Rates of Parkinson’s disease are exploding. A common chemical may be to blame(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Rates of Parkinson’s disease are exploding. A common chemical may be to blame
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/07/rates-of-parkinsons-disease-are-exploding-a-common-chemical-may-be-to-blame
99 comments
Surprise to see that we are pointing and blaming one chemical only here. PFAS, a class of more than 4,000 different chemicals, is everywhere [https://on.natgeo.com/2Q2UtMS] food, water we drink and even in our blood. We don't even know when and how we are consuming it directly or indirectly.
Do we have any kind of full proof study about all 4000 chemicals, that how these chemicals would be affecting our health!
I think nature has already been polluted/damaged to an extent which is kind-a irreversible. Hoping for the better world.
PFAS is going to be the asbestos of our generation, except it won't be so easy to get rid of this time around. It's more like the asbestos of every future generation until we find a way to reliably break it down.
That or it will be a natural form of selection for old age, increasing human longevity at the expense of temporary population reduction. Let's hope artificial gene therapy is within our lifetimes or hope we drew the golden ticket.
If you have already had children and raised them to adulthood (Alzheimer’s first appears primarily in your mid 60s or later), what exactly is the selective pressure mechanism?
Genetic sequencing. We will eliminate the embryos we don't want.
>it will be a natural form of selection for old age, increasing human longevity
I don't think genetic sequencing falls into the category of "natural selection".
I don't think genetic sequencing falls into the category of "natural selection".
Ok people not wanting to have kids because of a family history of Parkinson's disease.
PFAS is on furniture, clothes, cooking ware, food containers, firefighting foam and so forth. The firefighting foam gets it into the water table as do badly managed dumps.
It's been detected in milk, eggs, water..
It's been detected in milk, eggs, water..
I sometimes think back about our attitudes towards lead, mercury, and even radium[1], and I truly wonder how we survived as a specifies!
I am grateful that collectively things seem to be improving. We're learning more about diseases, their causes, and their treatments.
1. https://www.thevintagenews.com/2017/01/24/an-energy-drink-th...
I am grateful that collectively things seem to be improving. We're learning more about diseases, their causes, and their treatments.
1. https://www.thevintagenews.com/2017/01/24/an-energy-drink-th...
Frankly, this could be the Great Filter.
This kind of thing is what eventually kills off Brewer's Yeast. The individual yeast cells keep making sugar into alcohol until the alcohol concentration is so great that they kill each other off.
You know what, that is a fascinating analogy and microcosmic explanation of the Great Filter. I’ve never thought of that before.
No, that is Facebook right now :)
We don't even know how all of our bodily chemicals affect our health. It is because nature is inherently a messy and complex process. Unknowns are the default state and a fact of life.
Now consuming them may not be ideal but the fear of the unknown is overemphasized. We already know from pharmacology that higher effectiveness needs fewer data instances to prove from the strength of the effect. The more powerful something's effect not noticing it becomes increasingly improbable as patterns should become increasingly obvious in large numbers. Try not to notice plutonium toxicity.
The fact we aren't seeing more immediate effects from higher level of exposure suggests it is not catastrophic - may not be good but it is an implicit upper bound on harm based upon what we see cannot be possible. To give an absurd example we know PFAS does not cause people's heads to explode at current levels of exposure because there have been zero reports of people's heads exploding without a known cause.
Now consuming them may not be ideal but the fear of the unknown is overemphasized. We already know from pharmacology that higher effectiveness needs fewer data instances to prove from the strength of the effect. The more powerful something's effect not noticing it becomes increasingly improbable as patterns should become increasingly obvious in large numbers. Try not to notice plutonium toxicity.
The fact we aren't seeing more immediate effects from higher level of exposure suggests it is not catastrophic - may not be good but it is an implicit upper bound on harm based upon what we see cannot be possible. To give an absurd example we know PFAS does not cause people's heads to explode at current levels of exposure because there have been zero reports of people's heads exploding without a known cause.
>there have been zero reports of people's heads exploding without a known cause.
There is a long list of common and unexplained medical problems like fibromyalgia awaiting an explanation like "that water you've been drinking is toxic." There is no shortage of illnesses that could potentially be caused by a problem like that.
There is a long list of common and unexplained medical problems like fibromyalgia awaiting an explanation like "that water you've been drinking is toxic." There is no shortage of illnesses that could potentially be caused by a problem like that.
>The fact we aren't seeing more immediate effects from higher level of exposure suggests it is not catastrophic
>Rates of Parkinson’s disease are exploding
I wouldn't exactly call exploding rates of a brain destroying incurable disease a good thing.
>Rates of Parkinson’s disease are exploding
I wouldn't exactly call exploding rates of a brain destroying incurable disease a good thing.
I've been terrified of this chemical since watching a PBS show called "Ghostwriter" when I was a kid:
Synopsis: "The team is hard at work at the community garden center when a series of health problems arise: Gaby passes out, several other kids and adults get sick, and even some rabbits die. It's soon learned that a highly toxic chemical, tetrachloroethylene (commonly known as "perc") has been illegally dumped in the ground under the garden and is to blame. As the authorities cannot remove the barrels in a reasonable amount of time, unless the guilty party is tracked down, the team sets off to find the person responsible for such a dirty act. Investigation eventually leads to a local philanthropist named John Miller (Brian Reddy), who may not be the "Citizen of the Year" that he seems." [1]
Does anyone else remember this episode and have the same reaction as I do?
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ghostwriter_episodes
Synopsis: "The team is hard at work at the community garden center when a series of health problems arise: Gaby passes out, several other kids and adults get sick, and even some rabbits die. It's soon learned that a highly toxic chemical, tetrachloroethylene (commonly known as "perc") has been illegally dumped in the ground under the garden and is to blame. As the authorities cannot remove the barrels in a reasonable amount of time, unless the guilty party is tracked down, the team sets off to find the person responsible for such a dirty act. Investigation eventually leads to a local philanthropist named John Miller (Brian Reddy), who may not be the "Citizen of the Year" that he seems." [1]
Does anyone else remember this episode and have the same reaction as I do?
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ghostwriter_episodes
I do recall that episode. It was a good lesson in why environmentalism is important, because pollution is a real threat that can hurt us in our own neighborhoods.
Whether or not TCE is responsible for these outcomes related to Parkinson's, certainly TCE is a well-known toxin. One famous case related to TCE was Anderson v. Cryovac Inc. which had to do with contaminated groundwater in Woburn, Massachusetts in the 1980s related to an statistically unusual increased level of Leukemia in the children there. The case was the basis for the book, A Civil Action, by Jonathan Harr, which was also turned into a subsequent movie of the same name, starring John Travolta.
Both the book (and the movie) are actually quite good and worth checking out.
Both the book (and the movie) are actually quite good and worth checking out.
Looking at the wiki entry for trichloroethylene:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichloroethylene
I guess I'm a little skeptical of the explaination that it could be the source of the explosion of Parkinson's over the past decade. Trichloroethylene has known to be a problem since at least the 50s. For example, its use in bulk in dry cleaning was replaced in the 50s with tetrachloroethylene, and it was used for spot cleaning only up until 2000.
The only seemingly recent increase in uses are:
"The demand for TCE as a degreaser began to decline in the 1950s in favor of the less toxic 1,1,1-trichloroethane. However, 1,1,1-trichloroethane production has been phased out in most of the world under the terms of the Montreal Protocol, and as a result trichloroethylene has experienced some resurgence in use as a degreaser."
I don't think most people are exposed to industrial degreaser in their line of work, let alone in domestic settings.
"TCE is also used in the manufacture of a range of fluorocarbon refrigerants[13] such as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane more commonly known as HFC 134a"
Now this seems somewhat plausible. R134a started to be used in the early to mid 90s, so the timeline would make sense. However, it says it's only used in the manufacture of it. Perhaps there's some residual left in the final R134a product, and that's how people would be exposed to it? Plenty of ACs and fridges in people's lives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichloroethylene
I guess I'm a little skeptical of the explaination that it could be the source of the explosion of Parkinson's over the past decade. Trichloroethylene has known to be a problem since at least the 50s. For example, its use in bulk in dry cleaning was replaced in the 50s with tetrachloroethylene, and it was used for spot cleaning only up until 2000.
The only seemingly recent increase in uses are:
"The demand for TCE as a degreaser began to decline in the 1950s in favor of the less toxic 1,1,1-trichloroethane. However, 1,1,1-trichloroethane production has been phased out in most of the world under the terms of the Montreal Protocol, and as a result trichloroethylene has experienced some resurgence in use as a degreaser."
I don't think most people are exposed to industrial degreaser in their line of work, let alone in domestic settings.
"TCE is also used in the manufacture of a range of fluorocarbon refrigerants[13] such as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane more commonly known as HFC 134a"
Now this seems somewhat plausible. R134a started to be used in the early to mid 90s, so the timeline would make sense. However, it says it's only used in the manufacture of it. Perhaps there's some residual left in the final R134a product, and that's how people would be exposed to it? Plenty of ACs and fridges in people's lives.
If your fridge or AC is exposing you to trace amounts of TCE left over from the process of making the R134a it's primarily charged with, it also isn't keeping your food cold.
A common AC charge for a car is around 500g +/- 25g It doesn't take much of that leaking out before it doesn't blow cold air. Even if there was a bunch of residual TCE, you're unlikely to be subject to a long term exposure because you'd notice your AC or fridge not working long before the full charge leaked out to expose you.
In spite of the efforts of the world's accountants, fridges and air conditioners still routinely last a decade or more. That's because the charge of R134a is largely staying put.
A common AC charge for a car is around 500g +/- 25g It doesn't take much of that leaking out before it doesn't blow cold air. Even if there was a bunch of residual TCE, you're unlikely to be subject to a long term exposure because you'd notice your AC or fridge not working long before the full charge leaked out to expose you.
In spite of the efforts of the world's accountants, fridges and air conditioners still routinely last a decade or more. That's because the charge of R134a is largely staying put.
It largely is, but on the other hand, there's plenty of ACs out there (especially in cars) that have failed.
There are groundwater plumes of TCE around air force bases because they used to just dump extra TCE into open pits thinking it would evaporate. Maybe those plumes reached enough city wells to cause problems over the last few decades.
Example: https://www.library.pima.gov/blogs/post/trichlorethylene-tce...
Hughes is now Raytheon
Trichlorethylene (TCE), an industrial solvent, was routinely dumped in areas of South Tucson during the 1950s. The Tucsonans who lived in these areas have had various cancers as a result of this pollution.
The boundary of the area contaminated by TCE is roughly south of 22nd street, north of Los Reales Road, east of Interstate 19 and west of Del Moral Boulevard.
Hughes Aircraft and the city of Tucson were accused of dumping TCE in the water table for 29 years, beginning in 1952. A lawsuit against the city was settled in 1981 for $31 million, and in 1991 a suit against Hughes Aircraft was settled for $84.5 million. In 1981 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tested water wells on the south side of Tucson and found TCE levels were beyond the EPA limits.
In 1983, the EPA set a large southside area of Tucson on its Superfund cleanup list. In March 2000, a $35 million plan was secured for cleanup of the contaminated areas. Other government supervised cleanups started about 20 years ago. The last settlements involving TCE lawsuits occurred in June 2006.
The boundary of the area contaminated by TCE is roughly south of 22nd street, north of Los Reales Road, east of Interstate 19 and west of Del Moral Boulevard.
Hughes Aircraft and the city of Tucson were accused of dumping TCE in the water table for 29 years, beginning in 1952. A lawsuit against the city was settled in 1981 for $31 million, and in 1991 a suit against Hughes Aircraft was settled for $84.5 million. In 1981 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tested water wells on the south side of Tucson and found TCE levels were beyond the EPA limits.
In 1983, the EPA set a large southside area of Tucson on its Superfund cleanup list. In March 2000, a $35 million plan was secured for cleanup of the contaminated areas. Other government supervised cleanups started about 20 years ago. The last settlements involving TCE lawsuits occurred in June 2006.
I recall this making headlines in the 90’s in proximity to airbases in Pennsylvania.
Specifically issues around drinking water for residential housing with wells in proximity to the airbases.
Specifically issues around drinking water for residential housing with wells in proximity to the airbases.
My dad is suffering from Lewy Body Dementia which is related to Parkinson's. He was an auto mechanic his entire adult life (from around 1960 - 2010). I wonder if he was exposed to TCE?
I did a 23 and Me test and never unlocked the health results. I'm a little terrified of finding out that dementia is in my future as well.
I did a 23 and Me test and never unlocked the health results. I'm a little terrified of finding out that dementia is in my future as well.
I bought some brake cleaner not too long ago and saw all the labeling about the new formulation. I just looked up what the old formulations used to look like, check it out.
> Chlorinated brake cleaners (often sold as non-flammable) use organochlorides like tetrachloroethylene and Dichloromethane.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_cleaner#Composition
Compared to the new formulation
https://www.crcindustries.com/products/brakleen-174-pro-seri...
so called 50 state compliant. https://www.crcindustries.com/products/brakleen-174-pro-seri...
> Chlorinated brake cleaners (often sold as non-flammable) use organochlorides like tetrachloroethylene and Dichloromethane.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_cleaner#Composition
Compared to the new formulation
https://www.crcindustries.com/products/brakleen-174-pro-seri...
so called 50 state compliant. https://www.crcindustries.com/products/brakleen-174-pro-seri...
Well shit, I always preferred the old fully chlorinated stuff because it works better. When you say "chlorinated" I assume that means it contains chlorine, which isn't great, but is more an issue for chemical burns than anything, so you wear gloves and eye pro and don't worry about it. I never looked into it. I've probably inadvertently exposed myself to a /ton/ of TCE working on cars and other mechanical things. I buy brake cleaner by the case...
Yah I chloro is used to communicate that a chlorine atom is somewhere present in the molecular structure of the compound.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/chloro-
Degreaser is a common part of a car mechanics life. Especially so 30+ years ago where it was more common to clean and replace parts than now when it's more usual to just replace any removed part.
This is counter-intuitive but I guess there are cases where throwing away the part and replacing with a new one is MORE environmentally friendly that reusing the part—when it involves not-so-nice solvents. I hadn't considered this before.
Maybe. Depends on how environmentally friendly manufacturing, packaging and transporting the new part is. I suspect it’s a win in chemical terms most of the time, but it may not be an overall blowout win.
I did a 23 and Me test and never unlocked the health results. I'm a little terrified of finding out that dementia is in my future as well.
I was in almost the identical boat but I pulled the trigger on looking at the test results, ended up fine. Better to know and try to manage it I think.
I was in almost the identical boat but I pulled the trigger on looking at the test results, ended up fine. Better to know and try to manage it I think.
Intellectually, I know you're right.
There's also the angle that if I want to buy life insurance I may be better off not knowing.
After seeing how it's affecting my dad, I know how I'd "manage" it. It really is awful and decades of mental decline coupled with terrifying hallucinations is not something I'm willing to endure.
There's also the angle that if I want to buy life insurance I may be better off not knowing.
After seeing how it's affecting my dad, I know how I'd "manage" it. It really is awful and decades of mental decline coupled with terrifying hallucinations is not something I'm willing to endure.
> buy life insurance I may be better off not knowing.
I think it’s moot because life insurance will check your genes as part of underwriting.
In the US genes can’t be used to discriminate for employment or healthcare [0], but can for everything else.
I got a quote for term insurance in 2008 and they tested for lots of genetic conditions.
You can probably get by if you have unique, rare mutations that aren’t commonly studied. But anything basic enough to be found in a 23andme profile is likely to be checked by your insurance.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_discrimination
I think it’s moot because life insurance will check your genes as part of underwriting.
In the US genes can’t be used to discriminate for employment or healthcare [0], but can for everything else.
I got a quote for term insurance in 2008 and they tested for lots of genetic conditions.
You can probably get by if you have unique, rare mutations that aren’t commonly studied. But anything basic enough to be found in a 23andme profile is likely to be checked by your insurance.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_discrimination
The life insurance angle is real, but the solution isn’t to wait, it’s to get into the plan before you find out. You can always stop the plan if you think your risks aren’t as high later when you know more!
If he used a lot of brake cleaner or carburator cleaner then likely yes. Either TCE or a similar chlorinated solvents.
Both Parkinson's and Dementia with Lewy Bodies mostly occur without family history, so the test may not say much anyway.
In my mom's case I wonder about a viral infection she had in her eye. It was quite severe.
In my mom's case I wonder about a viral infection she had in her eye. It was quite severe.
> mostly occur without family history
Does that suggest it's environmental rather than genetic?
Does that suggest it's environmental rather than genetic?
Even genetic diseases sometimes need environmental influences to develop.
For example, some people are prone to alcoholism in a hereditary way. But if they live in a society that has zero alcohol, they won't ever become alcoholic. Upon moving to a society where alcohol is sold freely and frequently, they may sink into alcoholism without having any obviously alcoholic ancestor.
For example, some people are prone to alcoholism in a hereditary way. But if they live in a society that has zero alcohol, they won't ever become alcoholic. Upon moving to a society where alcohol is sold freely and frequently, they may sink into alcoholism without having any obviously alcoholic ancestor.
I don't know really.
I think the cutting edge opinion is that it isn't known why they occur.
I think the cutting edge opinion is that it isn't known why they occur.
Not necessarily. A homozygous recessive disorder often occurs without prior family history.
Two carriers have a child together, the child has the disorder, this is how they learn they are carriers.
Two carriers have a child together, the child has the disorder, this is how they learn they are carriers.
I'm sorry to hear that.
TCE is a degreaser which is used to clean car parts so most likely.
TCE is a degreaser which is used to clean car parts so most likely.
There is also the interesting process of chemical Oxidation, which occurs naturally, and with environmental clean up. ( Various treatment processes: ozonation, peroxide injection, etc.) The break down by products of complex chemicals, are often more toxic (long term hazard to organisms, including humans.) For example, Tetra fluoroethylene, may easily breakdown down to Tri fluoroethylene. There are even more toxic by products, further down the break down chain. Soil chemistry is very complicated, and interesting. EPA has very good articles following these processes across hundreds of superfund sites, across the USA.
>Those near National Priorities List Superfund sites (sites known to be contaminated with hazardous substances such as TCE) are at especially high risk of exposure. Santa Clara county, California, for example, is home not only to Silicon Valley, but 23 superfund sites – the highest concentration in the country. Google Quad Campus sits atop one such site; for several months in 2012 and 2013, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found employees of the company were inhaling unsafe levels of TCE in the form of toxic vapor rising up from the ground beneath their offices.
I used to play basketball on this campus all the time! Sheesh
It's not like this is Google-specific. Santa Clara County is just toxic. All of this junk, for example, is built on a plume of TCE. https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3823386,-121.9841579,458m/da...
Just curious, what specifically are you pointing at? Is there any manufacturing going on? I'd think these are mostly office buildings.
It was semiconductor manufacturing before, then it was an empty lot, now its offices and parking. This would have been an orchard, 50 years ago.
And to emphasize, semiconductor manufacturing has a lot of toxic chemistry along the way.
There is always the problem of over time people not dying of other causes so that more get to live to the ages where they can get diseases that used to be rarer. Also, AFAIK, improvements have been made in the diagnosis of Parkinson's.
> in the US, the number of people with Parkinson’s has increased 35% the last 10 years
10 years ago, the oldest U.S. baby boomers were reaching 65. Now, they are reaching 75[1].
Given the fact that birth rate went from 19/1000 to 27/1000 between 1935 and 1946 and the fact that people born in 1946 faced a much friendlier environment to grow up in, the numbers are not surprising.
The fact is, industry also grew at the same time, so it will always be possible to find positive correlations between prevalence of some disease and some industrial chemical.
It is not impossible that a causal relationship exists, but that needs to be established using something other than simple correlations.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-20th_century_baby_boom#Nor...
> in the US, the number of people with Parkinson’s has increased 35% the last 10 years
10 years ago, the oldest U.S. baby boomers were reaching 65. Now, they are reaching 75[1].
Given the fact that birth rate went from 19/1000 to 27/1000 between 1935 and 1946 and the fact that people born in 1946 faced a much friendlier environment to grow up in, the numbers are not surprising.
The fact is, industry also grew at the same time, so it will always be possible to find positive correlations between prevalence of some disease and some industrial chemical.
It is not impossible that a causal relationship exists, but that needs to be established using something other than simple correlations.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-20th_century_baby_boom#Nor...
"A 2008 peer-reviewed study in the Annals of Neurology, for example, found that TCE is “a risk factor for parkinsonism.” And a 2011 study echoed those results, finding “a six-fold increase in the risk of developing Parkinson’s in individuals exposed in the workplace to trichloroethylene (TCE).”"
It doesn't strike me as fair to dismiss studies like the ones quoted (from the article) as simple correlations.
It doesn't strike me as fair to dismiss studies like the ones quoted (from the article) as simple correlations.
> It doesn't strike me as fair to dismiss studies like the ones quoted (from the article) as simple correlations.
I didn't see the particular studies and I am not dismissing them out of hand, but I've seen a lot of studies, lost a lot of battles against all sorts of unsound statistical analysis. When I taught Intro Stats, I had no trouble finding examples of what not to do to illustrate in class: Just look at the front page of the campus newspaper which seemed intent on filling pages with bogus "studies".
Again, I am not calling this one[1] bogus, but I am going to point out that study seems to consist solely of finding people who have Parkinson's and have worked around the chemical.
Causality requires (not p) => (not q).
[1]: https://hero.epa.gov/hero/index.cfm/reference/details/refere...
I didn't see the particular studies and I am not dismissing them out of hand, but I've seen a lot of studies, lost a lot of battles against all sorts of unsound statistical analysis. When I taught Intro Stats, I had no trouble finding examples of what not to do to illustrate in class: Just look at the front page of the campus newspaper which seemed intent on filling pages with bogus "studies".
Again, I am not calling this one[1] bogus, but I am going to point out that study seems to consist solely of finding people who have Parkinson's and have worked around the chemical.
Causality requires (not p) => (not q).
[1]: https://hero.epa.gov/hero/index.cfm/reference/details/refere...
While this is always something to consider, generally, 6-fold increase in risk due to exposure is likely not just a population demographic artifact.
TCE and its relation to Parkinson's has been studied for at least the last 15 years. Though I haven't come across anything definitive on the mechanism of action, there seems to be indication that a combination of TCE or its analogues combined with other risk factors (assumed to be genetic) generates substantial progressive dopaminergic neuron loss, a hallmark of Parkinson's disease progression.
TCE and its relation to Parkinson's has been studied for at least the last 15 years. Though I haven't come across anything definitive on the mechanism of action, there seems to be indication that a combination of TCE or its analogues combined with other risk factors (assumed to be genetic) generates substantial progressive dopaminergic neuron loss, a hallmark of Parkinson's disease progression.
> 6-fold increase in risk due to exposure
Interestingly, the Guardian article does not cite a source for that claim, so it is impossible to evaluate it soundly.
However, just above, it states:
>> the number of people with Parkinson’s has increased 35% the last 10 years
which is completely in line with the increase in at risk population + improved probability of diagnosis.
That doesn't mean there is no link.
Interestingly, the Guardian article does not cite a source for that claim, so it is impossible to evaluate it soundly.
However, just above, it states:
>> the number of people with Parkinson’s has increased 35% the last 10 years
which is completely in line with the increase in at risk population + improved probability of diagnosis.
That doesn't mean there is no link.
This is a very important, often overlooked point.
Also food malnutrition is way less common, than it was before.
But we also are exposed to many new chemicals, not occuring in nature, so we could not adopt to them.
So ... I guess there is no definite, simple answer.
Also food malnutrition is way less common, than it was before.
But we also are exposed to many new chemicals, not occuring in nature, so we could not adopt to them.
So ... I guess there is no definite, simple answer.
Honestly what good comes out of any “industrial scale” chemical? I think people are screwed because this is _one_ chemical; what about all of the synthetic materials in peoples houses these days (the carpet itself)?
We need to go back to basics here instead of trying to over-science things. Bust out that bottle of vinegar and keep things simple in my opinion.
We need to go back to basics here instead of trying to over-science things. Bust out that bottle of vinegar and keep things simple in my opinion.
The whole world runs on industrial scale chemicals. Virtually everything in our modern society relies on them. They are base inputs to almost every chain of goods from foodstuffs to textiles to manufactured items of every sort. Even your vinegar example is primarily produced as an industrial scale chemical.
A comparison can still be made between the same age cohorts i.e. compare rates of Alzheimer’s for the cohort 60 to 65 year olds. There is always a potential for confounding factors, but if the rates are up 35% for all cohorts then that says something.
Also the beautiful flow graph https://images2.minutemediacdn.com/image/upload/c_fit,f_auto... (graph for US Women I think) does show that after about 70 “mental” starts being a significant percentage of deaths, although Parkinson’s is only one component of that I think.
Source for graph is: https://flowingdata.com/2016/01/05/causes-of-death/
Also the beautiful flow graph https://images2.minutemediacdn.com/image/upload/c_fit,f_auto... (graph for US Women I think) does show that after about 70 “mental” starts being a significant percentage of deaths, although Parkinson’s is only one component of that I think.
Source for graph is: https://flowingdata.com/2016/01/05/causes-of-death/
This can be done by 'Controlling for age' in statistics. If your cohort gets older, you get more prevalence of old age diseases of course. But by isolating by sufficiently small age groups (assuming the age distribution is approximately constant, or flat, within a group[1]), we can tell if the rate per given age is increasing or not. In this case simple multivariate statistics to judge if the changes are significant.
[1] The variation in distribution among age groups can be controlled by more sophisticated methods, but it may be sufficient to make the groups small and multivariate analysis (although results might be weakened by assumptions of independent errors if groups are too small).
[1] The variation in distribution among age groups can be controlled by more sophisticated methods, but it may be sufficient to make the groups small and multivariate analysis (although results might be weakened by assumptions of independent errors if groups are too small).
A six-fold increase in the risk in individuals exposed in the workplace to trichloroethylene is more like a natural experiment than "simple correlation".
It’s not the only thing they were exposed to though in the natural experiment, so it’s entirely possible that third factor C is what’s driving it.
There are more studies according to the article that make the solid case, but one instance of correlation is not necessarily a smoking gun.
There are more studies according to the article that make the solid case, but one instance of correlation is not necessarily a smoking gun.
> > in the US, the number of people with Parkinson’s has increased 35% the last 10 years
> 10 years ago, the oldest U.S. baby boomers were reaching 65. Now, they are reaching 75[1].
The numbers do match up rather well. The US population over the age of 65 has grown around 33% in the last 10 years.
I see conflicting information regarding the average/median age at diagnosis, but it seems to be around there.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/POPTOTUSA647NWDB
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPPOP65UPTOZSUSA
> 10 years ago, the oldest U.S. baby boomers were reaching 65. Now, they are reaching 75[1].
The numbers do match up rather well. The US population over the age of 65 has grown around 33% in the last 10 years.
I see conflicting information regarding the average/median age at diagnosis, but it seems to be around there.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/POPTOTUSA647NWDB
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPPOP65UPTOZSUSA
> population over the age of 65 has grown around 33% in the last 10 years
Which strikingly echoes GP's "birth rate went from 19/1000 to 27/1000 between 1935 and 1946".
But 10 years too late ? I'm confused maybe.
Which strikingly echoes GP's "birth rate went from 19/1000 to 27/1000 between 1935 and 1946".
But 10 years too late ? I'm confused maybe.
The data was intended to back up the GP's point, pointing out the growth in the underlying population of those diagnosed very closely mirrors the growth in number diagnosed.
I know. I meant the echoing wavefront seems 10y late : 1935+65 = 2000
> I know. I meant the echoing wavefront seems 10y late : 1935+65 = 2000
Good point. I believe I was thinking about 75. 65 crept in because I was also going to mention that at the beginning of the US Social Security program (1935), the assumption was no one lived much beyond 65.
Here is a table that might cast light on the diagnosis of Parkinson's by age: https://academic.oup.com/view-large/1251178
Note population pyramids for 2000[1], 2010[2], and 2020[3].
[1]: https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/2... [2]: https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/2... [3]: https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/2...
Good point. I believe I was thinking about 75. 65 crept in because I was also going to mention that at the beginning of the US Social Security program (1935), the assumption was no one lived much beyond 65.
Here is a table that might cast light on the diagnosis of Parkinson's by age: https://academic.oup.com/view-large/1251178
Note population pyramids for 2000[1], 2010[2], and 2020[3].
[1]: https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/2... [2]: https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/2... [3]: https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/2...
Thank you. Your population links are fascinating.
Going [1]->[2]->[3] shows that the real boom after all is the cohort born around 1960.
Going [1]->[2]->[3] shows that the real boom after all is the cohort born around 1960.
> real boom after all is the cohort born around 1960.
There is a boom in birth rates which remains sustained high for about 10 years. However, the conditions of early childhood environment keep improving along with a reduction the hazard of early death. The 1945 cohort does end up being hit by the Vietnam war whereas people born in the 60s do not face any of that.
Population numbers reflect who survived.
There is a boom in birth rates which remains sustained high for about 10 years. However, the conditions of early childhood environment keep improving along with a reduction the hazard of early death. The 1945 cohort does end up being hit by the Vietnam war whereas people born in the 60s do not face any of that.
Population numbers reflect who survived.
Just speculating here. Could be due to declining smoking rates. Especially among the cohort that's aging into age into prime diagnosis years. Nicotine is highly effective at preventing Parkinson's.
https://actaneurocomms.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s4...
https://actaneurocomms.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s4...
This is a very plausible explanation.
How would you know?
What does plausible mean?
My understanding:
plausible: it is possible to make reasonable case for that argument.
possible: is capable of becoming true, though it’s not always reasonable.
The logic of possible nicotine link seems completely clear on the basis of current nt knowledge. That does not mean it exists or is important. Somebody has to look into it.
My understanding:
plausible: it is possible to make reasonable case for that argument.
possible: is capable of becoming true, though it’s not always reasonable.
The logic of possible nicotine link seems completely clear on the basis of current nt knowledge. That does not mean it exists or is important. Somebody has to look into it.
"Very plausible" carries different connotations to "plausible". The former suggests (to me) that it really might be the right explanation, whereas the latter just sounds like it is an explanation that fits currently known facts.
Nicotine is in fact highly protective against Parkinsons. The effect is not small!
Smoking has declined by at least half in the last fifty years in the United States. Also not a small effect!
"Very plausible" here means "someone should really do a study where they correlate for lower levels of nicotine use and see if there's anything left to explain".
I can't imagine anyone would see "very plausible" and think the explanation should be accepted without investigation. That's just not what that phrase means.
Smoking has declined by at least half in the last fifty years in the United States. Also not a small effect!
"Very plausible" here means "someone should really do a study where they correlate for lower levels of nicotine use and see if there's anything left to explain".
I can't imagine anyone would see "very plausible" and think the explanation should be accepted without investigation. That's just not what that phrase means.
> Nicotine is ...
> Smoking has ...
Neither I, nor anyone in this thread, has contested the existence of evidence to support this claim.
> "Very plausible" here means ...
Why does "plausible" not suffice?
> I can't imagine anyone would see "very plausible" and think the explanation should be accepted without investigation. That's just not what that phrase means.
I didn't suggest otherwise.
> Smoking has ...
Neither I, nor anyone in this thread, has contested the existence of evidence to support this claim.
> "Very plausible" here means ...
Why does "plausible" not suffice?
> I can't imagine anyone would see "very plausible" and think the explanation should be accepted without investigation. That's just not what that phrase means.
I didn't suggest otherwise.
There are measurable links between use of ADD/ADHD medication and Parkinson’s, which makes sense given that the former modulates dopamine and the latter has to do with dopamine modulation.
I view this direct connection as more compelling an explanation.
I view this direct connection as more compelling an explanation.
This may be true in the future but seems unlikely today, Parkinson's rarely occurs before 60 and the rise in ADHD diagnoses started in the 90s.
Yeah, we'd need more data. Because PD is such a low-incidence disease generally, any kind of uptick, even in the pre-60 cohort, would push the dial substantially. Are pre-60 cases, which I just found out trivially are at 4%, increasing substantially? Is 4% inclusive of a much older dataset? I'd venture that the answer is yes, but I have no idea.
Just another justification for my hatred of carpets.
[deleted]
I live ~1000ft from a super fund site that is cleaning up TCE/DCE, and there are a few more within 5-10 miles of here.
I smell weird things in the mornings sometimes, and also after rainstorms. We lived pretty close to another super fund site when I was growing up, and my father has Parkinson's. So I assume that I get to die early.
I smell weird things in the mornings sometimes, and also after rainstorms. We lived pretty close to another super fund site when I was growing up, and my father has Parkinson's. So I assume that I get to die early.
You should move
Little known fact: high concentration of TCE permeates the Bay Area in cites like Palo Alto and Mountain View. The concentration is so bad that these superfund sites are regularly monitored by the federal government.[1]
I lived next to the superfund site of Palo Alto, which was right under Mayfield Soccer Complex. Little had been done to monitor the risks for the children [2]. Reading this article linking TCE to Parkinson's disease, I hope there will be more awareness about Silicon Valley toxic undergrounds.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/lens/the-superfund-sites-... [2] http://www.aarongreenspan.com/writing/20130404/in-search-of-...
I lived next to the superfund site of Palo Alto, which was right under Mayfield Soccer Complex. Little had been done to monitor the risks for the children [2]. Reading this article linking TCE to Parkinson's disease, I hope there will be more awareness about Silicon Valley toxic undergrounds.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/lens/the-superfund-sites-... [2] http://www.aarongreenspan.com/writing/20130404/in-search-of-...
Jogging through the hills of Stanford and Palo Alto in the 90s, you would occasionally smell something sweet, reminiscent of baking bread, even though there were no bakeries or homes nearby. I was told by an old-timer (worked in SV in the 60s and 70s) that's the smell of the outgassing TCE. Not sure if it's true, but it definitely made the smell less appealing.
There's even a TCE site where Facebook used to be headquartered (between California Ave and Page Mill Road), where Stanford now has a faculty housing development. The university has stated that they built the homes with protection against TCE leakage/accumulation, but I've read that TCE can easily permeate PVC pipes that are often used for water distribution.
My family decided not to live in this development (or in the nearby neighborhood) because of the risks of TCE contamination. But who knows what risks there are in the area we decided to live, which is right next to SLAC!
My family decided not to live in this development (or in the nearby neighborhood) because of the risks of TCE contamination. But who knows what risks there are in the area we decided to live, which is right next to SLAC!
To add a data point, I recently had a grandparent who died with Parkinson's disease.
After doing research, it turns out their home was located very close to a Superfund cleanup site from a dry cleaner that operated in the 60's and contaminated the groundwater with TCE and PCE. The chemicals leach into the groundwater and can spread hundreds of feet per year. Buildings located over these plumes are exposed to vapors which accumulate indoors over time and expose the occupants.
According to Wikipedia, the PCE solvent which is used at nearly every dry cleaner across the country has been known as a x10 risk factor for Parkinson's [1].
For California residents, you can find out about these groundwater plumes on the waterboards website. They are located all over Silicon Valley and former dry-cleaners around the country [2].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachloroethylene
[2]: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/
After doing research, it turns out their home was located very close to a Superfund cleanup site from a dry cleaner that operated in the 60's and contaminated the groundwater with TCE and PCE. The chemicals leach into the groundwater and can spread hundreds of feet per year. Buildings located over these plumes are exposed to vapors which accumulate indoors over time and expose the occupants.
According to Wikipedia, the PCE solvent which is used at nearly every dry cleaner across the country has been known as a x10 risk factor for Parkinson's [1].
For California residents, you can find out about these groundwater plumes on the waterboards website. They are located all over Silicon Valley and former dry-cleaners around the country [2].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachloroethylene
[2]: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/
Similarly, my uncle has rapidly progressing Parkinson's caused by exposure to Agent Orange as a Seabee in Vietnam, his VA doctors have confirmed this as the cause.
For those wondering if the "exploding" from the headline is clickbait or a misread statistic: not exactly, it sounds true (enough) based on what Wikipedia says:
> In 2016 PD resulted in about 211,000 deaths globally, an increase of 161% since 1990. The death rate increased by 19% to 1.81 per 100,000 people during that time.
> In 2016 PD resulted in about 211,000 deaths globally, an increase of 161% since 1990. The death rate increased by 19% to 1.81 per 100,000 people during that time.
Perhaps this is a water filter advert:
"Using activated carbon filtration devices (like Brita filters) can help reduce TCE in drinking water"
But really, how could they possibly narrow it down to that? How can they ignore all the metals that we are injected and sprayed with as possible alternative causes?
But really, how could they possibly narrow it down to that? How can they ignore all the metals that we are injected and sprayed with as possible alternative causes?
So IBM had/has a serious issue with TCE in Endicott, NY. IBM has mostly left Endicott but they are still paying to clean up the area.
News article about it: https://wbng.com/2019/11/21/40-years-after-spill-former-ibm-...
EPA Website with status on the cleanup: https://www.epa.gov/hwcorrectiveactionsites/hazardous-waste-...
News article about it: https://wbng.com/2019/11/21/40-years-after-spill-former-ibm-...
EPA Website with status on the cleanup: https://www.epa.gov/hwcorrectiveactionsites/hazardous-waste-...
If this product weren't already on the market, and this link was suspected, would it be easy for it to come to market in our regulatory environment?
Now that it's on the market, and the link is suspected, how hard is it going to be to get it out of use?
Now that it's on the market, and the link is suspected, how hard is it going to be to get it out of use?