Thank you.
My understanding, if my information is correct, is that Health Canada is apparently planning a national study in which about 5,000 people will be monitored for toxic substances over a two-year period starting 2007 to 2009.
When I first became aware of that I was wondering--I've got three questions, and this first one would be along these lines--is that long enough? At first blush I would think it might take a longer-term period of time to gauge the effect, but there are maybe some things I don't understand about the study. Mr. Glover might have to comment in respect to that, but I'd appreciate if Dr. Schwarcz or also Mr. Weinberg would respond on that.
Secondly, if I understood correctly what Mr. Weinberg said regarding these many “fat-loving chemicals”--and I don't know what percentage of chemicals out there are “fat-loving chemicals”-- where then does the dangerous reading come? The “total body burden” I think was the term used. It's the matter of how much there is in the fat of the body, if you will.
With that question, then, are we off the mark when we're doing testing--biomonitoring, if you will--by way of people's blood and urine, when in some of these cases it's more that the detrimental effect is picked up in terms of the fat of the human body? That's where the dangerous readings would be detected. So I have that question. I don't know if it was PBDE that was the one referenced there--possibly--but that is my second question.
And lastly is that it intrigued me a little bit--and it's nothing novel, it's been said by lots of people and it was remarked here a few times--Mr. Weinberg, when you commented about things like a “predisposition” to prostate cancer caused when you were a fetus or pre-born.
Are we really way, way too late in terms of a lot of our testing then, and should we be getting some sense earlier on? The gig is up, so to speak, if most of this effect and the predisposition is already caused by pre-birth, at the fetal time. Are we way behind the eight ball on that? And as I said, in effect the gig is up when most of the damage....
I have a son who is 12 years old and he has Asperger syndrome. This will be an interesting debate, I guess, over the years ahead. There seems to be a rapid increase of these childhood...autism and so on. Are these caused in the pre-birth period of time? Maybe we're way, way too late in terms of any of the biomonitoring and testing. Should we be doing it at the fetal stage?
Those are my three complicated questions that could take some long time in response, I'm sure.