"What that told me is that no matter what I tried to do, the plumes 
        of chemicals that we are passing in and out of everyday give us 
        exposure," said Baltz, who works for Commonweal, an environmental group 
        in Bolinas, Calif. Commonweal and the Washington-based Environmental 
        Working Group funded tests for Baltz and eight others at $5,000 apiece.
        
        For decades, researchers have sampled the air, land and sea to 
        measure pollution from power plants, factories and automobiles. More 
        recently, they have expressed concern about mounting "e-waste" — 
        discarded tech gadgets that contain flame retardants, lead and other 
        toxins. 
        But there's been trouble determining precisely how much pollution 
        gets absorbed by humans. 
        Now, in a process called biomonitoring, scientists are sampling 
        urine, blood and mother's milk to catalogue the pollutants accumulating 
        in humans. They call the results "body burden." 
        Though the tests are yielding scary lists of contaminants found in 
        the body, their links to disease are less clear. Nonetheless, proponents 
        say such testing will help researchers learn what role the environment 
        plays in causing disease and how to treat it. 
        Many chemicals such as PCB and DDT, both banned decades ago, remain 
        in the environment for years and build up in the body over a lifetime.
        
        It's not a new phenomenon. Rachel Carson wrote about the poisons in 
        her 1962 book "Silent Spring," which is widely credited for 
        jump-starting the environmental movement. 
        But until now, researchers were left mostly to guess about exactly 
        how much and how many of the toxins lingered in our bodies. 
        Few of the estimated 75,000 chemicals found in the United States have 
        been tested for their health effects, Baltz and other biomonitoring 
        proponents say. By looking directly in the human body, they hope to 
        catalogue the environmental influences that may cause disease. 
        Already, several studies have been completed: 
        
          - In March, California researchers reported that San Francisco-area 
        women have three to 10 times as much chemical flame retardant in their 
        breast tissue as European or Japanese women. 
 
          - Indiana University researchers reported at the same time that 
        levels in Indiana and California women and infants were 20 times higher 
        than those in Sweden and Norway, which recently banned flame retardant. 
          
 
          - The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention earlier this year 
        released data from 2,500 volunteers tested for 116 pollutants and found 
        such chemicals as mercury, uranium and cotinine, a chemical broken down 
        from nicotine. 
 
        
        The CDC also found that black children have twice the level of 
        cotinine than other children, implying they were exposed to more 
        secondhand smoke than their peers of other races. 
        Meanwhile, Mexican-American children were found to have three times 
        the amount of a chemical derived from DDT compared with other children. 
        Scientists suspect that Mexico and Latin America countries may still be 
        using the banned chemical. 
        Next month, state Sen. Deborah Ortiz plans to renew calls for 
        California's polluters to finance testing of contaminants in mother's 
        milk. 
        "This will allow women to better make informed decision about their 
        health," said Ortiz, a Democrat. "And the information will help 
        researchers and public health officials." 
        But some fear that biomonitoring results could be misinterpreted and 
        frighten new mothers from breast feeding their babies. 
        "We are clearly concerned about what effects the stories of 
        biomonitoring will have," said Barbara Brenner, executive director of 
        the San Francisco-based Breast Cancer Action nonprofit advocacy group. 
        "Any rational woman will say to herself, `Should I be breast feeding?'"
        
        Others see political motives behind some of the tests. 
        "Everyone's exposed to substances and there's no evidence that the 
        low levels people are exposed to are harming anybody," said Steven 
        Milloy, author of "Junk Science Judo: Self Defense Against Health Scares 
        and Scams." "It's a waste of time and money that only serves to scare 
        people." 
        Milloy noted that despite all the chemicals, the overall U.S. 
        population is living longer and healthier. 
        Although the tests conducted on Baltz and other Commonweal 
        volunteers, including public television journalist Bill Moyers, are too 
        expensive for most people, proponents believe costs will go down as 
        technology advances. Moyers' body had traces of 84 toxins, including 
        lead and a byproduct of mercury. 
        There's still a debate among advocates over which of the 75,000 
        chemicals to specifically look for when biomonitoring. And even when 
        chemicals are found, there's little an individual can do. 
        But Baltz said the knowledge can at least help consumers make more 
        informed choices over what they eat. 
        "Since we don't have a whole lot of control over most of the 
        environment, we can take charge with the food we eat," he said. "There 
        are few places where you can exercise such power than controlling what 
        we digest."