Thursday, January 31, 2019

Parameters: Role of 'Stress Gene' revealed in relation to Chronic Pain

Chronic pain is a problem which many Americans currently live with. Further, chronic pain management has led to the uprising of increased opioid use in the last few decades. Which has become a major problem. Especially, with regard to the unusually large amount of pain managing medication illegally entering the United States -- such as 'Fentanyl' -- which can be read about here. With pain management in mind, researchers have been searching endlessly for a cure or treatment which will reduce addiction issues. A possible solution might just have been found. In the blog post below, the new research is highlighted.

Chronic Pain?

According to recent research unveiled a few months ago in a brief blog post on Director Dr. Francis Collin's web page on the National Institutes of Health's website, the new method stands to improve pain management which arises from stressful/traumatic events as described below:

For most people, pain eventually fades away as an injury heals. But for others, the pain persists beyond the initial healing and becomes chronic, hanging on for weeks, months, or even years. Now, we may have uncovered an answer to help explain why: subtle differences in a gene that controls how the body responds to stress.

In a recent study of more than 1,600 people injured in traffic accidents, researchers discovered that individuals with a certain variant in a stress-controlling gene, called FKBP5, were more likely to develop chronic pain than those with other variants [1]. These findings may point to new non-addictive strategies for preventing or controlling chronic pain, and underscore the importance of NIH-funded research for tackling our nation’s opioid overuse crisis.

The research team, led by Samuel McLean at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, first found evidence of an association between the FKBP5 gene and chronic pain in 2013 [2]. Those studies of about 1,000 white men and women found at least six different FKBP5 variants. They also showed that each variant could be used to predict the severity of a person’s pain after a car accident or other trauma. In fact, those who carried one particular gene variant, the less common DNA spelling at a location called rs3800373, were especially prone to chronic pain long after the traumatic event.

That is promising news, but what about other races, ethnicities, and cultures? Are the results just as promising for those populations too? Actually, yes. Again, from the Director's web page:

In the follow-up study now reported in the Journal of Neuroscience, the team took advantage of the recently completed NIH-funded Project CRASH . This multi-state project evaluated the recovery process of more than 1,600 white and black Americans who were seen in an emergency room within 24 hours of a traffic accident [1]. Each study participant provided a blood sample and answered questions about their pain just after the crash and then again six weeks later. The researchers also received permission to review data from participants’ medical records detailing the nature of their injuries and treatment.

The new evidence confirms that people who carry the pain-susceptibility variant at rs3800373 are more likely to develop chronic pain after a trauma. That’s true across gender and in people regardless of their race. Though the frequency of this variant is still unclear, the researchers estimate that about 33 percent of Americans have it.

Great. When can we expect a drug? Where do people with chronic pain go to now? What methods exist for those who suffer from chronic pain?

With opioid use at an all time high, other methods are being sought out to reduce chronic pain among those who suffer. Alternative methods include: physical therapy, yoga, mind-body therapies, complementary methods (acupuncture, meditation, etc.), and medical interventions.

For more information regarding the management of chronic pain, visit either: (1) Harvard Health and/or (2) WebMd. Keep checking back to see updates on the research listed above regarding new technology/research surrounding the treatment of chronic pain.

Related Blog Posts:

How many people would be killed if 1,485 pounds of Fentanyl were distributed onto the streets in the U.S.?

NIDA Director Nora Volkow: How Health Communicators and Journalists Can Help Replace Stigma with Science

What is the next big step in Mental Health Research?

Want To Improve Science Communication: Add Artists!

Should you consider science while before voting next Tuesday?

NIAID Director Anthony Fauci: How Should We Communicate About Crises?

NIH Director Francis Collins Makes A Statement Regarding Sexual Harassment In Science

Ralph Nader: Warner Slack - Doctor for the People Forever

Tuesday, January 29, 2019

FDA Director Scott Gottlieb Addresses Public On Eliminating E-Cigarette Use Among Youths

Source: Politico

There is no doubt that among adults in the nation, electronic cigarettes have reduced numbers of combustible cigarettes over the past decade. Which has corresponded with an increased sale/use overseas incidentally. What is of question is the degree of toxicity associated with the use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes for short).

Furthermore, the tobacco industry which has moved into the e-cigarette space has taken advertising to a new level of concern among users. So much so that the Food and Drug Administration has had to deal with the emerging threat to young teens (and children) in some cases - with the new e-cigarette products. What do I mean specifically? Let me explain in short below before I show what is the end result or what is coming.

What is wrong with e-cigarettes?

electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have been advertised as a 'safer alternative' to the traditional combustion based cigarette. While there may be merits (a few), the emerging data shows that the transition is more of a change from one dangerous habit to another. Which is to say, each method of obtaining your tobacco (nicotine) fix has advantages and disadvantages. The differences are that the emergence of the e-cigarette bring a whole host of unknown dangers which have yet to be explored. To name a few, here are some questions about parameters surrounding the use of e-cigarettes:

What are the long term effects of inhaling large amounts of propylene glycol?

What are the long term effects of inhaling large amounts of trace metals?

What are the long term effects of breathing in products of partial (incomplete) combustion?

How does a laboratory or agency measure the total amount of nicotine delivered in a given 'vape' inhalation?

Has that inhalation been standardized or studied for chemical analysis?

These are open ended questions. Some of which have research projects which have already begun to shed results. In a past blog (over a year ago), I listed an article from the trade journal 'Chemical & Engineering News' which shed light on the profile of chemicals (heavy and light metals) which are inhaled during the process of vaping. Specifically, aside from the metals - what are the long term effects of inhaling propylene glycol? This was asked in an editorial from 'Nature Neuroscience' a few years ago.

Additionally, in a different blog post, I showed the relative amounts of nicotine sold in a traditional bottle of e-liquid with the equivalent amount of combustible cigarettes (through dimensional analysis). Check them out. Which bring us to the real danger behind the growing use of e-cigarettes -- that is among young (new users) under the age of 18 years old.

To start to explore the dangers associated with advertising to people under the age of 18 years of age, let's start a search using a search engine. Type into a search engine the following statement: "Bubble making liquid" Below is one of many pictures advertising liquids that kids can use to make bubbles:

Source: E-Bay

The image shown above, as mentioned, is a small bottle of liquid used to make bubbles for kids to handle. Now, the next search type into a search engine the following: "Candy juice" The following is one result shown below:

Source: E-Juice Deals

The result above shows a commonly sold bottle of e-liquid. An e-liquid is essentially made up of the following ingredients (chemicals): nicotine, propylene glycol, and flavoring. Finally, let's line both of these products up next to one another as shown below:

Looking at the two products above, a person has to really focus to find differences. And I am an adult. What if a child was asked to tell the differences? Therein lies the issue at hand. Aside from the increase among teens in e-cigarette use are the young children who are potentially exposed to dangerous amounts of nicotine (which can be poison). How?

What if a child spills e-liquid on his/her skin? The concentration of the nicotine can compare to that of the 'LD50' -- Lethal Dose where 50% of the tested population is killed off. Check out how e-liquid concentrations compare to the LD50 of nicotine -- click here. Chemicals associated with the use of e-cigarette remain unanswered which means that the interpretation is that e-cigarettes must be safe. Whereas, decades of cigarette use by tobacco companies along with federal agencies have clearly established that smoking combustible cigarettes is dangerous and leads to cancer.

Take home message: unknown dangers could potentially still exist with e-cigarettes and marketers should not be targeting children and teenagers in the mean time.

What Does Director Scott Gottlieb Say Regarding E-Cigarettes?

With the above being stated, what does the Food and Drug Administration write/publish about the emerging dangers surrounding e-cigarettes? In the text of the speech below, FDA Director Scott Gottlieb states the current position of the Food and Drug Administration at this moment in time. Shown below is the entire speech given by FDA Director Scott Gottlieb on January 18, 2019:

I want to begin by thanking you for attending this important meeting, and by recognizing the work of the FDA staff that has continued despite the partial lapse in FDA funding. The current shutdown represents one of the most significant operational challenges in FDA’s recent history. But, as an agency, we’re committed to fulfill our public health mandate, to the best of our abilities, under current circumstances.

We’ve had to make hard decisions in the last month to preserve key functions to maintain our critical consumer protection role.

And as our biggest user fee program, PDUFA, begins to run out of money, we have many more hard decisions ahead of us. As application workload declines, because we haven’t received new applications, we’re going to be required to furlough additional staff. We simply won’t have enough PDUFA-related work to support all of our staff. This is among the hardest and most painful decisions we have to make. It’s another consequence of the prolonged shutdown. We’ll maintain our critical safety functions, and preserve as much of our review functions for as long as we can.

We’re in unfamiliar territory. This is a watershed moment in the life of this agency. We’ll come out stronger for having faced together this challenge, and for having prevailed. But the road between now and the end will be marked by continued hardships for our people, and continued impacts on our work as we focus on preserving certain functions. I’ve said many times, everything we do here is important. And everyone who works here is critical to our mission. To the extent that many things aren’t getting done, and many of our people find themselves furloughed, there are very important activities that aren’t occurring.

Today, we’re joined by a broad range of stakeholders to discuss approaches to eliminating youth use of e-cigarettes and other tobacco products. Specifically, our focus is the potential role that drug therapies may play in the broader effort to eliminate e-cigarette and other tobacco use among young people, as well as the appropriate methods for evaluating such therapies.

I’m deeply troubled that we find ourselves at this crossroads today. In recent years, we’ve appeared poised to slay one of the most pernicious public health challenges of our times – the death and disease caused by cigarette smoking. Significant strides had been made to reduce conventional smoking among both youth and adults.

In fact, this past November, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that smoking rates among adults reached an all-time low in 2017 — 14% of adults reported cigarette smoking “every day” or “some day,” marking a 67% decrease since 1965.

Sadly, this progress is being undercut – even eclipsed – by the recent, dramatic rise in youth vaping. A few years ago, it would have been incredible to me that we’d be here, discussing the potential for drug therapy to help addicted youth vapers quit nicotine.

Instead, in recent years, there had been reason to hope that e-cigarettes could play a different role in the nicotine product continuum of risk.

When I announced the FDA’s Comprehensive Plan for Tobacco and Nicotine Regulation in July 2017, I believed – and I still believe – that e-cigarettes present an important opportunity for adult smokers to transition off combustible products and onto nicotine delivery products that may not have the same level of risks associated with them. The FDA’s plan was founded on the principle that what primarily causes the death and disease from tobacco use isn’t the nicotine in these products, but rather the harmful chemicals associated with cigarette combustion.

But, we also know that nicotine isn’t a benign substance. We know that initiation to, and addiction to, nicotine by never-smokers – predominantly youth and young adults – raises its own set of public health concerns. Over the past year, the FDA’s concerns about the public health impacts, as well as the very personal impacts, of youth use of e-cigarettes and other tobacco products, has spiked along with the escalating popularity of these products.

Although we knew that rates of youth use of e-cigarettes had surpassed use of combustibles a few years ago, these rates had recently appeared to level off. Reported e-cigarette use among high school students, which peaked at 16.0 percent in 2015, had decreased to 11.3 percent in 2016 and held steady in 2017. But, in late 2017 and early 2018, anecdotes from policymakers, from parents, and from the press suggested an alarming rise in youth use of e-cigarettes generally and, in particular, the product made by JUUL Labs. Indeed, the ubiquity of this one product became so entrenched so quickly that it gave rise to its own verb – juuling.

And so, over the course of 2018, I announced a series of escalating regulatory actions to try to investigate the root causes of this spike in youth e-cigarette use and to arrest the momentum of these trends.

Unfortunately, data from the 2018 National Youth Tobacco Survey confirm that youth use of e-cigarettes has become an epidemic. From 2017 to 2018, there was a 78% increase in current e-cigarette use among high school students and a 48% increase among middle school students. The total number of middle and high school students currently using e-cigarettes rose to 3.6 million — that’s 1.5 million more students using these products than the previous year. Additionally, more than a quarter (27.7 percent) of high school current e-cigarette users are using the product regularly (on 20 or more days in the past month). And more than two-thirds (67.8 percent) are using flavored e-cigarettes.

These numbers have risen significantly since 2017.

Data from the Monitoring the Future study found similar trends: From 2017 to 2018, current (past 30-day) e-cigarette use reportedly increased from 6.6 percent to 10.4 percent among 8th grade students; 13.1 percent to 21.7 percent among 10th grade students; and 16.6 percent to 26.7 percent among 12th grade students.

This youth use continues to grow. Even if we’re successful at implementing our regulatory steps to address the access and appeal of these products to kids, those actions will take time to have their full effect. Meanwhile, the appeal of these products to children, and the resulting increase in youth use, shows no sign of abating.

I fear that the survey data that we’ll get for next year will show continued increases in youth use of e-cigarettes. We’ll be in the field between March and May with the 2019 National Youth Tobacco Survey. I’ll tell you this. If the youth use continues to rise, and we see significant increases in use in 2019, on top of the dramatic rise in 2018, the entire category will face an existential threat.

I find myself debating with tobacco makers and retailers the merits of selling fruity flavors in ways that remain easily accessible to kids. But if the epidemic continues to mount, I’m sure that the debate will change to one of whether these products should continue to be marketed at all without authorized pre-market tobacco applications. It could be “game over” for some these products until they can successfully traverse the regulatory process. I think the stakes are that high. And would be a blow for all of the currently addicted adult smokers who, I believe, could potentially benefit from these products.

But the major marketers of these products don’t seem to fully understand the scope of this challenge, or they don’t seem to be fully committed to their own stated commitments to curtail this youth use.

I’ve met with senior executives from five of the largest manufacturers of e-cigarette products, and I’ll be calling some of them back to meet again. The companies gave us written commitments about the steps they would take to stop youth use of their products. Are they living up to what were very modest promises? We all need to ask ourselves that question.

It matters if the e-cig makers can’t honor even modest, voluntary commitments that they made to the FDA. It informs how we shape our regulatory policies and our enforcement activities.

Because we’re not dependent on their voluntary action. The FDA is committed to reversing the youth trends, and, in November, we announced our development of a revised policy framework for certain electronic nicotine delivery systems (or ENDS products), including e-cigarettes. Evidence shows that minors are especially attracted to flavored ENDS products, and that youth access these products from both brick and mortar retailers as well as online.

We’ll be focused on ways to ensure that flavored ENDS products are sold in ways that make them less accessible and appealing to minors. We also plan to revisit our policy for certain flavored cigars and cigarillos, which, data show, appeal to minors and continue to be important among first-time cigar users. And, if data continue to show upwards trends in youth use of tobacco products, we’ll continue to expand what we do.

But, already, I’ve heard too many painful stories from parents of teenagers, pediatricians, and young people themselves. The stories make clear that, for many young e-cigarette users, addiction has already taken hold. Perhaps the kids didn’t realize that what they were inhaling contained nicotine, a highly addictive chemical. Perhaps they simply thought that e-cigarettes were safer than combustible cigarettes, chewing tobacco, and other forms of nicotine delivery about which they’d been warned. Perhaps the “cool factor” outweighed other concerns.

For these addicted young people, the reasons that they tried e-cigarettes may not matter anymore. These young people are hooked on vaping, and their worried parents, physicians, and the public health community are searching for tools to help them quit.

This is why, as a public health agency, the FDA must examine the problem of underage use of e-cigarettes holistically. When it comes to youth use of tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, we recognize that there are many facets to the issue. We must not only seek to develop evidence-based programs to prevent youth and young adults from using tobacco in any form; we must also explore evidence-based approaches to address existing youth tobacco use.

Although there is a large body of research on adult smoking cessation, the methods to treat adolescents and teens who’re addicted to vaping are not well understood. There is little information about how drug or behavioral interventions might support youth e-cigarette cessation, as well as youth tobacco use more generally. The data and other information presented at today’s hearing will be vitally important to helping the FDA and other stakeholders begin to address these information gaps.

I thank you in advance for your contributions, and I speak for myself and my colleagues on the panel in saying that we look forward to the insights that you will share. I also want to be clear that we are listening closely to all perspectives.

Already, the issue of how the FDA should address underage use of e-cigarettes, while preserving the harm reduction potential for adults, has sparked powerful commentary from a range of stakeholders. We welcome this dialogue and feedback as we further refine our strategies to address this epidemic. The FDA is committed to addressing this crisis in a comprehensive way, and to finding enduring solutions.

Thank you.

Wow - If the rates continue to rise among youths, the category faces an existential threat. What? That is huge. If the rates continue to climb, the Food and Drug Administration Director Scott Gottlieb is basically stating that the benefits among adults with lower use is eclipsed by the danger among youths. Banning e-cigarettes among adults for the benefit of children would be a major action by the FDA. Regardless, vaping (e-cigarette) companies need to change their methodology toward increasing their customer base -- especially, if that increase includes youth (new smokers). The future will certainly be exciting for those interested in this industry. Stay Tuned!

Related Blog Posts:

Scientific Evidence Points To Dangerous Chemicals Associated With Vaping

How much nicotine is in a bottle of e-liquid? Is the level toxic?

EPA Administrator Nominee Andrew Wheeler's Opening Statement - Confirmation Hearing!

NIDA Director Nora Volkow: How Health Communicators and Journalists Can Help Replace Stigma with Science

What is the next big step in Mental Health Research?

Sunday, January 27, 2019

How Large Is The Neural Circuitry In The Human Brain Compared To City Blocks In Los Angeles?

Source: First Post

Your brain is composed of 1.6 billion neural connections. That much is known. What is not known is such simple questions like -- how does our brain go on 'autopilot' while maintaining a fixed position? Have you ever caught yourself day dreaming at your desk while supposedly you were working? Scientists are trying to untangle that phenomenon. Although, that entails analyzing an enormous amount of neural connections at once as described in an article found in 'Nautilus' titled "Brain on Autopilot: How the architecture of the brain shapes its functioning":

The structure of the human brain is complex, reminiscent of a circuit diagram with countless connections. But what role does this architecture play in the functioning of the brain? To answer this question, researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin, in cooperation with colleagues at the Free University of Berlin and University Hospital Freiburg, have for the first time analyzed 1.6 billion connections within the brain simultaneously. They found the highest agreement between structure and information flow in the “default mode network,” which is responsible for inward-focused thinking such as daydreaming.

The neural connections make up different networks. Roughly 20 different networks exist. At any given time during consciousness, one can be operating at once. To wrap my head around the different neural networks which are composed of roughly 1.6 billion neural connections, I decided to compare the 'neural connections' to city blocks. City blocks are arranged to compose different cities. Specifically, I wondered how large the city would be if made up of the equivalent 'connections' to our neural circuitry described in the paper above. The answer to my question is shown below in a brief analysis.

City blocks?

How does one begin to scale up neural connections to city blocks? First a city is needed to compare neural connections too. Since I live in North Los Angeles, I chose Los Angeles city -- Downtown. Shown below is a picture of a section of Downtown Los Angeles -- right in the heart of L.A.:

Source: Google Maps

As you can see the area chosen has a number of city blocks within the square marked by the following streets: Melrose Blvd., Santa Monica Blvd., North Fairfax Blvd, and North La Brea Blvd. To determine the distance around the perimeter of the square, two measurements were made. The first is shown below of one leg of the rectangle along Santa Monica Blvd.

Source: Google Maps

The distance across is equal to 1.0 mile. Next, the distance along with width of the rectangle is shown with a measurement marked below:

Source: Google Maps

The distance of the width of the rectangle along North La Brea Blvd is equal to 0.5 mile. To determine the area of a rectangle, the length (equal to 1.0 mile) is multiplied by the width (equal to 0.5 mile) as shown below:

The result of the calculation indicated that the total area of the rectangle covered by the four streets in Downtown Los Angeles is equal to 0.5 square miles. Next, I needed to determine the number of city blocks within the rectangle. If count them by hand, the number is approximately equal to 64 city blocks in a 0.5 square mile area as shown below:

Next, the number of nodes (or neural connections) needed to be determined. On each city block, there are potentially a maximum of 4 nodes. Although two city blocks next to each other would share two nodes (i.e. neural connections). From the Google Maps image, I counted a total of 79 nodes located within a 0.5 square mile section of Los Angeles as shown below:

If the number of nodes is divided by the square mile listed above, the density of nodes within a square mile will be determined as shown below:

The density of nodes (or density of neural connections) is a 'conversion factor'. This 'conversion factor' allows the scaling up of neural connections to the equivalent city blocks. Remember, according to the article from 'Nautilus,' the total number of neural connections is equal to 1.6 billion neural connections (or nodes) as represented below:

To use the number 1.6 billion in a calculation, the conversion of the written number to the number expressed in scientific notation is needed as shown below:

The number of decimal places is shown at the end of the number. A number shown in scientific notation also indicates the significant figures in the number. Next, to determine the total square area (in miles) of the neural connections (as scaled up from the article), the number of nodes is multiplied by the conversion factor as shown below:

Wow. The calculation revealed that scaling up the total number of neural connections from the article to compare toward city blocks gives a total of 40.5 million square miles. How much land is that equivalent in relation to the land available on Earth? To begin with, how about checking to see, how many land mass area equivalent to the United States would be required to equal 40.5 million square miles. Below is the analysis.

How Many United States?

If we use the United States as a 'metric' - the total land mass in square miles needs to be determined. Asking Google with the following question: How large is the United States in square miles? The answer is shown below:

If the total square miles which are equivalent to the total number of neural connections scaled up are divided by the total land mass of the entire United States (3.797 million square miles), then the answer would indicate the amount equivalent as shown below:

For those readers who are experiencing difficulty visualizing 10.7 landmasses (equivalent in size to the United States of America) pieced together, another metric to cast the large area into are the continents across the Earth. According to an article from 'Thought.Co.' titled "The 7 Continents Ranked by Size and Population," the top 7 continents are listed below with their respective land mass in square miles:

1) Asia: 17,139,445 Square Miles

2) Africa: 11,677,239 Square Miles

3) North America: 9,361,791 Square Miles

4) South America: 6,880,706 Square Miles

5) Antarctica: About 5,500,000 Square Miles

6) Europe: 3,997,929 Square Miles

7) Australia: 2,967,909 Square Miles

Looking at the land mass area of the top 7 continents on Earth, choose a combination that approximates the total square miles of the result above = 40.5 million square miles. The first combination I chose were the following: Asia + Africa + South America + Antarctica = 41.2 million square miles. Try for yourself. Add up and combination to equal 40.5 million square miles. Leave your combination in the comments section below.

Analyses such as those above shed light on the magnitude of numbers (in this case neural connections) reported in the news. That is a large area which represents the enormous amount of neural machinery which each of us holds inside our heads. Wow. What a trip? Right to think of scientists analyzing such a vast array of neural connections to understand how the human brain sends us into 'autopilot' or other brain functional states. The human brain is once again shown to be quite amazing from a simple calculation/analysis.

Related Blog Posts:

How Many Women Are Needed To Form A Chain 400 miles Long?

Parameters: How Much Ice Is Melting In The Antarctic? Enough To Cover Texas?

How many cows are needed to generate 50,000 tons of beef exports?

How many Soy Latte coffee drinks can be made with 135,000 tons of Soybeans?

Friday, January 25, 2019

How Do Scientists Track Bees Inside BeeHives? Use QR Codes?

Source: C&E News

Tracking bees can be a complicated job. Especially, when from the macroscopic level (human eye), each bee appears to be the same in appearance. Which causes a person (at least me), how would a scientist studying bees track individual bees within a bee colony (or beehive)? Further, why would a scientist want to keep track of individual bees within a beehive? Well, in short, your answers are below.

How Do Insecticides Affect Bees?

Over the last couple of decades, there has been controversy surrounding the use of insecticides (certain classes of insecticides). An insecticide is a substance (chemical or compound) which is used to kill an insect. The difficult question is whether certain insecticides which are aimed to kill specific insects also have adverse (negative) impacts on unintended target insects (such as bees). The specific class of chemicals in question are the 'neonicotinoids' which are shown below on this graphic:

Source: Compound Chemistry

The chemical structures of the neonicotinoid family of compounds shown on the left hand side of the infographic above are shown below in greater detail:

(1) Acetamiprid,

Source: Jü - Own work, CC0, Link

(2) Clothianidin,

Source: Jü - Own work, CC0, Link

(3) Imidacloprid,

Source: NEUROtiker Link

(4) Nitenpyram,

Source:Jü - Own work, Link

(5) Nithiazine,

Source: Ed (Edgar181) - Link

(6) Thiacloprid

Source: Edgar181 - Link

(7) Thiamethoxam

Source:Epop - Link

The compounds above are classified as neonicotinoids due to their chemical similarity to the chemical structure of nicotine shown below:

Source: Nicotine - Harbin - Link

As a chemist, I always tend to wonder what aspects of each molecule make that molecule great for binding to a given receptor. You may think that I am speaking gibberish at the moment, but let's take a brief exploration into the mechanism (mode of action) by which these chemicals operate in the insects body (to become toxic) provided by Compound Chemistry:

This leads us on to how neonicotinoids exert their effects on insects. They are effective against a wide range of different pests, and all act in a similar manner. Neonicotinoids are systemic insecticides – meaning they are water-soluble, and can be absorbed by plants and distributed through their tissues. When insects ingest them, they bind to and block nicotinic receptors for the neurotransmitter acetylcholine in the central nervous system of insects. Acetylcholine is a neurotransmitter in many organisms, including humans. The effect of blocking the receptors for this neurotransmitter is overstimulation, which leads to paralysis and eventual death for the insects.

We also have nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, both in our central nervous system and the peripheral nervous system, so you might wonder why the neonicotinoids don’t pose just as big a danger to us. This is because, although both insects and us have the receptors, they are differently structured, and the upshot of this is that the neonicotinoids don’t bind to our receptors as strongly as they do to those of the insects. As such, they are much more toxic to insects than they are to us, or other mammals.

An insect doesn’t need to ingest a great deal of a neonicotinoid pesticide for it to exert its deadly effect. The exact figure is, of course, variable, depending on the specific species of insect. Values for the median lethal dose (the dose that kills 50% of test subjects) range from 1 to 90 nanograms per insect. For comparison, the lethal dose figure for neonicotinoids is several orders of magnitude lower than for older insecticides such as the controversial DDT.

The current study (discussed briefly below) aims to check to see the lower limit of exposure to the toxic insecticides. At what concentration, does a change of behavior occur? How long does the exposure take to translate into adverse effects on beehive colonies.

What about the current scientific study of bees?

You may have thought that the content above is a 'divergence' from the study at hand. The title of the current study is Neonicotinoid exposure disrupts bumblebee nest behavior, social networks, and thermoregulation. The study which aimed to track the behavior of bees as a result of 'dosing' the bees with different concentrations of insecticides. Why is this important?

Because the insecticides which are commonly used on crops have been associated with adverse (negative impacts) phenomenon such as 'colony collapse disorder' -- which is when the majority of the 'worker bees' leave a beehive and the colony (or hive) will eventually perish. Why does this phenomenon occur?

One contribution (a part of the aim for the current study) is the exposure of the 'worker bees' to the insecticide (in this case imidacloprid) while carrying out their duty as 'pollinators'. Pollination is the process of fertilizing the flower to produce seeds (offspring) -- i.e. the next generation. The importance of pollination to the agriculture industry cannot be overstated.

For the study published, the insecticide of choice was imidacloprid. The range of concentrations varied between 0.1 nanograms and 9 nanograms. What? Yes, the lowest concentration which served as the control group was between 0.0000000001-0.000000001 grams. Whereas for the group being dosed with a toxic dose was around 9 times the top of the control group range = 9 nanograms or 0.000000009 grams. Or stated in terms of 'parts per billion' -- control group = 0.1-1 parts per billion...and the toxic dose was 9 ppb (parts per billion).

A recent write up of the study appeared in a trade journal -- Chemical & Engineering New. Here is the brief which appeared in a recent (late last year) issue of C&E News:

Source: C&E News

Wait...How did the scientists track the bees in the beehive? The scientists glued small QR codes onto the bees. Then the tracking was accomplished by using robotic platform with an imaging system known as BEEtag. An example is shown below (24 seconds in length):

What were the results of the study published?

The results of the study using the BEEtag imaging platform were straightforward. At the control concentration of 0.1 ppb of imidacloprid, no change in bee behavior was observed. Whereas at concentrations of 6-9 ppb showed noticeable change (adverse effect) in beehive behavior. The indication was that the bees exposed to toxic amounts of imidacloprid were observed to move eventually toward the outside of the beehive. Additionally, the workers were less active and became more sedentary.

Nonetheless, the imaging technology used above has opened the door to observing negative impacts of chemical exposure previously only speculated about. This is tremendously exciting to say the least. For further details of the study, click on the title of the study above. Next steps include to see if the other compounds (chemicals) in the neonicotinoid family of substances produce the same adverse effects at the equivalent doses. Stay tuned.

Related Blog Posts:

NIDA Director Nora Volkow: How Health Communicators and Journalists Can Help Replace Stigma with Science

What is the next big step in Mental Health Research?

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson explains why 'Space Force' is nothing new...

Scientists should find similarities rather than focus on differences

Why Chemistry Matters from the mouths of Nobel Laureates!

President Trump finally fills the Office of Science and Technology Policy position - Yeah!

Wednesday, January 23, 2019

EPA Administrator Nominee Andrew Wheeler's Opening Statement - Confirmation Hearing!

Source: Herald Net

One of the accomplishments held high in any new presidential administration is to confirm through a hearing in front of congress a nomination for a given position in a federal agency. Why? A nomination could drive an agenda for a given federal agency. Meaning, a nominee can push an agenda (reverse environmental laws, etc.) by heading a given agency. Or chose to be extremely relaxed in relation to enforcing regulations -- i.e. environmental regulations -- which could potentially put the health of the public in danger. Therefore, having the power to appoint a nominee could be potentially huge for a given administration.

Who is Andrew Wheeler?

In the current example, the nomination is for the acting administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Andrew Wheeler was up for nomination. The opposition to his nomination stems from his prior job at a law firm which represented a coal magnate Robert Murray as stated in his Wikipedia page:

Andrew R. Wheeler (born December 23, 1964) is an American lawyer, former coal industry lobbyist and since July 9, 2018 Acting Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).[2] He previously worked in the law firm Faegre Baker Daniels, representing coal magnate Robert E. Murray and lobbying against the Obama Administration's environmental regulations.[3] Wheeler served as chief counsel to the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and to the chairman U.S. Senator James Inhofe, prominent for his rejection of climate change.[4] Wheeler is a critic of limits on greenhouse gas emissions and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[5]

In October 2017, Wheeler was nominated by President Donald Trump,[6] renominated in January 2018[7] and confirmed as Deputy Administrator of the EPA in April 2018.[8] On July 9, 2018, Wheeler became the Acting Administrator after the resignation of Scott Pruitt.[9] On November 16, 2018, President Trump announced he would nominate Wheeler to serve as the EPA's permanent administrator.[10]

The worry behind Andrew Wheeler's nomination stems from the fact that he is critical of climate change and the human contribution toward climate change. Additionally, he has served in positions of defending polluters (coal magnate Robert Murray) on the opposing side of the regulatory agency. Although, according to his Wikipedia page, Mr. Wheeler started off with his first job as Information Management Division Director in the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

Over the intervening years, Andrew Wheeler has worked for Senator James Inhofe (who is a climate denier) along with other areas of the senate. He has an extensive experience working with politicians which is good. This also means that he is completely aware of the process by which bills (and laws) migrate through the United States Congress.

Additionally, he should be aware of the process by which an environmental (or any other) law or bill can be reversed or changed. That is, in order to change a law (i.e. Clean Air Act), the amendment has to be proven to be better (i.e. more environmentally friendly) than the existing law.

Otherwise, the change (amendment) is not considered and the law remains unchanged. This is why the Trump Administration has challenged laws set by the Obama Administration and has been held up in court over the last couple of years -- or lost completely. Therefore, the threat of reversing environmental laws under the administrator Wheeler (to be) is not very high.

Although, given his experience inside and out of the senate, he understands how to implement change within a given administration. This could present obstacles toward implementing good regulation at the federal level (and state level for that matter). At the very least, he was given the opportunity to progress through a confirmation hearing a little over a week ago. The statement below is his opening statement.

His Opening Statement Said?

The news very often leaves out the contents of a nominee's opening statement at a confirmation hearing. Instead, the news bites the public receives are mainly the back and forth questioning which occurs in the process of clarifying the contents of the opening statements. Therefore, reading the contents of an opening statement can give rise to the general position a given candidate takes in the process of a confirmation hearing. Where does the candidate stand on a given issue?

Without further ado, here is the EPA Administrator nominee Andrew Wheeler's opening statement before the Environmental and Public Works Committee Hearing:

Statement of Andrew Wheeler

Nominated to be Administrator,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

January 16th, 2019

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Carper, and members of the committee.

I am humbled and grateful that President Trump has nominated me for the position of Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. If confirmed, it would be a true honor to lead the Agency where I began my career over 20 years ago.

There is no more important responsibility than protecting human health and the environment. It is a responsibility I take very seriously.

Since becoming Acting Administrator, I have focused our efforts on providing greater certainty to the American public: certainty in our EPA programs; certainty to the states, tribes, and local governments; and certainty on how we communicate risk.

Personally, I have also worked to provide more certainty to Congress. Immediately after becoming Acting Administrator, I reached out to the chairs and ranking members of our authorizing and appropriating committees in both the House and the Senate. I have met in person or by phone with many of you on specific issues of concern, and I will always make myself available.

The American public have a right to know the truth about the health risks they face in their daily lives and how we are responding. It is our responsibility to explain it to them clearly and consistently. That includes recognizing the progress we have made as a nation and where more progress still needs to be made.

From 1970 to 2017, U.S. criteria air pollution fell by 73 percent while the economy grew over 260 percent. In addition, we are ranked number one in the world for access to safe drinking water.

At the same time, we are advancing the President’s regulatory reform agenda. In 2018, EPA finalized 13 major deregulatory actions, saving Americans roughly $1.8 billion in regulatory costs. To date, under President Trump, EPA has finalized 33 major deregulatory actions saving Americans almost $2 billion.

The U.S. is the gold standard for environmental progress. Yet, there are Americans who have not shared in this progress.

It is these Americans that President Trump and his administration are focused on – Americans without access to safe drinking water or Americans living on or near hazardous sites, often unaware of the health risks they and their families face. Many of these sites have languished for years, even decades.

How can these Americans prosper if they cannot live, learn, or work in healthy environments? The answer is simple. They cannot. President Trump understands this. And that is why he is focused on putting Americans first.

There may be no better example than our success in the Superfund program. In Fiscal Year 2018, EPA deleted all or part of 22 sites from the National Priorities List, the largest number of deletions in one year since Fiscal Year 2005.

And we are in the process of cleaning up some of the nation’s largest, most complex sites and returning them to productive use.

This past summer, I visited the Anaconda and Butte sites in Montana – the first visit by the head of EPA in nearly 20 years. We are finalizing cleanup plans that will return these lands back to productive use, an action which has literally been stymied for decades.

This past September, EPA issued a Record of Decision requiring removal of the worst contaminated sediment, including mercury and PCBs, at the Berry’s Creek site in New Jersey. The selected remedy is an interim step, while we work to issue a final plan where the legally responsible parties would conduct and pay for a $300 million cleanup with oversight by EPA.

One of the sites on the Administrator’s Emphasis List for immediate action is the U.S. Smelter and Lead Refinery site in East Chicago. By prioritizing this site, we were able to issue a proposed $25 million cleanup plan that will address lead-contaminated soil in Zone 1 of the site.

Looking ahead, we will expand on our efforts in 2019 by working with the Department of Defense to revitalize former defense properties.

These achievements will directly improve the lives of those who reside near these sites – most often low-income, minority, and disadvantaged Americans. They are the ones that deserve our full and immediate attention.

That is why we have also made safe drinking water a top priority.

In May 2018, EPA convened its first-ever National Leadership Summit to help states address the emerging risks associated with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The summit included representatives from over 40 states, tribes, and territories; 20 federal agencies; Congressional staff; associations; industry groups; and non-governmental organizations.

Following the Summit, the agency hosted a series of visits in communities directly impacted by PFAS. Using information from these events and other public input, we will release a PFAS Action Plan in the very near future.

We are also taking important actions to protect our children from the dangers of lead exposure. We proposed stronger dust-lead hazard standards, and we are updating the lead and copper rule for the first time in two decades. These actions and more are detailed in the new Federal Lead Action Plan, which we announced in December alongside the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

In addition, we are using our grant and financing programs to help communities replace lead service lines and upgrade their water infrastructure. Under President Trump, EPA has issued seven loans through the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program totaling over $1.5 billion. Combined, these projects will help finance over $3.5 billion in infrastructure investments while creating over 6,000 jobs.

That’s just the beginning. This past year, we invited an additional 39 projects across the nation to apply for WIFIA loans that would help finance nearly $12 billion in water infrastructure and create up to 183,000 jobs.

When it comes to reducing air pollution, we have launched common-sense reforms, such as the Cleaner Trucks Initiative. Since 2000, nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions in the U.S. have been reduced by 52 percent. However, it is estimated that heavy-duty trucks will be responsible for one-third of NOx emissions from transportation in 2025, and it’s been nearly 20 years since EPA last set NOx emissions standards for heavy-duty trucks. By working closely with states and the private sector, we will reduce NOx emissions from heavy-duty trucks, which is not required by statute or court order but makes sense to do.

In order to provide greater certainty for manufacturers and confidence for American consumers, EPA has worked hard to meet the deadlines set by the bi-partisan 2016 Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which amended the Toxic Substances Control Act. Over the past year, EPA once again met its obligations by releasing guidance and policy on confidential business information, a strategy to reduce animal testing, a final mercury reporting rule, and a final fees rule.

What makes our actions effective and durable is our commitment to vigorously enforce them. In Fiscal Year 2018, EPA enforcement actions required the treatment, disposal, or elimination of 809 million pounds of pollutants and waste – almost twice as much compared to 2017. We also entered into the largest settlement in the history of our enforcement of the Risk Management Program with the responsible party spending $150 million on major safety improvements.

As an Agency, we can’t improve how we carry out our responsibilities unless we can accurately measure our progress. Under President Trump, EPA launched a comprehensive management system, the EPA Lean Management System (ELMS), to identify, track, and enhance critical Agency processes.

This past year, we initiated deployment of ELMS in three regions and scheduled deployment in the rest of the agency for Fiscal Year 2019. We created over 600 performance measures across all national programs and regional offices. For the first time, EPA is reviewing its performance via these new measures and taking corrective action on a monthly, rather annual basis. We’re already seeing dramatic improvements, such as reducing the backlog of new permit applications older than six months by 34 percent between June and November 2018.

Our accomplishments also extend to extraordinary events and issues that transcend our nation’s borders. Over the past two years, highly dedicated and experienced EPA employees have conducted almost 500 emergency response and removal actions, while at the same time responding to six nationally significant hurricane events, several of the most destructive wildfires in U.S. history, a Super Typhoon, and a volcanic eruption.

In October, I signed a memorandum of understanding with the Israeli Ministry of Environmental Protection to advance our collaboration on pressing environmental challenges, such as innovation in the water sector and the remediation of contaminated lands. Most notably, in December, I signed the trilateral Environmental Cooperation Agreement with Canada and Mexico on behalf of the U.S. It contains the most comprehensive set of enforceable environmental obligations of any trade agreement to date, including first-time provisions to address pressing environmental issues such as air quality and marine litter.

Finally, consistent with the President’s directives, we proposed three major rulemakings, and I’ll say a brief word about each.

First, our new proposed waters of the U.S. definition would provide farmers and landowners the certainty they need to grow more crops, build more homes, and create more jobs. In line with President Trump’s February 2017 Executive Order, our proposal would replace the 2015 definition with one that follows the Clean Water Act and respects the primary role of the states in managing their land and water resources. For the first time, we are clearly defining the difference between federally protected wetlands and state protected wetlands.

Second, the proposed Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule would adhere to the four corners of the Clean Air Act and allow states to set emissions standards that protect human health while ensuring access to affordable, reliable energy. When ACE is fully implemented, the rule would help reduce U.S. power sector CO2 emissions by 34 percent below 2005 levels.

Third, EPA and the Department of Transportation proposed the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles rule, which would reduce the cost of new vehicles so that more Americans can purchase newer, cleaner, and safer cars and trucks.

The average age of vehicles on the road today is at a record high – roughly 12 years old. In 1990, the average age was approximately eight years old. Research shows that passengers are more likely to be killed in older vehicles compared to newer ones. Compared to keeping the 2012 standards in place, our preferred option would reduce the cost of owning a new car by more than $2,300. These savings would help more Americans purchase newer cars, thereby improving the environment and saving lives – approximately 1,000 lives annually.

Through our deregulatory actions, the Trump Administration has proven that burdensome federal regulations are not necessary to drive environmental progress. Certainty, and the innovation that thrives in a climate of certainty, are key to progress.

I am proud of our accomplishments, and I know that none of it would be possible without our talented and dedicated EPA career staff.

Just last week, EPA and the Department of Justice announced a $490 million settlement with Fiat Chrysler for cheating U.S. emissions standards.

For three years, Fiat Chrysler told us that their vehicles were compliant. Yet, it was EPA engineers at our National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory and the Office of Transportation and Air Quality that caught them cheating. And then they proved how they were cheating. That was no easy task.

Defeat devices hidden in vehicle software can have more than 100 million lines of code. To give you an idea of what EPA staff had to deal with, an F-22 fighter jet has less than 2 million lines of code and a Boeing 787 has around 14 million lines. So I am proud and grateful for our talented and dedicated career staff that was able to detect and expose these defeat devices.

Thanks to our hardworking public servants, pollution is on the decline. Our focus now is to accelerate its decline, particularly in communities where it poses the most immediate and lasting harm.

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to answering your questions.

To learn more about the contents of the above opening statement provided by Andrew Wheeler, click on the hyperlinked text just before the statement above. In the months ahead, I look forward to learning more in detail about the deregulatory efforts of Andrew Wheeler which saved Americans $1.8 billion in savings. Additionally, his ability to govern an agency which he has over 20 years of experience will undoubtedly be clouded by his boss (President Trump) in the future months. I look forward to seeing the result of his administrative efforts in the Trump Era.

Thank goodness that we have protections in place in Congress to allow only positive changes to be implemented toward existing law. Otherwise, the world might be a different place under the current administration. Regardless, each of us should be engaged with the workings of the federal agencies to give states their rights in certain circumstances while protecting citizens health and priorities in other situations (i.e. disaster, corruption, bad governance, etc.).

Related Blog Posts:

Earthquake App Is Released Which Provides Seconds Of Warning Before Big One Hits!

Over 600 Environmental Groups write letter to Congress to phase out fossil fuels

Senator Carper Blasts Environmental Protection Agency For Considering Relaxing 'Mercury and Air Toxics Standard'?