Flame retardants linked to thyroid disease in house cats

This Gives Us Paws

Thyroid disease in house cats may be linked to common flame retardants called PBDEs, according to U.S. EPA researchers. In a small study of 23 cats, all the felines had blood concentrations of the chemical 20 to 100 times higher than average U.S. adults -- who, it oughta be noted, carry the highest human PBDE load in the world. PBDEs first began to be used about three decades ago; at that time, feline hyperthyroidism was rare, but has now become one of the most common diseases in older cats. The fireproofing chemical is used in TVs, carpet padding, furniture, and mattresses; kitties easily take the substance in by grooming themselves after lounging about. (Food for thought: pound for pound, a 2-year-old child ingests about as much dust as a feline.) While the link between PBDEs and kitty sickness is still a hypothesis, researchers urged further analysis. PBDEs already have a bad rep when it comes to health, and two of the three main types of the chemical have already been banned in the U.S.

straight to the source: Planet Ark, Reuters, Julie Steenhuysen, 16 Aug 2007

straight to the source: Los Angeles Times, Marla Cone, 16 Aug 2007

straight to the source: The Oakland Tribune, Douglas Fischer, 16 Aug 2007

see also, in Gristmill: That's it. Now I am angry.

see also, in Grist: Washington state first in the nation to ban PBDEs

ADVERTISING POLICY

Comments: (1 comment)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

stop the fire

As a founding father pointed out two centuries ago, the price of freedom is eternal vigilence.

From big business to big government, we must never trust. This is just the latest example.

I fully support groups such as PETA to investigate animal abuse; PETA does a good job finding problems relating to animal health much faster than the government can.

It is easy to demand business to not hurt anyone. Obviously a corporation can insure it doesn't go around shooting people. It is the indirect hurt that is so much harder to confront. There are literally hundreds of thousands of chemicals, we only know the full effects of just a handful, and about six to eight new ones are introduced each day.

If business were to stop all operations until every chemical were fully tested to see how it interacts with all the hundreds of thousands of other chemicals nothing would get done for decades.

Bottom line: let us live with nature. Let us consume less. I practice family planning, I have no children and plan on having one child and adoption. We complain about what corporations do then go out and buy an appliance we don't need. Is it any wonder billions of people without food and other basic needs hate us enough to commit terrorism?

by danielbarker123 at 2:37 PM on 17 Aug 2007

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?