{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023051948051948053, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00909090909090909, 'mean_word_length': 5.712418300653595, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Endocrine Toxicants with Emphasis on Human Health Risks

Characterization of the environmental etiology of human diseases is a rapidly growing field of environmental science. Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962) heralded the storm that was to become the endocrine disrupter hypothesis by drawing attention to the adverse health effects of the environmental contaminant dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), with graphic depictions of birth defects, reductions in fertility, bioaccumulation of the chemical in the food chain, and DDT’s potential as a carcinogen. Theo Colborn et al. (1996) revisited the issue in Our Stolen Future, which emphasized the hazards of environmental chemicals acting as endocrine disrupters. Our Stolen Future interprets somewhat limited and controversial scientific evidence to conclude that endocrine disrupters produce adverse health effects in humans and wildlife. Krimsky and Goldman’s Hormonal Chaos (2000) presents a balanced view of the endocrine disrupter hypothesis, regulation issues, and interpretation of sometimes limited and inconclusive scientific evidence. Krimsky and Goldman (2000) go further to discuss the policy implications of interpreting limited and sometimes incomplete data and the potential conflicts of interest between academic researchers and industry. The role of mass media is also examined in the development of the endocrine disrupter hypotheses and the evolution of environmental activism on this issue. Several reviews have attempted to address the interpretation of endocrine disrupter research. The National Research Council (NRC) published Hormonally Active Agents in the Environment (1999) following a mandate from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), the Department of the Interior, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the U.S. Congress to address the issue of endocrine disrupters to help policy makers by independently evaluating the scientific evidence that bears on the issue. The NRC review is a critical treatise of the endocrine disrupter issue in (1) attempting to define endocrine disrupters (2) identifying significant uncertainties, (3) indicating limitations of knowledge and weaknesses in the available evidence, and (4) developing a science-based conceptual framework for assessing observed phenomena. An equally thorough review was compiled by the World Health Organization (WHO), Global Assessment of the State-of-the-Science on Endocrine Disrupters (2002). The WHO report provides a comprehensive evaluation of the state of the science of endocrine modulation. The report includes a thorough overview of endocrinology and endocrine toxicology that is a valuable companion to the summaries of the evidence for endocrine modulation in wildlife and humans. The report concludes that although there is only weak evidence to link exposure to endocrine-active chemicals to adverse human health effects, this should foster further investigations into these areas. The recommendations to increase the number of epidemiological studies in developing countries due to the