chemical contamination in our bodies

52 Pages·2007·1.71 MB·English

Is it In US?
C h e m i C a l C o n t a m i n a t i o n i n o u r B o d i e s
toxiC trespass, regulatory Failure & opportunities For aCtion
A r e p o rt f r o m t h e B o dy B u r d e n wo r k G r o u p &
Co m m o n w e A l B i o m o n i to r i n G r e s o u r C e C e n t e r
l
Is It In Us? ChemiCal Contamination of our Bodies 
A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s
This report is a project of the Commonweal Biomonitoring Resource Acknowledgments
Center and the Body Burden Work Group. The project was approved by This report would not have been possible
the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the Cook County, IL Board of Health without the support of the John Merck
Services. (An IRB is a project review process designed to protect the rights Fund, the Marisla Foundation, the Fine Fam-
of research project participants.) ily Foundation and the Beldon Fund. We’d
like to thank Dr. Ted Schettler from the
Workgroup Co-leaders Science and Environmental Health Network
Sharyle Patton, Commonweal for serving as the physician of record for
Pamela Miller, Alaska Community Action on Toxics this project, AXYS Lab in British Columbia
for analyzing samples for phthlates and BPA
Authors in urine, Fred vom Saal, Julia Taylor, and
Kathleen Curtis and Bobbi Chase Wilding, Clean New York Wade Welshons from the Division of Life
Sciences, and Biomedical Sciences, Univer-
Contributors sity of Missouri, for analyzing samples for
Judith Robinson, Environmental Health Fund BPA in serum, Åke Bergman, Lotta Hofvander
Andy Igrejas, National Environmental Trust and the lab at Stockholm University for
Daryl Ditz, Center for International Environmental Law analyzing serum samples for PBDEs, and
Alexandra McPherson, Clean Production Action Tom Webster, D.Sc. and Joseph Allen from
the Dept. Environmental Health at Boston
Reviewers: University School of Public Health for
Judith Robinson, Environmental Health Fund analyzing the PBDE data.
Margie Kelly, SAFER
Tom Webster, D.Sc. State-level Acknowledgments
Joe DiGangi, Ph.D. We would like to thank the following
Philip Landrigan, M.D. people and organizations that made our
Ted Schettler, M.D. project a success: Dr. David Carpenter from
the State University of New York School of
State Project Leaders Public Health conducted sampling. The
Alaska: Pamela Miller and Colleen Keane, Alaska Community Action on Toxics Alliance for a Clean and Healthy Maine and
Connecticut: Cindy Luppi, Connecticut Clean Water Action Washington Toxics Coalition shared their
Illinois: Max Muller, Environment Illinois expertise and materials. Dr. Peter Orris from
Massachusetts: Margaret Byrne, Massachusetts Clean Water Action the University of Illinois at Chicago School
Michigan: Genevieve Howe, Michigan Network for Children’s of Public Health arranged for collection of
Environmental Health biological specimens at the UIC laboratory
Minnesota: Kathleen Schuler, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy and Irene Stasula, RN, BSN, of the UIC
New York: Kathleen Curtis and Bobbi Chase Wilding, Clean New York School of Public Health served as the Illinois
phlebotomist. Roxanne Chan, RN, L.A.c.,
MS, conducted the sampling in Alaska and
Dr. Birgit Lenger provided support and
volunteered the use of her clinic. Park
Nicollet Minneapolis Clinic Laboratory and
Kris Elfvim, phlebotomist, volunteered their
facilities and skills respectively for the
Minnesota portion of the project.
l
 Commonweal Biomonitoring resourCe Center & Coming Clean Body Burden workgroup n
t A b l e o f c o n t e n t s
ii Preface
1 Executive Summary
6 The Participants
6 Alaska
7 Connecticut
8 Illinois
9 Massachusetts
10 Michigan
11 Minnesota
12 New York
14 Introduction
18 Project Findings
19 Chart of Results by State, Name, Chemical
20 The Chemicals
20 Phthalates
23 Toxic Flame Retardants (PBDEs)
25 Bisphenol A (BPA)
32 Conclusion
33 Endnotes
37 Appendices
37 Appendix One:
Sampling and Testing Methods
40 Appendix Two:
Chemicals Tested in this Study
41 Appendix Three:
Detailed Results
l
Is It In Us? ChemiCal Contamination of our Bodies 
p r e f A c e
By Project Participant Cathy Rexford
I
am by no means a scientific ex- But, then the thought occurred to We can begin by asking ourselves
pert. I am your next-door neigh- me, what if our perception of normal where this contamination comes from.
bor, your co-worker, the gal you exposure to these chemicals has been In the case of the chemicals we were
bump into at the grocery store. I skewed? What if, instead of asking tested for, they come from ordinary
am the one who waits in line be- myself, “Are my levels normal?” What products like perfume, plastics, per-
hind you at the post office or the book- I should really be asking myself is, sonal computers, tin cans, plastic
store. I am the woman who sits next “Are ANY levels of exposure normal?” Is water bottles and hundreds of other
to you on a plane. And I am a person any level of chemical in my body household items that all of us use
who carries around toxic chemicals in that is associated with birth defects, every day.
her body. learning disabilities, breast cancer, Toxic chemicals don’t belong in the
When I was invited by a good friend reproductive problems, and other human body.Safer alternatives to most
to volunteer for this project, I was im- health impacts, is this what I consider toxic chemicals are available. So why
mediately interested. Who wouldn’t “normal”? aren’t we offered these alternatives?
want to know more about themselves? The reality of our situation is this: Why aren’t product makers required
She warned me that it could be a bit Sometimes it’s easier not to know. to replace toxic chemicals with safer
overwhelming to know exactly what It’s easier to go about your day and not ingredients? This is just common sense,
industrial chemicals are in our bodies. ask questions. Because sometimes, we isn’t it?
Because then, as if some magical sci- just can’t face the truth. But by asking What follows in this report are the
entific wand were waved, it becomes ourselves questions about our own data of thirty-five people from the
real. And if it’s real, then we have to health and well-being, we gain knowl- seven states of Alaska, Connecticut,
face it. For myself, it’s not so much what edge. We gain awareness, and with Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Min-
we know that is so interesting, as that knowledge comes responsibility. nesota and New York who volun-
what we do with the knowledge we Once we are made aware, we have teered to be tested for industrial chem-
are given. a choice either to look the other way icals in our blood and urine. The
Several months later, I received my or to act on it. The reality is, all of us hazardous chemicals for which we
results. This very neat row of numbers have toxic chemicals in our bodies. It’s tested bisphenol A, phthalates, and
compared my levels of toxic chemicals the world we live in today. But we can brominated flame-retardants.
to others who had also been tested. I act together: Now that we are aware, This report sheds some light on the
admit, at first, it was normal for me we can act to reduce our exposure, reality of toxic chemical exposure and
to compare myself to the others. I and can help urge changes in the sys- may help all of us to live well and live
thought, “Well, if I’m not the worst, tem that allows toxic chemicals into free of unnecessary chemicals.
then I must be ok.” our communities.
l
 Commonweal Biomonitoring resourCe Center & Coming Clean Body Burden workgroup n
p r e f A c e
Executive Summary
t
his report documents the Introduction autism, attention deficit/hyperactivity
results of a national bio- As Americans, we know something disorder, childhood cancer and certain
monitoring project that about pollution. In the 1970’s, we birth defects. Could these increasing
tested 35 diverse people learned from Woodsy the Owl to “Give rates of chronic diseases be linked to
from seven states for con- a Hoot, Don’t Pollute.” We learned increasing pervasive human exposure
tamination with three types of toxic, about pollution from cars and trucks, to dangerous chemicals in the envi-
industrial chemicals. The project found runoff from pesticide applications, and ronment? For the vast majority, their
these industrial chemicals in every acid rain from power plants. This year, toxicity hasn’t been studied and their
person tested. Human and other ani- high profile recalls of lead contami- health impacts are unknown. But we
mal studies have linked these detect- nated dolls, backpacks, bibs, toys, jew- do know the chemicals we tested for,
ed chemicals to birth defects, cancer, elry, cub scout badges and other sup- phthalates, bisphenol A and bromi-
learning disabilities, infertility, asthma posedly benign objects made parents nated flame-retardants are linked to
and other harmful health conditions. realize that a simple trip to the toy an array of diseases in human and lab-
People’s exposures to toxic chemicals store was instead a deadly serious oratory studies. We do know that thou-
from the products they use every- game of Russian roulette. People ex- sands of chemicals contaminate our
day—shower curtains, tin cans baby panded their notion of pollution to in- air, water, land, and food, as well as our
bottles, water bottles, shampoo, hair- clude industrial chemicals used to homes, communities, schools and
spray, couch cushions, computers, and make consumer products. This sum- workplaces. With pollution all around
other products—indicates the failure mer’s scare about lead in toys is not us, even in the products we use every
of our nation’s chemical policies, surprising, considering there are now day, the question became clear: Is it
which have not prevented our bodies over 80,000 chemicals registered for in us?
from becoming polluted with toxic use in the American marketplace, with
chemical substances. The presence of approximately 2,000 more being intro- About the Project
toxic chemicals in products we use duced each year.1 Should people have Thirty-five individuals from seven
daily is legal. Our chemical safety pol- to worry and wonder every time they states set out to find the answer to that
icies have failed. But we can protect go to the grocery store, the furniture question and to make a difference in
public health with better, common store or the toy store? the lives of people like us. In the spring
sense chemical policies, and many are We know that rates of some dis- of 2007, women and men from Alaska,
already being advanced at both the eases are increasing—for example, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts,
state and federal level. obesity, asthma, learning disabilities, Michigan, Minnesota and New York
l
Is It In Us? ChemiCal Contamination of our Bodies 
p r e f A c e
volunteered to donate samples of their sphenol A at the same time. An impor- Results: Toxic chemicals
blood and urine, which were sent to tant part of our report is the presenta- contaminate our bodies
laboratories where scientists perform tion of solutions to the problem of We tested for seven metabolites of five
biomonitoring, a public health tool pollution in people. Through a unique different phthalates. Presence of the
that can measure the presence of collaboration among expert organiza- metabolite(s) indicates exposure to
chemicals in body tissues and fluids. tions, our report presents the results the parent compound(s). We detected
The samples were tested for three of biomonitoring and offers various levels of twelve polybrominated di-
types of toxic chemicals that are in personal, municipal, state, federal and phenyl ethers in our participants. We
tens of thousands of consumer prod- market solutions. tested for the presence of bisphenol
ucts. These volunteers have stepped The hazardous chemicals that are A in urine and blood serum. Altogeth-
forward to share their stories. Their in- the subject of this project, bisphenol er we have results for a total of 20
chemicals. We found all three types
of toxic chemicals in every person
tested:
• Of 35 participants, all had in
their bodies at least 7 of the 20
chemicals for which we tested.
• The person with the most
chemicals tested positive for
17 of the 20 chemicals.
• We found diethyl phthalate, di-
butyl phthalate and di (2-ethyl-
hexyl) phthalate (DEHP) in all 33
participants who provided urine
samples. Thirty-two tested posi-
tive for butylbenzyl phthalate.
• We found six types of PBDEs in
all 35 participants, and deca-
BDE in all but one participant.
tention is that by talking frankly about A (BPA), phthalates, and polybromi- • All 33 participants who provided
their concerns, their fears, and their nated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), are urine samples had bisphenol A
hopes for a world safe from toxic chem- ubiquitous in the products we use ev- in their urine.
icals, they will motivate others to ask ery day. They are in plastic containers, Although these 35 people cannot
questions about the chemicals that sur- shower curtains, sofa cushions, wall- be considered representative of the
round us. Are they safe? Are they in us? paper, toys, furniture, fabric, cars, tele- general population, the test results
This project is the broadest non- visions and stereos, soda cans, infant strongly support the conclusion that
governmental effort of its kind in the car seats, raincoats, tuna fish cans, beer people are routinely exposed to
United States and the first U.S. multi- cans, infant formula can linings, water phthalates, BPA, and PBDEs, regardless
state, multi-organizational effort to bottles, medical equipment, baby bot- of geographic location, whether in a
document toxic chemicals in the bod- tles, shampoo, hairspray, nail polish, rural or urban setting, and despite dif-
ies of average Americans. Our volun- perfume, air fresheners and the list ferences in age, occupation, gender,
teers are in the vanguard of this effort goes on and on. Exposure to these race, and lifestyle. The results for our
to use new analytical tools that detect chemicals is associated in laboratory 35 volunteers could be your results.
chemicals in small quantities; fewer and, in some cases, human studies They are your neighbors, your friends,
than approximately 250 people have with birth defects, learning disabilities, your teachers, faith leaders, first re-
been so biomonitored and told of their breast and prostate cancer, repro- sponders, legislators, mothers, fathers,
results. It is the only project that tested ductive problems, liver damage, and sons and daughters. In a sense, they
participant’s blood and urine for bi- other conditions. represent the face of America. Without

l
 Commonweal Biomonitoring resourCe Center & Coming Clean Body Burden workgroup n
p r e f A c e
ChEmiCALS of ConCERn
Bisphenol A (BPA)
More than six billion pounds of bisphenol A are produced each year2 and 95% of Americans
tested by the Centers for Disease Control now excrete it in their urine.3 In laboratory studies,
bisphenol A alters egg development in exposed fetuses and increases the risk of genetic damage
in the next generation, thus providing evidence for multigenerational effects.4 In laboratory animals,
exposure to bisphenol A profoundly affects the male reproductive system, with adverse changes
to the testes, testosterone and sperm production.5 It increases prostate and breast cancer
risk, alters brain development, and causes earlier puberty and obesity. Researchers found
that women with a history of recurrent miscarriage had higher blood serum levels of
bisphenol A than women with successful pregnancies.6 All of our par-
ticipants who submitted urine samples had bisphenol A in their urine,
and more than half had it in their blood. The levels of bisphenol A in the blood and urine of our
participants are within the range shown to cause effects in laboratory animal studies, including
impacts on cell function.7
Phthalates
Globally, more than 18 billion pounds of phthalates are produced each year. They are pri-
marily used as plasticizers in flexible polyvinyl chloride (PVC) products, such as vinyl
shower curtains, flooring, and medical devices, among many others.8 Phthalates are also
used in a wide range of other products, such as fragrances and pill coatings, and are
found in Americans of all ages, sizes, and races. Evidence has been building in recent years
that links phthalates to adverse health effects such as reproductive and developmental
problems, respiratory impairment and other harmful effects on organs in humans and in
laboratory animals.9,10,11,12,13 Four of the five participants in whom we found measurable levels
of dimethyl phthalate had levels above the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) population-wide 95th
percentile—meaning that in CDC’s study, 95% of the participants had lower levels.14
Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs)
Global market demand for PBDEs in 2001 was over 67,000 metric tons.15 PBDEs, used for decades as flame-retardants in prod-
ucts such as televisions and couches, have been shown to build up in our bodies. Laboratory animal data show that PBDEs
may harm the developing brain, impair sperm
development, and impair thyroid function.16,17,18
PBDEs are associated with undescended testicles
of newborn baby boys in one study.19 All of our
participants had PBDEs in their bodies, including
penta- and deca-BDE.
Despite both proven and suspected dangers to
our health, the chemical industry is allowed to
manufacture, sell and add toxic chemicals to the
products we use without first being required to
evaluate their safety. Product makers are not re-
quired to put safer alternatives in place, even
when the existence of safer chemicals or process-
es is known, available, effective, and affordable.
l
Is It In Us? ChemiCal Contamination of our Bodies 
p r e f A c e
“For me as a pediatrician, the most worrisome thing about the presence of scores of
chemicals in people’s bloodstreams is the concern about what these chemicals might be
doing to children. Children’s developing organ systems—their brains, their immune systems,
their lungs, their reproductive systems—are extremely sensitive, and the development is
easily disrupted, especially in the earliest years of life. The situation in which we find
ourselves, in which these industrial chemicals are in children’s bodies with insufficient
knowledge of their toxicity, is potentially perilous.”
philip landrigan, Chairman of the department of Community and preventive medicine, mount sinai school of medicine
our knowledge or consent, these dan- sumer products used in daily life. The as a flame retardant and accidentally
gerous, unnecessary chemicals are sum total of industrial chemicals that added to grain in the 1970s in Michigan,
coursing through our blood into our contaminate us comprise our “chemi- when Heather was just a toddler. Al-
organs, into our brains, and into preg- cal body burdens.” All Americans carry though somewhat different, the two
nant women’s developing babies. such “chemical body burdens.” These chemicals look alike in the chemical
They move through the placental bar- may have the potential to cause seri- analysis. Follow-up studies of Michi-
rier to the developing fetus, and may ous harm. gan women who were exposed to
be transferred through breast milk to Good health depends on intercon- PBB-153 in their food found that their
the nursing infant. Although breast nections among many different fac- daughters were likely to start their
milk is the best food for babies, the tors such as genetic inheritance, nutri- periods sooner. Will Heather’s daugh-
presence of toxic chemicals in breast tion, economic status, gender, stress ter be affected? Only time will tell.
milk is unacceptable. levels, and access to adequate health
Previous biomonitoring studies care, as well as exposure to toxic chem- Our national chemical
have found pollutants such as pesti- icals. In general, personal chemical safety system has failed
cides, lead, mercury and PCBs in peo- body burden is not necessarily predic- Although chemicals in products and
ple, even when deliberate efforts were tive of individual health problems. But our homes were not intended to end
made to reduce exposure. This is true given the established and suspected up in our bodies, we now know they
for our participants as well. Some of linkages of hundreds of diseases to do. The Toxics Substances Control Act,
our most careful shoppers, those who toxic chemical exposures, avoidance America’s federal chemical manage-
prefer organic or natural products, of exposures will give us all a better ment rule, was passed more than thir-
have some of the highest individual chance at enjoying a healthier life. ty years ago, before personal comput-
results of the industrial chemicals Heather Loukmas, mother of a five- ers, cell phones, and the Internet; and
which they were tested. year-old daughter and eight-month- before biomonitoring studies such as
And while we cannot generalize old son and Executive Director of the ours. This federal safety system de-
from our laboratory results to postu- Learning Disabilities Association of signed to protect us from toxic chem-
late about levels in all Americans, our New York State, was born and raised icals has failed. Premises upon which
results are similar to the results of bio- in Michigan. Heather showed the the outdated system was based grow
monitoring studies across the country. highest levels of BDE -154, a particular increasingly obsolete, as studies con-
Our sense is that these levels may well polybrominated diphenyl ether. Upon tinue to emerge about the health ef-
reflect the chemical body burden of consultation with Dr. Ted Schettler fects these chemicals may have. We
many Americans. And other biomoni- (our physician of record for this proj- lack even basic safety data for the vast
toring studies indicate that we may ect), Heather discovered that her result majority of chemicals in common use,
well be carrying hundreds of other in- was likely due to exposure to polybro- because such information was not re-
dustrial chemicals that leach from con- minated biphenyl (PBB-153), also used quired when many chemicals were
l
 Commonweal Biomonitoring resourCe Center & Coming Clean Body Burden workgroup n
p r e f A c e
registered for use. And current science products in stores are safe for workers, Conclusion
tells us that our methods for evaluat- communities, and our families. Toxic chemicals do not belong in the
ing toxicity of industrial chemicals are We can protect public health by human body. But as long as industries
inadequate. For example, we know adopting common sense chemical keep putting them in products, we will
very little about how combinations of policies. continue to be exposed. Most people
chemicals might interact, simply be- This report details current state and assume that if a product is being sold
cause very few studies have explored federal initiatives already being ad- that the government has screened it
how multiple toxic chemical expo- vanced that would implement these for safety. This is simply not the case.
sures might combine to cause harm. policies. Policy advocates have united Although there are steps we can take
We also do not fully understand how to work toward enactment of the fol- to reduce our exposure, we cannot
timing of exposure may be critically lowing reforms: shop, eat or exercise our way out of
important, especially to the develop- • Phase-out harmful chemicals the problem of toxic chemicals in
ing fetus, which is exquisitely sensitive and switch to safer alternatives. commerce, in our homes, and in
during key stages of development to • Require that all chemicals are us. Government and industry action
those chemicals to which the mother screened for safety and that to phase out these chemicals in
is exposed. Finally, we do not under- safety data and product ingredi- favor of safer alternatives is needed
stand enough how toxic chemicals ents be made publicly available. now.
might interact with a multitude of oth- • Promote, not stifle, safer alterna- We are a nation that cares about
er factors, such as stress, exposure to tives and green technologies. environmental health and the well be-
viruses, poor nutrition, or genetic in- • Protect workers and communities. ing of its people. It is both possible and
heritance, all of which necessary for people to make
might exacerbate the ef- a change, to step up and de-
fects of industrial chemi- mand more of our state and
cals on human health. federal government to end
Lacking chemical toxic- contamination of our chil-
ity data, people cannot dren, our homes, and the
choose or express their earth. So, in conjunction with
preference for safer prod- asking ourselves the ques-
ucts. In the absence of in- tions, “Is it in us?” and “Are we
formed consumer de- contaminated?,” we also ask
mand, corporations have governments and businesses
little incentive to switch to to ask themselves: Is it in us,
available safer alternatives all of us? Can we as individu-
or develop new ones. Cur- als, government, and corpo-
rent policy inhibits the im- rate America come together
plementation of green to stem the tide of toxic
chemistry, a process for pollution and the increasing
developing and screening incidence of illnesses linked
new chemical substances to toxic chemical exposures?
for their potential harm to Can we jointly create a chem-
humans and the ecosys- ical safety policy that is truly
tem before these sub- protective of human and
stances are placed on the ecosystem health?
market. In the United
States, chemicals are “in-
nocent until proven guilty.”
The time has come for
new laws to ensure that
l
Is It In Us? ChemiCal Contamination of our Bodies 
Executive Summary
p r e f A c e
The Participants
AlAskA
Diane Benson, 52, is a lifelong Alaska
resident. She is engaged in film/video
production, research and public out-
reach activities, addressing issues con-
cerning violence and recovery, race-
relations, and veterans and families.
Ms. Benson won the Alaska Democrat-
ic Party Primary for the U.S. House in
2006 and is currently campaigning for
U.S. Congress. She is active with the
Anchorage Chamber of Commerce’s
Military Appreciation Committee,
Healing Racism Steering Committee, Court and Institute of the North. Mr. environmental boards, and was policy
Alaska Native Sisterhood, and Nation- Berkowitz is fond of fishing, traveling, advisor to the Governor on oceans,
al Organization of Women. She has a hockey, and has a great interest in watersheds and subsistence foods. He
Masters of Fine Arts in Creative Writing polar policies and programs. He also is presently chairman of the Alaskans
and is working on her Masters in Pub- enjoys reading to his two children. We for Clean Elections seeking campaign
lic Policy. We found four of the five found four phthalates and ten PBDEs reform. We found four phthalates and
phthalates and nine of the twelve in Ethan’s body. Bisphenol A was de- eight PBDEs in Tim’s body. Bisphenol
PBDEs in Diane’s body. She also had tected in both his blood and urine. A was detected in his urine. He was
bisphenol A in both her blood and urine. Ethan had some of the higher levels one of five participants that had quan-
She is one of the few participants to of PBDEs that indicate exposure to tifiable levels of deca-BDE in their
have some of the larger PBDEs in her penta-BDE. blood.
body (we found BDE 197 and 207).
“This reminds us that these chemicals “Tom Brokaw’s “Greatest Generation”
“The troubling factor is that we and are everywhere. It doesn’t matter failed to protect my generation from
all other life forms now have these where you are on the food chain— the ravages of carcinogens. It is now
chemicals in us. No matter how mini- whether you are a saint or a politician, the responsibility of my generation to
scule the amount, the fact is that they they touch everybody. What this protect future generations from the
are present. What other contaminants highlights is how hard it is to be safe ravages of hormone and endocrine
might be in our systems that we don’t from invisible toxic chemicals.” disruptors. Our success or failure will
know about? We have a right to be be our legacy.”
informed.” Timothy June, 54, is a boat builder
and commercial fisherman who has Cathy Tagnak Rexford, 29, is Inupiaq/
Ethan Berkowitz, 45, is a small busi- lived in Haines, Alaska with his high English/French/German of Kaktovik,
ness owner and past Democratic House school sweetheart for 31 years. Tim’s Alaska and is currently the Alaska Di-
Leader for the Alaska legislature. teenage experience with cancer in rector of Native Movement. She has
He is currently running for the U.S. southern California destined him to a worked extensively in Native educa-
House of Representatives. He owns life of environmental, social and po- tion and language efforts, contem-
Alaskan Alternative Energy, and serves litical activism to advocate for cancer porary Indigenous theatre and film
on the Board of Directors for the Boys prevention. He co-founded Alaska projects. She has focused her writing
& Girls Clubs of South Central Alaska. Clean Water Alliance, has served on and work on translating the worldview
He is engaged in the Anchorage Youth numerous statewide advisory and of the Indigenous peoples of Northern
l
 Commonweal Biomonitoring resourCe Center & Coming Clean Body Burden workgroup n