“Listen to your gut” – Stress and Digestive Function

By Dr. Mahalia Freed Have you ever had something hit you so hard, emotionally, that you felt nauseous? Have you ever eaten out of sadness, boredom, anxiety? “Butterflies in the stomach”, “Gut instinct”, “Nervous stomach”….

There are many expressions linking emotions to our digestive tract. In fact, the gut is often referred to as the “second brain.” Rather than being a figure of speech, this is a physiologically accurate portrayal. The gut is innervated by the two branches of the autonomic nervous system, which is controlled by the brain, as well as by the enteric (of the intestines) nervous system, which operates entirely independently. Serotonin, the neurotransmitter famous for its role in treating depression and insomnia, is highly active within the gut and ninety five percent of the body’s serotonin is actually manufactured in the intestines. No wonder people with gut dysbiosis, or an altered balance of bacteria and yeast in the gut, experience mood symptoms! Perhaps it would be more precise to label the gut as part of the brain? In any case, it is clear that the health of our gut affects our mood, and our mood affects the health of our gut.

So, what happens in our nervous system when we are stressed out?? When we are in a “stressed out” state, the sympathetic branch of the autonomic nervous system is dominant. And while that sounds friendly enough, this is the branch that evolved to help us escape a perceived physical threat. The sympathetic nervous system governs “fight or flight” reactions. So we have blood flow to our muscles and away from our gut, increased heart rate, dilated pupils. All great things if you need to run away from a large animal, but not much use today, as most of our perceived stressors are psychological, not physical. And as people often experience every day of their lives as stressful, the biochemistry of the stress response is maintained over the long term.

Fundamentally, we cannot digest well – either food or ideas - in a sympathetic state. The biochemical and physiological changes involved in what is known as the “Stress Response” have been well-studied. One important piece is that stress stimulates increased production of cortisol from the adrenal glands. Cortisol not only decreases inflammation in the body (this is why corticosteroid drugs are used), but overall alters immune system function, causing a cascade of potential consequences from decreased sex hormone production to decreased thyroid hormone activity. Altered immunity in the gut can lead to inflammation, which can then lead to further problems ranging from pain to decreased nutrient absorption to food sensitivities. Some possible consequences of sympathetic dominance include peptic ulcers, indigestion, constipation and diarrhea, muscle aches, insomnia, and mood instability. Other conditions biochemically linked to long-term stress include diabetes, hypertension, abdominal weight gain, and decreased libido. Oi!

In contrast, the parasympathetic nervous system allows us to “rest & digest,” sending more blood to the digestive tract, increasing gut motility and secretions, slowing our heart rate, and enhancing our ability to absorb nutrients and store food as fuel. There is ample evidence that cultivating a “Relaxation Response” enhances well-being. By decreasing sympathetic nervous system activity, we not only feel relaxed in the moment, but can sustain a decreased responsiveness to stress. And less biochemical stress is central to the prevention and management of a range of health concerns.

Thus taking time for yourself, whether it is 5 minutes of deep breathing at your desk, a day of hiking with a friend, or enjoying a cup of herbal tea, is not wasting time, or being selfish. It is central to maintaining and attaining optimal health! Mahalia Freed is a Naturopathic Doctor practicing and lecturing in Toronto. Next month: Gut-Soothing, Nerve-Nourishing Herbal Teas. www.dandelionnaturopathic.ca.

RESOLUTION: Community Right-to-Know

Victory! On Wednesday, December, 3, 2008, City of Toronto Councillors voted 33-3 in favour of adopting the Community Right-to-Know Bylaw which came into effect on January 1, 2010.

The Environmental Reporting and Disclosure Bylaw has three key elements:

• About 7,000 small and medium-sized businesses will be required to report annually to the city if they use or release any of the specified 25 polluting substances, above specified thresholds.

• The city will provide education programs to help facilities estimate data, report and identify ways to reduce chemicals and prevent pollution.

• The public will be able to access the data through a website

Failures to report will be met with stiff fines — $5,000 for the first offence and $25,000 for the second. The 25 polluting substances covered under the bylaw are considered to be carcinogenic and a threat to public health.

This is a pioneering initiative of the City of Toronto that will help prevent pollution of the environment, neighbourhoods and workplaces while improving the health of its residents. The program was three years in the making. In early 2008 Medical Officer of Health David McKeown released the framework for an Environmental Reporting, Disclosure and Innovation (better known as the Community-Right-to-Know) Program. It makes the City of Toronto the first government in Canada to recognize that community right-to-know (CRTK) will lead to health protection. CRTK has been in place for decades in progressive US jurisdictions. It has led to pollution prevention, transformation to green industries, improved emergency response, cost savings for businesses and avoided health costs. The outpouring of public support has been tremendous — over 50 community, health, labour, business, and environmental groups signed on to support the initiative, David Suzuki advocated at City Hall for right to know, the Toronto Environmental Alliance (TEA), of which WHEN is a part, launched the Secrecy is Toxic campaign, and hundreds of Torontonians sent messages to City Hall calling on them to enact this groundbreaking policy. Toronto residents can be proud: with your ongoing support we have paved the way for other cities across Canada to initiate and adopt similar bylaws — we all have a right to know! For more information on the CRTK bylaw, visit the City of Toronto website.

Background on CRTK

Community members have a right to know about toxic pollutants in their workplaces and neighbourhoods. Access to information on the transport, use, storage, and release of toxic chemicals is critical to both understanding and preventing health and environmental risks for all who live and work in Toronto. Community Right-to-Know (CRTK) provides detailed information on sources of pollution in our communities. Acting on this information, right-to-know bylaws have helped citizens and workers world-wide reduce the level of pollutants in their communities and workplaces. A Toronto bylaw can provide for safer, more prosperous communities through an enhanced ability to respond to and prevent industrial accidents, and provide support for the establishment of sustainable business practices in Toronto. For these reasons we support a Community Right-to-Know bylaw in Toronto that discloses the transport, use, storage, release, and health effects of toxic chemicals in our communities.

Toxic pollutants threaten our health

Toronto’s air is compromising our health. In fact, it can be deadly. Every year, 1700 Toronto residents die from health complications related to poor air quality.[i] At least 9 known human carcinogens are found regularly in our air.[ii] In 2003, Ontario regulations allowed over 7000 tonnes of hazardous chemicals to be released into Toronto’s air, land and water.[iii] These chemicals are toxic to humans, with many known or suspected to cause cancer, damage mammalian/human reproductive, respiratory and neurological systems, and disrupt hormone balance and normal growth and development in children.[iv] Our children are at greatest risk. Pound for pound, children breathe in more air and consume more food and water than adults. Some playgrounds may be built on, or near, contaminated soil. When children are exposed to toxins in our air, soil, food, water and/or products, their health may be affected now or in the future as their rapidly developing minds and bodies are more susceptible to long-term damage from toxins.[v] Workplace exposures to these chemicals threaten the health of workers who are also members of the community. Current legal standards do not prevent disease developing overtime. Existing right-to-know legislation is not effectively enforced and employers are not required to substitute non-toxic alternatives.

Many polluters don't report to the public

Most polluters are not legally required to disclose the toxic chemicals they use, store or produce. In Toronto, there are over 40,000 facilities using and releasing toxic substances.[vi] More than 97 per cent are not mandated to report their activities to the public.[vii] A recent case-study in South Riverdale revealed that of 115 companies suspected of releasing chemicals carcinogenic to humans, only 11 reported their releases.[viii]

CRTK will benefit Toronto residents, businesses and workers

CRTK laws and programs fuel voluntary reductions in toxic chemical use and pollution. Industries can use data to identify opportunities to substitute hazardous substances for less toxic ones, making their workplaces and neighbourhoods inherently safer both on a day to day basis and in the event of an emergency. In the United States, a recent review of federal Risk Management Plans identified that many facilities reduce or eliminate hazardous substances as a way of reducing the risks that may result from an accident or terrorist attack.[ix] CRTK can also benefit companies financially. Understanding potential environmental risk can reduce legal liability and facilitate regulatory compliance. Substitution of toxic materials with safer alternatives reduces direct costs to companies, associated with the regulation and disposal of toxic materials, as well as indirect costs, such as workers compensation premiums. Consumers are choosing to purchase and invest in environmentally and socially responsible companies. Many investors incorporate environmental, social, and governance criteria into their selection and management of investments, therefore, environmental responsibility can enhance the financial returns of a company.[x] CRTK encourages investments in production processes that lessen the environmental impact of industrial activity, thus contributing to a more stable, sustainable and progressive industrial economy.

References

[i] Toronto Public Health. Air Pollution Burden of Illness in Toronto: 2004 Summary. 2004. [ii] Toronto Public Health. Ten Key Carcinogens in Toronto Workplaces and Environment: Assessing the Potential for Exposure. 2002. [iii] Environment Canada. National Pollutant Release Inventory 2003 Database. 2005. [iv] Canadian Environmental Law Association and Environmental Defence. PollutionWatch: Health Effects Summaryhttp://www.pollutionwatch.org/healthMatrix.do. Viewed March 2005. [v] Canadian Partnership for Children's Health and Environment. Child Health and the Environment - A Primer. 2005. [vi] ToxProbe Inc. Potential For Occupational and Environmental Exposure to Ten Carcinogens in Toronto. Prepared for Toronto Public Health by Pavel Muller, Ph.D. [vii] Percentage based on facilities reporting releases through the National Pollutant Release Inventory for 2003. Environment Canada. National Pollutant Release Inventory 2003 Database. 2005. [viii] Toronto Cancer Prevention Coalition. Report of the Occupational and Environmental Carcinogens Working Group – Development of a Community Right-To-Know Strategy for Toronto: Case Study in South Riverdale/Beaches Community. 2004. [ix] Orum, Paul. Preventing Toxic Terrorism: How Some Chemical Facilities are Removing Danger to American Communities. Center for American Progress. 2006. [x] Orlitzky, M., et al. Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organizational Studies. 2003; pp.403-441.

DEPUTATION: WHEN's position on Pickering B

In the fall of 2008, Dorothy Goldin Rosenberg MES PhD presented a deputation on behalf of the Women's Healthy Environments Network (WHEN) to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) on the proposed life extension of Pickering B nuclear reactor.

Summary of WHEN’s deputation to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC)

The proximity of the Pickering nuclear stations to Toronto and the routine discharges of radioactive tritium into the drinking water of millions of Ontarians are of major concern to WHEN.

Just 30 km from downtown Toronto, the Pickering nuclear station is closer than any other nuclear reactor in the world to a major population centre. For this reason, we believe the Canadian Nuclear Safety Nuclear Commission (CNSC) would not allow a new plant to be built at Pickering today.

The CNSC website declares that "the CNSC considers it crucial to preserve public confidence and trust in the fairness of the regulatory decision-making process." There is serious concern about whether nuclear reactors should be allowed to operate so near to residential communities. For reasons we outline below, radioactive releases should never be allowed into the environment. The Pickering B reactor should be safely decommissioned, as soon as possible and at the latest by 2014 (the end of its operational life), to protect the environment and health and safety of living systems on which we depend.

Along with many others, WHEN maintains that the environmental review on the proposed life-extension of Pickering B nuclear station systematically excludes and misrepresents the significant environmental impacts resulting from the continued operation of the Pickering B nuclear station. Thus, we feel the environmental review must be rejected.

Tritium

Under our previous name, the Women's Network on Health and the Environment (WNH&E), WHEN worked with many other groups to support the ACES Report (released 1994-1995) calling for the reduction and eventual elimination of radioactive Tritium emissions from nuclear facilities in Ontario. More recently WHEN has been part of the Toronto Cancer Prevention Occupational and Environmental Working Group which initiated the discussions with Toronto Public Health. Information regarding and regulation of the carcinogen, mutagen and teratogen Tritium should fit in the consideration of proposed legislation on Community Right to Know and Toxic Use Reduction currently under deliberation in several jurisdictions.

In March 2008, WHEN’s presentation to the Ontario Drinking Water Advisory Council (ODWAC) elaborated on these points referring to other reports and studies highlighting the need to protect in particular, women, the developing fetus, growing children and young girls in puberty from exposures to tritium at any dose ideally. For example, Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) Vll reconfirmed that there is no safe level of exposure to radiation and that low levels can cause cancer. (The EU is well informed of the more effective impacts of low routine doses of ionizing radiation according to research evidence by Dr. Abram Petkau, 1999.) Even exposures to background radiation cause some cancers. Additional exposure causes additional risk. The BEIR Vll report also found that the risk of cancer was greater to women and children, the younger the children, the greater the risk, females being at greater risk.

For these and other reasons, the International Joint Commission (IJC) 7th Biennial Report on the Great Lakes recommended that radionuclides with a half life of greater that 6 months be included in the list of persistent toxic substances, and that governments work toward virtual elimination of these substances under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, and that strategies for virtual elimination of these pollutants from waste streams be implemented. Radioactive Waste

There is approximately 20,000 tonnes of high-level radioactive waste stored at the Pickering nuclear station. Extending the life of the Pickering B nuclear station will create approximately 10,000 additional tones. These radioactive wastes must be isolated from the environment and humans for a million years. Although the nuclear industry-controlled Nuclear Waste Management Agency is searching for a community willing to house these wastes, there is no guarantee such a community will ever be found.

Recommendation: The CNSC should not approve the life-extension of Pickering B before a long-term plan for the management of the radioactive wastes produced by Pickering is established. Terrorism

The Pickering nuclear station was not designed to withstand terrorist attacks. In the post-September 11 world, the Pickering B reactor design would not be approved because of its vulnerabilities to terrorist attacks. Pickering B’s multi-unit design and shared systems make it particularly vulnerable to catastrophic accidents in the event of a terrorist attack.

Although the design of new nuclear stations in Canada will be required to be robust enough to resist certain terrorist attacks, the CNSC has allowed existing nuclear stations to forgo expensive design changes to adapt to the post-September 11 reality. Furthermore, while requiring environmental reviews on new reactor designs that assess the environmental impacts of terrorist attacks, the CNSC has specifically excluded such an analysis from the present environmental review. The current environmental assessment, therefore, is inadequate.

Recommendations: 1. All environmental assessments on the proposed life-extension of ageing nuclear stations, including the present review, should include a review of the environmental impacts of terrorist events. 2. Given the design vulnerabilities of the Pickering B station, the life extension of the station should not be approved. 3. Existing radioactive waste storage facilities should be made resistant to terrorist attack.

Accidents and Evacuation

The environmental assessment identifies a nuclear accident involving the release of radiation and triggering evacuations or sheltering in a 10 km area around Pickering B as ‘credible’. That is, according to the CNSC’s own guidelines this accident has a reasonable probability of occurring. Such an accident would cause chaos across Toronto. The siting of a nuclear station so close to such a dense population centre poses an unacceptable risk to the City of Toronto.

Recommendation: The CNSC should not approve the life-extension of the Pickering B nuclear station. The station should be shut down at the end of its operational life in 2014. Slightly Enriched Uranium

The CANDU design shares an inherent design flaw with the Chernobyl RBMK reactor design that significantly weakens its ability to control and cool the nuclear reaction in accident situations. Specifically, the reactor core design of both the CANDU and Chernobyl reactors exhibit “positive reactivity”; that is, the reactor power has a tendency to increase, potentially in an explosive pulse. Because of the inherent hazard of positive reactivity of CANDU reactors, Ontario’s nuclear stations would be deemed too hazardous to licence under modern safety requirements.

Bruce Power is currently proposing to change from natural uranium fuel to slightly enriched uranium, otherwise known as Low Void Reactivity Fuel (LVRF), to mitigate the hazards of positive reactivity. The use of enriched uranium, however, presents new environmental hazards in the nuclear fuel chain in Canada, such as out of reactor criticality.

The environmental assessment on the life-extension of Pickering B has not addressed the possibility of using enriched uranium to mitigate the hazards of positive reactivity. The current assessment is, therefore, inadequate, pending a review of the environmental impacts of using of slightly enriched uranium.

Recommendation:  Given that modern licensing requirements would not permit the licensing of reactors with positive reactivity, the CNSC should not approve the life-extension of Pickering B. In conclusion, the CNSC would not allow a new plant to be built at Pickering today. We believe, then, that the CNSC has a duty to order the shut down of Pickering B when it reaches the end of its operational life in 2014.REFERENCESInternational Joint Commission (IJC) 7th Biennial Report on the Great Lakes, Recommendation 12 to Federal, Provincial/State Governments, February, 1994.

DEPUTATION: WHEN's position on Tritium and its Risk to Our Drinking Water

In light of the plans for nuclear power expansion in Ontario and elsewhere, many millions of our tax dollars are to be spent to renew the nuclear industry with very little attention to the impacts of ionizing radiation, namely tritium (and other radionuclides) affecting the health of millions of citizens and the ecosystem.- WHEN's deputation to the Ontario Drinking Water Advisory Council (ODWAC) on Tritium, March 2008.

In the spring of 2008, WHEN’s Education and Outreach Coordinator, Dorothy Goldin Rosenberg, presented a deputation on behalf of the Women's Healthy Environments Network (WHEN) to the Ontario Drinking Water Advisory Council (ODWAC) on Tritium. Tritium is a known carcinogen, mutagen and teratogen (it crosses the placental barrier to cause harm) which is routinely released from CANDU reactor operations into the drinking water of millions of Ontarians and others.

In light of the plans for nuclear power expansion in Ontario and elsewhere, many millions of our tax dollars are to be spent to renew the nuclear industry with very little attention to the impacts of ionizing radiation, namely tritium (and other radionuclides) affecting the health of millions of citizens and the ecosystem. Our presentation to ODWAC elaborated on these points, referring to reports and studies that highlighted the need to protect, in particular, women, the developing fetus, growing children and young girls in puberty, from exposures to tritium, ideally at ANY dose.

The study, Environmental and Occupational Causes of Cancer: A Review of Recent Scientific Literature, [i] was cited in reference to the cancer risks to the general public from tritium. (This study lists several cancers and the chemicals/radiation they are related to [p. 10]). Of particular note in relation to tritium is the relationship of ionizing radiation to bladder, bone, brain, breast, colon, leukemia, liver, lung, multiple myeloma, nasal and nasopharynx, stomach and thyroid cancers.

It is now known that there is no safe dose of radiation and even the smallest dose can cause cancer and other health effects [ii] The government of Ontario should strive to eliminate risks to the environment and to the human health of the citizens of Ontario.

WHEN's RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ODWAC

• In light of people’s exposure to the cumulative effects of numerous of chemicals and radionuclides and the synergies they combine to produce, WHEN recommends more stringent standards immediately. Lower limits are achievable. And it is sensible, at least for now, to use an approach similar to that used for chemicals to determine "acceptable" levels of risk, an approach called for by the Advisory Committee on Environmental Standards (ACES) in 1994. Unfortunately there is now much catching up to do, as the current Ontario Drinking Water Objective for Tritium of 7,000 Becquerel per litre (Bq/L) is considerably higher than ACES’s recommendations then of immediate adoption of a 100 Bq/L standard, reduced to 20 Bq/L within five years, were ignored by the government of the day due to pressure from the nuclear industry and has remained ignored to date.

• Ontario needs to join other leading jurisdictions in the world which have more stringent standards - the EU Tritium in water Standard is 100 Bq/L, California is at 15 Bq/L and Colorado, 18 Bq/L. Moreover, it is of great significance that Ontario Power Generation (OPG) has stated in their ISO 140001 QA documents that 100Bq/l is now an achievable standard for Tritium in water and therefore the reduction of 7,000 Bq/L to the federally proposed 3,000 Bq/L should not be acceptable. Therefore the ACES recommendation of 100 Bq/L to 20Bq/L within five years is the largest standard we can agree to at this time.

• Because of the now widely available evidence presented on health impacts, WHEN recommended that ODWAC urge the Ontario government to adopt the Precautionary Principle in its recommendations to them. If it is to err at all, the committee should err on the side of caution when assessing the hazards of Tritium emissions and should, at the start, reiterate the recommendations of the Advisory Council on Environmental Standards (ACES) on Tritium. Thus, WHEN recommends that ODWAC advocate a decrease in tritium standards from the current 7,000 Bq/L to 100 Bq/L and then to 20 Bq/L within five years as recommended by ACES, with the goal of zero discharge in ten years.

• WHEN endorsed the energy framework, principles and recommendations of the letter by Dr. David McKeown, MDCM, MHSc, FRCPC, Toronto Medial Officer of Health to Premier Dalton McGuinty regarding the Ontario Power Authority’s Supply Mix [iii]. Dr. McKeown calls for a sustainable energy strategy for the province composed of a combination of measures, in the following order of priority: demand management (energy efficiency and conservation) approaches and supply from low-impact ecologically sustainable renewable sources rather than by nuclear energy.”

• WHEN concurred with recommendations contained in the Pembina/CELA Report [iv], that nuclear power plants be phased out by 2020 stopping all such releases.

Reference

[i]Richard Clapp, Genevieve Howe, Molly Jacobs. Environmental and Occupational Causes of Cancer: A Review of Recent Scientific Literature Boston University, School of Public Health and Environmental Health Initiative, University of Massachusetts, Lowell, September, 2005.

[ii]Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation Vll -- BEIR VllE National Academy of Sciences, 2005, http://www.nuclearactive.org/news/070605.html

[iii]Dr. David McKeown, MDCM, MHSc, FRCPCOntario Power Authority's Supply Mix: Advice Report December 2005 EBR #PO05E0001; Feb 3, 2006

[iii]Pembina Institute and Centre for Environmental Law and Policy (CELA) Power for the Future Towards a Sustainable Electricity System for Ontario www.cela.ca, www.pembina.org