Toxic chemicals are present in everyday objects around the home

Falling sperm counts, rising infertility and genital abnormalities in babies could all result from exposure to hazardous man-made chemicals used in perfumes, carpets, electronics, clothing and a host of other consumer goods, reveals a Greenpeace report released today [1].

The study, "Fragile: Our reproductive health and chemical exposure", presents a worrying picture of an increase in reproductive health disorders which mirror the rising presence of man-made chemicals in our lives.

Sperm counts have fallen by 50 per cent in 50 years, infertility among couples has more than doubled in industrialised countries since the 1960s, while testicular cancer has become increasingly common. The male-female birth ratio has changed dramatically in some areas and birth defects of the reproductive system are increasingly noted in baby boys.

Dr David Santillo, Greenpeace Chief Scientist, and a report author said: "The growing body of scientific evidence indicating links between exposure to man-made chemicals and damage to our reproductive systems is extremely disturbing. Greenpeace is calling for any chemical that can potentially harm humans in this way to be removed from use wherever a safer alternative is available."

Among the chemicals concerned are alkylphenols, phthalates, brominated flame retardants, organotin compounds, bisphenol-A and artificial musks. However, these chemicals, used as examples in this report, represent only a fraction of the problem. Most chemicals on the market have never been tested for their safety for human health or the environment, yet many are routinely used in products found on supermarket shelves and in our bathroom cabinets.

Many of the disorders, which have been increasing in incidence, are thought to originate in the developing stages of the child's life in the womb or shortly after birth. At the same time, tests have shown that exposure to some commonly used chemicals which may affect fertility takes effect almost from the moment a child is conceived.

An EU law (REACH [2]) currently being discussed is supposed to allow for much stricter checks and controls on the manufacture and use of chemicals. But an aggressive lobby from certain chemicals producers has been so successful in undermining REACH that the law could ultimately allow substances suspected of harming our hormone system and sexual organs to remain in use. [3]

Greenpeace International Toxics Campaigner, Helen Perivier, said: "Many individuals and couples see their lives and welfare affected by reproductive disorders. The EU cannot close its eyes to this rising problem by weakening the protection that REACH could provide against chemical-induced health problems."

Greenpeace argues that there can be no justification for allowing the continued use of hazardous chemicals that can be passed to developing children and that may harm sexual development.

Governments and Members of the European Parliament will vote on the EU chemicals regulation later this year.

Contacts:
For interviews with David Santillo, please call Jo Kuper on 020 7865 8257

Helen Perivier, Greenpeace International Toxics Campaigner, tel +32 (0)496 127107

Nadia Haiama, Greenpeace EU policy director on chemicals, tel +32 (0)476 961376

Katharine Mill, Greenpeace International Communications, tel +32 (0)496 156229

Notes to editors:
1. The report Fragile is available at http://www.greenpeace.org/fragile.

2. REACH: Regulation on the Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals

3. Fatal Flaws, http://www.greenpeace.org/fatalflawsbrief

Chernobyl power station and the sarcophagus around the exploded reactor. Ukraine, September 1996

In the run up to the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl catastrophe (26 April), Greenpeace today issues a major study on the consequences of the accident on human health.

The report, drawing on the contributions of more than 50 research scientists, including research never before published in English from Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, seriously challenges official estimates about the number and scale of human casualties resulting from the disaster.

Despite wide variations in available data, results of recent studies included in the report estimate that over a quarter of a million additional cancers will be caused by the accident, or which nearly 100,000 will be fatal. Epidemiological data from the Russian Academy of Sciences suggests that some 60,000 people have died in Russia alone as a result of Chernobyl and that including the other highly affected countries of Ukraine and Belarus would take the total death toll to date to 200,000.

The report condemns earlier claims, most notably that of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in last September's Chernobyl Forum report which predicted 4,000 additional deaths attributable to the accident, as a 'gross simplification of the breadth of human suffering'.

Twenty years after the explosion at Reactor 4 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Plant which discharged radiation more than 250 times that released by the Hiroshima bomb, several million people, by various estimates from 5 to 8 million, still reside in contaminated areas closest to the disaster site in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine.

Although early casualties from the immediate blast were relatively small - 31 plant workers, firemen and rescuers or 'liquidators' as they came to be known were killed in the days following the explosion, hundreds of thousands of people have suffered repeated ill health and many more have died earlier than they might have done had the accident not occurred.

In addition to causing cancer, radiation also impacts on the body's immune and endocrine systems, leads to accelerated ageing, cardiovascular and blood diseases, causes respiratory and digestive problems ,chromosomal aberrations and an increase in foetal abnormalities and birth defects. Studies included in this report acknowledge that as well as the direct impact of radiation, health conditions in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia were also seriously affected by a complex set of socio-economic factors resulting from the loss of land, relocation of 300,000 people, economic crisis, lack of access to information and political factors.

Greenpeace recognises that the wide range of estimates into this 'excess mortality and morbidity' resulting from the Chernobyl accident spans an extremely wide range depending upon precisely what is taken into account. It concludes that rather than being a time to close the book on the disaster, more and better coordinated research into the longer-term health consequences needs to be carried out.

Key findings from the report include:

• Cancer has increased sharply in Belarus, Ukraine and Russia. Between 1990 and 2000, there was a 40% increase in all cancers in Belarus and a 52% increase in the Gomel region. In Ukraine there was a 12% increase and in the Zhytomir region morbidity increased almost 3-fold. In the Russian Bryansk region, cancer increased 2.7 times.
• It is estimated that the Chernobyl accident will cause some 270 000 excess cancers worldwide, of which 90,000 will be fatal. Some 14,000 of these deaths will be from thyroid cancers, 8,000 from leukeamias and 71,000 from solid cancers.
• Thyroid cancer has seen the most dramatic increase of all cancers with far more and far more aggressive cases than originally predicted. It is expected to peak for youngsters in the period 2001-2006 but new cases are expected to appear for the next 30 years.
• Chromosomal aberrations have increased by a factor of 2-6 in the higher contaminated regions of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia

Blake Lee Harwood, campaigns director at Greenpeace UK says

"This Greenpeace report shows that there is a very wide range of fatal casualty estimates for the Chernobyl disaster with credible scientific observers giving figures that number in the hundreds of thousands. It's clear from the wide range of estimates, the many holes in the data set and the variability in potential health effects that no hard and fast conclusions can be reached at the moment. However, it's likely that the true human cost of the Chernobyl disaster will be many times greater than that estimated by the International Atomic Energy Authority.

"It is shocking that the IAEA should have attempted to end the debate over Chernobyl impacts by claiming a final figure of four thousand cancer deaths. The IAEA should be stripped of its responsibilities in relation to civil nuclear power and there should be a coordinated international scientific effort to establish a better assessment of the true impacts of Chernobyl."

The Greenpeace report is issued as a new photography exhibition opens in London to mark the 20th anniversary of Chernobyl. Fallout: The human cost of nuclear catastrophe held at the Oxo Gallery on London's South Bank, features poignant images of individuals and families whose lives have been devastated by Chernobyl and other nuclear disasters.

Lee Harwood continued: "These photographs are a timely reminder that behind the statistics are human lives, families and individuals, who have paid the ultimate price in the name of nuclear power. Anyone unconvinced about the dangers of nuclear power as a solution to our future energy needs should see this show, and then make up their mind."

Notes

The full report and executive summary of 'Chernobyl Catastrophe: Consequences on Human Health' can be downloaded here.

Or contact the Greenpeace press office on 020 7865 8255.

Publication date: 18 April 2006

Summary
In the past twenty years it has become clear, that nuclear energy conceals dangers, in some aspects, even greater than atomic weapons: the ejecta from this one reactor exceeded the radioactive contamination caused by the nuclear weapons used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki by one hundred times. It has become clear that one nuclear reactor can contaminate half of the Earth and that no longer, not in one single country, could citizens be assured that the state will have the forethought and wisdom to protect them from nuclear misfortunes.

PVC toys

Brussels, 13 December 2005 - Environmental, women's, health and consumer organisations expressed disappointment that EU ministers failed today to seize a unique opportunity to protect people and the environment from the threat of toxic chemicals.

The Council rejected a crucial principle adopted last month by the European Parliament: the requirement to substitute hazardous chemicals with safer alternatives whenever possible. Although chemical producers would be required to 'assess' substitutes for a hazardous chemical, decision-makers will still have to grant an authorisation under an 'adequate control' procedure, even if safer alternatives are available. This loophole represents little change from the current, flawed system, which has failed to control the most dangerous chemicals and hinders safe, innovative products from entering the market.

The Council strengthened substitution requirements for persistent and bioaccumulative chemicals, which represent only a fraction of all hazardous chemicals. However, Member States left the door open for carcinogens, chemicals that are toxic to reproduction (e.g. the phthalate DEHP) and hormone-disrupting substances (e.g. bisphenol A) to stay on the market, even if safer alternatives exist.

The Council also voted to drastically reduce safety data that chemical producers would be obliged to supply, particularly for substances produced in low quantities. Thousands of chemicals could thus stay on the market, despite no health information being available. This, too, undermines the likelihood of identifying safer alternatives. Scandals such as the recent contamination of baby milk in Europe by a potentially hazardous chemical will continue to happen as long as we lack important safety data.

It is essential that the parliament reaffirms its support for 'mandatory substitution' at the Second Reading, next year. This would make sure that, among other benefits, REACH delivers savings worth £90 billion over 30 years in the cost of treating key occupational diseases due to chemical contamination. After four years of REACH being watered down under chemical industry pressure, putting into practice a strong substitution obligation is the most important opportunity left to address the growing toxic chemical contamination and to ensure that human health and the environment are given the necessary protection.

EEB, EEN, EuroCoop, Friends of the Earth Europe, Greenpeace, WECF, WWF

This statement is available online at: http://eu.greenpeace.org/downloads/chem/CouncilPR051213EN.pdf

Publication date: 1 December 2003

Summary
A greenpeace study conducted in six states of India in collaboration with Dharamitra, ICRA, SEWA, Janachetana, SIRPI, Kheti Virasat, SYO and YMC.

The report, written by experts on the NAFTA Commission for Environmental Co-operation (CEC), unanimously recommends that "all the maize imported to Mexico from Canada and the United States, that is not certified as GM-free, should be sent directly and without exception to mills for processing." In 2003, Mexico imported over 5.5 million tonnes of US maize, at least 30% of which was estimated to be GM. The US government has deliberately stalled on publishing this report since June and its findings will help bolster the European Union's case in the on-going World Trade Organisation (WTO) dispute with the USA, Canada and Argentina over GM crops.

Greenpeace Campaigner Ben Ayliffe said:

"When an free-trade organisation like NAFTA starts raising concerns about GM crops, it ought to set some alarm bells ringing. It's like McDonalds saying burgers and chips aren't very good for you."

In 2003 the USA, Canada and Argentina, the world's primary exporters of GM crops, launched a complaint with the WTO against the EU for its de facto moratorium on new GM approvals. Europe's defence of its position has been based in part on scientific uncertainty regarding the environmental and human health impacts of GM crops. The NAFTA report shows that the EU is right to highlight scientific uncertainties and defend the precautionary principle on GM.

Ben Ayliffe added:

"This report recognises the environmental risks GM maize poses and could be hugely damaging for the USA's WTO case against the EU. No wonder they tried to bury it."

In addition, the leaked report may hamper the USA's efforts to force GM maize on to some countries as food aid. African countries such as Zambia rejected US GM maize unless it was milled because of the risks it could pose to their environment. The report clearly supports this demand and recommends milling of maize to reduce environmental risks.

For more information contact Greenpeace press office on 020 7865 8255 or Ben Ayliffe on 0207 865 8282