If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Fish with Insensative Dioxin Receptor Survive in PCB Polluted Hudson River
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gene...way_the_poison
Packing Away The Poison Genetic mutation allows Hudson River fish to adapt to PCBs, Dioxins 2/17/2011 Some fish in New York’s Hudson River have become "resistant" to several of the waterway’s more toxic pollutants. Instead of getting sick from dioxins and related compounds including some polychlorinated biphenyls, Atlantic tomcod harmlessly store these poisons in fat, a new study finds. But what’s good for this bottom-dwelling species could be bad for those feeding on it, says Isaac Wirgin of the New York University School of Medicine’s Institute of Environmental Medicine in Tuxedo. Each bite of tomcod that a predator takes, he explains, will move a potent dose of toxic chemicals up the food chain — eventually into species that could end up on home dinner tables. From 1947 to 1976, two General Electric manufacturing plants along the Hudson River produced PCBs for a range of uses, including as insulating fluids in electrical transformers. Over the years, PCB and dioxin levels in the livers of the Hudson’s tomcod rose to become “among the highest known in nature,” Wirgin and his colleagues note online February 17 in Science. Because these fish don’t detoxify PCBs, Wirgin explains, it was a surprise that they could accumulate such hefty contamination without becoming poisoned. His team now reports that the tomcod’s protection traces to a single mutation in one gene. The gene is responsible for producing a receptor protein needed to unleash the pollutants’ toxicity. All vertebrates contain molecules in their cells that will bind to dioxins and related compounds. Indeed, these proteins — aryl hydrocarbon receptors, or AHRs — are often referred to as dioxin receptors. Once these poisons diffuse into an exposed cell, each molecule can mate with a receptor and together they eventually pick up a third molecule. This trio can then dock with select segments of DNA in the cell’s nucleus to inappropriately turn on genes that can poison the host animal. The tomcod actually has two types of AHRs, with AHR-2 offering the most effective binding to dioxin-like pollutants. But one naturally occurring AHR-2 variant, the result of a gene mutation, proves a very poor mate, Wirgin’s team has found. It takes five times more of the pollutants to get substantial binding than is needed with the conventional AHR-2. In local rivers relatively free of dioxins and PCBs, 95 percent of tomcod possess AHR-2 only in the conventional form. But in the PCB- rich Hudson, Wirgin’s group finds, the only kind of AHR-2 protein in 99 percent of tomcod is the poorly binding variant. The mutant receptor appears to have evolved long ago and to be widely dispersed. But in the Hudson, fish with the gene to make the mutant receptor have thrived, while those without it have died out ... ----- For more on POPs & Insulin Resistance, see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2854721/ |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Fish with Insensative Dioxin Receptor Survive in PCB Polluted HudsonRiver
jay wrote:
Wirgin explains, it was a surprise that they could accumulate such hefty contamination without becoming poisoned. His team now reports that the tomcod’s protection traces to a single mutation in one gene. The gene is responsible for producing a receptor protein needed to unleash the pollutants’ toxicity. Great news! Now that we know the gene, we can get it too. Dioxin won't be considered a toxin anymore. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Fish with Insensative Dioxin Receptor Survive in PCB PollutedHudson River
On 8/6/2011 9:05 PM, Mark Thorson wrote:
jay wrote: Wirgin explains, it was a surprise that they could accumulate such hefty contamination without becoming poisoned. His team now reports that the tomcod’s protection traces to a single mutation in one gene. The gene is responsible for producing a receptor protein needed to unleash the pollutants’ toxicity. Great news! Now that we know the gene, we can get it too. Dioxin won't be considered a toxin anymore. There was one incidence of a public report stating that the early tests for DDT didn't distinguish between DDT and PCB's, and that's what led to the entire "silent spring" debacle. And of course what people miss completely is that PCB's were outlawed at the same time that DDT was, so the effect on birds could have come from either, or both, being reduced. I doubt that anyone will ever own up to this mjor error after so many years of condemning DDT. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Fish with Insensative Dioxin Receptor Survive in PCB Polluted Hudson River
In article ,
outsider wrote: On 8/6/2011 9:05 PM, Mark Thorson wrote: jay wrote: Wirgin explains, it was a surprise that they could accumulate such hefty contamination without becoming poisoned. His team now reports that the tomcod¹s protection traces to a single mutation in one gene. The gene is responsible for producing a receptor protein needed to unleash the pollutants¹ toxicity. Great news! Now that we know the gene, we can get it too. Dioxin won't be considered a toxin anymore. There was one incidence of a public report stating that the early tests for DDT didn't distinguish between DDT and PCB's, and that's what led to the entire "silent spring" debacle. And of course what people miss completely is that PCB's were outlawed at the same time that DDT was, so the effect on birds could have come from either, or both, being reduced. I doubt that anyone will ever own up to this mjor error after so many years of condemning DDT. Why aren't you over with the social scientists, or did they send you over here? DDT, PCB, Dioxin, PBDE among others are called "persistent organic pollutants". Because they don't break down. They are even found in penguins, although there hasn't been a mosquito problem in Antarctica for years. DDT hasn't been outlawed, it has been restricted. Thing is, if you keep using the same poison, the little buggers build-up a resistance. And don't you worry about the makers of biocides, twice as much is being produced today, than back when Rachel Carson published "Silent Spring". It's all bad ****. -- - Billy Both the House and Senate budget plan would cut Social Security and Medicare, while cutting taxes on the wealthy. Kucinich noted that none of the government programs targeted for elimination or severe cutback in House Republican spending plans "appeared on the GAO's list of government programs at high risk of waste, fraud and abuse." http://www.politifact.com/ohio/state...is-kucinich/re p-dennis-kucinich-says-gop-budget-cuts-dont-targ/ [W]e have the situation with the deficit and the debt and spending and jobs. And it¹s not that difficult to get out of it. The first thing you do is you get rid of corporate welfare. That¹s hundreds of billions of dollars a year. The second is you tax corporations so that they don¹t get away with no taxation. - Ralph Nader http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/19/ralph_naders_solution_to_debt_crisis |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Fish with Insensative Dioxin Receptor Survive in PCB PollutedHudson River
On 8/7/2011 12:47 AM, Billy wrote:
In , wrote: On 8/6/2011 9:05 PM, Mark Thorson wrote: jay wrote: Wirgin explains, it was a surprise that they could accumulate such hefty contamination without becoming poisoned. His team now reports that the tomcod¹s protection traces to a single mutation in one gene. The gene is responsible for producing a receptor protein needed to unleash the pollutants¹ toxicity. Great news! Now that we know the gene, we can get it too. Dioxin won't be considered a toxin anymore. There was one incidence of a public report stating that the early tests for DDT didn't distinguish between DDT and PCB's, and that's what led to the entire "silent spring" debacle. And of course what people miss completely is that PCB's were outlawed at the same time that DDT was, so the effect on birds could have come from either, or both, being reduced. I doubt that anyone will ever own up to this mjor error after so many years of condemning DDT. Why aren't you over with the social scientists, or did they send you over here? Billy, I've had these discussions before in a.s.d. and I've been here more than a year discussing diabetes as well as the (mis)behavior of the local gentry. So what's with the smart aleck comment? DDT, PCB, Dioxin, PBDE among others are called "persistent organic pollutants". Because they don't break down. They don't seem to break down in nature is different from they don't break down. Since there is no accurate measure of the persistence, we only suspect things, but don't actually know them. In the past few decades, the methods of destruction have grown. My look at the problem some decades back revealed that the only method available for destruction was passing the product through a molten sodium bath. While the method works, it is today not the only successful means for destroying the "persistent" chemicals you're complaining about here. They are even found in penguins, although there hasn't been a mosquito problem in Antarctica for years. DDT hasn't been outlawed, it has been restricted. Thing is, if you keep using the same poison, the little buggers build-up a resistance. And don't you worry about the makers of biocides, twice as much is being produced today, than back when Rachel Carson published "Silent Spring". It's all bad ****. We've not been able to create "magic bullet" toxins that affect only one lifeform. The likelihood of doing so is minute, perhaps nonexistent. In the meanwhile I'd rather see penguins in the antarctic experience a reduction in numbers than a million humans a year lose their lives to infection by the lowly mosquito. Ans since the mosquito develops a resistance to the effects of DT, for example, so will the penguins, and other lifeforms, over time. But it seems that humans are not developing an immunity to the infections dispensed by mosquitoes. All that's left is to select our victims. So far we've selected the human being. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Fish with Insensative Dioxin Receptor Survive in PCB Polluted Hudson River
In article ,
outsider wrote: On 8/7/2011 12:47 AM, Billy wrote: In , wrote: On 8/6/2011 9:05 PM, Mark Thorson wrote: jay wrote: Wirgin explains, it was a surprise that they could accumulate such hefty contamination without becoming poisoned. His team now reports that the tomcod¹s protection traces to a single mutation in one gene. The gene is responsible for producing a receptor protein needed to unleash the pollutants¹ toxicity. Great news! Now that we know the gene, we can get it too. Dioxin won't be considered a toxin anymore. There was one incidence of a public report stating that the early tests for DDT didn't distinguish between DDT and PCB's, and that's what led to the entire "silent spring" debacle. And of course what people miss completely is that PCB's were outlawed at the same time that DDT was, so the effect on birds could have come from either, or both, being reduced. I doubt that anyone will ever own up to this mjor error after so many years of condemning DDT. Why aren't you over with the social scientists, or did they send you over here? Billy, I've had these discussions before in a.s.d. and I've been here more than a year discussing diabetes as well as the (mis)behavior of the local gentry. So what's with the smart aleck comment? DDT, PCB, Dioxin, PBDE among others are called "persistent organic pollutants". Because they don't break down. They don't seem to break down in nature is different from they don't break down. Since there is no accurate measure of the persistence, we only suspect things, but don't actually know them. In the past few decades, the methods of destruction have grown. My look at the problem some decades back revealed that the only method available for destruction was passing the product through a molten sodium bath. While the method works, it is today not the only successful means for destroying the "persistent" chemicals you're complaining about here. They are even found in penguins, although there hasn't been a mosquito problem in Antarctica for years. DDT hasn't been outlawed, it has been restricted. Thing is, if you keep using the same poison, the little buggers build-up a resistance. And don't you worry about the makers of biocides, twice as much is being produced today, than back when Rachel Carson published "Silent Spring". It's all bad ****. We've not been able to create "magic bullet" toxins that affect only one lifeform. The likelihood of doing so is minute, perhaps nonexistent. In the meanwhile I'd rather see penguins in the antarctic experience a reduction in numbers than a million humans a year lose their lives to infection by the lowly mosquito. Ans since the mosquito develops a resistance to the effects of DT, for example, so will the penguins, and other lifeforms, over time. But it seems that humans are not developing an immunity to the infections dispensed by mosquitoes. All that's left is to select our victims. So far we've selected the human being. Your premise is wrong. DDT hasn't been band, and how much will it cost us to throw away one of our best defenses to the mosquito by allowing the mosquito to quickly develop a resistance to DDT? DDT is used, but selectively with other practices, and insecticides to control mosquitos. Global warming will bring more mosquitos. Exposure to the bubonic plague seems to have imbued some with resistance to HIV. Is this the price you want us to pay, not to mention the further loss bio-diversity? You really should look into a subject before you start pronouncing on it. -- - Billy Both the House and Senate budget plan would cut Social Security and Medicare, while cutting taxes on the wealthy. Kucinich noted that none of the government programs targeted for elimination or severe cutback in House Republican spending plans "appeared on the GAO's list of government programs at high risk of waste, fraud and abuse." http://www.politifact.com/ohio/state...is-kucinich/re p-dennis-kucinich-says-gop-budget-cuts-dont-targ/ [W]e have the situation with the deficit and the debt and spending and jobs. And it¹s not that difficult to get out of it. The first thing you do is you get rid of corporate welfare. That¹s hundreds of billions of dollars a year. The second is you tax corporations so that they don¹t get away with no taxation. - Ralph Nader http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/19/ralph_naders_solution_to_debt_crisis |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Fish with Insensative Dioxin Receptor Survive in PCB Polluted Hudson River
In alt.support.diabetes outsider wrote:
We've not been able to create "magic bullet" toxins that affect only one lifeform. Because we haven't had the technology to be that specific, except by lucky accident. The likelihood of doing so is minute, perhaps nonexistent. Not nonexistent, and growing rapidly as genomics science and technology develops. In the meanwhile I'd rather see penguins in the antarctic experience a reduction in numbers than a million humans a year lose their lives to infection by the lowly mosquito. Ans since the mosquito develops a resistance to the effects of DT, for example, so will the penguins, and other lifeforms, over time. But it seems that humans are not developing an immunity to the infections dispensed by mosquitoes. You've not heard of sickle cell anemia? -- Chris Malcolm |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Fish with Insensative Dioxin Receptor Survive in PCB PollutedHudson River
On 8/6/2011 9:05 PM, Mark Thorson wrote:
jay wrote: Wirgin explains, it was a surprise that they could accumulate such hefty contamination without becoming poisoned. His team now reports that the tomcod’s protection traces to a single mutation in one gene. The gene is responsible for producing a receptor protein needed to unleash the pollutants’ toxicity. Great news! Now that we know the gene, we can get it too. Dioxin won't be considered a toxin anymore. As soon as we get past a problem in the current gene therapy methods - inserting the new genes into a random point in the old genes, and therefore in some cells likely to disable a gene that prevents that cell from turning into cancer. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/dec/19/cancer.medicalresearch It's known that inserting the new genes into the cells but not into the old genes is a good way to make sure that the new genes don't last long. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
High Animal Fat Diet, Dioxin, Chloracne | jay[_2_] | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | July 15th, 2008 09:07 PM |
Is it just a river? | Lump Chicken | Weightwatchers | 17 | March 9th, 2006 08:57 PM |
Grains a Good Thing: Bound antioxidant phytochemicals in grains survive intact long enough to reach the colon to prevent cancer | Alan S | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | February 28th, 2006 01:44 AM |
Grains a Good Thing: Bound antioxidant phytochemicals in grains survive intact long enough to reach the colon to prevent cancer | Carmen | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 1 | February 27th, 2006 10:04 PM |
Caloric restriction and increased dopamine receptor signaling. | Tim | General Discussion | 0 | March 15th, 2004 08:41 PM |