Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Study shows THIRD HAND smoke is BA D for YOU!
Third-hand smoke also bad for you: study
By AFP - Tue Feb 9, 2:20 AM PST
WASHINGTON (AFP) - You know smoking is bad for you. You know inhaling someone else's smoke is bad for you. Now a US study says third-hand smoke -- tobacco residue clinging to surfaces -- is also bad for you.
[AFP/File/Paul J. Richards] Smokers at Tampa International Airport are seen taking advantage of the airport's smoking area. When a cigarette burns, nicotine is released in the form of a vapor that collects and condenses on indoor surfaces such as walls, carpeting, drapes and furniture, where it can linger for months, said the study, which was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).(AFP/File/Paul J. Richards)
When a cigarette burns, nicotine is released in the form of a vapor that collects and condenses on indoor surfaces such as walls, carpeting, drapes and furniture, where it can linger for months, said the study, which was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
"Our study shows that when this residual nicotine reacts with ambient nitrous acid it forms carcinogenic tobacco-specific nitrosamines, or TSNAs," said Hugo Destaillats, a corresponding author of the study.
"TSNAs are among the most broadly acting and potent carcinogens present in unburned tobacco and tobacco smoke," he said.
The most likely human exposure to TSNAs is through either inhalation of dust or the contact of skin with carpet or clothes -- making third-hand smoke particularly dangerous to infants and toddlers.
Opening a window or turning on a fan to air out a room while a cigarette burns does not eliminate the hazard of third-hand smoke. Smoking outdoors doesn't help much either.
"Smoking outside is better than smoking indoors but nicotine residues will stick to a smoker's skin and clothing," said Lara Gundel, a co-author of the study.
"Those residues follow a smoker back inside and get spread everywhere. The biggest risk is to young children," she said.
"Dermal uptake of the nicotine through a child's skin is likely to occur when the smoker returns and if nitrous acid is in the air, which it usually is, then TSNAs will be formed."
Substantial levels of TSNAs were also found in the truck of a heavy smoker, the study says, adding that most vehicle engines emit some nitrous acid that can infiltrate the passenger compartment of a vehicle.
Researchers from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory led the study, which they say is the first to quantify the reactions of third-hand smoke with nitrous acid.
third hand smoke, cigarrette smoking, smoking tobacco, chiropractor Orem Ut, acupuncture Orem UT,
By AFP - Tue Feb 9, 2:20 AM PST
WASHINGTON (AFP) - You know smoking is bad for you. You know inhaling someone else's smoke is bad for you. Now a US study says third-hand smoke -- tobacco residue clinging to surfaces -- is also bad for you.
[AFP/File/Paul J. Richards] Smokers at Tampa International Airport are seen taking advantage of the airport's smoking area. When a cigarette burns, nicotine is released in the form of a vapor that collects and condenses on indoor surfaces such as walls, carpeting, drapes and furniture, where it can linger for months, said the study, which was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).(AFP/File/Paul J. Richards)
When a cigarette burns, nicotine is released in the form of a vapor that collects and condenses on indoor surfaces such as walls, carpeting, drapes and furniture, where it can linger for months, said the study, which was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
"Our study shows that when this residual nicotine reacts with ambient nitrous acid it forms carcinogenic tobacco-specific nitrosamines, or TSNAs," said Hugo Destaillats, a corresponding author of the study.
"TSNAs are among the most broadly acting and potent carcinogens present in unburned tobacco and tobacco smoke," he said.
The most likely human exposure to TSNAs is through either inhalation of dust or the contact of skin with carpet or clothes -- making third-hand smoke particularly dangerous to infants and toddlers.
Opening a window or turning on a fan to air out a room while a cigarette burns does not eliminate the hazard of third-hand smoke. Smoking outdoors doesn't help much either.
"Smoking outside is better than smoking indoors but nicotine residues will stick to a smoker's skin and clothing," said Lara Gundel, a co-author of the study.
"Those residues follow a smoker back inside and get spread everywhere. The biggest risk is to young children," she said.
"Dermal uptake of the nicotine through a child's skin is likely to occur when the smoker returns and if nitrous acid is in the air, which it usually is, then TSNAs will be formed."
Substantial levels of TSNAs were also found in the truck of a heavy smoker, the study says, adding that most vehicle engines emit some nitrous acid that can infiltrate the passenger compartment of a vehicle.
Researchers from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory led the study, which they say is the first to quantify the reactions of third-hand smoke with nitrous acid.
third hand smoke, cigarrette smoking, smoking tobacco, chiropractor Orem Ut, acupuncture Orem UT,
Friday, January 1, 2010
Study Proves Prescription Drugs cause More Deaths than Cocaine and Heroine Combined
On the heels of the sudden death of celebrity actress Brittany Murphy, people are once again raising the question of just how dangerous prescription drugs might really be.
Some are arguing, however, that street drugs are the real danger, not prescription drugs. But the following study demonstrates why prescription drugs are far more dangerous than illegal recreational drugs.
According to a new study conducted by physicians at St. Michael's Hospital and the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) in Toronto, the number of deaths due to prescription opioid use has doubled between 1991 and 2004. Following the introduction of oxycodone into Toronto's drug formulary in 2000, there has been a 500% increase in deaths due to the drugs.
Researchers reviewed over 7,000 files from the Office of the Chief Coroner in Ontario and found that between the years of 1991 and 2004, oxycodone prescriptions increased by more than 850 percent, representing about one-third of the opioid prescriptions given in 2006. (This is the largest prescription increase among all opioid drugs.)
Following the addition of this drug into the provincial drug benefit plan in 2000, deaths from opioid usage rose by 41 percent. Shockingly, deaths from prescription opioids like oxycodone were far greater than deaths from heroin. The vast majority of people who died from opioids had visited their doctor and received a prescription for the drug within a month of their death.
The total number of opioid-related deaths in Toronto in 2004 is estimated to be 27.2 per million people. Study authors said they hope to shed light on the tremendous dangers associated with prescription opioid drugs.
Coked up on prescription smack
It's the dirty little secret of the pharmaceutical industry: More people are killed by prescription opioids than all those killed by heroin and cocaine combined. And that probably even includes all the shootings of gang bangers in northern Mexico.
Prescription drug abuse is now more common than street drug abuse -- by far! And yet Big Pharma rakes in huge profits from all the patient addictions to their opioids. And by "opioids", what I mean is narcotics. They are, in fact, one and the same.
So of all the drug addicts in America today, you can divide them into two camps:
1) People addicted to street drugs.
2) People addicted to prescription drugs.
The people in group #1 (street drugs) are taken to jail where they are given prison sentences. People in group #2 (prescription drugs) are taken to their doctor where they are given prescription refills. It's all really the same narcotics, it's just that one group is legal and the other is illegal.
And what really determines whether a particular narcotic is legal or illegal? Whether or not Big Pharma profits from it. If Big Pharma makes money off the narcotics, they're considered legal.
Big Pharma, you see, earns tens of billions of dollars each year from drug addicts. And just by coincidence, it turns out that their prescription narcotics are extremely addicting, guaranteeing repeat business. The business model is so dang lucrative, you might think they were drug dealers...
Why do you think the main sponsors for the Partnership For A Drug-Free America are the drug companies themselves? It's because Big Pharma is trying to eliminate the competition. By keeping up the so-called "War on Drugs" front, the pharmaceutical industry can make sure it dominates the market for narcotics. After all, if you're going to feed narcotics to a nation full of junkies, why not make a hefty profit on it? That's the thinking of drug companies, it seems, as they have done basically zilch to effectively stem the abuse of their own prescription narcotics.
Much like the tobacco companies, drug companies secretly want people to be addicted to their products.
Sources for this story include:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...
Posted by Chiropractor, acupuncturist, Orem UT
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...
Some are arguing, however, that street drugs are the real danger, not prescription drugs. But the following study demonstrates why prescription drugs are far more dangerous than illegal recreational drugs.
According to a new study conducted by physicians at St. Michael's Hospital and the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) in Toronto, the number of deaths due to prescription opioid use has doubled between 1991 and 2004. Following the introduction of oxycodone into Toronto's drug formulary in 2000, there has been a 500% increase in deaths due to the drugs.
Researchers reviewed over 7,000 files from the Office of the Chief Coroner in Ontario and found that between the years of 1991 and 2004, oxycodone prescriptions increased by more than 850 percent, representing about one-third of the opioid prescriptions given in 2006. (This is the largest prescription increase among all opioid drugs.)
Following the addition of this drug into the provincial drug benefit plan in 2000, deaths from opioid usage rose by 41 percent. Shockingly, deaths from prescription opioids like oxycodone were far greater than deaths from heroin. The vast majority of people who died from opioids had visited their doctor and received a prescription for the drug within a month of their death.
The total number of opioid-related deaths in Toronto in 2004 is estimated to be 27.2 per million people. Study authors said they hope to shed light on the tremendous dangers associated with prescription opioid drugs.
Coked up on prescription smack
It's the dirty little secret of the pharmaceutical industry: More people are killed by prescription opioids than all those killed by heroin and cocaine combined. And that probably even includes all the shootings of gang bangers in northern Mexico.
Prescription drug abuse is now more common than street drug abuse -- by far! And yet Big Pharma rakes in huge profits from all the patient addictions to their opioids. And by "opioids", what I mean is narcotics. They are, in fact, one and the same.
So of all the drug addicts in America today, you can divide them into two camps:
1) People addicted to street drugs.
2) People addicted to prescription drugs.
The people in group #1 (street drugs) are taken to jail where they are given prison sentences. People in group #2 (prescription drugs) are taken to their doctor where they are given prescription refills. It's all really the same narcotics, it's just that one group is legal and the other is illegal.
And what really determines whether a particular narcotic is legal or illegal? Whether or not Big Pharma profits from it. If Big Pharma makes money off the narcotics, they're considered legal.
Big Pharma, you see, earns tens of billions of dollars each year from drug addicts. And just by coincidence, it turns out that their prescription narcotics are extremely addicting, guaranteeing repeat business. The business model is so dang lucrative, you might think they were drug dealers...
Why do you think the main sponsors for the Partnership For A Drug-Free America are the drug companies themselves? It's because Big Pharma is trying to eliminate the competition. By keeping up the so-called "War on Drugs" front, the pharmaceutical industry can make sure it dominates the market for narcotics. After all, if you're going to feed narcotics to a nation full of junkies, why not make a hefty profit on it? That's the thinking of drug companies, it seems, as they have done basically zilch to effectively stem the abuse of their own prescription narcotics.
Much like the tobacco companies, drug companies secretly want people to be addicted to their products.
Sources for this story include:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...
Posted by Chiropractor, acupuncturist, Orem UT
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...
Avoid These 7 Foods and You're Off To A Healthier New Year
Avoid These 7 Foods and You're Off To A Healthier New Year. from: Dr. Mercola
1. Canned Tomatoes
The expert: Fredrick vom Saal, PhD, an endocrinologist at the University of Missouri who studies bisphenol-A
The resin linings of tin cans contain bisphenol-A, a synthetic estrogen that has been linked to ailments ranging from reproductive problems to heart disease, diabetes, and obesity. Acidity -- a prominent characteristic of tomatoes -- causes BPA to leach into your food.
2. Corn-Fed Beef
The expert: Joel Salatin, co-owner of Polyface Farms and author of books on sustainable farming
Cattle were designed to eat grass, not grains. But farmers today feed their animals corn and soybeans, which fatten up the animals faster for slaughter. A recent comprehensive study found that compared with corn-fed beef, grass-fed beef is higher in beta-carotene, vitamin E, omega-3s, conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), calcium, magnesium, and potassium.
3. Microwave Popcorn
The expert: Olga Naidenko, PhD, a senior scientist for the Environmental Working Group
Chemicals, including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), in the lining of the bag, are part of a class of compounds that may be linked to infertility in humans. In animal testing, the chemicals cause liver, testicular, and pancreatic cancer. Studies show that microwaving causes the chemicals to vaporize -- and migrate into your popcorn.
4. Nonorganic Potatoes
The expert: Jeffrey Moyer, chair of the National Organic Standards Board
Root vegetables absorb herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides that wind up in soil. In the case of potatoes they're treated with fungicides during the growing season, then sprayed with herbicides to kill off the fibrous vines before harvesting. After they're dug up, the potatoes are treated yet again to prevent them from sprouting.
5. Farmed Salmon
The expert: David Carpenter, MD, director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany
Nature didn't intend for salmon to be crammed into pens and fed soy, poultry litter, and hydrolyzed chicken feathers. As a result, farmed salmon is lower in vitamin D and higher in contaminants, including carcinogens, PCBs, brominated flame retardants, and pesticides such as dioxin and DDT.
6. Milk Produced with Artificial Hormones
The expert: Rick North, project director of the Campaign for Safe Food at the Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility
Milk producers treat their dairy cattle with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH or rBST, as it is also known) to boost milk production. But rBGH also increases udder infections and even pus in the milk. It also leads to higher levels of a hormone called insulin-like growth factor in milk. In people, high levels of IGF-1 may contribute to breast, prostate, and colon cancers.
7. Conventional Apples
The expert: Mark Kastel, codirector of the Cornucopia Institute
If fall fruits held a "most doused in pesticides contest," apples would win. And increasing numbers of studies are starting to link a higher body burden of pesticides with Parkinson's disease.
chiropractor, acupuncture, Orem, UT, health food, healthier New Year.
1. Canned Tomatoes
The expert: Fredrick vom Saal, PhD, an endocrinologist at the University of Missouri who studies bisphenol-A
The resin linings of tin cans contain bisphenol-A, a synthetic estrogen that has been linked to ailments ranging from reproductive problems to heart disease, diabetes, and obesity. Acidity -- a prominent characteristic of tomatoes -- causes BPA to leach into your food.
2. Corn-Fed Beef
The expert: Joel Salatin, co-owner of Polyface Farms and author of books on sustainable farming
Cattle were designed to eat grass, not grains. But farmers today feed their animals corn and soybeans, which fatten up the animals faster for slaughter. A recent comprehensive study found that compared with corn-fed beef, grass-fed beef is higher in beta-carotene, vitamin E, omega-3s, conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), calcium, magnesium, and potassium.
3. Microwave Popcorn
The expert: Olga Naidenko, PhD, a senior scientist for the Environmental Working Group
Chemicals, including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), in the lining of the bag, are part of a class of compounds that may be linked to infertility in humans. In animal testing, the chemicals cause liver, testicular, and pancreatic cancer. Studies show that microwaving causes the chemicals to vaporize -- and migrate into your popcorn.
4. Nonorganic Potatoes
The expert: Jeffrey Moyer, chair of the National Organic Standards Board
Root vegetables absorb herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides that wind up in soil. In the case of potatoes they're treated with fungicides during the growing season, then sprayed with herbicides to kill off the fibrous vines before harvesting. After they're dug up, the potatoes are treated yet again to prevent them from sprouting.
5. Farmed Salmon
The expert: David Carpenter, MD, director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany
Nature didn't intend for salmon to be crammed into pens and fed soy, poultry litter, and hydrolyzed chicken feathers. As a result, farmed salmon is lower in vitamin D and higher in contaminants, including carcinogens, PCBs, brominated flame retardants, and pesticides such as dioxin and DDT.
6. Milk Produced with Artificial Hormones
The expert: Rick North, project director of the Campaign for Safe Food at the Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility
Milk producers treat their dairy cattle with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH or rBST, as it is also known) to boost milk production. But rBGH also increases udder infections and even pus in the milk. It also leads to higher levels of a hormone called insulin-like growth factor in milk. In people, high levels of IGF-1 may contribute to breast, prostate, and colon cancers.
7. Conventional Apples
The expert: Mark Kastel, codirector of the Cornucopia Institute
If fall fruits held a "most doused in pesticides contest," apples would win. And increasing numbers of studies are starting to link a higher body burden of pesticides with Parkinson's disease.
chiropractor, acupuncture, Orem, UT, health food, healthier New Year.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Can These Household Chemicals Crush Your Son’s Masculinity?
Can These Household Chemicals Crush Your Son’s Masculinity?
Posted by: Dr. Mercola
December 19 2009
Elevated levels of two plastic-softening chemicals in pregnant women's urine are linked to less-masculine play behavior by their sons several years later, according to a study published in the International Journal of Andrology. Phthalates, which are used in everything from vinyl floors to plastic tubing and soaps and lotions, are pervasive in the environment and have increasingly become associated with changes in development of the male brain as well as with genital defects, metabolic abnormalities and reduced testosterone in babies and adults.
A team of U.S. and British researchers posed a standard play questionnaire to the parents of 145 preschool-age children. Then they ranked the types of play on a scale from most masculine (such as play fighting or using trucks) to most feminine.
An effect was identified among the sons of women with higher concentrations of di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) and dibutyl phthalate (DBP) in their prenatal urine. On average, those boys scored 8 percent further away from the masculine end of the scale than other boys.
Sources:
The Washington Post November 24, 2009
International Journal of Andrology November 16, 2009 [Epub Ahead of Print]
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Phthalates are one of several groups of chemicals that have the power to disrupt the endocrine system, both in animals and humans. Nicknamed “gender-benders,” these chemicals are causing the males in many species to become feminized.
Are Men Becoming an Endangered Species?
According to a report issued by ChemTrust last year, HALF of all male fish in British lowland rivers have been found to grow eggs in their testes! And that’s just one eye-opening example of the impact these gender bender chemicals are having on our environment.
Their study lists the symptoms found in each of the numerous species tested, which includes testicular cancer, hermaphrodites, genital deformations, low sperm counts, and infertility.
Numerous other studies over the past eight years confirm that similar dangers are posed to human health, and males are particularly at risk.
Decreased sperm motility and concentration, as well as genital abnormalities in baby boys have been linked to these chemicals.
The fact that endocrine disruptors like phthalates affect the reproductive system in nearly all mammals is becoming rather well known, although governments and public health- and safety organizations are slow to respond.
Why Pregnant Women Need to Become More Health Conscious
Two studies published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives in 2003 found that pregnant women who are exposed to phthalates may be at risk of shortened pregnancy. Women who were exposed to the chemicals gave birth more than one week earlier than women who were not exposed to them.
Although it’s not clear exactly how phthalates impact the developing fetus, it’s believed they may play a role in inducing an intrauterine inflammatory process, which is a well-established risk factor for premature birth.
In addition, the more a pregnant woman is exposed to high levels of phthalates, the greater the risk her son will have smaller genitals and incomplete testicular descent, leading to impaired reproductive development. The chemical also appears to make the overall genital tracts of boys slightly more feminine.
It is believed that phthalates have these adverse effects because they reduce testosterone synthesis by interfering with an enzyme needed to produce the male hormone. This raises yet another worry: What if they also alter other biological processes dependent on this hormone? Why wouldn’t they?
This latest study adds to the growing body of evidence showing the harmful effects these chemicals have on males in particular.
Women who had higher concentrations of two types of phthalates (DEHP, and DBP) also had boys who appeared more feminized in their personality, while playing.
The presence of phthalates in the mothers was not associated with any differences in the girls’ play behavior. However, that is NOT an indication that phthalates are “safe” for women.
They also affect women’s endocrine systems and reproductive health although the effects are different between the genders.
The glands of your endocrine system and the hormones they release influence almost every cell, organ, and function of your body. It is instrumental in regulating mood, growth and development, tissue function, metabolism, as well as sexual function and reproductive processes.
One indication that this is an issue for both male and female is that infertility is on the rise. Girls are also reaching puberty earlier than ever before.
Bovine growth hormones used in food production, soy foods, and bisphenol-A (BPA), just to name a few, add to the problem as they also mimic estrogen and disrupt your endocrine system.
Other studies have linked the chemical to thyroid problems in both women and men, and researchers have also suggested a link between phthalates and illnesses like allergies, asthma, and contact dermatitis, all of which are on the rise in children.
Common Sources of Phthalates
Phthalates, or “plasticizers,” are a group of industrial chemicals used to make plastics like polyvinyl chloride (PVC) more flexible and resilient. They’re one of the most pervasive of the endocrine disrupters.
Phthalates are found in, among other things:
*
Processed food packaging
*
Hoses
*
Raincoats
*
Shower curtains
*
Vinyl flooring and wall coverings
*
Lubricant and adhesives
*
Detergents
*
Beauty products like nail polish, hair spray, shampoo, deodorants, and fragrances
*
Toys
Other Gender-Bender Chemicals to Watch Out For
Endocrine disrupting chemicals are everywhere these days and can be difficult to avoid unless you take decisive steps to limit or eliminate them from your immediate surroundings. This is particularly important if you are pregnant, or planning a pregnancy.
Reading labels is a necessity these days. PVC plastics, which contain phthalates, will oftentimes carry the plastic recycling symbol # 3.
Some of the other gender-bender agents to look out for include:
*
Bisphenol A (BPA) -- a common ingredient in many plastics, including those in reusable water bottles and resins lining some food cans and dental sealants, can change the course of fetal development in a way that increases your risk of breast cancer.
Plastic items carrying recycling symbol # 7 is oftentimes indicative of a BPA-containing plastic.
*
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) -- found in grease- and water-resistant coatings like Teflon and Gore-Tex, is a likely carcinogen.
*
Methoxychlor and Vinclozin-- An insecticide and a fungicide respectively, have been found to cause changes to male mice born for as many as four subsequent generations after the initial exposure.
*
Nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs) -- Known to be potent endocrine disrupters, these chemicals affect gene expression by turning on or off certain genes, and interfere with the way your glandular system works. They mimic the female hormone estrogen, and have been implicated as one reason behind some marine species switching from male to female.
*
Bovine growth hormones commonly added to commercial dairy have been implicated as a contributor to premature adolescence.
*
Soy products, which are loaded with hormone-like substances.
*
MSG -- A food additive that’s been linked to reduced fertility.
*
Fluoride -- This chemical in the U.S. water supply has been linked to lower fertility rates, hormone disruption and low sperm counts.
For more information about the various health hazards inherent with each of these agents, please click on the individual links above.
How to Minimize Your Exposure to Chemicals That Can Harm Your Unborn Baby
In July 2008, the U.S. Congress finally passed legislation banning six types of phthalates from children’s toys and cosmetics. Legislators in Washington, Vermont and California have also restricted phthalate use in children’s goods, and several major retailers, including Wal-Mart, Toys-R-Us, Lego, Evenflo and Gerber claim they will phase out phthalate-laden toys voluntarily.
Yet, so many more products contain endocrine disruptors of varying types, it’s far easier to memorize the healthiest options, rather than compiling a never-ending list of items to avoid.
Here are a number of practical techniques you can use to limit your exposure to endocrine disruptors, and other common toxins:
*
As much as possible, buy and eat organic produce and free-range, organic foods to reduce your exposure to pesticides and fertilizers.
*
Rather than eating conventional or farm-raised fish, which are often heavily contaminated with PCBs and mercury, supplement with a high-quality purified fish or krill oil, or eat fish that is wild-caught and lab tested for purity.
*
Eat mostly raw, fresh foods, steering clear of processed, prepackaged foods of all kinds. This way you automatically avoid artificial food additives of all kinds, including dangerous artificial sweeteners, food coloring and MSG.
*
Store your food and beverages in glass rather than plastic, and avoid using plastic wrap.
*
Have your tap water tested and, if contaminants are found, install an appropriate water filter on all your faucets (even those in your shower or bath).
*
Only use natural cleaning products in your home.
*
Switch over to natural brands of toiletries such as shampoo, toothpaste, antiperspirants and cosmetics. The Environmental Working Group has a great safety guide to help you find personal care products that are free of phthalates and other potentially dangerous chemicals.
*
Avoid using artificial air fresheners, dryer sheets, fabric softeners or other synthetic fragrances.
*
Replace your Teflon pots and pans with ceramic or glass cookware.
*
When redoing your home, look for “green,” toxin-free alternatives in lieu of regular paint and vinyl floor coverings.
*
Replace your vinyl shower curtain with one made of fabric.
Posted by: Dr. Mercola
December 19 2009
Elevated levels of two plastic-softening chemicals in pregnant women's urine are linked to less-masculine play behavior by their sons several years later, according to a study published in the International Journal of Andrology. Phthalates, which are used in everything from vinyl floors to plastic tubing and soaps and lotions, are pervasive in the environment and have increasingly become associated with changes in development of the male brain as well as with genital defects, metabolic abnormalities and reduced testosterone in babies and adults.
A team of U.S. and British researchers posed a standard play questionnaire to the parents of 145 preschool-age children. Then they ranked the types of play on a scale from most masculine (such as play fighting or using trucks) to most feminine.
An effect was identified among the sons of women with higher concentrations of di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) and dibutyl phthalate (DBP) in their prenatal urine. On average, those boys scored 8 percent further away from the masculine end of the scale than other boys.
Sources:
The Washington Post November 24, 2009
International Journal of Andrology November 16, 2009 [Epub Ahead of Print]
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Phthalates are one of several groups of chemicals that have the power to disrupt the endocrine system, both in animals and humans. Nicknamed “gender-benders,” these chemicals are causing the males in many species to become feminized.
Are Men Becoming an Endangered Species?
According to a report issued by ChemTrust last year, HALF of all male fish in British lowland rivers have been found to grow eggs in their testes! And that’s just one eye-opening example of the impact these gender bender chemicals are having on our environment.
Their study lists the symptoms found in each of the numerous species tested, which includes testicular cancer, hermaphrodites, genital deformations, low sperm counts, and infertility.
Numerous other studies over the past eight years confirm that similar dangers are posed to human health, and males are particularly at risk.
Decreased sperm motility and concentration, as well as genital abnormalities in baby boys have been linked to these chemicals.
The fact that endocrine disruptors like phthalates affect the reproductive system in nearly all mammals is becoming rather well known, although governments and public health- and safety organizations are slow to respond.
Why Pregnant Women Need to Become More Health Conscious
Two studies published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives in 2003 found that pregnant women who are exposed to phthalates may be at risk of shortened pregnancy. Women who were exposed to the chemicals gave birth more than one week earlier than women who were not exposed to them.
Although it’s not clear exactly how phthalates impact the developing fetus, it’s believed they may play a role in inducing an intrauterine inflammatory process, which is a well-established risk factor for premature birth.
In addition, the more a pregnant woman is exposed to high levels of phthalates, the greater the risk her son will have smaller genitals and incomplete testicular descent, leading to impaired reproductive development. The chemical also appears to make the overall genital tracts of boys slightly more feminine.
It is believed that phthalates have these adverse effects because they reduce testosterone synthesis by interfering with an enzyme needed to produce the male hormone. This raises yet another worry: What if they also alter other biological processes dependent on this hormone? Why wouldn’t they?
This latest study adds to the growing body of evidence showing the harmful effects these chemicals have on males in particular.
Women who had higher concentrations of two types of phthalates (DEHP, and DBP) also had boys who appeared more feminized in their personality, while playing.
The presence of phthalates in the mothers was not associated with any differences in the girls’ play behavior. However, that is NOT an indication that phthalates are “safe” for women.
They also affect women’s endocrine systems and reproductive health although the effects are different between the genders.
The glands of your endocrine system and the hormones they release influence almost every cell, organ, and function of your body. It is instrumental in regulating mood, growth and development, tissue function, metabolism, as well as sexual function and reproductive processes.
One indication that this is an issue for both male and female is that infertility is on the rise. Girls are also reaching puberty earlier than ever before.
Bovine growth hormones used in food production, soy foods, and bisphenol-A (BPA), just to name a few, add to the problem as they also mimic estrogen and disrupt your endocrine system.
Other studies have linked the chemical to thyroid problems in both women and men, and researchers have also suggested a link between phthalates and illnesses like allergies, asthma, and contact dermatitis, all of which are on the rise in children.
Common Sources of Phthalates
Phthalates, or “plasticizers,” are a group of industrial chemicals used to make plastics like polyvinyl chloride (PVC) more flexible and resilient. They’re one of the most pervasive of the endocrine disrupters.
Phthalates are found in, among other things:
*
Processed food packaging
*
Hoses
*
Raincoats
*
Shower curtains
*
Vinyl flooring and wall coverings
*
Lubricant and adhesives
*
Detergents
*
Beauty products like nail polish, hair spray, shampoo, deodorants, and fragrances
*
Toys
Other Gender-Bender Chemicals to Watch Out For
Endocrine disrupting chemicals are everywhere these days and can be difficult to avoid unless you take decisive steps to limit or eliminate them from your immediate surroundings. This is particularly important if you are pregnant, or planning a pregnancy.
Reading labels is a necessity these days. PVC plastics, which contain phthalates, will oftentimes carry the plastic recycling symbol # 3.
Some of the other gender-bender agents to look out for include:
*
Bisphenol A (BPA) -- a common ingredient in many plastics, including those in reusable water bottles and resins lining some food cans and dental sealants, can change the course of fetal development in a way that increases your risk of breast cancer.
Plastic items carrying recycling symbol # 7 is oftentimes indicative of a BPA-containing plastic.
*
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) -- found in grease- and water-resistant coatings like Teflon and Gore-Tex, is a likely carcinogen.
*
Methoxychlor and Vinclozin-- An insecticide and a fungicide respectively, have been found to cause changes to male mice born for as many as four subsequent generations after the initial exposure.
*
Nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs) -- Known to be potent endocrine disrupters, these chemicals affect gene expression by turning on or off certain genes, and interfere with the way your glandular system works. They mimic the female hormone estrogen, and have been implicated as one reason behind some marine species switching from male to female.
*
Bovine growth hormones commonly added to commercial dairy have been implicated as a contributor to premature adolescence.
*
Soy products, which are loaded with hormone-like substances.
*
MSG -- A food additive that’s been linked to reduced fertility.
*
Fluoride -- This chemical in the U.S. water supply has been linked to lower fertility rates, hormone disruption and low sperm counts.
For more information about the various health hazards inherent with each of these agents, please click on the individual links above.
How to Minimize Your Exposure to Chemicals That Can Harm Your Unborn Baby
In July 2008, the U.S. Congress finally passed legislation banning six types of phthalates from children’s toys and cosmetics. Legislators in Washington, Vermont and California have also restricted phthalate use in children’s goods, and several major retailers, including Wal-Mart, Toys-R-Us, Lego, Evenflo and Gerber claim they will phase out phthalate-laden toys voluntarily.
Yet, so many more products contain endocrine disruptors of varying types, it’s far easier to memorize the healthiest options, rather than compiling a never-ending list of items to avoid.
Here are a number of practical techniques you can use to limit your exposure to endocrine disruptors, and other common toxins:
*
As much as possible, buy and eat organic produce and free-range, organic foods to reduce your exposure to pesticides and fertilizers.
*
Rather than eating conventional or farm-raised fish, which are often heavily contaminated with PCBs and mercury, supplement with a high-quality purified fish or krill oil, or eat fish that is wild-caught and lab tested for purity.
*
Eat mostly raw, fresh foods, steering clear of processed, prepackaged foods of all kinds. This way you automatically avoid artificial food additives of all kinds, including dangerous artificial sweeteners, food coloring and MSG.
*
Store your food and beverages in glass rather than plastic, and avoid using plastic wrap.
*
Have your tap water tested and, if contaminants are found, install an appropriate water filter on all your faucets (even those in your shower or bath).
*
Only use natural cleaning products in your home.
*
Switch over to natural brands of toiletries such as shampoo, toothpaste, antiperspirants and cosmetics. The Environmental Working Group has a great safety guide to help you find personal care products that are free of phthalates and other potentially dangerous chemicals.
*
Avoid using artificial air fresheners, dryer sheets, fabric softeners or other synthetic fragrances.
*
Replace your Teflon pots and pans with ceramic or glass cookware.
*
When redoing your home, look for “green,” toxin-free alternatives in lieu of regular paint and vinyl floor coverings.
*
Replace your vinyl shower curtain with one made of fabric.
Monday, December 14, 2009
France best, US worst in preventable death ranking
France best, US worst in preventable death ranking
Tue Jan 8, 2008 12:15am EST
By Will Dunham
WASHINGTON, Jan 8 (Reuters) - France, Japan and Australia rated best and the United States worst in new rankings focusing on preventable deaths due to treatable conditions in 19 leading industrialized nations, researchers said on Tuesday.
If the U.S. health care system performed as well as those of those top three countries, there would be 101,000 fewer deaths in the United States per year, according to researchers writing in the journal Health Affairs.
Researchers Ellen Nolte and Martin McKee of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine tracked deaths that they deemed could have been prevented by access to timely and effective health care, and ranked nations on how they did.
They called such deaths an important way to gauge the performance of a country's health care system.
Nolte said the large number of Americans who lack any type of health insurance -- about 47 million people in a country of about 300 million, according to U.S. government estimates -- probably was a key factor in the poor showing of the United States compared to other industrialized nations in the study.
"I wouldn't say it (the last-place ranking) is a condemnation, because I think health care in the U.S. is pretty good if you have access. But if you don't, I think that's the main problem, isn't it?" Nolte said in a telephone interview.
In establishing their rankings, the researchers considered deaths before age 75 from numerous causes, including heart disease, stroke, certain cancers, diabetes, certain bacterial infections and complications of common surgical procedures.
Such deaths accounted for 23 percent of overall deaths in men and 32 percent of deaths in women, the researchers said.
France did best -- with 64.8 deaths deemed preventable by timely and effective health care per 100,000 people, in the study period of 2002 and 2003. Japan had 71.2 and Australia had 71.3 such deaths per 100,000 people. The United States had 109.7 such deaths per 100,000 people, the researchers said.
After the top three, Spain was fourth best, followed in order by Italy, Canada, Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden, Greece, Austria, Germany, Finland, New Zealand, Denmark, Britain, Ireland and Portugal, with the United States last.
PREVIOUS RANKINGS
The researchers compared these rankings with rankings for the same 19 countries covering the period of 1997 and 1998. France and Japan also were first and second in those rankings, while the United States was 15th, meaning it fell four places in the latest rankings.
All the countries made progress in reducing preventable deaths from these earlier rankings, the researchers said. These types of deaths dropped by an average of 16 percent for the nations in the study, but the U.S. decline was only 4 percent.
The research was backed by the Commonwealth Fund, a private New York-based health policy foundation.
"It is startling to see the U.S. falling even farther behind on this crucial indicator of health system performance," Commonwealth Fund Senior Vice President Cathy Schoen said.
"The fact that other countries are reducing these preventable deaths more rapidly, yet spending far less, indicates that policy, goals and efforts to improve health systems make a difference," Schoen added in a statement.
preventable deaths, u.s. health care ranking, chiropractor, acupuncture, orem UT Utah
Tue Jan 8, 2008 12:15am EST
By Will Dunham
WASHINGTON, Jan 8 (Reuters) - France, Japan and Australia rated best and the United States worst in new rankings focusing on preventable deaths due to treatable conditions in 19 leading industrialized nations, researchers said on Tuesday.
If the U.S. health care system performed as well as those of those top three countries, there would be 101,000 fewer deaths in the United States per year, according to researchers writing in the journal Health Affairs.
Researchers Ellen Nolte and Martin McKee of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine tracked deaths that they deemed could have been prevented by access to timely and effective health care, and ranked nations on how they did.
They called such deaths an important way to gauge the performance of a country's health care system.
Nolte said the large number of Americans who lack any type of health insurance -- about 47 million people in a country of about 300 million, according to U.S. government estimates -- probably was a key factor in the poor showing of the United States compared to other industrialized nations in the study.
"I wouldn't say it (the last-place ranking) is a condemnation, because I think health care in the U.S. is pretty good if you have access. But if you don't, I think that's the main problem, isn't it?" Nolte said in a telephone interview.
In establishing their rankings, the researchers considered deaths before age 75 from numerous causes, including heart disease, stroke, certain cancers, diabetes, certain bacterial infections and complications of common surgical procedures.
Such deaths accounted for 23 percent of overall deaths in men and 32 percent of deaths in women, the researchers said.
France did best -- with 64.8 deaths deemed preventable by timely and effective health care per 100,000 people, in the study period of 2002 and 2003. Japan had 71.2 and Australia had 71.3 such deaths per 100,000 people. The United States had 109.7 such deaths per 100,000 people, the researchers said.
After the top three, Spain was fourth best, followed in order by Italy, Canada, Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden, Greece, Austria, Germany, Finland, New Zealand, Denmark, Britain, Ireland and Portugal, with the United States last.
PREVIOUS RANKINGS
The researchers compared these rankings with rankings for the same 19 countries covering the period of 1997 and 1998. France and Japan also were first and second in those rankings, while the United States was 15th, meaning it fell four places in the latest rankings.
All the countries made progress in reducing preventable deaths from these earlier rankings, the researchers said. These types of deaths dropped by an average of 16 percent for the nations in the study, but the U.S. decline was only 4 percent.
The research was backed by the Commonwealth Fund, a private New York-based health policy foundation.
"It is startling to see the U.S. falling even farther behind on this crucial indicator of health system performance," Commonwealth Fund Senior Vice President Cathy Schoen said.
"The fact that other countries are reducing these preventable deaths more rapidly, yet spending far less, indicates that policy, goals and efforts to improve health systems make a difference," Schoen added in a statement.
preventable deaths, u.s. health care ranking, chiropractor, acupuncture, orem UT Utah
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Vioxx Scandal by Merck: Mind-blowing Cover Up...
The Vioxx scandal widened this week as new research published in the Archives of Internal Medicine reveals that Vioxx maker Merck held data for three years that proved Vioxx caused an alarming increase in the risk of heart attacks and strokes. And yet Merck chose not to release that data. In fact, it took three more years of patients dying from heart attacks before Vioxx was pulled off the market, and even then, Merck insisted the drug was not dangerous.
This new study was based on a meta-analysis of several unpublished studies that Merck obviously didn't want to see published in medical journals. Drug companies routinely engage in this subterfuge: They cherry-pick which studies they want published while burying the rest. They also choose which studies to forward to the FDA, all while claiming the whole charade is based on "evidence-based medicine."
It is, sort of. If you add the word "selective" in front of the phrase, making it: "Selective evidence-based medicine."
So how were the authors of this new study able to find these unpublished studies that Merck would much prefer remained hidden? They were disclosed in court proceedings against Merck. So many people were harmed by Vioxx, you see, that some of them decided to sue. And in that legal process, many "secret" studies were revealed. Some smart-minded researchers decided to analyze the data in those studies and that's what reveals Merck knew Vioxx raised the risk of heart-related side effects by 35 percent and yet did nothing to warn the public about those risks.
In essence, these documents prove that Merck knowingly and maliciously allowed a deadly drug to continue to be sold to patients for years. It's a clear case of profits before patients from a drug company mired in one scandal after another. (Merck is also the maker of Gardasil, the cervical cancer vaccine.)
In its defense, Merck says its own scientists couldn't find any link between Vioxx and heart attack deaths. Understandably, it's difficult to find anything when your profits depend on not finding it.
The Merck conspiracy
Now that this data is public, it reveals that Merck's executives and / or employees were engaged in a conspiracy to withhold important drug safety data from the public and the FDA. The aim of this conspiracy was simple: To maximize profits through the sale of a product they knew was killing people.
Of course, only the naive are surprised to hear this. Informed NaturalNews readers already know this is the default behavior of drug companies. They'll do anything to make a buck, including fabricating clinical trial data, withholding important evidence, misrepresenting their drugs in television ads and lobbying lawmakers to make their drugs mandatory. The idea that they would knowingly sell a deadly drug to the general public -- while sitting on data for years that proved the drug was dangerous -- isn't really surprising. Not once you know how the pharmaceutical industry really works, anyway.
Many people (and many states) are fed up with the criminal behavior of drug companies. Nearly 10,000 individuals filed personal injury lawsuits against Merck over the Vioxx scandal. Most were settled for $4.85 billion in 2007, but many lawsuits remain. Eleven states' Attorneys General have also filed lawsuits against Merck, alleging the company committed fraud in its marketing of the drug to state Medicaid programs. Those lawsuits have yet to be resolved.
More legal action against Merck is no doubt on the way, as the company has engaged in questionable marketing practices spanning many different drugs (not just Vioxx). Drug companies like Merck have operated in the shadows for years, hiding data they knew would be damaging to their profits. These actions no doubt resulted in the needless deaths of tens of thousands of health consumers who would likely be alive today if this hidden data had been made public in 2001 when it was first known by Merck.
Merck's actions fit the legal definition of "negligent homicide." By withholding this important information, Merck indirectly caused the deaths of thousands of people. And yet somehow Merck's executives and employees are literally "getting away with murder" as there are no efforts under way to prosecute these people for their crimes.
I have to ask the obvious question: Why aren't Merck's executives being arrested and hauled off to prison for prosecution? If this were a Wall Street scandal, you'd see the head honchos in handcuffs, paraded on videos blasted across the evening news. But when it comes to pharmaceuticals, it's just business as usual. No one is held accountable. All those dead Americans essentially have their graves spit on by the failed justice system in this country that allows murderous corporations to continue killing more people with their deadly products.
The reason for all this is simple: America values money more than it values lives. When peoples' investments are destroyed, that's a crime. But when peoples' lives are destroyed by a dangerous pharmaceutical product, that's nobody's fault. Accountability is non-existent.
It sure puts America's priorities into perspective, doesn't it? Public safety has been all but abandoned by the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry -- an industry ruled by nothing other than the almighty dollar. And yet, here's something that puts it all into yet more perspective: According to Congressional testimony about Vioxx from drug safety experts, Vioxx alone killed more Americans than the entire Vietnam War.
Is that something worth investigating for potential prosecution? If you value human life, then yes, absolutely. So why do Merck's executives all seem to be immune to the law? Why is the Department of Justice too timid to go after one of the most dangerous organizations in the country that has killed many times more Americans than all terrorists combined?
Why isn't Merck on the FBI's "America's Most Wanted" list?
And why do the American people tolerate such corporate behavior on their own soil? Is killing people with chemicals any less serious than killing people with bullets? Imagine the public outcry if a car company sold a defective vehicle that resulted in the deaths of more than 60,000 people... that would be shocking headline news. But when it comes to pharmaceutical deaths, the people remain strangely silent.
And the reason? There's no video footage of people dying. Pharmaceutical deaths are silent, whimpering deaths. No fiery crashes. No flying body parts. No explosions to splash across the evening news. Just millions of people being individually and chemically snuffed out, all around the world, after taking patented prescription drugs sold by companies that lied to them about their safety.
Sources for this story include:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...
http://www.reuters.com/article/heal...
This new study was based on a meta-analysis of several unpublished studies that Merck obviously didn't want to see published in medical journals. Drug companies routinely engage in this subterfuge: They cherry-pick which studies they want published while burying the rest. They also choose which studies to forward to the FDA, all while claiming the whole charade is based on "evidence-based medicine."
It is, sort of. If you add the word "selective" in front of the phrase, making it: "Selective evidence-based medicine."
So how were the authors of this new study able to find these unpublished studies that Merck would much prefer remained hidden? They were disclosed in court proceedings against Merck. So many people were harmed by Vioxx, you see, that some of them decided to sue. And in that legal process, many "secret" studies were revealed. Some smart-minded researchers decided to analyze the data in those studies and that's what reveals Merck knew Vioxx raised the risk of heart-related side effects by 35 percent and yet did nothing to warn the public about those risks.
In essence, these documents prove that Merck knowingly and maliciously allowed a deadly drug to continue to be sold to patients for years. It's a clear case of profits before patients from a drug company mired in one scandal after another. (Merck is also the maker of Gardasil, the cervical cancer vaccine.)
In its defense, Merck says its own scientists couldn't find any link between Vioxx and heart attack deaths. Understandably, it's difficult to find anything when your profits depend on not finding it.
The Merck conspiracy
Now that this data is public, it reveals that Merck's executives and / or employees were engaged in a conspiracy to withhold important drug safety data from the public and the FDA. The aim of this conspiracy was simple: To maximize profits through the sale of a product they knew was killing people.
Of course, only the naive are surprised to hear this. Informed NaturalNews readers already know this is the default behavior of drug companies. They'll do anything to make a buck, including fabricating clinical trial data, withholding important evidence, misrepresenting their drugs in television ads and lobbying lawmakers to make their drugs mandatory. The idea that they would knowingly sell a deadly drug to the general public -- while sitting on data for years that proved the drug was dangerous -- isn't really surprising. Not once you know how the pharmaceutical industry really works, anyway.
Many people (and many states) are fed up with the criminal behavior of drug companies. Nearly 10,000 individuals filed personal injury lawsuits against Merck over the Vioxx scandal. Most were settled for $4.85 billion in 2007, but many lawsuits remain. Eleven states' Attorneys General have also filed lawsuits against Merck, alleging the company committed fraud in its marketing of the drug to state Medicaid programs. Those lawsuits have yet to be resolved.
More legal action against Merck is no doubt on the way, as the company has engaged in questionable marketing practices spanning many different drugs (not just Vioxx). Drug companies like Merck have operated in the shadows for years, hiding data they knew would be damaging to their profits. These actions no doubt resulted in the needless deaths of tens of thousands of health consumers who would likely be alive today if this hidden data had been made public in 2001 when it was first known by Merck.
Merck's actions fit the legal definition of "negligent homicide." By withholding this important information, Merck indirectly caused the deaths of thousands of people. And yet somehow Merck's executives and employees are literally "getting away with murder" as there are no efforts under way to prosecute these people for their crimes.
I have to ask the obvious question: Why aren't Merck's executives being arrested and hauled off to prison for prosecution? If this were a Wall Street scandal, you'd see the head honchos in handcuffs, paraded on videos blasted across the evening news. But when it comes to pharmaceuticals, it's just business as usual. No one is held accountable. All those dead Americans essentially have their graves spit on by the failed justice system in this country that allows murderous corporations to continue killing more people with their deadly products.
The reason for all this is simple: America values money more than it values lives. When peoples' investments are destroyed, that's a crime. But when peoples' lives are destroyed by a dangerous pharmaceutical product, that's nobody's fault. Accountability is non-existent.
It sure puts America's priorities into perspective, doesn't it? Public safety has been all but abandoned by the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry -- an industry ruled by nothing other than the almighty dollar. And yet, here's something that puts it all into yet more perspective: According to Congressional testimony about Vioxx from drug safety experts, Vioxx alone killed more Americans than the entire Vietnam War.
Is that something worth investigating for potential prosecution? If you value human life, then yes, absolutely. So why do Merck's executives all seem to be immune to the law? Why is the Department of Justice too timid to go after one of the most dangerous organizations in the country that has killed many times more Americans than all terrorists combined?
Why isn't Merck on the FBI's "America's Most Wanted" list?
And why do the American people tolerate such corporate behavior on their own soil? Is killing people with chemicals any less serious than killing people with bullets? Imagine the public outcry if a car company sold a defective vehicle that resulted in the deaths of more than 60,000 people... that would be shocking headline news. But when it comes to pharmaceutical deaths, the people remain strangely silent.
And the reason? There's no video footage of people dying. Pharmaceutical deaths are silent, whimpering deaths. No fiery crashes. No flying body parts. No explosions to splash across the evening news. Just millions of people being individually and chemically snuffed out, all around the world, after taking patented prescription drugs sold by companies that lied to them about their safety.
Sources for this story include:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...
http://www.reuters.com/article/heal...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
