twins, as we see for conditions such as diabetes." But this was not the case.
[...] These insights became the starting point for new research into pesticides. "When researchers exposed laboratory animals to these substances, they developed Parkinson-like symptoms, and damage occurred precisely in the substantia nigra, the area of the brain affected in Parkinson's," Bloem says, convincing evidence of a causal link.
A third important study comes from Canadian neurologist André Barbeau, who in 1987 investigated the role of environmental factors in the province of Quebec. If the disease were evenly distributed across the region, this would suggest a hereditary or random cause. But this was not the case: Parkinson's occurred in clear clusters.
These clusters were located precisely in areas where high concentrations of pesticides were found in groundwater, another strong indication that environmental factors play a causal role.
Discussions about pesticides evoke strong emotions, Bloem notes. "People are frightened, farmers feel attacked, and industry attempts to sow doubt. But farmers or horticulturalists are not the problem. They work with what they are permitted to use. The responsibility lies with the systems that allow such substances."
He advocates for policies based on the precautionary principle. "The burden of proof now lies with scientists and citizens, who must demonstrate that a substance is harmful. But doubt should benefit humans, not chemical products."
"The most hopeful message," Bloem says, "is that Parkinson's appears to be at least partly—perhaps even largely—preventable. That is revolutionary: a brain disease that we can prevent through better environmental policy." Yet hardly any funding goes into prevention. "In the US, only 2 percent of Parkinson's research focuses on prevention. Meanwhile, billions are spent on treatments instead of turning off the tap."
[...] His message is clear: "Parkinson's is not an unavoidable fate. It is the canary in the coal mine warning us that our environment is sick and that toxic substances are circulating. If we act now—by reducing toxins, improving air quality, and enforcing stricter regulations—we can reverse this pandemic. And in doing so, we will likely reduce other health risks such as dementia and cancer."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by AnonTechie on Monday January 05, @08:18PM (1 child)
I hope this research pans out, and they find a way to prevent it from spreading. Any cure would be much appreciated by thousands of people. It is a progressively debilitating disease, and it is sad to see so many people suffering from what is known to be a preventable disease ...
Albert Einstein - "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 06, @01:33AM
Plenty of studies showing it's linked to pesticides, but what can the farmers use when the pests are animals? Humans are animals too. Something toxic enough to kill an invertebrate fast enough, too often causes problems with humans in the long term, especially accidental over exposure:
https://www.euronews.com/health/2023/11/17/france-to-continue-compensating-farmers-with-parkinsons-disease-linked-to-glyphosate-use [euronews.com]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935120310835 [sciencedirect.com]
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/02/240228115432.htm [sciencedaily.com]
Maybe if you had a binary pesticide. You have a contractor use drones to apply "Pre-pesticide A". Then you have a different contractor use drones to apply "Pre-pesticide B" the next day or something. When the pre-pesticide chemicals are combined in the field they become toxic enough to kill the pests. The farmer does get exposed to the combined pesticide but the dose should be lower than accidental etc. The contractors also get exposed but also lower doses and accidental exposure shouldn't be to the combined pesticide.
Of course it could turn out the pre-pesticide is worse. After all some so called "inert" chemicals in Roundup are more toxic than glyphosate. So the scientific studies claiming that glyphosate is safe, even if true, do not show that Roundup is safe.
Another option is probably robots/drones with lasers or something zapping pests dead.
BTW some Parkinsons is linked to some fruit/plant toxins: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annonacin#Neurotoxicity [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotenone#Parkinson's_disease [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Whoever on Tuesday January 06, @01:20AM (8 children)
Under this Administration's EPA, look forward to more Parkinson's and other problems caused by the environment.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 06, @04:05AM (7 children)
Oh? Any previous Administration's EPA were actively reducing problems?
No one's a saint, taking side's just playing into the devil's hand.
(Score: 5, Touché) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday January 06, @05:42AM (6 children)
Nice both-sides-ism. But it is quite obvious that the 2 sides are far from equally bad on these matters. The conservatives have been rolling back protections everywhere. Wander into a building supplies store such as Lowe's, and look for labels mentioning that the state of California has determined that the materials used in the product may adversely affect human health. You'll find those all over the store. California is known for being well to the left on the political spectrum. Do you think the state of California is being alarmist? Or do you think California is correct, and it is industry trying to cover up issues?
Industry has a long track record of such anti-social behavior. The productization of radioactivity shortly after its discovery is crazy, with quacks and businesses of all sorts recklessly rushing radioactive substances to market, until the problems became so common and severe that they couldn't be covered up any more. Read about the Radium Girls. Then there's Big Tobacco blatantly lying to Congress in 1994 that nicotine is not addictive, when they not only knew damned well that nicotine is addictive, they were researching the matter to make their products more addictive! Lead in paint, plumbing, and gasoline. Big Oil denialism of their product causing CO2 buildup in the atmosphere. The whole teflon craze of coating our cooking and food storage surfaces with the stuff. Other PFAS such as Scotchgard. Fabric softeners. Cosmetics. The so-called mystery of bee Colony Collapse Disorder that was caused by pesticides, especially neonics. One that is still ongoing is the Obesity Epidemic that contributing parties have all too conveniently blamed on the victims' supposed sloth, gluttony, and genetics. Super Size Me! Problematic plastics such as Bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalates.
Maybe California goes too far. But I trust California more than I trust big business. #ExxonKnew!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 06, @01:50PM (5 children)
Hell yes, California is being alarmist here. While it has way too many ways for chemicals to appear on the list, the real problem is that the warning has no relevance to actual cancer risk. Trace amounts of a chemical are enough to trigger the warning, unless you have a carve out - like naturally occurring chemicals in plants and animals.
Where? I find it interesting how historical cases of industrial denial are tied to fake modern denials.
(Score: 4, Touché) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday January 06, @04:11PM (4 children)
That's what I used to think. I'd blow off those warnings.
And that's why I take California's warnings more seriously now. Has industry become better? The only change I see there is that industry is more cautious. Their fundamental attitude of profit before all else, such as responsibility and ethics, has NOT changed. They would do it again. They do not like regulations. Many whine endlessly about having to follow safety regulations. And they're fools for complaining about that. Because if they didn't follow these safety measures, they'd be causing more preventable accidents and deaths, and getting themselves into worse trouble. Like what happened in the 2008 Chinese milk scandal. British Petroleum's Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010 is plenty recent enough to show how reckless they can still be. Fukushima in 2011 is another case in which greedy corporate idiots ran a far bigger risk than they understood, to save a few pennies. They cut corners everywhere. The cost of the damage is easily over 1000x what they saved. The Samsung Galaxy Note 7 battery fires and explosions were in 2016. The Boeing 737 MAX crashes happened in 2018 and 2019. And again, investigation shows a bit of corner cutting.
I grant that some regulations may be overly onerous, outdated, and even counterproductive, such as some of the pollution measures implemented on vehicles in the 1970s. See, for instance secondary air injection [wikipedia.org]. It's a complicated story, but in short, the shift from carburetors to fuel injection and better EGR rendered parasitically powered air injection unnecessary and counterproductive. Now we are transitioning to electric drive, and that has changed things more than fuel injection did. Regulation needs to be nimble to keep up with it all.
I have no problem with cost-benefit analysis to evaluate whether some risks are worth taking, some known dangers worth living with. But sticking our heads in the sand, quashing research into these matters, and blindly accepting corporate statements, no. CEOs as a class can be such colossal liars, trying to paint a false picture of how beneficial, effective, safe, and necessary their products are, when none of that may be true. Stock markets have crashed when the truth came out.
You evidently do have much faith and trust in big business. If you are as skeptical about California and everything else as you seem to be, I can only wonder why you give big business a pass.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 07, @12:46PM (3 children)
How can you take California's warnings seriously? It doesn't tell you if there's a real problem or not. That makes it noise that you have to ignore.
Proposition 65's scary and undescriptive warnings are such.
It's rather pushing narratives without even the slightest effort to consider if they occur in reality or not.
Now we've gone from self-regulation concerns to the regulatory apparatus not doing its job. And you just don't get several of those examples. Fukushima hasn't shown any significant wrong-doing (or for that matter cutting corners) on the part of TEPCO, the owner and manager of the nuclear reactors. The Chinese milk scandal was due to a Chinese-side company finding an attack surface for fraud - such arrangements didn't cause similar troubles on the developed world side (where developed world law applied).
And yet here you are boasting about your reliance on a system that doesn't help you with that cost/benefit analysis. Politicians (such as the ones running the cancer scare system in California) are another class of colossal liars.
Once again, let's consider your earlier accusations of modern businesses:
There's no Big Oil denialism for starters. That narrative is seriously broken. And I think there's a simple reason why: Big Oil profited heavily from the climate change craze with record profits over the time in question. There was no reason for them to rock the boat.
PFAS? Show there's a problem first. For example, the alleged first case [soylentnews.org] of a successful PFAS lawsuit is a case of ethylene glycol poisoning (automotive antifreeze in the US) being blamed on a Du Port chemical (perfluorooctanoic acid which is a precursor for Teflon).
Same with BPA. Not much point to complaining about business malfeasance when the problem is so vague and underwhelming in the first place.
As to bee colony collapse disorder, it's apparently still not solved because it's multi-factor with some of the factors still not known and/or acting in unknown synergistic ways with other factors. For example, here [nih.gov] is a 2014 example of colony collapse without neonics. Where was the "anti-social behavior" in all that from the neonics manufacturers?
And finally wrapping up with obesity epidemic. Where is the "blaming" on "victims' supposed sloth, gluttony, and genetics"?
I get that there's conflict of interest among business and they aren't going to come out and say that their shit stinks. But I also get that they aren't the sole source of conflict of interest. The California system of pointless cancer (and other hazards) warning system is another. It serves a political faction's interests to produce theater rather than concrete regulatory protection.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Whoever on Wednesday January 07, @04:28PM (2 children)
Wrong: Fukushima happened because the backup generators were installed in low-lying areas, instead of higher up, where the tsunami would not have affected them. This was almost certainly due to cost cutting.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 08, @05:35AM (1 child)
Why should they have put them "higher up"? In hindsight, we can say the tsunami, duh. In foresight, how are we to know that this would become important than any of the other potential disasters we can conceive of?
You've already acknowledged, via the unsarcastic use of the term, "cost-benefit analysis" that cost cutting is acceptable, if the benefit is large enough.
What routinely gets missed in the condemnation of TEPCO is that they put an extraordinary amount of care into the construction, maintenance, and operation of the Fukushima plant, and that the key problem was that the plant was devastated by a disaster beyond what it was designed for. But even in that case, the reactor is designed to fail in a way that makes it survivable - which Fukushima did.
I think it's educational to see how the extremely conservative, bureaucratic systems involved in regulation of the plant were unable to react quickly enough to new information about the tsunami threats that the plant faced. For example [slashdot.org]:
It's more than ten years later and I still have no reason to change my opinion. Cost/benefit analysis foresight would not have come up with a good reason for expensive construction of a higher seawall for a plant that's decommissioning in a few years. That decision in turn came before the life of the plant were extended. It would take years to revisit the earlier decision on not extending the seawall. And if the earthquake had happened twenty years further in the future, then it is likely that this period of bureaucratic vulnerability would have closed and we would not have realized the risk present at this plant.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 08, @05:54AM
Whoops! No you haven't so acknowledged! I confused you with bzipitidoo who did so observe.
Still cost-benefit analysis is a reasonable approach and cost cutting then becomes part of the process legitimately.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 08, @12:12AM
Quick! What drug company should I invest in?!? (Answer: whichever one makes horse tranquilizer that Trump will say cures Parkinson's when injected in the eyeball).