Living Healthy in a Toxic World

Dangers of Toxins

2005-02-20T17:48:00.000-08:00

Why Should You Worry About Toxic Chemicals?

The EPA has reported that toxic chemicals found in the home are, on the average, three times more likely to cause cancer than outdoor airborne pollutants.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission connects 150 chemicals commonly found in our homes to allergies, birth defects, cancer and psychological disorders.

The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health analyzed 2,983 chemicals used in personal care products and 884 were found to be toxic - some even caused mutagenic changes.

What Are Toxic Elements?

Toxic elements are present throughout the environment in varying concentrations in air, soil, water, plants, and animals.

The consequences of exposure to toxic elements can vary widely depending on the type of element, the amount, and the length of time as well as the health and nutritional status of the individual. With some exposures, even at low levels over a period of time, the effects on health may not be apparent for years. Many of the elements can be deadly in large amounts and several have demonstrated an ability to cause or stimulate cancer.

Accumulated toxic elements with excessive or continual exposure, or if your body's detoxifying defenses aren't up to par, may inhibit enzymes in your body, weaken cell membranes, or impair nutrient delivery, which can lead to illness.

Taken from: Great Smokies Diagnostic Laboratory, 2001
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What does "almost everyone" wear on their clothes and breath on their pillowcases? The same chemicals that destroy septic systems and leech into our lakes and streams. Think about it when you lay your face down on your pillowcase; especially in the winter when it is cold and your hot breath breaks down the following chemicals:

Phosphates (Phosphorus; a fertilizer that causes algae to grow and depletes oxygen out of the water)
Chlorine Bleach (Sodium Hypochlorite)
Lye (Sodium Hydroxide)
Ammonia
Phenols
Fillers
NTA's (An assortment of toxic chemicals with unpronounceable names like Nitrilotriacetic Acid (NTA)

The Merck Index refers to NTA as a substance we may reasonably anticipate to be a carcinogen (cancer causing substance). Amazingly, it is still allowed in our laundry compounds. When we consider the residue of caustic detergents, oily-film fabric softeners, and chemical perfumes and dyes, we need to ask ourselves if our clothes are really clean?

Phosphates - Why do they use them in laundry detergents? Because they soften the water and enhance performance. Phosphates are one of the contributors that resulted in the virtual death of Lake Erie in the 1970's. Phosphates also contributed to the ruining of the Cascade Reservoir in Idaho.
According to David Kullberg's publication, House Work May Be Hazardous to Your Health, many areas of the country are requiring laundry detergents to be low-phosphate. Now, manufactures replace phosphates with caustics. The misconception now is that low phosphates are safe. They may be safer for the environment, but they are 100 times more caustic than phosphate detergents. Caustics such as Lye (Sodium Hydroxide or Potassium Hypochlorite) clean by a chemical reaction that burns or eats away other substances. Caustics also wear out your clothes faster and dull the fabric's colors.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Protection Agency studies have shown that indoor air pollutants are 3 to 70 times higher than outdoors.

The following information came from a conference call with Kay Heizer, Director of "Healthy Choices" (a non-profit organization comprised of doctors, nurses, environmental scientists and educators committed to teaching the public about the hazards of chemicals in our home and how we can avoid or minimize the risks):

• 50% of all illness is due to poor indoor air quality [Source: 1989 State of Massachusetts Study]

• Since 1950, at least 70,000 new chemical compounds have been invented and dispersed into our environment. Only a fraction of these have been tested for human toxicity. We are, by default, conducting a massive clinical toxicology trial, and our children and their children are the experimental animals. [Source: Herbert L. Needleman, M.D., Philip J. Landrigan, M.D., Raising Children Toxin Free]

• 150 chemicals found in the home are connected to allergies, birth defects, cancer and psychological disorders. [Source: Consumer Protection Agency (CPA)]

• The United States of America Federal Code of Regulations exempts manufacturers from full labeling of products if used for personal, family or household care. [Source USA FCR: Section 1910.1200C, Title 29, Section 1500.82 2Q1A]

• 3 groups of people are primarily affected by indoor chemical concentrations because they spend more time indoors and their immune systems are weaker. The 3 groups are: infants and toddlers, elderly people, and chronically ill people. [Source: 1988 EPA, 5-year study]

• In 1901, cancer was rare: 1 out of 8,000 people got cancer. Since the Industrial Revolution, the cancer rate today has risen to 1 in 3 and by the year 2002, it will be 1 in 2. [Source: The American Cancer Society]

• The top cancer-causing products in the average home include the following [Source: The National Cancer Prevention Coalition]:
· Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder w/Talc
· Crest Tartar Control Toothpaste
· VO5 Hair Conditioner
· Clairol Nice-n-Easy Hair Color
· Ajax Cleanser
· Lysol Disinfectant

• Liquid dish soap is the leading cause of poisonings in the home for children under the age of six (over 2.1 million accidental poisonings per year). Most brands of liquid dish soap contain formaldehyde and ammonia.

• Of the chemicals found in personal care products:
· 884 are toxic
· 146 cause tumors
· 218 cause reproductive complications
· 778 cause acute toxicity
· 314 cause biological mutations
· 376 cause skin and eye irritations
[Source: United States House of Representatives Report, 1989]

•The State of California recently passed legislation requiring a 45% reduction in the amount of toxins found in:
· Hairspray aerosols
· Furniture polish
· Window cleaners
· Air fresheners
· Shaving cream
· Laundry detergents
· Nail polish remover
· Insect repellant
· Hair styling gel and mousse
[Source: Healthy Homes in a Toxic World]

• Out of 2,435 pesticide poisonings in a one-year period, over 40% were due to exposure to disinfectants and similar cleaning products in the home. [Source: State of California Study]

• Just by reducing (not eliminating) environmental carcinogens alone, we would save at least 50,000 lives taken by cancer annually. [Source: Dr. Lee Davis, former advisor to the Secretary of Health]

• Most laundry detergent contains a form of NTA. NTA is a substance we may reasonably anticipate to be a carcinogen. [Source: The Merck Index]

• Household bleaches which claim to disinfect are classified as pesticides under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. Inadvertently mixing bleach with other cleaners that contain ammonia produces a toxic chloramines gas. These toxic gases can cause coughing, loss of voice, a feeling of burning or suffocation, and even . [Source: Guide to Hazardous Products Around the Home, Household Hazardous Waste Project, 1989]

• Women who work in the home have a 54% higher death rate from cancer than women who work outside of the home. [Source: 17- year EPA study]

• 150 chemicals found in the home have been connected to allergies, birth defects, cancer and psychological disorders. [Source: The Consumer Protection Agency)

• As more toxic chemicals have been introduced to our everyday environment in greater amounts over the last 20 to 30 years, the level of toxins stored in adipose tissues (fat cells) of our bodies have risen. Bio-accumulation studies have shown that some toxins store in our bodies for life. Greater and greater amounts are being stored at younger ages. One study showed that in the fat of 100% of the people tested was 1,4-Dichlorobenzene, a chemical found in most household deodorizers and room fresheners.

• Diseases that used to occur later in life are now appearing at younger ages. Diseases that used to be rare are more frequent. For example:

·There has been a 28% increase in childhood cancer since the addition of pesticides into household products.

·Cancer is now the #2 killer of children - second only to accidental poisonings. Since 1977 the rate of cancer among American children has been steadily rising at a rate of nearly 1% each year. [Source: National Cancer Institute]

·There is an increased risk for leukemia in children where parents have used pesticides in the home or garden before the child's birth. [Source: Journal of the National Cancer Institute]

• Some products release contaminants into the air right away, others do so gradually over a period of time. Some stay in the air up to a year. These contaminants, found in many household and personal care products can cause dizziness, nausea, allergic reactions, eye/skin/respiratory tract irritations and some cause cancer. [American Lung Association]

• Asthma was once a very rare disease. Now the condition is extremely common - the asthma rate has tripled in the last 20 years with nearly 30 million Americans currently afflicted. [Source: Consumer Federation of America, 1997]

• In one decade, there has been a 42% increase in asthma (29% for men, 82% for women). The higher rate for women is believed to be due to women's longer exposure times to household chemicals. [Source: Center for Disease Control]

• Childhood asthma has increased by more than 40% since 1980. [Source: Environmental Health Perspectives, June 1997; 105 (6)]

• Asthma death in children and young people increased by a dramatic 118% between 1980 and 1993. [Source: Environmental Health Threats to Children, Environmental Protection Agency 175-F-96-001, September 1996]

• The average child visits the doctor 23 times in the 1st 4 years of life, with the most common complaint being respiratory ailment. [Source: National Center for Health Statistics, 1997]

• Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) in adults and children is also rising - in 1993, 4.5 million children took the drug Ritalin so they could sit still long enough to learn. By 1998, 11.4 million children were being drugged with this powerful Class-2 narcotic. [Source: Your Children and Ritalin, The Detroit news (March 8. 1998)]

• Even small doses of neurotoxins, which would be harmless to an adult, can alter a child's nervous system development. [Source: Environmental Health Perspectives 106 Supplement 3:787-794 (June 1998)]

• Developing cells in children's bodies are more susceptible to damage than adult cells that have completed development, especially for the central nervous system. During the development of a child, from conception through adolescence, there are particular windows of vulnerability to environmental hazards. Most disturbing - until a child is approximately 13 months of age, they have virtually no ability to fight the biological and neurological effects of toxic chemicals. [Source: Herbert L. Needleman, M.D., Philip J. Landrigan, M.D., Raising Children Toxic Free]

• Today, children have chemical exposures from birth that their parents didn't have until they were adults. Because children are exposed to toxins at an earlier age than adults, they have more time to develop environmentally triggered diseases, with long latency periods, such as cancer. [Source: Environmental Policy and Children's Health, Future of Children, Summer/Fall 1995;5(2):34-52]

Formaldehyde is a highly toxic substance. It is a known cancer-causing agent. It damages the neurological connectors in the body. It is an irritant to the eyes, nose, throat and lungs and may cause:

· skin reactions
· ear infections
· headaches
· depression
· asthma
· joint pain
· dizziness
· mental confusion
· nausea
· disorientation
· phlebitis
· fatigue
· vomiting
· sleep disturbances
· laryngitis

• One in five people are sensitive to formaldehyde. Formaldehyde is commonly found in:
· drugs
· mouthwash
· hairspray
· cosmetics
· cleaning products
· perfumes
· waxes
· hair setting lotions
· shampoo
· air fresheners
· fungicides
· fingernail polish
· floor polishes
· dry cleaning solvents
· toothpaste
· laundry spray starch
· antiperspirants
· … just to name a few

DO YOU STILL WANT TO USE PRODUCTS IN YOUR HOME THAT CONTAIN FORMALDEHYDE?

• Due to the increase in toxic buildup in our bodies, including the toxic buildup of formaldehyde, dead bodies are not decomposing as fast as they used to.

· Bodies now start to decompose within 7 to 10 days after .
· During the Vietnam War, Vietnamese bodies started to decompose within 24 to 48 hours.
However, Americans didn't start to decompose for 4 to 5 days.
· Twice as much formaldehyde was needed to embalm a person 20 years ago as compared
to today.

How many of these names would you have recognized as formaldehyde?
· Formalin
· Methanal
· Methyl Aldehyde
· Methylene Oxide
· Oxymethylene
· Bfv*
· Fannoform*
· Formol*
· Fyde*
· Karsan*
· Methaldehyde
· Formalith*
· Methylene Glycol
· Ivalon*
· Oxomethane
· Formalin 40
· Formalin
· Formic Aldehyde
· Hoch
· Paraform
· Lysoform*
· Morbocid
· Trioxane
· Polyoxmethylene
* denotes trade name

• The following products are just a few that are so toxic that they should be disposed of in a toxic waste dump [Source: Water Pollution Control Federation]:
· floor care products
· furniture polish
· window cleaners
· bug spray
· nail polish remover

• Warning labels on containers refer only to toxic hazards from ingestion. However, only 10% of health problems from chemicals are caused by ingestion; 90% are caused by the inhalation of vapors and absorption of particles.

• Government regulations require that only the most EXTREMELY toxic substances must contain a warning label. Labels that say the following should be removed from your house immediately:

· "Do not induce vomiting"
· "Corrosive - rinse from skin immediately"
· "Harmful or fatal if swallowed"
· "Call physician immediately"
· "Warning!" (may mean that as little as 1 teaspoon of product can harm or kill )
· "Danger!" (means that as little as 5 drops can harm or kill an )

Phenol is an extremely caustic chemical that burns the skin. Absorption of phenol through the lungs or skin can cause:

· central nervous system damage
· pneumonia
· respiratory tract infection
· heart-rate irregularities
· skin irritation
· kidney and liver damage
· numbness
· vomiting
· and can be fatal

• Phenol is a very common chemical and is regularly found in the following common products:

· air fresheners
· aftershave
· bronchial mists
· chloroseptic throat spray
· deodorants
· feminine powders & sprays
· hair spray
· decongestants
· mouthwash
· aspirin
· solvents
· acne medications
· antiseptics
· calamine lotions
· cleaning products
· detergents
· furniture polish
· hair setting lotions
· lice shampoo
· polishes
· cold capsules
· all-purpose cleaners
· aerosol disinfectants
· anti-itching lotions
· carnex
· cosmetics
· disinfectant cleaners
· hand lotions
· lip balms
· sunscreen and lotions
· insecticides
· cough syrups
· … just to name a few

DO YOU STILL WANT TO USE PRODUCTS IN YOUR HOME THAT CONTAIN PHENOL?

• Learn what the EPA says about chemicals around your house by visiting http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/kids/hometour/tour.htm

Laundry Detergents

2005-02-20T17:35:00.000-08:00

What’s in Laundry Detergents?

Consumers have become much more concerned about how the products they use impact the environment in recent years. Unfortunately, it can be difficult for even highly educated consumers to find out just what ingredients are in certain products, and how they might impact humans or the environment.

I cannot provide you with specific ingredients used in Tide or other name brand laundry detergents, for a couple reasons. First of all, companies are not required by law to list their ingredients, and claim that their formulations are confidential. Secondly, the ingredients they use change periodically, whether due to reformulation or simply the use of alternative ingredients to reduce costs. However, the following list of ingredients commonly used in the leading brands, along with a description of how they impact the environment, should give you a good idea of what’s inside.

Ingredient:	Purpose:	Degradable	Toxins	Comments

ABS – Alkyl benzene sulfonates.	Cleaning Agent – also called a surfactant	Very slowly – seldom used	--	This is a type of anionic surfactant. Anionic surfactants work better in hot water for greasy stains and actual dirt.
LAS – Linear Alkyl Sodium Sulfonates	Cleaning Agent – (surfactant)	Very slowly	Low to moderate toxicity.	The most common surfactant in use. During the manufacturing process, carcinogens & reproductive toxins such as benzene are released into the environment. They are of low to moderate toxicity. The pure compounds may cause skin irritation on prolonged contact, just like soap. Because oleo-based alternatives are available, LAS should not be used.
Alkyl phenoxy polyethoxy ethanols	Cleaning Agent – (surfactant)	Very slowly	Biologically Toxic	They have been implicated in chronic health problems. Researchers in England have found that in trace amounts they activate estrogen receptors in cells, which in turn alters the activity of certain genes. For example, in experiments they have been found to stimulate the growth of breast cancer cells and feminize male fish, birds and reptiles. Also found to increase the chance of prostate cancer and fertility problems in men. As a matter of fact, one member of this family of chemicals is used as a common spermicide.
Quaternium 15	Cleaning Agent, disinfectant and deodorant	--	Yes	An alkyl ammonium chloride that releases formaldehyde, a potent toxin
Xylene sulfonate	Cleaning Agent – (surfactant)	Very slowly	Moderate	Xylene is a synthetic that, when reacted with sulfuric acid, creates a surfactant.
Enzymes	May be considered a surfactant – helps clean away organic dirt & stains.	--	It is a skin sensitizer & may cause skin dermatitis (rashes) & allergic reactions.	Often not mentioned specifically, most detergents have enzymes. Silk and wool may react badly to enzymes. It can be safe under correct conditions, but it's easy enough to obtain a detergent with no enzymes.
Artificial fragrances	Many detergents, if they were without perfume would smell unpleasant.	Many do not degrade at all.	May have toxic effects on both fish and mammals.	Artificial fragrances are made from petroleum. They often can cause allergies and skin or eye irritation.
Water softeners	They remove salts, magnesium, and calcium from the water because otherwise they may interact with the cleaning agents and prevent the cleaning agents from acting properly on your laundry.	Slowly	Once introduced into the general environment can re-dissolve toxic heavy metals trapped in underwater sediments, allowing them to re-enter and re-circulate in the food chain.	EDTA (ethylene-diamino-tetra-acetate). EDTA is also used to prevent bleaching agents from becoming active before they're immersed in water and as a foaming stabilizer.
Optical brighteners (also called fabric whiteners)	Chemicals that, when applied to clothing, convert UV light wavelengths to visible light, thus making laundered clothes appear "whiter" (may even cause your clothes to appear clean when some stains were not entirely washed out).	Slowly	They are toxic to fish when washed into the general environment and can create bacterial mutations. They can cause allergic reaction when in contact with skin that is then exposed to sunlight.	Their inclusion in any formula does not enhance or affect the product's performance in any way; they simply trick the eye. Natural fibers such as cotton, linen and wool tend to turn yellowish with age. This is an irreversible biological process which can be covered up by the use of optical brighteners. They reflect blue light, reducing the perception of yellowing and giving an illusion of brightness to the garment. Most optical brighteners are given trade names which consumers are unlikely to see on a label.
Petroleum distillates (also naphthas)	--	Slowly	Yes	A broad category encompassing almost every type of chemical obtained directly from the petroleum refining process. Any ingredient listed as a "petroleum distillate" or "naphtha" should be suspect as it is, firstly a synthetic and, secondly, likely to cause one or more detrimental health or environmental effects.
Phosphates (Alkaline Builders)	Anti-redeposition agents. They break up soil into fragments small enough to remain suspended in water so they are not deposited back onto fabrics. They also help to soften hard water and prevent corrosion in the metal parts of washers.	--	No	Key nutrients in ecosystems, phosphates are natural minerals important to the maintenance of all life. While relatively non-irritating and non-toxic in the environment, they nonetheless contribute to significant problems in waterways by fostering dangerously explosive marine plant growth. For these reasons they are banned or restricted in many states. Products containing phosphates should be considered unacceptable. They may be listed on a label as silicates or carbonates. Note: The major laundry detergent manufacturers no longer use phosphates in their formulations.
Polycarboxylates	Anti-redeposition agent	No	No	These are phosphate substitutes. Because they are recent additions, their effects on human and environmental health remain largely unknown. They do not interfere with treatment plant operation and generally settle out with sludge during water treatment, but until further study and analysis are conducted, use of this ingredient is not recommended.
Polyethylene glycol (also PEG)	Anti-redeposition agent	Slowly	Not considered toxic, it takes large doses to be lethal in animals.	PEG is a polymer made from ethylene oxide and is similar to some non-ionic detergents (works better in cold water).
Polymers (color protection agent)	It is the job of polymers to prevent the transfer of dye from one fabric to another.	--	--	Polymers capture loose dye and hold it in suspension in the water. These dyes bond strongly with polymers and are thus kept from transferring onto fabrics in the wash load. Another type of color protection agent attempts to permanently set the dye in place on the fabric it’s supposed to be on in the first place.
Sours	Neutralizes the alkalinity – results in giving fabrics a softer feel.	--	May cause skin irritation	When a load has been thoroughly rinsed, a small amount or residual alkalinity remains on the fabrics. To prevent this, an acidic rinse is used to neutralize the alkalinity. Before today’s sophisticated hair care products were available, women often used vinegar (a mild acid) as a final rinse after shampooing. Just as sour gives a better feeling to fabrics, the vinegar made hair feel silkier.
Diethanolamines (a type of sour)	Neutralizes acids in products to make them non-irritating.	Slowly	They react with natural nitrogen oxides and sodium nitrite pollutants in the atmosphere to form nitrosamines, a family of potent carcinogens.	A synthetic family of surfactants.
Anti-sudsing Agent	Reduces suds	--	--	Suds, which we often think of as a sign that things are getting cleaned, are actually a bad thing in laundry, because they can make it hard to wash out all the detergent after the garment is clean. Therefore, most detergents have something that reduces suds by breaking the bubbles as they form. This is also handy because the stronger the anti-sudsing agent is, the more detergent you can put in for a particularly dirty load without having suds overflow the washer.
Colorants	These make the detergent look the color you expect it to be.	--	--	--
Sodium Hypochorite	Not Sure	--	Yes	Causes lung irritation – Bronchitis/Respiratory, Cardiovascular Damage – Eye & Skin damage. Lethal fumes if mixed w/Ammonia.

Anti-Inflammation

2005-02-20T17:10:00.000-08:00

I knew it would be just a matter of time before the “scientific community” started to push the anti-inflammatory issue. For all of you who have been taking Provex CV, Provex Plus, Phytomega and Replenex (ginger root ext and bromelain) rest assured that you have been keeping NATURAL ANTI-Inflammatories in your system continuously. As you will see, inflammation appears to be the real villain when it comes to illness and especially heart disease. No you have not been wasting you money all these years on taking quality nutritional supplements. Thank you Melaleuca.
Michael McCullough, DC

Defending Against Disease
With an Anti-Inflammation Lifestyle
By Linda Antinoro, R.D, L.D, J.D., C.D.E.
Brigham and Women's Hospital

* Watch Your Weight And Stay Active
* Focus On Fat Type
* Eat More Unrefined Carbohydrates
* Additional Anti-Inflammatory Advice
* The Bottom Line

Inflammation, once merely considered the body’s healing response, is now the subject of close scrutiny as a key component of many diseases. Arthritis and inflammation have been linked for decades, but the inflammatory response is also taking center stage in heart disease, cancer, diabetes, asthma and Alzheimer’s disease. Equally exciting is preliminary research showing a probable association of inflammation with diet, activity and other lifestyle choices.

Inflammation can be a good thing. When you get a cut, burn or bruise, the inflammatory response is the mechanism used by the body to combat injury. Problems occur, however, when the inflammatory response does not shut off and goes from being temporary, localized and protective to being chronic and harmful. Continuous inflammation can cause changes in cells, contributing to premature cell death and disease. While some factors associated with inflammation can’t be altered, such as aging, many healthy lifestyle modifications, such as avoiding tobacco, will decrease inflammation.

Watch Your Weight And Stay Active

Consuming too many calories and being overweight, especially for those people who are carrying extra pounds around their midsection, leads to greater levels of inflammatory compounds. C-reactive protein (CRP) is a marker for inflammation. CRP can be easily measured with a simple blood test. Obese individuals tend to have higher blood levels of C-reactive protein (CRP). When excess weight is lost, CRP generally goes down.

Another theory explaining the perils of having excess fat cells is that this taxes the immune system because the body views your fat cells as "foreign invaders." To fight off the invaders, the body turns on the inflammatory response and keeps it on.

Engaging in regular exercise not only aids weight control and body-fat reduction, but also lowers CRP levels. Aim to do at least 30 minutes of continuous activity most days of the week.

Focus On Fat Type

Dietary fats can influence the degree of inflammation. Trans fats, namely hydrogenated oils, some margarine brands, French fries and other fried foods, are pro-inflammatory. In a Harvard study, trans-fatty acids were linked to greater inflammation in overweight women. Saturated fats founds in red meats, full fat dairy foods, butter and poultry skin are contributors to chronic inflammation as well. Also, eating too many foods that are rich in omega-6 fatty acids (especially vegetable oils such as corn, sunflower, safflower and cottonseed oils) appears to promote inflammation.

On the other hand, omega-3 fats exert anti-inflammatory effects. Diets with lower amounts of omega-3 fats result in less production of prostaglandins, substances which turn up inflammation. The best omega-3 sources are fish such as salmon, sardines, mackerel, herring and tuna as well as fish-oil supplements. Other omega-3 contributors include ground flax, flaxseed oil, walnuts and, to a limited degree, green leafy vegetables. Dietary monounsaturated fats (olive oil and canola oil) also dampen inflammation.

Eat More Unrefined Carbohydrates

A diet full of colorful fruits, vegetables, and whole grains supplies an array of antioxidants. These antioxidant-rich carbohydrates act by squelching free radicals that may contribute to chronic inflammation. Conversely, a regular diet of refined carbohydrates or sugary foods results in free-radical formation. The carbs in sweets and desserts are usually low in antioxidants (the exception is dark chocolate) and often contain saturated and trans fats. They also can readily contribute to weight gain, and this includes dark chocolate.

Additional Anti-Inflammatory Advice

There is data suggesting that alcohol may exert an anti-inflammatory effect. In one study, individuals who consumed one to seven drinks a week had lower levels of CRP and interleukin 6 (IL-6), another marker of inflammation, compared to individuals who either never drank or drank more than eight drinks per week. Clearly more is not better; two drinks per day is the maximum and women should limit it to one per day.

Drinking other beverages such as coffee and tea (green especially) supplies an assortment of antioxidants too. Moreover, two seasonings — turmeric (found in curry) and ginger — have anti-inflammatory properties and are therefore beneficial. Lastly, not smoking, controlling blood pressure and getting adequate sleep all help to combat chronic inflammation.

The Bottom Line

Whether curbing chronic inflammation is the cure-all or cornerstone of disease risk reduction or not, embracing a healthy lifestyle as described above affords the best chance of thwarting or at least controlling a variety of chronic illnesses. Here are a few tasty recipes to launch your anti-inflammation lifestyle:

An Omega-3 Special
(240 calories/serving, makes one serving)

* 2 cups dark green salad mix plus other desired vegetables: tomatoes, green pepper, celery, carrots, radishes, mushrooms, or cucumbers
* ½ can (3oz.) canned salmon or sardines
* 1 tbsp. vinaigrette dressing

Toss salad mix plus vegetables in medium size bowl. Add canned salmon or sardines along with dressing. Toss again and serve.

Broccoli And Black Bean Stir-Fry
(369 calories per 2-cup serving size, makes 4 servings)

* 6 to 8 fresh mushrooms
* 1 cup (185 g) long-grain brown rice
* 1 medium garlic
* 2 tsp. canola oil
* ½ tsp. honey
* 5 cups broccoli florets
* 1 15-ounce can black beans, drained and rinsed
* 1 tsp. sesame oil
* 2 tbsp. reduced-sodium soy sauce

Bring 2 cups of water to a boil over high heat; stir in rice. Reduce heat, cover and simmer until liquid has been absorbed and rice is tender to bite (about 20 minutes). Transfer to a rimmed platter and keep warm. Fluff occasionally with a fork.

Clean and slice fresh mushrooms. Separate garlic into cloves; then peel and thinly slice garlic cloves. Heat oil in a wide nonstick frying pan or wok over medium-high heat. When oil is hot, add garlic (to taste) and mushrooms; then stir-fry gently just until tinged with brown (about 2 minutes; do not scorch). Add water, 1 tablespoon at a time, if pan appears dry. Remove garlic and mushrooms from pan with a slotted spoon; place in bowl.

Add broccoli and 1/3 cup water to pan. Cover and cook until broccoli is almost tender (about 3 minutes). Uncover and stir-fry until liquid has evaporated. Add beans and stir-fry gently until heated through.

Remove pan from heat, and add mushroom mixture, soy sauce, sesame oil, and honey; mix gently but thoroughly. Spoon broccoli mixture over rice.

Linda Antinoro, R.D, L.D, J.D., C.D.E., is a senior nutritionist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. She is also a certified diabetes educator. In addition to counseling ambulatory patients at the Nutrition Consultation Service, she serves as a group nutritionist/facilitator for the Women’s Health Initiative, which is a landmark research study involving postmenopausal women.

Vioxx

2005-02-20T16:56:00.000-08:00

Wednesday, January 19, 2005
Merck now under criminal investigation by the Justice Department for Vioxx
scandal

Pharmaceutical giant Merck is now under scrutiny by the Justice
Department, which has begun a criminal investigation into the firm's
marketing of the painkiller Vioxx (withdrawn from the market on September
30, 2004). Since that time, the Vioxx scandal has expanded thanks in part
to the publication of internal Merck e-mails by the Wall Street Journal.
These e-mails showed that Merck was apparently aware of the dangers of
Vioxx several years ago and yet attempted to construct clinical studies to
obscure those dangers in an effort to continue marketing these drugs to
the general public. It's becoming clear now that some people at Merck
were aware of the dangers of this drug, and yet they continued to push the
drug anyway. Vioxx was marketed as a safe drug and was ultimately taken by
as many as 20 million Americans before finally being recalled.

I have called for a criminal investigation of Merck and key FDA decision
makers because these actions are, in my opinion, worse than white-collar
crimes like those committed by Enron executives. These crimes by
pharmaceutical companies and FDA regulators result in the death and injury
of American citizens. Hopefully the Justice Department will send a strong
message with the criminal indictment of Merck executives and FDA decision
makers who were involved in what increasingly appears to be a conspiracy
to conceal the negative side effects of Vioxx while the drug was heavily
promoted and sold.

In a report filed by FDA researcher David Graham on November 2nd, it was
revealed that Vioxx may have contributed to almost 28,000 heart attacks
and deaths over the past five years. In response to all of this, the FDA
has humorously announced that it's going to investigate itself and find
out if it did anything wrong. It also said it will stop censoring its own
scientists.

These statements, coming from an agency that seems sworn to protect the
profits of the pharmaceutical industry, seem laughable. No one who is
familiar with the facts surrounding this case and the ongoing behavior of
the FDA is going to be fooled by such promises. What this is showing is
the grand failure of the FDA and the whole system of drug approval and
post-approval safety. It's showing that we as a nation are literally
killing our own citizens with toxic chemicals that are approved by a
corrupt agency that approves drugs based on distorted clinical trials and
the suppression of negative evidence or information, including suppressing
the free speech of scientists, researchers and outspoken physicians who
are trying to warn people about the dangers of these drugs.

For many years, I have described this system as a drug racket and until
recently I had received quite a bit of negative feedback about calling it
that. But now, suddenly, it's quite clear to nearly everyone that we are
witnessing a racket. This is being operated almost exactly like a criminal
organization for which laws like the RICO Act were originally designed.
This is a modern version of Al Capone, except instead of carrying pistols,
his gang is carrying prescription drugs and rubber stamps that say "FDA
approved."

Clearly, it is time to dismantle the FDA and reform it from the ground up.
The FDA needs to be a regulatory body that actually regulates industries
rather than promoting their financial interests. This should be common
sense, but it has been long forgotten in the United States during the rush
for corporate greed and shareholder profits.

But people like New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer have not
forgotten these principles. And it is in fact Mr. Spitzer who is partly
involved in the investigations against Merck. This is a man not to be
taken lightly. He is, in my opinion, a true hero of law enforcement and he
may yet take on Merck and other pharmaceutical giants to prove that even
corporate kings cannot exploit the U.S. public for financial gain and get
away with it for very long.

What I would like to see from all of this is justice served. There needs
to be justice for the criminal actions committed by drug companies and the
FDA. There needs to be justice for the potentially tens of thousands of
people who were harmed or killed by the marketing of a drug that Merck
knew was dangerous. There needs to be justice that questions the corporate
philosophy that profits must be generated at all costs, no matter who is
harmed in the process. For too long in the pharmaceutical industry, there
has been an emphasis on making money regardless of the consequences. It's
the Enron mentality, but now we're playing with lives, not just retirement
funds.

It has all gone on far too long and it goes far beyond just Merck. There
are literally dozens of pharmaceutical companies that are, right now,
engaged in similar behavior. They are heavily promoting toxic drugs. They
are burying negative evidence. They are distorting and exaggerating the
benefits of these drugs. They are altering the results of clinical trials.
They're ghostwriting scientific papers that are published in the names of
other physicians. They are refusing to disclose the financial relationship
between their own companies and the authors or physicians or industry
groups that promote the interests of pharmaceutical companies. And the
list goes on.

We've just learned, in fact, that Eli Lilly was apparently aware that its
Prozac drug caused violent behavior and suicides thanks to shocking
documents revealed in the British Medical Journal that have -- get this --
been missing for ten years. These documents, of course, have been buried
for a decade.

This kind of corruption is so deeply rooted in American culture and
throughout the conventional medical industry that the unraveling of it is
going to take some time. But it will be time well spent, because in the
end, we may have a system of medicine in this country that actually
focuses on disease prevention. A system of medicine that teaches nutrition
to doctors, that puts responsibility of health on patients and doesn't
promise miracle cures in the shape of overly-priced pharmaceutical that,
by the way, just might kill you even if used as directed.

And if you think about it, the drug industry in the United States has
killed far more Americans than any terrorists group or all the murders and
industrial accidents combined. The pharmaceutical industry is the third
leading cause of death in this country, and that's according to the
Journal of the American Medical Association. First there's cancer, second
there's heart disease and third pharmaceuticals.

This is an industry that causes more pain, suffering and fatalities than
any other industry in the country or in the world. It dwarfs the
destruction caused by Big Tobacco. It is, indeed, Big Pharma, and it
represents the very worst evils of society: corporate greed combined with
bad medicine. And starting right now, the Justice Department and heroic
defenders of the public good like Eliot Spitzer, Sidney Wolfe and Dr.
David Graham now stand a chance to bring this evil empire to its knees.
And should we be lucky enough as citizens of this society, someday we
shall be free of this scourge of companies we now call "Big Pharma."

Overview:
a.. Merck now under criminal investigation by the Justice Department for
Vioxx scandal

Source: http://www.newstarget.com/003068.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected
under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all
content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from
the recommendation of products. Newstarget.com is presented for
educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as
professional advice from any licensed practitioner. It is not intended as
a substitute for the diagnosis, treatment or advice of a qualified
professional. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or
misuse of this material.

Pharmaceutical giant Merck is now under scrutiny by the Justice Department, which has begun a criminal investigation into the firm’s marketing of the painkiller Vioxx (withdrawn from the market on September 30, 2004). Since that time, the Vioxx scandal has expanded thanks in part to the publication of internal Merck e-mails by the Wall Street Journal. These e-mails showed that Merck was apparently aware of the dangers of Vioxx several years ago and yet attempted to construct clinical studies to obscure those dangers in an effort to continue marketing these drugs to the general public.

It's becoming clear now that some people at Merck were aware of the dangers of this drug, and yet they continued to push the drug anyway. Vioxx was marketed as a safe drug and was ultimately taken by as many as 20 million Americans before finally being recalled.

I have called for a criminal investigation of Merck and key FDA decision makers because these actions are, in my opinion, worse than white-collar crimes like those committed by Enron executives. These crimes by pharmaceutical companies and FDA regulators result in the death and injury of American citizens. Hopefully the Justice Department will send a strong message with the criminal indictment of Merck executives and FDA decision makers who were involved in what increasingly appears to be a conspiracy to conceal the negative side effects of Vioxx while the drug was heavily promoted and sold.

In a report filed by FDA researcher David Graham on November 2nd, it was revealed that Vioxx may have contributed to almost 28,000 heart attacks and deaths over the past five years. In response to all of this, the FDA has humorously announced that it's going to investigate itself and find out if it did anything wrong. It also said it will stop censoring its own scientists.

These statements, coming from an agency that seems sworn to protect the profits of the pharmaceutical industry, seem laughable. No one who is familiar with the facts surrounding this case and the ongoing behavior of the FDA is going to be fooled by such promises. What this is showing is the grand failure of the FDA and the whole system of drug approval and post-approval safety. It's showing that we as a nation are literally killing our own citizens with toxic chemicals that are approved by a corrupt agency that approves drugs based on distorted clinical trials and the suppression of negative evidence or information, including suppressing the free speech of scientists, researchers and outspoken physicians who are trying to warn people about the dangers of these drugs.

For many years, I have described this system as a drug racket and until recently I had received quite a bit of negative feedback about calling it that. But now, suddenly, it's quite clear to nearly everyone that we are witnessing a racket. This is being operated almost exactly like a criminal organization for which laws like the RICO Act were originally designed. This is a modern version of Al Capone, except instead of carrying pistols, his gang is carrying prescription drugs and rubber stamps that say "FDA approved."

Clearly, it is time to dismantle the FDA and reform it from the ground up. The FDA needs to be a regulatory body that actually regulates industries rather than promoting their financial interests. This should be common sense, but it has been long forgotten in the United States during the rush for corporate greed and shareholder profits.

But people like New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer have not forgotten these principles. And it is in fact Mr. Spitzer who is partly involved in the investigations against Merck. This is a man not to be taken lightly. He is, in my opinion, a true hero of law enforcement and he may yet take on Merck and other pharmaceutical giants to prove that even corporate kings cannot exploit the U.S. public for financial gain and get away with it for very long.

What I would like to see from all of this is justice served. There needs to be justice for the criminal actions committed by drug companies and the FDA. There needs to be justice for the potentially tens of thousands of people who were harmed or killed by the marketing of a drug that Merck knew was dangerous. There needs to be justice that questions the corporate philosophy that profits must be generated at all costs, no matter who is harmed in the process. For too long in the pharmaceutical industry, there has been an emphasis on making money regardless of the consequences. It's the Enron mentality, but now we're playing with lives, not just retirement funds.

It has all gone on far too long and it goes far beyond just Merck. There are literally dozens of pharmaceutical companies that are, right now, engaged in similar behavior. They are heavily promoting toxic drugs. They are burying negative evidence. They are distorting and exaggerating the benefits of these drugs. They are altering the results of clinical trials. They're ghostwriting scientific papers that are published in the names of other physicians. They are refusing to disclose the financial relationship between their own companies and the authors or physicians or industry groups that promote the interests of pharmaceutical companies. And the list goes on.

We've just learned, in fact, that Eli Lilly was apparently aware that its Prozac drug caused violent behavior and suicides thanks to shocking documents revealed in the British Medical Journal that have -- get this -- been missing for ten years. These documents, of course, have been buried for a decade.

This kind of corruption is so deeply rooted in American culture and throughout the conventional medical industry that the unraveling of it is going to take some time. But it will be time well spent, because in the end, we may have a system of medicine in this country that actually focuses on disease prevention. A system of medicine that teaches nutrition to doctors, that puts responsibility of health on patients and doesn't promise miracle cures in the shape of overly-priced pharmaceutical that, by the way, just might kill you even if used as directed.

And if you think about it, the drug industry in the United States has killed far more Americans than any terrorists group or all the murders and industrial accidents combined. The pharmaceutical industry is the third leading cause of death in this country, and that's according to the Journal of the American Medical Association. First there's cancer, second there's heart disease and third pharmaceuticals.

This is an industry that causes more pain, suffering and fatalities than any other industry in the country or in the world. It dwarfs the destruction caused by Big Tobacco. It is, indeed, Big Pharma, and it represents the very worst evils of society: corporate greed combined with bad medicine. And starting right now, the Justice Department and heroic defenders of the public good like Eliot Spitzer, Sidney Wolfe and Dr. David Graham now stand a chance to bring this evil empire to its knees. And should we be lucky enough as citizens of this society, someday we shall be free of this scourge of companies we now call "Big Pharma."

Overview:
Merck now under criminal investigation by the Justice Department for Vioxx scandal

11 Million Americans Have Asthma

2005-02-20T16:52:00.000-08:00

According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), indoor air
is anywhere from 2 to 10 times more hazardous than outdoor air. In
fact, the EPA warns that the indoor air quality is the United
States' number one environmental health problem. As a result of the
toxic air we breathe, EPA studies have shown that billions of
dollars are spent annually for medication to help Americans breathe
or cure their respiratory illnesses.

Information given at the First Annual Air Quality convention
sponsored by EPA, April 1992, Tampa, Florida includes these facts:

Eleven million Americans have asthma.

Twenty-eight million have hay fever and other allergies.
20% of all employees have a major illness related to indoor air
pollution such as allergies, asthma, autoimmune diseases, etc.

The EPA estimates an 18% annual production loss to American business
due to poor indoor air quality.

40% of all buildings pose a serious health hazard due to indoor air
pollution, according to the World Health Organization.

The EPA says high levels of formaldehyde cause cancer
Scientists now recognize that pollutants, even at acceptable
concentration, combined together in an indoor environment have a
synergistic negative effect.

Every year at least 6,000 new chemical compounds are developed.

Many are used indoors every day, at home and at work. Add to these
pollutants the mold, mildew, bacteria, viruses, tobacco smoke,
grease, pollen, dirt, asbestos, lead and numerous other
contaminants that can affect our breathing and our health.

Then allow them to circulate in today's nearly airtight indoor
environment. No wonder our indoor air is, on average, two to ten
times as polluted as the worst outdoor air.

Viruses and bacteria that thrive in the ducts, coils, and recesses
of building ventilation systems have been proven to cause ailments
ranging from influenza to tuberculosis. Some HVAC systems have been
found to contain up to 27 species of fungi.

Other facts about the hazardous nature of our air include:

Asthma cases have increased by more than 100% since 1976.

About 1 in 9 children now have asthma.

Death rates due to asthma have tripled, and quintupled in children
ages 5 to 9, since 1976.

Hospitalization rates and doctor visits are still continuing to
increase dramatically.

According to the American College of Allergies, 50% of all illness
is aggravated or caused by polluted indoor air.

Today's homes and buildings are built air-tight, and contain a long
list of pollution sources. As a result, nature's air-cleansing
agents such as ozone and negative ions are kept out, while
contaminants are kept in.

A recent study found that the allergen level in super-insulated
homes is 200% higher than it is in ordinary homes.

According to Scientific American, a baby crawling on the floor
inhales the equivalent of 4 cigarettes a day, as a result of the
out gassing of carpets, molds, mildews, fungi, dust mites, etc.

Most people spend well over 90% of their time indoors. In which
case, indoor air is going to impact our health far more than
outdoor air.
The EPA informs us that 6 out of 10 homes and buildings are "sick",
meaning they are hazardous to your health to occupy as a result of
airborne pollutants.

Soaring cancer rates blamed on chemicals

2005-02-20T16:37:00.000-08:00

Soaring cancer rates blamed on chemicals

By The Canadian Press OTTAWA -- Man-made chemicals in air, water, food and the workplace are largely to blame for a devastating cancer epidemic which will strike 41 per cent of Canadian males and 38 per cent of females, says a study released Wednesday

Genetics and lifestyle factors such as smoking and diet can't explain the soaring cancer rates of recent decades, says the report by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

From 1970 to 1998, the incidence of the dreaded disease increased by 35 per cent for men and 27 per cent for women after the effects of population aging have been discounted, say authors Lissa Donner and Robert Chernomas

When lung cancers are removed from the statistics, the rates still increased by 23.9 per cent for males and 17.1 per cent for females over the period

The toll is more dramatic when considered over a longer time: In 1921, cancer killed 6.6 per cent of males and 8.6 per cent of females, but now the death rate has risen to 27.4 per cent for men and 23.1 per cent for women, says the report. There has been a great deal of controversy about the role of environmental contaminants in cancer, and mainstream medical organizations have tended to downplay their importance. The Canadian Cancer Society estimates that only five per cent of cancers can be directly linked to contaminants in the environment, which would represent about 6,400 cases a year in Canada. But dissidents, such as U.S. scientist Samuel Epstein, author of several books on cancer, say 80 to 90 per cent of human cancer is determined environmentally

Authors Donner and Chernomas say the medical profession is fixated on screening, diagnosis and damage control rather than prevention

"Mainstream medicine places the blame for cancer on lifestyle and genetics -- and emphasizes research into changes at the individual level. It identifies symptoms and treats them, while largely ignoring the root causes of disease

"We believe that successful cancer prevention requires a very different approach." They note that more than 18 million kilograms of known carcinogens were released into the Canadian environment in 2001, according to the federal government's National Pollutant Release Inventory

Donner conceded in an interview that many carcinogenic chemicals are useful and would be hard to replace. For example, chlorine is vital in water treatment, but can interact with organic materials to form carcinogenic chemicals known as trihalomethanes

But she rejects the view that rising cancer rates are an inescapable fact of life in the modern era

"That kind of resigned attitude is not going to create a healthy society," she said in an interview

"We need a strategy, to pick and choose and figure out where to go next."

Asthma Epidemic

2005-02-20T16:33:00.000-08:00

Pesticides & Household Cleaning Chemicals Linked To Asthma Epidemic In Children

Dec 28, 2004
Author: Nigel Hawkes
Source: London Times Newspapers LTD

HOUSEHOLD chemicals, including bleach, disinfectant and cleaning
fluid, have been blamed for the huge surge in childhood asthma in
Britain.

A study of more than 7,000 children shows that children born into
households which use them most are twice as likely to suffer
persistent wheezing, often a precursor to asthma.

Incidence of the disease has tripled since the 1970s and the total
number in the country who suffer is estimated to have reached 1.4
million. Britain has one of the highest rates of wheezing children
in the world.

The study shows a clear connection between persistent wheezing and
use of a range of domestic chemicals, such as bleach, paint
stripper, carpet cleaner and air freshener. The use of household
cleaning products has soared in the past two decades: the market has
grown by 60 per cent since 1994.

The researchers are not claiming that these chemicals cause asthma
but that there is a strong link. Their results back up an Australian
study published in August.

The data comes from Bristol University¹s Children of the 90s
project, which has been following a group of children born in the
Avon area in the early 1990s. This study, published in Thorax,
correlates health with information about their homes and lifestyle.

"We are seeing what appear to be effects on lung function, either
while the baby is still in the womb or after birth," Dr Andrea
Sherriff, of the university, said. "We cannot say exactly what
chemicals are involved but our results are highly validated. We know
the participants in the study well and can rely on the information
they give us."

Before they gave birth, mothers were asked how often they used
certain chemical-based products. From these questions, their
households were divided into categories based on "total chemical
burden".

The team compared this with the incidence of wheezing in children up
to the age of 3?. Those in the top 10 per cent were more than twice
as likely to suffer persistent wheezing as those in the lowest 10
per cent.

"We have since followed children to the age of 8," Dr Sherriff said.
"The effects seem to persist." The team concludes: "These findings
suggest that children whose mothers made frequent use of
chemical-based domestic products during pregnancy were more likely
to wheeze persistently throughout early childhood, independent of
many other factors."

The Australian study, based on a smaller sample, linked volatile
compounds in household chemicals with asthma. The Bristol team
suggests that the chemical formaldehyde could be a common factor.

Another possible explanation is that cleanliness itself may cause
asthma. This theory suggests that the immune systems of children
raised in over-clean environments do not develop properly. As a
result they turn against the body and trigger allergies, asthma or
eczema.

Professor Andrew Peacock, of the British Thoracic Society, said:
"More long-term studies are needed before we advise pregnant women
to throw out all their air fresheners. But there are measures that
can be taken to protect yourself and your baby, such as reducing the
number of household products that you use and by wearing gloves and
keeping windows open when cleaning."

THE CULPRITS
Disinfectant (used by 87.5% of households)
Bleach (84.8)
Aerosols (71.7)
Air freshener (68)
Window cleaner (60.5)
Carpet cleaner (35.8)
Paint or varnish (32.9)
White spirit (22.6)
Pesticide (21.2)
Paint stripper (5.5)
Dry-cleaning fluid (5.4)

Study Raises Concerns About Shampoo Safety

2005-02-20T16:31:00.000-08:00

Study Raises Concerns About Shampoo Safety
Occupational Exposure to Additive Is Bigger Worry, Researcher Says

By Salynn Boyles

Reviewed By Michael Smith, MD
on Sunday, December 05, 2004
WebMD Medical News

Dec. 5, 2004 -- New research is raising concerns about the safety of a
preservative that is commonly found in shampoos and other commercially
available cosmetics. But cosmetics industry officials say the additive has
been proven safe over years of use.

In laboratory studies, the bacteria-killing agent methylisothiazolinone
(MIT) was shown to restrict the growth of immature rat nerve cells. Studies
in live animals are needed to confirm the findings. But researchers say the
early test tube evidence suggests that prolonged exposure to MIT, or
exposure to the chemical at high concentrations, could damage the nervous
system.

The research was presented Sunday at the annual meeting of the American
Society for Cell Biology in Washington D.C.

Fetal Development a Concern

The biggest potential concern, says lead researcher Elias Aizenman, PhD, of
the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, is for the fetuses of
pregnant women exposed to high doses of MIT on the job. The agent is widely
used in industrial settings.

"If the data that I am seeing does translate into some sort of
neurodevelopmental problem in people, then the risk to the developing fetus
of a woman who is exposed to this agent in [its concentrated form] may be
significant," Aizenman tells WebMD.

Another concern is that occupational exposure or routine use of commercial
products that contain MIT could trigger nerve-damaging diseases such as
Parkinson's or Alzheimer's. Again, Aizenman is quick to point out that there
is no direct evidence linking MIT to these disorders. But he adds that live
animal studies are needed to clarify the risk.

"It is very difficult to find shampoos and conditioners that do not contain
MIT, and it is in many other cosmetics, as well," he says. "I can't tell you
that using shampoo is unsafe, but I can't tell you it is safe, either."

Cosmetics Industry Responds

A statement issued Friday by the nation's largest cosmetics industry trade
group called the University of Pittsburgh research "meaningless for safety
evaluation purposes."

A Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association spokesperson pointed out
that the level of MIT in shampoos and other commercial products is extremely
low.

"The experiments conducted with (MIT) on extracted rat nerve cells in
laboratory containers do not remotely resemble the possible consumer
exposure to this preservative," the CTFA statement says.

Aizenman says he became aware of MIT while researching the mechanisms
associated with the death of brain cells. He found that the agent activated
a novel pathway that promoted cell death in the laboratory setting, and
showed in earlier work that adult rat brain cells died when exposed for
short periods to MIT at high concentrations.

In their latest work, Aizenman and colleagues exposed immature, developing
rat brain cells to very low concentrations of MIT -- roughly 1/100 of the
dose used in the previous study. Low-level exposure for 18 hours was found
to slow down cell growth. The higher the dose the brain cells were exposed
to, the more effect there was.

Aizenman acknowledges that it is "a big leap" to suggest that MIT exposure
in the womb could play a role in the rise of developmental disabilities in
children. But he adds that the questions raised by his research need to be
answered.

"I would caution that based on our data, there very well could be
neurodevelopmental consequences from MIT," he notes. "Clearly, more study is
needed, with both scientists and government regulators equally engaged."

Cleaning Products and Babies Breathing

2005-02-20T16:27:00.000-08:00

This article is for those of you who are expecting or who have young
children. Asthma is one of the leading reasons for Emergency Room
visits, not to mention the numbers of poisoned children from household
chemical products. There are safer more effective alternatives that I
hope you are using. If you have not converted your home to Melaleuca's
Ecosense products you may someday wish you would have.

Michael McCullough, DC

_______________________________________________________________________

Cleaning products may affect babies' breathing

Last Updated: 2005-01-11 12:27:42 -0400 (Reuters Health)

SOURCE: Thorax, January 2005.

By Alison McCook

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Pregnant women who use a lot of household
chemical products are more likely to have babies with persistent
wheezing, new research reports.

The products included bleach, disinfectant, air fresheners, aerosols,
carpet cleaners and pesticides.

Children with wheezing are more at risk of eventually developing asthma,
explained study author Dr. Andrea Sherriff at the University of Bristol
in the UK.

Moreover, "persistent wheezing stops the child from living a normal life
-- exercising, going to school," she told Reuters Health. This "may make
them susceptible to other conditions, such as obesity."

Although the study did not measure how much exposure to household
chemicals is safe for pregnant women, Sherriff recommended that they
should "be sensible"
with chemicals, and follow the product's instructions, particularly with
regards to ventilation.

Previous research has found that people who are heavily exposed to
household products are more likely to develop symptoms of asthma. Of all
professions, cleaners have one of the highest risks of developing the
disease.

To see if prenatal exposure to these chemicals also increases the risk
of breathing problems, Sherriff and her team asked the mothers of 7019
children about the chemicals they were exposed to while pregnant, and
how often their children wheezed from birth to age 42 months. The women
completed surveys while pregnant, and periodically after the child was
born.

Slightly more than 6 percent of the children showed signs of persistent
wheezing.

The children whose mothers used the most chemicals were more than twice
as likely to persistently wheeze than those whose mothers used the least
chemicals, the authors report in the journal Thorax.

Sherriff explained that experts suspect that chemicals may affect
infants' breathing by irritating their airways and lungs. She added that
mothers who use a lot of chemicals during pregnancy will likely do the
same thing once the babies are born, so it's difficult
to say whether a baby's wheezing comes from exposuresbefore or after
birth.

Alternatively, she suggested that infants who are in an overly clean
environment may not be exposed to thebacteria and germs that help us
build healthy immune
systems.

"If we have immune systems which don't work well, then we are more
likely to become allergic to things in our environment, and possibly
wheeze as a result,"
Sherriff said.

SOURCE: Thorax, January 2005.

Genetic Mutations and Air Pollution

2005-02-20T16:26:00.000-08:00

Ok...we ruined our topsoil from using chemical fertilizers and not using
organic fertilization, not to mention the excessive use of pesticides
etc. We have polluted our water and air to the point that we don't want
to drink it or breath it in many areas. Is it any wonder why cancer and
and chronic degenerative disease is on the rise? Unnecessary chemicals
and pollution have a direct affect on our health. We have a choice...I
hope that you have made the right one.

Michael McCullough, DC
___________________________________________________

62: Air Pollution Linked to Genetic Mutations

By Ken Kostel

DISCOVER Vol. 26 No. 01 | January 2005 | Environment

More than 10 years ago, Jim Quinn, a behavioral ecologist at McMaster
University in Hamilton, Ontario, determined that herring gulls nesting
near steel mills around the Great Lakes displayed higher heritable
mutation rates than their rural cousins. In May Quinn and one of his
students, Chris Somers, were finally able to pin the blame on airborne
particles just a few micrometers in diameter.They found that offspring
born from male mice exposed to industrial air pollution showed twice the
mutation rate of those whose fathers breathed rural or filtered polluted
air. The most likely cause, Quinn says, are small particles that can
carry known mutation-causing compounds, such as polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons, deep into the lungs. Because particulates as well as
polycyclic hydrocarbons are found in cigarette smoke, it's likely that
smoking could cause similar mutations.

The changes that Quinn saw showed up in genomic segments once known as
junk DNA because they do not appear to code for necessary life
functions. However, many of these regions are believed to play a role in
diseases such as type 1 diabetes and Huntington's disease. A separate
study that examined 18 years of data on the prevalence of neurological
diseases worldwide concluded that environmental factors may also
contribute to disorders like Parkinson's disease.

Quinn is now looking more closely at the link between air pollution and
mutations handed down from females. Because males continually produce
fresh sperm, the apparent mutagenic effect of air pollution starts to
disappear when they begin breathing clean air again. But in females,
eggs are produced while an individual is still a fetus, raising the
possibility that exposure to airborne pollutants in utero could cause
lasting damage. "There are many reasons other than mutations to be
concerned about air pollution," Quinn says. "This just adds strength to
the argument that we need to do something about it."

Illegal Manipulation Of Drug Prices

2005-02-20T16:23:00.000-08:00

I hope this is not a surprize to anyone, but keep in mind that
prescription drugs are big business! All of these claims are referenced.

Please do not comment back to me because I did not write this health
alert. Brad A. sent it to me.

Illegal Manipulation of Drug Prices

Health Alert 231

Dear Subscriber:

Did you know that doctors make thousands of dollars in kickbacks from
drug companies to prescribe certain drugs to patients? Today you'll
learn about the unethical promoting practices many drug companies are
involved in, and how to make sure you don't fall victim to them.

* Unbelievable But True *

In July, Schering Plough forked over $345.5 million to settle a
government Medicaid investigation. It's one in a string of lawsuits
against drug companies for illegally over charging - by as much as 500%
to 1000% - Medicaid and Medicare programs.1,2

Centocor, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, went so far as to bribe
doctors to defraud the government.3 The drug company also offered
worksheets for physicians to calculate their "estimated revenue per
patient" for prescribing Remicade for rheumatoid arthritis. And Centocor
salesmen held seminars for doctors to learn how to "profit from
Remicade." These are illegal practices by the way.4

The greed got so bad some doctors started prescribing Remicade before
trying any low-cost generic drugs. Even though Remicade can cost more
than $20,000 a year!

Another company called TAP Pharmaceuticals pulled the same thing. They
told doctors they could make money through Medicare and Medicaid
reimbursements for prescribing their new prostate cancer drug. But TAP
got caught in a big way. Last year they paid $875 million to settle
criminal and civil charges. It's the largest sum ever paid for health
care fraud.5

And the list of fraud cases just grows longer.

* Drugs and Tobacco in the Same Boat *

But here's the good news in all this. The government finally started
cracking down on drug companies for these practices. And the public
finally knows what they're up to.

In fact, a Harris poll found that only 13% of people believe that major
pharma are trustworthy. This ranks them right alongside tobacco, oil,
and managed care companies. And the pollsters speculate that public
trust in drug companies has dropped faster than in any other industry.6

If you use government assistance with prescriptions, try to find a
natural treatment before resorting to a drug. If you must rely on a
drug, keep careful track of your Medicaid or Medicare records. Don't
hesitate to call them about drugs that seem unreasonably high. You may
not only save the government money but you may save your health from
falling victim to these unscrupulous pursuits of illegal profits.

To Your Good Health,

Al Sears M.D.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CorpWatch; USA: How Schering Manipulated Drug Prices and Medicaid; New
York Times, Jul. 31, 2004
Alex Otto; New Medicaid AWPs Draw Pharmacy Fire; Pharmacy Today 6(7),
2000; www.medscape.com/viewarticle/406770
Melody Peterson; Illegal Methods Used for Marketing Arthritis Drug;
Mercola.com, April 24, 2002
Dr. Mercola; Drug Companies Engage in Illegal Practices: U.S. Issues
Warning; commentary on article from New York Times, April 28, 2003;
www.Mercola.com May 17, 2003
Judith A. Waltz, JD; Multimillion Dollar Settlement Signals Governments
Increased Scrutiny of Pharmaceutical Industry; Drug Benefit Trends 13
(11): 15-16, 2001; www.medscape.com/viewarticle/414901
Dr. Mercola; Drug Companies Still Make Bundle Even When They Admit They
Lie; Mercola.com Sept. 4, 2004

News On Prozac

2005-02-20T16:21:00.000-08:00

With all the bad news in media lately I was hoping that the New Years
Day newspaper would have something positive to offer. The following
article on Prozac forced me send out negative material that I prefer not
sending. Being that the media and scientific community recently
attempted to put the scare into everyone concerning Vitamin E it is only
fair that they get a dose of their own medicine! Don't get me wrong...I
do believe in prescription medication and I take it when I think I need
it. Modern medicine has done wonderful things and has improved our lives
in many ways but prescription medication does not need to be the first
intervention in many cases. I do become frustrated whenever one of my
patients tells me that "their doctor and or health care provider" said
that most of that "natural...herbal...vitamin" stuff has not merit. In
otherwords how can you be so foolish to waist your money on "that
stuff."

Just in case you didn't read or listen to the National News today, I
suggest you go to the listed website and read it and save it on your
hard drive. What ever you do...do not stop taking your Prozac. Go to
your doctor and request to try something "natural"...I'm sure that will
go over real Big with many medical doctors! Then hand him a copy of this
article or get the original in the British Medical Journal and ask him
to explain this to you. Ask him if he has any of his family members on
Prozac or any other similar antidepressant.

If you are on an antidepressant I would not take Luminex with it at the
same time but I would be taking the Daily four Life that has Essential
fatty acids, vitamins and minerals and other beneficial nutrients. And
for your freinds and family members who scoff at your "natural"
recommendations, tell them that natural remedies may not be effective
for everyone but at least they haven't caused sucuides and mass murders!

Allow me to refresh my recent memory...First it was Vioxx! Then it was
Celebrex! Then it was Aleve! Now the truth that was hidden about
Prozac has surfaced just to name a few. You can just imagine what is
going to happened to the next person that addresses the safety of
natural supplements and herbs with me is going to get!

I hope you are having a wonderful New Years Days and besure to take your
Daily for Life!

BMJ 2005;330:7 (1 January), doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7481.7

News on Prozac
FDA to review "missing" drug company documents
Jeanne Lenzer

New York

The US Food and Drug Administration has agreed to review confidential
drug company documents that went missing during a controversial product
liability suit more than 10 years ago. The documents appear to suggest a
link between the drug fluoxetine (Prozac), made by Eli Lilly, and
suicide attempts and violence.

The missing documents, which were sent to the BMJ by an anonymous source
last month, include reviews and memos indicating that Eli Lilly
officials were aware in the 1980s that fluoxetine had troubling side
effects and sought to minimise their likely negative effect on
prescribing.

The documents received by the BMJ reportedly went missing during the
1994 Wesbecker case that grew out of a lawsuit filed on behalf of
victims of a work-place shooting in 1989. Joseph Wesbecker, armed with
an AK-47, shot eight people dead and wounded another 12. He then shot
and killed himself. Mr Wesbecker, who had a long history of depression,
had been placed on fluoxetine one month before the shootings.

Michael McCullough, DC

MIA

2005-02-20T09:40:00.000-08:00

We are in the process of moving out of state. We have a 2 week stay in a hotel. Hopefully I'll have my laptop ready for internet access in a couple of days, but if there are no updates for awhile, that is why.

Asthma Epidemic in Children

2005-01-15T22:20:00.000-08:00

Pesticides & Household Cleaning Chemicals Linked To Asthma Epidemic In Children

Dec 28, 2004
Author: Nigel Hawkes
Source: London Times Newspapers LTD
http://www.sierraactivist.org/article.php?sid=46439
Read Here
HOUSEHOLD chemicals, including bleach, disinfectant and cleaning
fluid, have been blamed for the huge surge in childhood asthma in
Britain.

A study of more than 7,000 children shows that children born into
households which use them most are twice as likely to suffer
persistent wheezing, often a precursor to asthma.

Incidence of the disease has tripled since the 1970s and the total
number in the country who suffer is estimated to have reached 1.4
million. Britain has one of the highest rates of wheezing children
in the world.

The study shows a clear connection between persistent wheezing and
use of a range of domestic chemicals, such as bleach, paint
stripper, carpet cleaner and air freshener. The use of household
cleaning products has soared in the past two decades: the market has
grown by 60 per cent since 1994.

The researchers are not claiming that these chemicals cause asthma
but that there is a strong link. Their results back up an Australian
study published in August.

The data comes from Bristol University¹s Children of the 90s
project, which has been following a group of children born in the
Avon area in the early 1990s. This study, published in Thorax,
correlates health with information about their homes and lifestyle.

"We are seeing what appear to be effects on lung function, either
while the baby is still in the womb or after birth," Dr Andrea
Sherriff, of the university, said. "We cannot say exactly what
chemicals are involved but our results are highly validated. We know
the participants in the study well and can rely on the information
they give us."

Before they gave birth, mothers were asked how often they used
certain chemical-based products. From these questions, their
households were divided into categories based on "total chemical
burden".

The team compared this with the incidence of wheezing in children up
to the age of 3?. Those in the top 10 per cent were more than twice
as likely to suffer persistent wheezing as those in the lowest 10
per cent.

"We have since followed children to the age of 8," Dr Sherriff said.
"The effects seem to persist." The team concludes: "These findings
suggest that children whose mothers made frequent use of
chemical-based domestic products during pregnancy were more likely
to wheeze persistently throughout early childhood, independent of
many other factors."

The Australian study, based on a smaller sample, linked volatile
compounds in household chemicals with asthma. The Bristol team
suggests that the chemical formaldehyde could be a common factor.

Another possible explanation is that cleanliness itself may cause
asthma. This theory suggests that the immune systems of children
raised in over-clean environments do not develop properly. As a
result they turn against the body and trigger allergies, asthma or
eczema.

Professor Andrew Peacock, of the British Thoracic Society, said:
"More long-term studies are needed before we advise pregnant women
to throw out all their air fresheners. But there are measures that
can be taken to protect yourself and your baby, such as reducing the
number of household products that you use and by wearing gloves and
keeping windows open when cleaning."

THE CULPRITS
Disinfectant (used by 87.5% of households)
Bleach (84.8)
Aerosols (71.7)
Air freshener (68)
Window cleaner (60.5)
Carpet cleaner (35.8)
Paint or varnish (32.9)
White spirit (22.6)
Pesticide (21.2)
Paint stripper (5.5)
Dry-cleaning fluid (5.4)

Cleaning Products May Affect Babies' Breathing

2005-01-15T22:04:00.000-08:00

This article is for those of you who are expecting or who have young
children. Asthma is one of the leading reasons for Emergency Room
visits, not to mention the numbers of poisoned children from household
chemical products. There are safer more effective alternatives that I
hope you are using. If you have not converted your home to safer products you may someday wish you would have.

Michael McCullough, DC

_______________________________________________________________________

Cleaning products may affect babies' breathing

Last Updated: 2005-01-11 12:27:42 -0400 (Reuters Health)

SOURCE: Thorax, January 2005.

By Alison McCook

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Pregnant women who use a lot of household
chemical products are more likely to have babies with persistent
wheezing, new research reports.

The products included bleach, disinfectant, air fresheners, aerosols,
carpet cleaners and pesticides.

Children with wheezing are more at risk of eventually developing asthma,
explained study author Dr. Andrea Sherriff at the University of Bristol
in the UK.

Moreover, "persistent wheezing stops the child from living a normal life
-- exercising, going to school," she told Reuters Health. This "may make
them susceptible to other conditions, such as obesity."

Although the study did not measure how much exposure to household
chemicals is safe for pregnant women, Sherriff recommended that they
should "be sensible"
with chemicals, and follow the product's instructions, particularly with
regards to ventilation.

Previous research has found that people who are heavily exposed to
household products are more likely to develop symptoms of asthma. Of all
professions, cleaners have one of the highest risks of developing the
disease.

To see if prenatal exposure to these chemicals also increases the risk
of breathing problems, Sherriff and her team asked the mothers of 7019
children about the chemicals they were exposed to while pregnant, and
how often their children wheezed from birth to age 42 months. The women
completed surveys while pregnant, and periodically after the child was
born.

Slightly more than 6 percent of the children showed signs of persistent
wheezing.

The children whose mothers used the most chemicals were more than twice
as likely to persistently wheeze than those whose mothers used the least
chemicals, the authors report in the journal Thorax.

Sherriff explained that experts suspect that chemicals may affect
infants' breathing by irritating their airways and lungs. She added that
mothers who use a lot of chemicals during pregnancy will likely do the
same thing once the babies are born, so it's difficult
to say whether a baby's wheezing comes from exposuresbefore or after
birth.

Alternatively, she suggested that infants who are in an overly clean
environment may not be exposed to thebacteria and germs that help us
build healthy immune
systems.

"If we have immune systems which don't work well, then we are more
likely to become allergic to things in our environment, and possibly
wheeze as a result,"
Sherriff said.

SOURCE: Thorax, January 2005.

Soaring Cancer Rates Blamed on Chemicals

2004-12-30T13:57:00.000-08:00

Soaring cancer rates blamed on chemicals

By The Canadian Press OTTAWA --

Man-made chemicals in air, water, food and the workplace are largely to blame for a devastating cancer epidemic which will strike 41 per cent of Canadian males and 38 per cent of females, says a study released Wednesday

Genetics and lifestyle factors such as smoking and diet can't explain the soaring cancer rates of recent decades, says the report by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

From 1970 to 1998, the incidence of the dreaded disease increased by 35 per cent for men and 27 per cent for women after the effects of population aging have been discounted, say authors Lissa Donner and Robert Chernomas

When lung cancers are removed from the statistics, the rates still increased by 23.9 per cent for males and 17.1 per cent for females over the period

The toll is more dramatic when considered over a longer time: In 1921, cancer killed 6.6 per cent of males and 8.6 per cent of females, but now the death rate has risen to 27.4 per cent for men and 23.1 per cent for women, says the report. There has been a great deal of controversy about the role of environmental contaminants in cancer, and mainstream medical organizations have tended to downplay their importance. The Canadian Cancer Society estimates that only five per cent of cancers can be directly linked to contaminants in the environment, which would represent about 6,400 cases a year in Canada. But dissidents, such as U.S. scientist Samuel Epstein, author of several books on cancer, say 80 to 90 per cent of human cancer is determined environmentally

Authors Donner and Chernomas say the medical profession is fixated on screening, diagnosis and damage control rather than prevention

"Mainstream medicine places the blame for cancer on lifestyle and genetics -- and emphasizes research into changes at the individual level. It identifies symptoms and treats them, while largely ignoring the root causes of disease

"We believe that successful cancer prevention requires a very different approach." They note that more than 18 million kilograms of known carcinogens were released into the Canadian environment in 2001, according to the federal government's National Pollutant Release Inventory

Donner conceded in an interview that many carcinogenic chemicals are useful and would be hard to replace. For example, chlorine is vital in water treatment, but can interact with organic materials to form carcinogenic chemicals known as trihalomethanes

But she rejects the view that rising cancer rates are an inescapable fact of life in the modern era

"That kind of resigned attitude is not going to create a healthy society," she said in an interview"

We need a strategy, to pick and choose and figure out where to go next."

Concerns about Shampoo Safety

2004-12-11T21:15:00.000-08:00

Read Article Here

Study Raises Concerns About Shampoo Safety
Occupational Exposure to Additive Is Bigger Worry, Researcher Says
By Salynn Boyles
Reviewed By Michael Smith, MDon Sunday, December 05, 2004
WebMD Medical News

New research is raising concerns about the safety of a preservative that is commonly found in shampoos and other commercially available cosmetics. But cosmetics industry officials say the additive has been proven safe over years of use.

In laboratory studies, the bacteria-killing agent methylisothiazolinone (MIT) was shown to restrict the growth of immature rat nerve cells. Studies in live animals are needed to confirm the findings. But researchers say the early test tube evidence suggests that prolonged exposure to MIT, or exposure to the chemical at high concentrations, could damage the nervous system.

The research was presented Sunday at the annual meeting of the American Society for Cell Biology in Washington D.C.

Fetal Development a Concern

The biggest potential concern, says lead researcher Elias Aizenman, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, is for the fetuses of pregnant women exposed to high doses of MIT on the job. The agent is widely used in industrial settings.

"If the data that I am seeing does translate into some sort of neurodevelopmental problem in people, then the risk to the developing fetus of a woman who is exposed to this agent in [its concentrated form] may be significant," Aizenman tells WebMD.

Another concern is that occupational exposure or routine use of commercial products that contain MIT could trigger nerve-damaging diseases such as Parkinson's or Alzheimer's. Again, Aizenman is quick to point out that there is no direct evidence linking MIT to these disorders. But he adds that live animal studies are needed to clarify the risk.

"It is very difficult to find shampoos and conditioners that do not contain MIT, and it is in many other cosmetics, as well," he says. "I can't tell you that using shampoo is unsafe, but I can't tell you it is safe, either."

Cosmetics Industry Responds

A statement issued Friday by the nation's largest cosmetics industry trade group called the University of Pittsburgh research "meaningless for safety evaluation purposes.

"A Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association spokesperson pointed out that the level of MIT in shampoos and other commercial products is extremely low.

"The experiments conducted with (MIT) on extracted rat nerve cells in laboratory containers do not remotely resemble the possible consumer exposure to this preservative," the CTFA statement says.

Aizenman says he became aware of MIT while researching the mechanisms associated with the death of brain cells. He found that the agent activated a novel pathway that promoted cell death in the laboratory setting, and showed in earlier work that adult rat brain cells died when exposed for short periods to MIT at high concentrations.

In their latest work, Aizenman and colleagues exposed immature, developing rat brain cells to very low concentrations of MIT -- roughly 1/100 of the dose used in the previous study. Low-level exposure for 18 hours was found to slow down cell growth. The higher the dose the brain cells were exposed to, the more effect there was.

Aizenman acknowledges that it is "a big leap" to suggest that MIT exposure in the womb could play a role in the rise of developmental disabilities in children. But he adds that the questions raised by his research need to be answered.

"I would caution that based on our data, there very well could be neurodevelopmental consequences from MIT," he notes. "Clearly, more study is needed, with both scientists and government regulators equally engaged."

------------------------------------------
SOURCES: American Society for Cell Biology 44th Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., Dec. 4-8, 2004. Elias Aizenman, PhD, professor of neurobiology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. News release, Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association.

Special Offer til December 31

2004-12-11T21:11:00.000-08:00

I never want to push my company with my blog. My whole goal is to just educate people on the need for safer products in their home. Though, if you are interested in safer products, everything from cleaning supplies to personal care products to vitamins and supplements to (over the counter) pharmaceutical items, you can enroll right now for $1 + your first order. This doesn't come along very often, you're saving money on this. If you are interested, Email Me and we can get together and talk about the company (by phone). Promise, I'm not a pushy person, if you decide it's for you, great, if not, that's ok too!

Now, back to your regularly scheduled blog.

Produce Pesticides

2004-12-08T20:45:00.000-08:00

For the past 17 years I have promoted washing all produce with natural
organic cleaners to help eliminate pesticides and chemicals that have
been sprayed on them. In my home we wash all produce with an all-purpose
biodegradable product that is free of phosphates, ammonia, and chlorine
bleach. Unfortunately there still are
people who think that the pesticide issue has been over-exaggerated or
maybe that is why the consumption of fruit and vegetables is so low.
Eating 7 to 10 servings of fruits and vegetables in this day and age is
impossible for most people. I am sure glad I have been supplementing my
diet for over 30 years and yes I make an attempt to eat ate least two
or more servings of fruit and vegetables everyday.

Michael McCullough, DC

http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/EMIHC268/35320/35327/381730.html?d=dmtHMSContent

Avoiding Pesky Produce Pesticides

April 27, 2004

By Julie Redfern, L.D., R.D.N.
Brigham and Women's Hospital

Food Production And Pesticide Use
Going Organic
Most And Least Contaminated Produce
Every day we're bombarded with news about bacteria-tainted meat and
pesticide-laden produce. In the United States we expect our produce to
be free of such contaminants, but there is a growing concern about the
safety of our food supply. Fresh fruits and veggies are an important
component of a nutritious diet because they are packed with vitamins,
minerals, phytochemicals, and fiber. So how can we reap the benefits of
healthful produce, but ensure they're 100 percent safe?

Food Production And Pesticide Use

Food production and distribution methods have changed over the years,
leading to new safety issues. For example, to optimize crop yields many
farmers increasingly turn to pesticides to control undesired insects,
weeds, rodents, fungi and bacteria. Antibiotics are added to animal feed
to counteract the growing number of bacteria. However, these bacteria
are becoming resistant to the antibiotics. These "super" strains of
bacteria grow inside animals and can be passed on to humans through
tainted meat and eggs. Fruits and vegetables can become contaminated
when they are shipped or prepared with animal products harboring
bacteria.

We know that the healthful benefits of produce are greater than the risk
of pesticide exposure. However, today concern is mounting about the ways
that pesticides could affect people, especially pregnant women and young
children.

In 1997, Congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act, which requires
all pesticides to be proven safe for infants and children. If a
pesticide is unsafe for children or information is lacking about its
safety, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for
setting safety levels for its use. This strategy may help to minimize
pesticide use in the long run.

The EPA also approves every pesticide before its use on foods, monitors
pesticide residues in foods, and surveys which such foods children
consume in greater amounts. Some pesticides are rated by the EPA as
known or possible carcinogens.

But the risk from pesticides is still uncertain, not thoroughly studied,
and worrisome to consumers. It makes sense that we should try to reduce
our exposure to them, but how do we do this?

Back to top

Going Organic

What does organic produce mean? As defined by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), organic foods are those grown without the use of
pesticides, petroleum- or sewage-based fertilizers, antibiotics,
synthetic hormones, genetic engineering, or irradiaton.

So how can we identify organic foods? As of October 2002, the USDA began
labeling organic foods with an organic seal of approval. To be labeled
"100 percent organic," the food has to be certified by the USDA. A food
can claim to be "organic" if it contains 95 percent organic ingredients.
Foods with 70 percent to 95 percent organic ingredients can claim to be
"made with organic ingredients." If a food has less than 70 percent
organic ingredients, the word organic must be relegated to the
ingredient list.

Although there is no solid evidence that organic foods are healthier for
consumers, emerging studies show that organic produce is less likely to
contain pesticides. Pesticide residue has been in 13 percent to 23
percent of organic produce and 71 percent to 90 percent of
conventionally grown produce.

To reduce the risk of pesticide exposure, follow some of the food-safety
tips below to insure the safest and tastiest produce:

Eat organic when you can. If this option is too costly or not readily
available, select organic produce to replace the most contaminated
fruits and veggies from the table below.
Choose conventionally grown produce from the least contaminated fruits
and veggies from the table below.
Buy locally grown produce when in season. You may want to inquire about
pesticide use. Check with your state's cooperative extension service for
a list of farmers' markets.
Wash your produce with cold, running water. Peel thick-skinned produce
and trim outer leaves of greens. Water is just as effective as produce
washes when it comes to non-waxed fruits and veggies. Washing produce
with water can reduce bacteria 10-fold. However, produce washes may help
to remove the wax coating from produce such as apples, peppers,
cucumbers or tomatoes. Edible wax is applied to trap moisture and keep
produce fresh longer, but dirt and pesticide residues can get trapped
underneath.
Keep produce and animal food preparation separate. Use one cutting board
for meats, fish, chicken and another board for produce. After every use
wash boards, knives and other kitchen utensils thoroughly with soap and
water.
Finally, always wash your hands prior to any type of food prep, and wash
hands when switching from meat to produce preparation.
Keep in mind that fruits and veggies are loaded with healthful benefits
that outweigh the risks of possible pesticides. Diets based on fruits,
vegetables, and grains can help to lower your cancer risk by as much as
20 percent. The bottom line: Eat a variety of fruits and veggies daily
and treat yourself and your family to a new one every week!

Most And Least Contaminated Produce

Conventionally Grown Fruit And Vegetables

12 Most Contaminated
12 Least Contaminated

Peaches
Sweet corn

Strawberries
Avocado

Apples
Pineapples

Spinach
Cauliflower

Nectarines
Mangoes

Celery
Sweet peas

Pears
Asparagus

Cherries
Onions

Potatoes
Broccoli

Bell peppers
Bananas

Raspberries
Kiwifruit

Grapes, imported
Papaya

Source: Environmental Working Group

Principal chemicals in fabric softener/dryer sheets

2004-12-08T19:22:00.000-08:00

Principal chemicals found in Fabric Softeners/Dryer Sheets

Symptoms of exposure are taken from industry-generated Material SafetyData Sheets (MSDS)

Relevant Facts: This will help you understand the following information!

CNS = Central Nervous System, your brain and spine. CNS disorders include: Alzheimer's Disease, Attention Deficit Disorder, Dementia, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson'sDisease, Seizures, Strokes, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. CNS exposure symptoms include: aphasia, blurred vision, disorientation, dizziness, headaches, hunger, memory loss, numbness in face, pain in neck and spine.

ALPHA-TERPINEOL Causes CNS (central nervous system) disorders... "highly irritating to mucous membranes" ..."Aspiration into the lungs can produce pneumonitis or even fatal edema." Can also cause "excitement, ataxia (loss of muscular coordination), hypothermia, CNS and respiratory depression, and headache." "Prevent repeated or prolonged skin contact."

BENZYL ACETATE Carcinogenic (linked to pancreatic cancer). "From vapors: irritating to eyes and respiratory passages, exciting cough." "In mice: hyperanemia of the lungs." "Can be absorbed through the skin causing systemic effects.""Do not flush to sewer."

BENZYL ALCOHOL Causes CNS disorders ..."irritating to the upper respiratory tract" ..."headache, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, drop in blood pressure, CNS depression, and death in severe cases due to respiratory failure."

CAMPHOR Causes CNS disorders. On EPA's Hazardous Waste list. Symptoms: "local irritant and CNS stimulant" ..."readily absorbed through body tissues" ..."irritation of eyes, nose, and throat" ..."dizziness, confusion, nausea, twitching muscles and convulsions". "Avoid inhalation of vapors."

CHLOROFORM Neurotoxic. Anesthetic. Carcinogenic. on EPA's Hazardous Waste list. "Avoid contact with eyes, skin, clothing. Do not breathe vapors ...Inhalation of vapors may cause headache, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, drowsiness, irritation of respiratory tract and loss of consciousness." "Inhalation can be fatal." "Chronic effects of over exposure may include kidney and/or liver damage." "Medical conditions generally aggravated by exposure: kidney disorders, liver disorders, heart disorders, skin disorders." "Conditions to avoid: Heat..." Listed on California's Proposition 65.

ETHYL ACETATE Narcotic. On EPA's Hazardous Waste list. "...Irritating to the eyes and respiratory tract" ..."may cause headache and narcosis (stupor)" ..."may cause anemia with leukocytosis and damage to liver and kidneys". "Washthoroughly after handling."

LIMONENE Carcinogenic. "Prevent its contact with skin or eyes because it is an irritant and sensitizer." "Always wash thoroughly after using this material and before eating, drinking ...applying cosmetics. Do not inhale limonene vapor."

LINALOOL Narcotic. Causes CNS disorders. ..."respiratory disturbances" ..."Attracts bees." "In animal tests: ataxic gait, reduced spontaneous motor activity and depression ...depressed heart activity ...development of respiratory disturbances leading to death."

PENTANE "Danger - Harmful if inhaled ...Avoid breathing vapor." "Inhalation of vapors may cause headache, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, drowsiness, irritation of respiratory tract and loss of consciousness. Repeated inhalation of vapors may cause CNS depression. Contact can cause eye irritation. Prolonged exposure may cause dermatitis (skin rash)."

Compiled by Julia Kendall*, Co-Chair, Citizens for a Toxic-Free Marin.
Reference: Lance Wallace, Environmental Protection Agency Excerpts from "Health Hazard Information."References: Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS). Provided with permissionby Barbara Wilkie wilworks@lanminds.com of the Environmental HealthNetwork (of California). [*NOTE: Julia Kendall died July 12, 1997 from Multiple Chemical Sensitivities and Leukemia caused by pesticidepoisoning.]

Household Cleaners-Out gassing

2004-12-08T18:49:00.000-08:00

Household cleaners-Out gassing
Air Date: Mar 11, 2003
Reporter: Wendy Mesley
Producer: Gaelyne Leslie
Researcher: Louisa Jaslow

We seem to be a society obsessed with cleanliness. We want our whites whiter and our bathrooms and kitchens hospital-grade disinfected. Industry has answered: today's cleaning products promise faster, easier, better results, and no scrubbing. But is our clean-freak streak is harming our kids?

Shawn Ellis is a toxicologist who's begun marketing his services to anxious homeowners. He tests the air in people's homes to see how many chemicals or other particulate matter may be floating there.

Among his clients is Amanda Saul. She has severe Shawn Ellis tests indoor pollution levels respiratory problems. Five weeks ago, she was rushed to hospital because she couldn't breath. "I called Shawn because I was having a lot of problems breathing and I wasn’t sure if it had to do with the house, moulds and stuff, or whether it had to do with the air quality, maybe even our cleaning products."

Her oldest son, Kieran, is three. Like so many kids these days, he suffers from allergies, eczema and asthma.
Ellis tests for all kinds of things: mold, moisture and chemicals. "Some of my clients, using cleaners, especially if it’s a combination of cleaners, can actually feel dizzy or have headaches."

What he's talking about are everyday cleaning products — like the ones Amanda and her husband use every day. Many of them contain chemicals. "I think the majority of the awareness of cleaning products in people’s homes are that a cleaning product is natural and safe. I don’t think people consider cleaning products chemicals," Ellis said.

Amanda Saul and her family like their cleaners as much as anyone else. "It is very seductive to try and get the best cleaning product out there that will actually do the job." And the advertising for those products addresses that feeling. The come-on to parents is full of babies and young children looking adorable — and vulnerable. It's a parent's job to keep them free from germs. Last year, Canadians spent more than $275 million on household cleaning products.

Not required to disclose ingredients

Kathy Cooper — a senior researcher with the Canadian Environmental Law Association — says there's a lot we don't know about the chemicals in our cleaners. Companies are not required to tell us. "For cleaning products in particular, the only thing the label will tell you is whether it is seriously toxic…if you swallow it or get it in your eye, or will the container blow up…but you don’t have any information about…long term toxicity," Cooper told Marketplace.

If you look at the label of your favorite floor cleaner or furniture polish, you won't see much in the way of ingredients. That's because companies are protected by trade secrets. If you do see an ingredient, it's because it could blow up or poison you. Many other chemicals are not even listed.

"If you had the kind of labeling laws that they have in Europe, where it would tell you that 'this product contains something that may cause cancer' and another similar product that does the same job doesn’t, you might not buy the product that contains the carcinogen," said Larry Stoffman an international expert on chemical hazards information.

'Can always smell the cleaning products'

When Shawn Ellis tests the air in parts of a house where cleaners are stored, he is measuring volatile organic compounds (VOCs). His meter won't tell you how strong or harmful the chemical particles might be. It will provide clues as to how many particles there are.

"You can always smell those cleaners even though they’re all tightly sealed." Everywhere the cleaning products are kept, the readings jump. The average home normally reads about 50 parts per billion.We asked Ellis to test three products that are often advertised on television: Pledge, Clorox Wipes and Lysol Disinfecting Spray.

Pledge registered 273 ppb. Anything over 500 could be a problem for people with sensitivities.The Clorox Wipes came in at more than 1,000 ppb. The Lysol Disinfecting Spray was much higher — around 1,200 parts per million, or 1,000 times higher than the Clorox.

We live in an increasingly chemical society: experts don't know how dangerous these chemicals might be, but they are starting to worry. Dr. Gideon Koren is a pediatrician at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto.
"How can we, as one of the most advanced countries in the world allow these to enter our household for small children, without the appropriate testing to see that it’s safe?"

Young children especially vulnerable

Koren says young children are especially vulnerable, partly because of exposure. Everything goes in their mouths and they virtually live on the floor. And young kids are more sensitive because they are still developing the basic body systems: the brain, internal organs, respiratory and immune systems are not fully developed until adolescence.

Koren and his researcher are studying the babies of women who were exposed to chemical solvents in the workplace. They're finding vision problems."Vision is one of the functions of the human brain, so it means that these chemicals find themselves through the mum, through the umbilical cord, into the baby, into the developing brain, and damaging functions there, and the baby is born already with a problem," Koren said.

Manufacturers are obliged to release toxicology data in the workplace. But when these same chemicals are used in the home, the exposure is lower. But no one know what affect they may have — and there's no obligation to inform us.

In Canada, respiratory illness is now the leading cause of admission to hospital for children. Childhood asthma has jumped by 400 per cent. After injuries, cancer is now the leading cause of death in children between the ages of five and nine.

Not a toxin, but good info non the less: Cortisol Blockers

2004-12-03T06:58:00.000-08:00

I don't know how many times I have heard the advertisement for CortiSlim
on the radio and TV. By the sound of the advertisements it sounds so
good most people who want to lose weight might want to try it. The
following question and answer article is by Dr. Andrew Weil, MD. Making
claims on weight-loss can be risky if you cannot back up your claims
with research. Thankfully Dr. Wang has supported his claims on the
Access Bar with 36 peer-reviewed scientific journal articles. After 12
years you would think that the FTC would have made their case against
the Access if all claims were not true. I would like to thank Paulette
McGaw for sending me this information.

MM DC

Today's Question
Can You Slim Down with Cortisol Blockers?

What is your opinion of the weight loss product called CortiSlim? Is it
safe? I only want to lose a few pounds around by stomach area. By eating
sensibly I have lost weight everywhere else but those last few pounds
will not come off my stomach.

-- Gina

I urge you to stay away from CortiSlim and other so-called cortisol
blocking agents. I've discussed these widely advertised products with my
colleague Seymour Reichlin, M.D., Ph.D., an endocrinologist and retired
research professor of medicine at the University of Arizona in Tucson.
Dr. Reichlin confirms that, as the ads and TV commercials for CortiSlim
claim, the stress hormone cortisol does stimulate the deposition of fat
in the abdomen and elsewhere. What the advertisements don't tell you is
that this fat deposition occurs only when cortisol is produced in great
excess due to medication or as a result of such hormonal disorders as
Cushing's syndrome, a relatively rare disease.

Dr. Reichlin notes that there are no scientific studies suggesting that
the amount of cortisol produced by healthy humans under stress is
sufficient to cause fat deposition. In other words, if your body were
producing enough cortisol to make you fat, you would be sick.

Dr. Reichlin looked into the ingredients in CortiSlim and found no
scientific evidence that any of them had an effect on cortisol secretion
or cortisol action. The one ingredient that conceivably could contribute
to weight loss is bitter orange peel extract (Citrus aurantium)which
contains synephrine, the only known ephedrine-like natural product that
has not yet been banned by the FDA. There's already one report in the
medical literature of a woman who had a heart attack after taking a
weight-loss formula containing bitter orange, and the doctors who
described her case said that the use of bitter orange in supplements may
present a risk for cardiovascular events. Synephrine can cause blood
pressure to rise and should be avoided by anyone with significant
hypertension or narrow-angle glaucoma as well as by people taking MAO
inhibitors (a type of anti-depressant) and other stimulant drugs
(including cold remedies containing decongestants).

Dr. Reichlin's research also turned up the fact that Banaba Leaf
extract, another ingredient in CortiSlim, could influence the metabolism
of chemotherapy drugs. Shawn Talbott, Ph.D., an adjunct assistant
professor of nutrition at the University of Utah who formulated
CortiSlim, has authored works on calcium metabolism in rats; he has
published only one study done in humans - on exercise - and nothing on
either cortisol or obesity.

You may be interested to know that on Oct. 5, 2004, the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) filed suit against the marketers of CortiSlim,
contending that the companies made false or unsubstantiated claims,
including one that virtually everyone who uses CortiSlim would lose 10
to 50 pounds. The FTC is seeking to force the companies that market
CortiSlim and CortiStress to reimburse consumers. (CortiStress is
advertised for risk reduction or prevention of such conditions as
osteoporosis, obesity, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, cancer and
cardiovascular disease. The FTC, correctly, said that these claims were
false or unsubstantiated.)

To sum up, don't be tempted by marketing hype for the so-called cortisol
blocking agents. If you try them, your wallet may slim down, but you
won't. Worse, for some people they could prove dangerous.

Andrew Weil, M.D.

The dangers of using household cleaners with bleach

2004-12-03T06:47:00.000-08:00

DANGERS OF USING HOUSEHOLD CLEANERS WITH CHLORINE

"A peculiar accident reported by the National Safety Council involved two housewives in separate cases. Both were using an ordinary toilet bowl cleaner. Not satisfied with the way it was removing stain, each one added some household bleach and stirred with a brush. One died quickly, the other spent a long time in the hospital."

Chlorine is a toxic, yellow-green gas that is one of today's most heavily used chemical agents. Serious risks to our health and the health of the environment are being caused by the widespread use of chlorine. The use of chlorine in household cleaners has recently raised much controversy.

Many household cleaners contain chlorine but the labels indicate the alias names of "sodium hypochlorite" or "hypochlorite." Whether chlorine is found alone or in a mixture with other chemicals, household products that contain chlorine pose a number of serious health risks. Automatic dishwashing detergents, chlorine bleach, chlorinated disinfectant cleaners, mildew removers and toilet bowl cleaners are some of the products of special concern.

The fumes of cleaners containing a high concentration of chlorine when breathed in can irritate the lungs and be particularly dangerous for people who suffer from heart conditions or chronic respiratory problems such as asthma or emphysema. When the fumes are emitted in small, poorly ventilated rooms such as the bathroom, the risks are increased. Chlorine is also a highly corrosive material which is capable of damaging skin, eyes and other membranes.

When using detergents that contain chlorine in the dishwasher or clothes washer the air in your home becomes polluted through a process called "volatilization" which takes place when the chlorine in the water transfers the chlorine to the air. We then breathe the contaminated air. Dishwashers are the worst offenders as they release chemicals in a steamy mist when the door is opened after washing. In a clothes washer, chorine mixes with the dirt in clothes to create airborne, toxic chlorinated organic chemicals.

Overall, chlorine is a dangerous chemical to keep in your home. In 1993, 40,000 exposures to chlorine were reported to poison control centers which is more than any other chemical. Fragranced chlorine bleaches are especially dangerous because the odor is disguised and actually makes the experience of inhaling chlorines bleach pleasant.

Mixing household products containing chlorine with other cleaning agents is another danger due to the fact that these mixtures can create chlorine gas and chloramines, toxic gases that can injure the deep tissues of the lungs.

Whenever chlorine is used, organochlorides are formed which are forerunners to dioxins, a deadly class of compounds that cause toxic health effects. A new EPA draft report on the dangers of dioxins warns for the first time that even trace amounts can cause serious health problems including birth defects, genetic mutations, threats to the immune and reproductive systems, damage to the liver, kidneys and skin and even cancer.

a.. Read labels on cleaning supplies and look for those which contain chlorine.

a.. Avoid using cleaners which contain chlorine.
b.. Find safer, more natural and environmentally responsible products to clean your home.
c.. Never mix bleach with acids such as vinegar, ammonia, toilet bow cleaners, drain cleaners or chlorinated scouring powder as it produces deadly chloramines gas which may result in the burning of mucous membranes and chemical pneumonia.

The dangers of Chlorine

2004-12-03T06:45:00.000-08:00

Naturally Speaking
Speaking About the Dangers of Chlorine

Most of us have grown up with the idea that whiter whites (and brighter colors) mean cleaner clothes. We continue to use chlorine products with abandon to whiten and to disinfect. We write on white paper and bathe in and drink chlorinated water. After all, who wants bacteria-infested water? In our society, chlorine is ubiquitous-and so are its side effects. In fact, the long-term residual effects from chlorine are becom- . ing such a health hazard that the American Public Health Association is urging the American paper industry to stop using chlorine. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has found dioxin (a toxic byproduct of chlorine) to be 300,000 times more potent as a carcinogen than DDT

Healthy & Natural speaks with Stephen Ashkin, director of product development and environmental affairs at Seventh Generation, a manufacturer of green, non-toxic cleaning products. Although he has a degree in chemistry, Ashkin gained most of his practical knowledge and experience through direct contact in the chemical industry. He literally grew up in the laboratory of his parent's cleaning products manufacturing company. Ashkin chaired the American Society for Testing and Materials' task force that wrote the national cleaning standard for commercial and institutional buildings. He has also chaired President Clinton's Green Chemistry Challenge Task Force. Ashkin is acting advisor for a number of EPA programs including the Indoor Environment Division. He has published numerous articles on environmentally preferable products and is a very popular conference speaker.

Q: Does chlorine occur naturally?

Typically chlorine does not normally occur in the environment except as a yellow gas on rare occasions. It's a manufactured substance produced through an industrial process. An electrical current is passed through salt water producing chlorine and caustic soda.

Q: Is chlorine very toxic?

This is where this topic gets very interesting. Many people argue that chlorine is basically safe-that it breaks down into harmless salt and water. Well, that's true-in a laboratory test tube under very controlled conditions. The real issue is not just how toxic chlorine itself is but how the unintended byproducts of chlorine (organochlorines and dioxins) remain in the environment. They are persistent in the environment; they do not break down readily and therefore bio-accumulate.

Q: Is there a chlorine pollution problem?

One of the largest uses of chlorine is in the paper industry. Chlorine is first used to break down the lignan that holds the wood fibers together. Then chlorine is used to bleach the paper to make it white. The effluent or wastewater containing dioxins and other organochlorines are then dumped into streams and waterways. These ingredients are highly toxic and carcinogenic. Once in the waste stream, they come into contact with other organic materials and surfactants and combine to forn a host of extremely toxic organic chemicals.

A chain of events occurs: The water becomes polluted; the fish become contaminated; animals eat the fish and people eat the contaminated animals and fish. This can create a very serious health problem; the dioxins and other toxic chemicals, when consumed, accumulate in the fatty tissues. These contaminants are also hormone disrupters because they mimic estrogen. The EPA has observed and documented hormonal imbalance, suppressed immune systems, reproductive infertility and alterations in fetal development of animals. In viewing the big picture, these factors are perhaps the most

frightening results from the widespread use of chlorine.

Q: How widespread is chlorine contamination?

It is so widespread that it would be difficult to find any human being who does not have detectable levels of dioxin in his/her blood.

While we know that chlorine is a substantial environmental problem caused by the paper industry, household bleach and cleaners containing chlorine also pose a serious health risk. For instance, in 1997, 217,989 calls to the Poison Control Center concerned household cleaners. Of those calls, 54,453 were about chlorine bleach and 7,570 were for chlorine disinfectants. So, that means that 28.4 percent of all calls were related to poisonings by chlorine products. What's even more important, most of those calls were about children under 6 years old.

Q: What can happen if these chemicals get into our bodies?

Our bodies are very good at metabolizing many things. Through special enzymes, our bodies are able to rid themselves of many environmental toxic substances that we come into contact with daily. However, dioxins (and other organochlorine compounds) aren't included. Even if we are exposed to very low levels, dioxins remain in the body and accumulate.

The EPA is now saying that this is soon to become a major health risk problem. The cumulative effects of dioxin in humans have been linked to birth defects, cancer, reproductive disorders and immune system breakdown.

Q: Should chlorine be used in our public water supply?

The alternative question would be, should we drink contaminated water? The answer, of course, would be no. It's very important that our water is sanitized. Years ago, there were very few alternatives. However, today, while chlorine is a very effective (and cheap) sanitizer, many scientists are recognizing some serious side effects from chlorine. Today, our technology is getting to the point where, I hope, we will look into a better means of sanitizing our drinking water. This will not be easy because one of the biggest advantages (and ultimately the biggest disadvantage) of using chlorine is the fact that chlorine doesn't break down. Water can be treated with chlorine at the filtration plant and 10 miles away the chlorine is persistent enough to remain in the water and pipes when it reaches the home. There exist many other ingredients that are good sanitizers, but they break down quickly, and the water would become contaminated by the time it reaches someone's home.

We may have a problem if we need to sanitize via a chemical additive. It becomes a sort of oxymoron: chemicals that are persistent also tend to be toxic. The ultimate solution may be to have home-based water filtration/sanitizing systems. This would eliminate the problem of trying to prevent hundreds of miles of pipes, installed a hundred years ago, from contaminating the water.

Q: Are there safe, effective alternatives to chlorine as a bleaching agent and disinfectant?

Absolutely! Primarily, hydrogen peroxide is available to the paper industry and to the soap industry as a bleaching agent. Another new technology uses ozone. Other non-chlorinated household cleaning products, readily available to the consumer, achieve the same bleaching and disinfecting results as chlorine but are nontoxic.

I don't understand why anyone would want to use chlorine products anyway. Chlorine is a respiratory irritant and when mixed with other common household products, it gives off a toxic gas.

Q: What can we do to make a difference?

We could request and purchase processed chlorine-free paper, not just in writing paper but in paper towels, napkins, tissues, and toilet paper. It's a vote for our environment and our health. It may seem to be a small thing, but collectively it really can make a substantial difference.

We need to realize that the technology in the chemical industry has changed as dramatically as in the computer industry. We no longer need to use harmful substances simply because they worked for our grandparents. The technology in the chemical industry is allowing us to replace many of these toxic ingredients with others that are not only nontoxic but have renewable resources and many environmental benefits.

It's a major educational process for consumers to understand that they, through their buying choices, can make a difference. Did you know that only about 20 percent of shoppers buy their household products in natural food stores? What that says to me is that while consumers recognize the importance of buying supplements and organic foods, they don't recognize the same environmental and health benefits associated with buying chlorine-free paper and other non-toxic cleaners.

Chlorine Facts

Dioxin, a chemical byproduct of the manufacturing of chlorinebleached paper, is believed to be the single most carcinogenic chemical known to science.

When you open the door of your dishwasher after washing, toxic volatized chlorine from dish detergent and tap water is released into the air.

Thanks to chlorine pollution, Americans ingest a daily amount of dioxin that is already 300 to 600 times greater than the EPA's so-called "safe" dose.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has found dioxin to be 300,000 times more potent as a carcinogen than DDT.

Dioxin has been linked to endometriosis, immune system impairment, diabetes, neurotoxicity, birth defects, decreased fertility, and reproductive dysfunction in both women and men.

Studies show that 40-70 percent of the dioxin in bleached coffee filters can leach into your coffee; dioxin found in paper milk cartons also leaches into the milk you drink.

Cancer-causing chemicals like chlorine found in many household products such as coffee filters, disposable diapers, paper towels, and bathroom tissue are readily absorbed through the skin.

Bleach

2004-12-03T06:40:00.000-08:00

Bleach - (Chlorine):
Sodium Hypochlorite Liquid household bleaches are approximately 5% sodium hypochlorite solutions. Household bleach is an irritant and may cause skin, eye, and respiratory tract irritation. Dermatitis may result from direct skin contact. Ingestion of a few ounces or more of bleach may result in medical complications. DO NOT mix bleach with acids! Mixing household bleach with acids such as vinegar, ammonia, toilet bowl cleaners; and drain cleaners produces chloramine gas which can result in burning of mucous membranes and chemical pneumonia. If you use "fresh scented" bleach be aware that it may mask your natural ability to nasally detect overexposure to the bleach product. According to Susan Boothby, an attorney from Denver..."We have a special concern with the use of chlorine (found in laundry bleaches and other cleaners). Whenever chlorine is used, organochlorides are formed. Organocholrides are precursors to dioxins, a deadly class of compounds that cause toxic health effects at levels thousands of times lower than most other chemicals. Dioxins do not break down in the environment and they accumulate in human tissue. Anything bleached with chlorine has organochloride residues. A new EPA draft report on the dangers of dioxin warns for the first time that even trace amounts can cause serious health problems including birth defects, genetic mutations, threats to the immune and reproductive systems, damage to the liver, kidneys and skin and even cancer."

Chlorine:
Is toxic as a skin irritant and by inhalation. The greatest danger is when chlorine is mixed with other products, especially ammonia or vinegar. LOOK AT BLEACH

Chlorinated Solvents:
Most of these compounds can affect the central nervous system, liver, and kidneys. Most also will defat the skin causing dermatitis, and are irritating to the skin, eyes, and mucous membranes. Some can be absorbed through intact skin, and several are suspected or known to cause cancers. Several can cause rapid and erratic heartbeats. A summary of some of the properties is shown. http://www.meridianeng.com/chlorina.html

Chlorinated Scouring Powder:
Contains chlorine bleach. When mixed with water produces chlorine fumes. When mixed with ammonia produces chlorine fumes which can be deadly! For example, ammonia is not listed on many all-purpose cleaning products, so you may not be aware and use it in the toilet bowl and then sprinkle in some scouring powder with it----Watch out!!!

The above research came from Unsafe Home

*There has been a call from the U.S./Canadian Commission to ban bleach in North America. Bleach is being linked to the rising rates of breast cancer in women, reproductive problems in men and learning and behavioral problems in children.

*There has been a 26% increase in breast cancer since 1982. Breast cancer is the Number ONE killer of women between the ages of 35 and 54. Primary suspects are laundry detergents, household cleaners and pesticides.

*Since 1980, asthma has increased by 600%. The Canadian Lung Association and the Asthma Society of Canada identify common household cleaners and cosmetics as triggers.

**Clorox: Sodium Hypochlorite: Corrosive. Sensitizer: Can be fatal if swallowed. Eye, skin, and respiratory irritant. Especially hazardous to people with heart conditions or asthma.

Splenda--safe sweetner?

2004-12-01T22:36:00.000-08:00

This is a long article, and rather than post it here, I'll give you the link for you to decide if the dangers are worth satisfying your sweet teeth with a substitute.

The dangers of splenda

More on Toxic Chemicals in Make up

2004-12-01T21:58:00.000-08:00

If you have a weak stomach and use mascara, I'd suggest skipping that description.

Do you really know whats in your skin care and cosmetic products? Do they contain mineral oil, petrochemicals, or Animal-by-products??

What's the problem with mineral oil, petrochemical or animal-by-products?

Everyone needs to be educated on what these ingredients are and what they are doing to you and your family! The Cancer Prevention Coalition says mineral oil is the #1 leading cause of cancer! More harmful than cigarette smoke and the sun, and it is in numerous hair care, skin care and cosmetic products.

Ever wonder why today in our society cancer is like the flu. It`s so common, anymore its hard to find someone who has not been affected by cancer, whether it be there neighbor or loved one it is very prominent in our society.

Consumers not only need to be educated they have the right!

Mineral oil is a crude oil. It sits on top of your skin, it does not moisturize! It actually acts as a barrier not allowing anything to absorb or to be excreted from the skin. Skin is the largest organ of the body, it takes in toxins as well as excretes them from the body, skin must breathe. If you look at many skin moisturizers and lotions mineral oil is the #1 ingredient. The Cancer Prevention Coalition said it was the leading cause of cancer in the United States. The thought that it is the #1 ingredient in Baby Oil, yes, the same baby oil people put on their children. Society today doesn`t even allow people to smoke in public with the new smoking bands but yet mineral oil is more dangerous and we have absolutely no-one doing anything about it. Mineral oil is the #2 aging factor to our skin, the sun being #1, however, it is in almost all cosmetic and skin care products. It's illegal in many countries to use mineral oil in personal care products.

Wondering about Animal By-products or collagen. Companies buy from slaughter houses all the remains from cows, pigs and horses they cannot use, once they take what we consume for food. They will hire road crews that will drive around and collect road kill. It doesn't matter if the animals have been ravaged by disease or cancer they are all taken, even euthanized pets. They take all these "parts" put them in big pots and boil them. All the oils and fats that come from these animal parts rise to the top. They skim this off the top and whala! You have animal-by-product! This animal by-product is then manufactured into our products. THAT'S JUST GROSS!! The thought of applying a lipstick that contains ingredients from road kill or diseased animals is just disgusting! We are putting this all over our bodies every day. I don`t care how much you doctor it up road kill is road kill. Don't believe me, get the book Mad Cowboy, by Howard F. Lyman. He is a fourth generation dairy farmer and cattle rancher. He wrote this book about the cold hard truth where animal-by products come from. (See the link below)
Animal By-products Can be found in cosmetics, lubricants, soaps, candles, and waxes.
List of some Animal-By-Products

Beeswax: a sticky sealant, attracts pollutants, dirt and bacteria and glues them to the skin as it seals the pores.

Collagen: leftover restaurant cooking oil and derived from chicken feet--cannot be absorbed into the skin.

Lanolin: Excretion from sheepskin. (think of a sweaty sheep, walk up and scratch his back, the crud under your fingernail, now rub that all over your skin) GROSS!!

Guano: Bat feces-Found in mascara.

Petrochemicals
Found in haircare products, mouthwash, cosmetics, toothpaste, lotion, skin care products, suntan products just to name a few. Here's a list of some petrochemical.

Mineral Oil: John Hopkins University says it's the #2 leading cause of aging, the sun being #1.

Petroleum Jelly (Petrolatum): When your skin perspires and releases water containing salt and chemicals, it aids the liver and kidneys in detoxifying your body. Like mineral oil, petroleum blocks the skin's natural breathing and excretion functions.

Benzene: can cause depression, coma, convulsions, even death.

Acetone: Found in drugs, fiber and plastics-nevr microwave your food in plastic.

Solvent alcohol: SD Alcohol, propyl, isopropyl, specially denatured, ethyl alcohol. Very drying to the skin.

Artificial Colors: Formulated chemically from a wide variety of sources, artificial colors are known to cause allergic reactions in some people.

Artificial Fragrances: Chemical fragrances have been known to create allergic skin reactions and photo-sensitivity in some people.

The US government studies 3000 chemicals used in cosmetics and personal care products and found:
1 of 3 of the ingredients were toxic
1 of 3 were toxic enough to kill
1 of 10 caused biological mutation (cancer or birth defects)
1 of 11 caused reproductive problems.
The US government has a "buyer beware" approach to cosmetics(anything applied to the body for cleansing or appearance). This means that a manufacturer can use any ingredient so long as they list it on a label. The law does not require the testing of cosmetics for safety. It is up to the consumer to educate themselves and read labels.

Pneumonia and Antacids

2004-12-01T21:32:00.000-08:00

Subject: Pneumonia and Antacids!!

I have to wonder what would happen if a nutritional supplement was
shown to increase pneumonia? Pneumonia can be life-threatening for older
people. As you read this article keep in mind all the people who take
"anti-acids," tums and the below mentioned anti-acids? Especially the
misinformed people who take antacids to get their "CALCIUM." Your stomach
produces acid for a reason.

Michael McCullough,DC

_____________________________________________________________________

Heartburn Drugs Linked To Pneumonia
October 27, 2004

CHICAGO (AP) -- Widely used heartburn and ulcer drugs such as Nexium,
Pepcid and Prilosec can make people more susceptible to pneumonia, probably
because they reduce germ-killing stomach acid, Dutch researchers found in a
study of more than 300,000 patients.

The highest risks occurred with more powerful acid-fighting drugs
called proton pump inhibitors, which are sold in the United States under
such brand names as Nexium, Prevacid and Prilosec. Over nearly three years,
users of these drugs faced almost double the risk of developing pneumonia
compared with former users.

Users of another class of acid-fighting drugs that includes cimetidine
and famotidine -- sold in the United States as Tagamet and Pepcid -- also
faced an elevated risk.

The study was led by researcher Robert J.F. Laheij at University
Medical Center St. Radboud in Nijmegen, Netherlands, and appears in
Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association.

The acid in normal stomach fluids generally kills harmful bacteria;
suppressing it with drugs to treat heartburn and ulcers may make the body
more hospitable to such germs, which may then infect the lungs and cause
pneumonia, the researchers said.

These heavily promoted medicines are among the most widely prescribed
drugs worldwide, with almost $13 billion in sales in 1998 alone, according
to a JAMA editorial. Millions of Americans take these drugs, which are
heavily advertised in "ask your doctor about ..." TV commercials.

Intelihealth.Com

Toxic Brew

2004-12-01T21:27:00.000-08:00

Toxic Brew video - Are we doing more harm than good?

This is a link to the investigative report Toxic Brew done by
MarketPlace (like "20/20" in Canada) on whether we're doing more harm than
good in our quest for cleanliness. You can watch this very powerful video
over the internet by clicking on the link below [run time 16:36].

Toxic Brew Video

HOW THE MASS MEDIA IN THE U.S. CREATED FLU HYSTERIA

2004-12-01T21:24:00.000-08:00

HOW THE MASS MEDIA IN THE U.S. CREATED FLU HYSTERIA AND HELPED DRIVE THE
VACCINE MARKETS FOR THE MAKERS OF FluMist AND FLUZONE.

By Dr. Sherri Tenpenny

The hype regarding this year's flu "epidemic" continues. In the wake of the
media-induced hysteria, a fascinating series of chronologically connected
events has materialized that appears to protect the pharmaceutical industry
profits at the expense of our children. This issue demands further
examination.

On June 20, 2002, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)
adopted a resolution to include the influenza vaccine in the childhood
vaccination schedule. The influenza vaccine will be recommended annually to
all children aged 6 months to 23 months, and to children aged 24 months to
18 years who are household contacts of children aged less than 2 years.
After becoming effective on March 1, 2003, the resolution was implemented
during the 2003-04 influenza season and the vaccine will be encouraged
annually, for every subsequent flu season, [i] in other words, creating
"regular customers for life."

Coming on the coattails of this announcement, the FDA approved the use of
FluMist, the first nasally injected vaccine. The company originally had
sought an indication for use in healthy people aged 1-64 years, but it was
denied by the FDA. Reports suggested the vaccine caused a 3.53-fold
increased risk of "asthma events" after the first dose in children 12-59
months of age.[ii] After a 32-month review that included the submission of
additional data, the decision was reversed and on June 17, 2003, the FDA
issued a license to Medimmune to produce FluMist, a live attenuated
influenza vaccine for use in 5-to-49 year olds. In a complicated vote, ACIP
decided that, because only 641 adults over 50 years of age were studied,
there was insufficient evidence of vaccine efficacy in 50-64 year olds.[iii]

MedImmune Inc., FluMist's manufacturer and Washington DC's successful
biotechnology company, was jubilant over the decision. When MedImmune
executives and Wall Street bulls learned that FluMist would be released in
time for the fall flu season, MedImmune's stock soared to $43.32 per share,
more than 63 times earnings.[iv] MedImmune announced it would manufacture
between 4 million and 6 million units of FluMist for the 2003 season.

A $25 million marketing campaign was launched in October by MedImmune, and
its partner, Wyeth, to create a demand for their new product. Ad after ad
demonstrated the inconveniences the flu caused to family members and
co-workers, encouraging everyone to get their flu shot-especially the shot
up the nose. It just so happened that flu outbreaks began to be reported in
Houston earlier than in previous years and about the same time as FluMist
began to be used. Texas Children's Hospital diagnosed 40 patients with the
flu in five days. During comparable weeks of the flu seasons in the previous
two years, only 9 cases per week had required treatment.[v]

However, despite the best efforts of a massive marketing blitz, the big
demand for FluMist didn't materialize. The "billion dollar blockbuster"
lacked the appeal its creators had dreamed about. The advantage of a getting
a mist up the nose over a shot in the arm couldn't justify the hefty price
not covered by health insurance (FluMist for $60-70 vs. flu shot for $7).

By November 17, MedImmune had reduced its 2003 fourth quarter, full-year
revenue expectations as earnings were projected to be $60 million less than
anticipated. MedImmune's CEO, David M. Mott, stated that he was
"disappointed." Half-way through the 12-week peak "immunization season" the
anticipated demand was just not there.[vi] Perplexed, MedImmune announced
on November 23 that it had "hired a consultant to discover why its
needle-free flu vaccine, FluMist, had disappointed sales expectations this
fall and was considering placing the emphasis on FluMist's safety as well as
its convenience."[vii]

Shortly thereafter, the outbreaks initially seen in Texas were being
reported all around the country-much earlier than usually anticipated.
Indeed, even a few children were reported to have died from the flu. The
media hyped these reports as though this were an outbreak of smallpox
instead of the flu, causing hysteria.

With the announcement of the "flu epidemic" blazoned from every conceivable
form of news report, a stampede of patients arrived at doctors' offices,
demanding a shot to ward off the "deadly strain" of influenza. Parents
especially wanted their children vaccinated, and were willing to drive to
cities hours from home and even stand in line for up to 90 minutes.[viii]

But wait.

Doesn't the CDC say repeatedly that 36,000 people die every year from the
flu? Were these reported deaths indicative that all deaths possibly related
to the flu might be different or more numerous than deaths reported any
other year? In a telephone interview on November 17, 2003, this is what the
CDC had to say:

MODERATOR: Miriam Falco from CNN, your line is open.

QUESTION: Hi, Dr. Gerberding, thanks for doing this. Is this the most
serious early onset since 1976?

DR. GERBERDING: This is early onset from the standpoint that we have more
cases, particularly in Texas, where we see it's fairly widespread [outbreak]
of flu. But we have had many years where flu has started early and peaked
earlier than average. So it's a little too early in the game to say whether
or not this portends the worst flu season we've had in a long time.[ix]
(emphasis mine)

Again, on December 11, 2003, Dr. Julie Gerberding reported the following
during a CNN teleconference:

"We don't have scientific evidence or epidemiologic evidence to suggest that
this year's influenza outbreak is worse than it has been in the past or that
the strain is more virulent than strains that we've dealt with before. It's
just simply too early in the course of the outbreak to say for sure how this
will compare overall."[x] (emphasis mine)

If that is the case, isn't the "epidemic" being reported nationwide by the
media a little like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.when there is no
fire? People can be harmed and even killed by the ensuing stampede.

Further evidence suggests that the outbreaks did not deserve the
feeding-frenzy level of media coverage they have received. For example, the
Rocky Mountain News reported on December 11 that officials said flu cases
had been cut in half and the "the worst of worst Colorado season in years is
over." The report went on to say that, "during a typical year, no more than
two children and a total of 750 to 800 Coloradoans die of complications of
the flu or pneumonia." [xi] Do nine reported deaths in children make this
year the "worst of the worst"? Does an increase of 7 deaths over previous
years constitute an epidemic?

In Arizona, the Department of Health Services reported on December 11, 2002
that two adults and one child had died of influenza related sickness.
Michael Murphy, the health department's spokesperson, said that Arizona
typically has 20 children deaths a year caused by influenza.[xii] Is one
death an "epidemic"?

This does not in any way minimize the tragedy of the death of a child. What
needs to be put into context is how extraordinarily small these numbers are
to lead to such media-driven hysteria. Furthermore, what were the underlying
health conditions of those who died? At least one other report stated that
one of the children in Colorado died of the flu and "other causes." A
3-year-old boy who reportedly died from complications of the flu at
Children's Medical Center in Dayton also had a missing pituitary gland and a
cleft pallet.[xiii] Both conditions can be associated with a compromised
immune system. Perhaps the CDC should recommend giving the flu shot only to
children at highest risk-and their immediate family members-instead of
encouraging mass vaccination of children with normal, intact immune systems.

Do we know if the reports of "flu-related illness" and death were actually
caused by an influenza virus? The CDC reports that the majority of
influenza-like illnesses are not caused by the influenza virus, but by other
viruses (e.g., rhinoviruses and respiratory syncytial virus [RSV]),
adenoviruses, and parainfluenza viruses).[xiv] Douglas Benevento, executive
director of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment stated
the department's definition of "flu-related illness" includes kids who have
flu symptoms but haven't had a confirmatory test.[xv]

By early December, reports began to come out that stated the viral strain of
this year's flu "epidemic" was the A/Fujian strain. This was a serious error
on the part of the vaccine program because the most virulent strain of the
flu identified this season was not part of FluMist or Fluzone. In order to
continue encouraging vaccination, the CDC proclaimed that the flu vaccines
"should" confer "some" protection against this strain. The media continued
to blare: get your flu vaccine.

The CDC estimates that only 13 percent of healthy people less than 50 years
of age, or about 17 million Americans, got flu shots last year.[xvi]
Typically, 80 million doses of the flu shot are manufactured annually.
Therefore, millions of unused doses of the flu vaccine from the previous
year's stock are discarded, along with the profits connected to them. With
all this attention on the flu, Aventis certainly benefited. As the
manufacturer of Fluzone (the "flu shot"), it is interesting to note that
Aventis stock rose from $48/share at the beginning of September to $61.43 on
December 12.[xvii] The extra, unanticipated Fluzone sales may not be the
sole contributor to the stock increase, but certainly this can be considered
as playing a role.

Predictably, the demand for the flu vaccine soon outstripped supply. In an
effort to assist health officials, effective December 10, 2003, Wellmark
Blue Cross and Blue Shield was one of many insurance carriers that began
covering the cost of FluMist vaccine through the end of December, or through
the vaccination time period recommended by the CDC for the 2003-2004 flu
season.[xviii]

Now, even the government is getting on the band wagon to support consumer
use of FluMist. Negotiated by the CDC, the agreement will allow state and
local officials to purchase the nasal-spray vaccine for $20 a dose from now
through the middle of February from both MedImmune and Wyeth. At less than
half of the suggested wholesale price of $46 per dose, this may be the
ultimate boost to faltering sales.[xix]

The upshot of the run on flu shots, the newly implemented insurance coverage
and the boost from the federal government has surely created a bonanza for
MedImmune. The company probably hasn't had to spend an additional marketing
dime to implement the ideas of its newly hired consultants. Much of its
marketing was accomplished for free.through the Six O'clock news.

-----------------------------------------------

[i] MMWR. September 27, 2002/51(38);864, 875

[ii]ePediatric News. July 2003, Volume 37, Number 7.

[iii] CDC.

[iv]The Washington Post. MedImmune's Pain-Free Ambitions. March 18, 2002;
Page E01

[v]October 15, 2003.

[vi] PRNewswire November 17, 2003.

[vii] Washington Post. November 25, 2003. "MedImmune Seeks Help in
Relaunching FluMist."

[viii] Rocky Mountain News. December 11, 2003 "Cases of flu cut in half."

[ix] CDC News Conference Transcript. November 17, 2003. Update on Current
Influenza Season.

[x] CDC News Conference Transcript. December 11, 2003. Influenza Update.

[xi] Rocky Mountain News. December 11, 2003 "Cases of flu cut in half."

[xii] The Navaho Times. December 11, 2002. "Flood of flu cases using up
vaccine."

[xiii] December 15, 2003. "Toddler Dies Of Flu Complications"

[xiv] MMWR November 9, 2001/50(44); 984-6

[xv] Rocky Mountain News. December 11, 2003 "Cases of flu cut in half."

[xvi] Washington Post. June 18, 2003, Pg. A01. "Spray Vaccine For Flu Wins
FDA Clearance."

[xvii] Forbes Financial Report.

[xviii] Blue Cross/Wellmark.

[xix] The Washington Post. Tuesday, December 16, 2003; Page E01Government To
Purchase FluMist at A Discount. Deal Could Give Boost To MedImmune Vaccine

The Flu Scare Game

2004-12-01T21:23:00.000-08:00

The Flu Scare Game

by John Keller

I always know when it's flu season. First, the media begins its usual
role as hysterical government press secretary, uncritically trumpeting the
same cooked numbers about the coming flu epidemic. The steady drone of
recent broadcasts, including one on NBC's Today Show (10/6/04), warn that
the flu kills about 36,000 people every year in the United States. The
broadcasts usually cite the CDC as the source of this huge number. This is
borne out by the main CDC page, with its immediate link to flu information
and statistics. It's a crock, a lie, and a sham; a conspiracy to generate
fear and stampede people to use a vaccine of questionable effectiveness to
the benefit of pro-immunization bureaucrats, and big pharma. Sounds harsh,
but follow the math and the money.

A cursory glance at the most recent (2001) death statistics from the Data
Highlights page posted on the CDC site, shows that Influenza and Pneumonia
(International Cause of Death numbers J10 and J18) killed 62,034 people.
Quick mental subtraction would tell you that just over half were killed by
the flu, versus pneumonia, if the 36,000 number is correct. So far, the size
of the flu epidemic seems plausible. Here's the link to the National Vital
Statistics System page within the CDC site that has the Data Highlights and
Full Reports.

This is important, because the Data Highlights page is just that, a single
page highlight of all the various mortality stats gathered by the CDC. Now,
let's dig into the more detailed reports. The "Deaths: Final Data for 2001"
report is an 8MB PDF. Skip it unless you want all the charts detailing
deaths by race, age, and ethnicity. The 2002 preliminary report contains the
interesting parts of the 2001 final report, as well as data from 2002. The
second search result for J10 (the mortality code for flu) brings us to page
16 of 48, which contains the breakout of flu and pneumonia. Total flu deaths
for 2002: 753. Pneumonia accounted for the other 65,231 deaths. Scrolling to
the right are the numbers for 2001. Again, total flu deaths were under one
thousand, coming in at 257. That's right, less than a thousand people died
of the flu in 2001 and 2002, according to the CDC's own numbers.

Searching around on the CDC website reveals several more pages that call
into question the 36,000 deaths per year number. For example, this page
dedicated to the 2003-04 season states that "152 influenza-associated deaths
among children" occurred during the 2003-04 flu season, but carefully avoids
answering its own question about the total number of dead in the 2003-2004
season. Instead, it goes on in serious sounding quais-scientific statistico
blather: "During the 2003-04 season, the percentage of P & I-associated
deaths was higher than the epidemic threshold for 9 consecutive weeks."
Again, lumping pneumonia and flu deaths together, even though the CDC does
not recognize the flu as one of the many causes of pneumonia.

Finally, the CDC's own "Flu Pandemics" page puts deaths in the United States
from the Spanish Flu Pandemic of 1918-1919 at 500,000, Asian Flu pandemic of
1957-58 at 70,000, and the Hong Kong Flu pandemic of 1968-69 at 34,000.
These are the three 20th century pandemics, and two of them killed close to
what the CDC is now calling average. What's going on here?

How is it that the CDC could be off by two orders of magnitude between their
own official mortality stats, and the press kit number of 36,000 deaths per
year. Could it be that the CDC is somehow misleading the public about the
relative dangers of the flu?

Here is a link to the CDC-AMA sponsored National Influenza Vaccination
Summit for 2004. This is an invitation only conference hosted by the CDC and
the American Medical Association. Luckily for the public, the speaker list,
agenda, and presentations are posted online. The attendees list of this
CDC-AMA sponsored event reads like a lobbying group for flu immunization. Of
the 97 attendees, vaccine manufacturers CHIRON (10), Aventis-Pasteur (10),
Medimmune (5), and Baxter Vaccines (4) were a full 29 strong. Medical
Conglomerates Kaiser Permanente (6) and McKesson (3) rounded out the big
corporate influence cabal. The CDC sent 39 attendees and the AMA (proper,
not members) had 4. The remainder of the attendees were a mix of state and
local health departments (e.g. Rhode Island Medical Society), smaller pharma
companies (e.g. Solvay Pharmaceuticals), and pro-immunization organizations
(e.g. Sabin Vaccine Institute).

And did these learned scholars of immunology, virology, and general public
health debate the merits of vaccinating against a virus that kills less than
1,000 people in most years? Perhaps they were celebrating the fact that only
a few hundred died from the flu, thanks to their vaccines? Not exactly. The
manufacture, distribution, and administration of flu vaccine is a cash cow,
worth several hundred million dollars a year. Here's a quote from CHIRON
CORP's 2003 Annual Report: "Sales of our flu vaccines were $332.4 million,
$90.0 million and $74.7 million in 2003, 2002 and 2001, respectively." Those
numbers represent just the manufacture of flu vaccine, from one company, not
including any of the profits from the distribution, or administration of the
vaccine.

Buried in the speakers presentations from the conference are some
interesting stats. It turns out that 147 children under 18 died of the flu
in the 2003-04 season. Of those, 101 reported whether or not the child
received the flu vaccine. Of those, 22 had received at least one flu shot,
and 4 had received multiple flu shots. That puts the percentage of immunized
children that died at just under 22% of all children (page 10 of 23, Cochi
Presentation.) Further in the report we learn that the CDC's own studies
show they believe the flu vaccine to be only 16%-63% effective against the
flu, while a French report shows 61% effectiveness against
influenza-like-illness (without confirming that it's actually the flu).
According to a Harvard study, (Nowak presentation, page 26), only 22% of
parents of children 6-23 months had them immunized, and only 30% of children
under 18 were immunized. Now, I'm no Dr. John Lott when it comes to
statistics, but if the ratio of immunized to non-immunized children in the
total population (22%-30%) is nearly identical to the immunized to
non-immunized ratio of children in an admittedly small sample of children
that died (22%), the case could be made that the flu vaccine is largely
worthless.

In other words, the best case these needle-happy pro-flu vaccinators can
mount shows that their immunization program would work, maybe, just over
half the time, but some simple number crunching of our own shows that its
probably much less than that. The coup de grace' comes from one of the CDC's
own, Glen Nowak, PhD., in a presentation titled Planning for the 2004-5
Vaccination Season: A Communication Situation Analysis" the good doctor lays
out a media manipulation campaign that would make Goebbels proud. Pages 27
on detail a literal "7 Step Recipe" that the CDC will use, in conjunction
with the virus makers, to "(Frame)... the flu season in terms that motivate
behavior (e.g., as very severe, more severe than last or past years,
deadly)".

To summarize thus far:

a.. The flu kills fewer than 1,000 people on average, not 36,000
b.. Flu Vaccine is of highly dubious effectiveness
c.. The CDC and Vaccine Manufacturers are in closed door sessions with the
primary stated purpose of boosting vaccination numbers by spreading fear
At this point, some may think, "Hey, it might be worth getting, just as a
preventative measure. Sort of like throwing a little salt over your shoulder
, what can it hurt?" Plenty. The good Dr. Donald Miller, cardiac surgeon and
Professor of Surgery at the University of Washington in Seattle, recently
did an article about the dangers of mercury in vaccines and amalgam
fillings. The CDC has a position on Thimerosal (methyl mercury based
preservative) in flu vaccines posted to its website. Without admitting that
Thimerosal might be responsible for the epidemics of autism, alzheimers, and
ADD in this country, the CDC gives us a sop about taking it out or removing
it. Reading the fine print, however, tells us: "the majority of influenza
vaccines distributed in the United States currently contain Thimerosal as a
preservative." Furthermore, in a bit of regulatory trickery, the FDA is
letting smaller amounts go undisclosed : "..some contain only trace amounts
of Thimerosal and are considered by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
to be preservative-free." In other words, even if you ask to see the vaccine
label, check for Thimerosal, and get a warm fuzzy feeling about the shot
being labeled "Thimerosal free," thanks to the FDA's accommodation of drug
manufacturers, it could still contain mercury.

When the major manufacturers of flu vaccine get together with the CDC in a
closed door summit with the sole purpose of figuring out how to stick 185
million doses of a questionable vaccine into a population in which less than
1,000 people a year die, what should we call it? Yes, Virginia, it is a
conspiracy. Luckily the conspirators are foolish enough to believe that
their website is safely hidden amidst all the chaff of the Internet, or
else, are so brazen in their contempt for the general population that they
think we can't do a little math and conclude "The vaccine doesn't work, and
the flu is a flim-flam!"

Eventually, there will be another pandemic of the flu, and thousands will
die. The CDC should concentrate on finding ways to lower the spread, working
alternatives to vaccines, and ways to minimizing the severity of the flu,
rather than pumping out fake numbers, creating an aura of fear and hysteria,
and shilling for profits to huge pharma companies.

Footnote: Thanks to the Health Sciences Institute daily health e-letter for
calling this fraud to my attention.

October 9, 2004

John Keller [send him mail] owns a Technology Consulting and a Real Estate
business in Atlanta, GA.

Toxic House

2004-12-01T20:06:00.000-08:00

Unfortunately there are a few remaining sceptics that are unwilling to
accept the fact that Toxic Chemicals are a "real problem" in our homes.
David Suzuki, the host of The Nature of Things may change your opinion. Michael McCullough, DC

THE TOXIC HOUSE BY CBC TELEVISION. 11/03/04

Below you will find a link to the website for The Nature of Things.
If you scroll to the bottom of the page there is a Lauch Button for an
interactive "Toxic House". If you just want a printable version of the
information use the link below.
Nature Of Things

This is a link to the Toxic House
The Toxic Hourse Printable Version

Toxins in Cosmetics (L'Oreal)

2004-11-20T22:43:00.000-08:00

http://www.nbc5.com/money/3930118/detail.html?z=dp&dpswid=2265994&dppid=65192

Target 5: Bad Hair DayCosmetic Industry Says Its Products Are Safe
POSTED: 12:13 pm CST November 18, 2004
UPDATED: 9:54 am CST November 19, 2004

CHICAGO -- Most women begin their day with a little cycloplenta siloxane, followed by a dab of trimethicone for good measure.

While most consumers know their hair products by brand name instead of ingredients, questions are being raised about whether consumers are too trusting when it comes to the products they lather and slather up top, Target 5's Lisa Parker reported.

Like any complicated recipe, when it comes to hair products, most consumers only care about the end result -- whether the product gives their hair more volume or curl, whether there is less frizz, or the product gives them that intangible something. But behind the claims on the labels are some ingredients as unregulated as boxing promoter Don King's hair.

"That's where the concern comes in," said Jane Houlihan of the Environmental Working Group. "We are using so many products with so many ingredients -- there are no safety testing requirements and no federal restrictions of what can and cannot be used in cosmetics."

The Food and Drug Administration -- the federal agency charged with overseeing food and drug safety -- has absolutely no authority over what goes in the personal care products sold in this country, Parker reported. The FDA can't require companies to do safety testing, can't get manufacturers to file data on ingredients, can't get them to disclose information about cosmetic-related injuries -- or force them to recall hazardous products.

"Is that reason enough to toss your gloss?" Parker asked.

Cosmetologists said consumers should hold onto their hair products. They're better than ever -- although harder to decipher.

"They're designed to hold, to lift, to add shine," said Diane Moltagi of the National Cosmetology Association. "If you were to go to a store to pick up a bottle of shampoo, conditioner or hairspray, you would need to bring your chemistry book with you."

And perhaps a biology book, Parker reported. Houlihan said the real question is what the long-term effects are of using hair products.

"We're exposing ourselves to a lot of chemicals," Houlihan said. "There are a lot of unanswered questions. So as a consumer right now, you have to step back and say, 'Is this worth it? Can I cut down on the number of things I am using?'"

The average American woman, according to the Environmental Working Group's study, uses 12 personal care products a day -- that includes several hair products, Parker reported. The average man uses six.

According to the Environmental Working Group's study of 7,500 personal care products, 89 percent of the ingredients in cosmetics have never been assessed for safety. The group puts hair dyes high on its list of products to avoid -- and some headlines from Europe seem to back that up, Parker reported.

In 2000, a British woman reportedly died within an hour of using a hair dye called "Movida" by L'Oreal. Her death was blamed on a severe allergic reaction to the dye. More than a dozen other women reported severe burns from the same product, according to class-action attorneys, who allege the company's line -- promoted in part by singer Beyonce -- downplays the potential risk attached to the products.

A L'Oreal representative said the company has "total confidence in the safety of its products" and said "allergic reactions are rare."

The cosmetic industry says the concerns are much ado about nothing, Parker reported. They say consumers can have complete confidence in these products because manufacturers make sure they're safe.

Male Fish Becoming Female

2004-11-09T19:52:00.000-08:00

Hopefully many of you watched the story on NBC Nightly News last night
about "Male Fish Becoming Female?" This story is only the beginning
when it comes to the effects of water pollution on our environment and
on our health. Unfortunately some people are under the assumption that
water treatment plants purify the water before they recycle it back into
the rivers. If you still believe this, you might change your opinion
after reading this news broadcast. If there were no alternatives to
caustic and toxic chemical cleaning products it would be different, but
when there are environmentally safer products that are more effective
and less expensive and you are unwilling to switch because of habit,
then it is a tragedy. A tragedy they we all will pay for someday.

I am convinced that before long there will be laws that restrict the use
of caustic cleaning products in our homes. Unfortunately it will take
more laws to get some people to do what is right. For all of you who
have completely converted your homes to Melaleuca's environmentally safe
Ecosense Products, thank you for doing the Right Thing for all of us!

Michael McCullough,DC

______________________________________________________________________

Male fish becoming female?
Researchers worry about estrogen and pollutants in the water

By Tom Costello
Correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 7:31 p.m. ET Nov. 8, 2004

BOULDER, Colo. - Researchers in Colorado have made a startling
discovery. Fish, apparently male, are developing female sexual organs.
Scientists believe it's the result of too much estrogen in the water and
they're finding estrogen in rivers across the country.

In Colorado's rivers and streams, scientists are waist-deep in ritual of
the season, using electric currents to stun native fish to the surface
where they're measured and checked. But what they discovered in the
white sucker fish has got even veteran scientists concerned.

"I've done a lot of studies throughout my career which extends back to
1973," says research associate John Woodling. "This is the very first
time that what I've found scared me."

"This fish has characteristics of both male and female," says Dr. David
O. Norris of the University of Colorado, Boulder.

And scientists have found lots of them in three Colorado rivers, all of
them downstream from sewage treatment plants.

In the Boulder Creek, female white suckers outnumbered males five to one
and 50 percent of the males also had female sex tissue.

Researchers say the cause is too much estrogen in the water, a natural
female hormone that is found in every sewer system. But also, they say,
certain chemical compounds in detergents and soaps can mimic estrogen.

Barbara Biggs, of Denver's largest sewage plant, says most of the
nation's sewage plants simply can't remove all the estrogen in the
water.

"We're concerned about the effect on aquatic life, but we're also
concerned about our ability to actually treat for these estrogens and
estrogen mimickers," says Biggs.

Estrogen mimickers are believed to be caused by chemicals called
nonylphenols, found in everything from paints and rubber to cosmetics
and plastics. They are considered a possible cause of kidney, eye, liver
and reproductive problems.

They've been banned in much of Europe and are under review in Canada,
but are still common in America, where they are flowing out of sewage
plants and into clean water flowing into America's rivers.

Government researchers recently found natural estrogens and estrogen
mimickers in 80 percent of the streams they tested in 30 states.

"We would be ingesting those chemicals, would absorb them, and they
would add to whatever natural hormones we already have in the body,"
says Dr. Norris.

No one is certain what the impact is on humans. But since finding
evidence that estrogen may be turning male fish into female fish,
scientists are now looking at what it means for the nation's drinking
water.

In a state that prides itself on living in harmony with nature, this is
evidence, say researchers, of a hormonal imbalance.

© 2004 MSNBC Interactive
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6436617/

Study Links Breast Cancer to Toxins

2004-11-09T19:51:00.000-08:00

Posted: October 7, 2004 at 4:46 p.m.
BAY AREA (KRON) -- A new report could help shed some light on the dramatic rise in breast cancer in the U.S. The study, by the Breast Cancer Fund and Breast Cancer Action, says exposure to synthetic chemicals, pesticides and radiation may be partly to blame.

Every 13 minutes in the U.S. a woman dies from breast cancer. Only about 10% of those deaths can be attributed to genetic causes. In around 50% of cases there are no known risk factors to cause the disease.

Now this latest study, entitled "The State Of The Evidence 2004," says the answer may be all around us.

Jeanne Rizzo, executive director of the Breast Cancer Fund, says, "There are 85,000 chemicals registered for use in the United States. Less than 10% of them have been tested for their impact on health and the environment."

Rizzo says women are exposed to toxic chemicals every day of their lives, at home, at work, in the water they drink, the air they breathe. "Overall we found chlorinated chemicals, radiation, hormone disrupters, hormones, anything that acts like a hormone, xeno estrogens, we found those contributing to breast cancer," she says.

The report brings together evidence from 21 studies linking the health of our environment to our own health.

The researchers say many synthetic chemicals have an effect on the body similar to estrogen, a hormone known to fuel breast cancer growth.

They say their report is a wake-up call, to get the government to rethink the process that lets so many untested chemicals on the market. It's also a wake-up call for women telling them they can take action now to reduce their risk. They can think twice about exposing themselves to such things as radiation or MRI's that are not medically necessary. And they can use the power of their pocket book.

"Well, you can make a decision," Rizzo says. "Do you want to buy a nail polish or a deodorant or a lotion that has a known carcinogen in it?"

The report calls on the government to phase out all chemicals known to cause cancer or genetic damage. It also calls for more studies to monitor the presence of chemicals in people, so we know exactly what health risks they may pose.

(Copyright 2004, KRON 4. All rights reserved)

Detergent and Dogs Don't Mix

2004-11-09T19:49:00.000-08:00

May 7, 2003
2 On Your Side: Detergent and dogs don’t mix

GRESHAM - We have a warning for pet owners.
A woman said her dog suffered serious chemical burns from a laundry detergent most people would consider harmless.

KATU's 2 On Your Side reporter Ed Teachout has the story.

_____________
You wouldn't think laundry soap could be harmful to your pet just by getting on their skin.

But this Wednesday one Basset Hound's misadventure is a good warning to all pet owners.

Seven-year old Scarlet is recovering after getting into a particular laundry detergent that many folks have at home.

"A tremendous skin reaction over her entire bottom half of her body, you see her quiver when I touch her," said Dr. Chuck Hawkins who is a Veterinarian.

Connected to an IV, Scarlet is sedated and she hasn't eaten for two days.

"You can see where the spread marks are where the detergent had spilled. It spilled inside the cage," said Hawkins.

The bottle of liquid Tide was on the floor near the cage, somehow Scarlet got to it and got the lid off.

After perhaps hours of lying in the Tide Marci Cook found her dog bleeding and in pain.

Veterinarians aren't sure if it's a chemical burn or skin reaction.

The label's only warning is to 'keep out of reach of children and to flush with water if it gets in your eyes.'

Cook said she didn't think laundry detergent was that harmful so she didn't have it stored up high with other chemicals.

"Now I know to move it up but I think this is harmless. I use it on my clothes I didn't think this would have any impact on a dog, I mean its soap and now I know it's not like soap," said Marci Cook.

Cook said Tide hasn't given her vet any information on the chemicals inside the detergent.

"I was able to talk to a pharmacists contracted to the company but I haven't got a call back from the toxicologist at the company," said Cook.

While Scarlet rests, her owner has a message to all pet owners.

"Don't leave any chemicals or any detergent - anything on the floor where dogs can get to it. Because I don't want anyone to go through what I've had to," said Cook.

Late Wednesday afternoon the makers of Tide, Proctor and Gamble, sent KATU a written statement.

It said their safety experts have been in contact with Dr. Hawkins.

But Hawkins said a toxicologist for the company called him late Wednesday. Which is about an hour after we contacted Proctor and Gamble.

What's in your shampoo?

2004-11-06T06:54:00.000-08:00

Science can make hair smoother and shinier than ever, but consumer
groups question the safety of untested ingredients

DAWN FALLIK

Knight Ridder

Your hair is drab. Dull. Fine. Needs more volume. Needs less frizz. It
needs something.

Maybe it needs cetyl alcohol. Mixed with a dash of propylene glycol,
and how about a little butane?

Once upon a time, people lathered, rinsed, never repeated, and went on
their merry bad-hair days. Then, science and chemistry specialized the
way folks wax, condition and shine.

About 10 years ago, companies began creating new compounds so they
could design products for specific hair types, for curls and fine hair
and thick locks alike.

Now, some consumer groups worry about the mix of chemicals that meld
into that sudsy rinse every morning. They point to incomplete labeling
and little government oversight of the cosmetics and hair industry,
accusations the Food and Drug Administration does not deny.

"The FDA needs to define what is safe to put in these products, and
come up with standards," says Tim Kropp, a senior scientist with the
Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit consumer organization in
Washington that helped produce a study on problem ingredients in
everyday products. "There are no safety standards in place."

Independent analysts and hair-care executives say the products are
safe. They say some ingredients may cause irritation in rare
circumstances, but the ingredients are not toxic.

"The good news is: Hair-care products are better than ever before,"
says Paula Begoun, a former makeup artist who writes extensively about
the cosmetics industry. "It's really hard to buy a bad product, but
you can get conned by products that are overpriced or bad for your
hair."

There are many unrecognizable ingredients on a shampoo bottle label.
Propylene glycol (which inhibits freezing). Ethylparaben (a
preservative that prevents bacterial growth). Cyclopentasiloxane
(smoothes the hair). It's hard for a curly-haired girl to figure out
whether the ingredients back up what's promised on the label and
support the $25 price tag.

Basically, all shampoos have the same recipe. Lathering agents.
Cleansers. Preservatives. And fragrances. So do all conditioners.

OK, maybe most don't have butane, a pressurizing agent that helps
force the mousse out of the can. (It doesn't harm people, just the
environment, Begoun says.)

The government doesn't help consumers figure out the suds either. The
ingredients used in cosmetics and hair-care products, unlike
pharmaceuticals, have not been tested, so there's no list of products
for consumers to watch for, says Kropp.

"The companies do their own testing, but they don't have to submit
data to show it's safe," says Linda Katz, director of the FDA's office
of cosmetics and colors.

The government hears about problems from consumers and watches for
trends before investigating a particular product.

Most reactions "are just rashes or local irritation," Katz says.
"Sometimes people complain that the product just made them look worse."

Environmental groups worry about the cumulative effects of all the
products people use, from shampoos and conditioners to floor cleaners.

Tom Natan is a chemical engineer for the National Environmental Trust,
an advocacy group that helped conduct a study in May on chemicals in
everyday products. The study noted that a lot of the same chemicals
appeared in many common products and no one was studying those
compounds.

"We don't know very much about these chemicals; no one does," Natan
says.

There are some concerns about specific products; phthalates, for
example, are found in fragrances (listed on most hair products as
simply "fragrance"). Some studies have found that phthalates have
caused cancer in rats. But companies do not have to list the
ingredients of products purchased elsewhere, often fragrances or
colors, according to FDA regulations.

Then there are the preservatives, the parabens, used to keep products
from growing bacteria. Other studies in rats have found a risk of
disrupting the hormone system, says Begoun, author of "Don't Go
Shopping for Hair-Care Products Without Me."

But even organic products can have some chemical ingredients.

"There is no such thing as a completely natural product," says Begoun,
who uses a dark-colored dye on her hair. "Should you avoid products
that have parabens or phthalates? No one really knows."

Many consumers say they don't much care what's in the bottle as long
as their 'do does what they want it to do.

Victoria McCoy, 31, an interior designer, has ironed, permed, dyed and
rolled her naturally thick, wavy, dark-brown hair.

"There was one time I had highlights and they left the bleach on too
long and then it turned out I was allergic to the bleach and all my
hair fell out," says McCoy, tressed in a shoulder-length
copperish-brown tone.

Now she dyes her hair about once a month, and uses fairly inexpensive
shampoo and conditioner -- L'Oreal Fresh Vive and Suave conditioner
(at around $3.50 and $1.50 respectively) -- and very expensive styling
products -- Texture's curl creme and Texture shine ($14 and $12).

About 15 years ago, hair-care products underwent a revolution, partly
due to the introduction of silicone. The silicone clings to the
strands, taming and conditioning frizzy and dry hair without making it
greasy.

"As the baby boomer population comes of age, they have all different
kinds of hair issues," says Alan Meyer, vice president of research and
design for L'Oreal, a division of Proctor & Gamble. "Younger consumers
all want a unique kind of hairstyle, look for products with hold, to
spike their hair."

In the '50s, it was all about hair spray and hold. In the '60s, it was
natural products. The '70s brought the slicked-back look, and with the
'80s came mousse and styling gel. And then, in the mid-'90s, the
number of options exploded.

Now there are shampoos that volumize (for that big-hair look) and ones
that thicken; conditioners that detangle and others that calm. Styling
products include gels and mousses, waxes and pomades, creams and
serums, all for particular hair types.

Although you might need a chemistry degree to decipher the label,
generally most alcohols -- cetyl alcohol in particular -- are fatty
acids, used for thickening and coating. Glycerins attract water from
the air and make hair feel fuller and give it bounce. Lanolin and
other oils make hair feel smoother.

The Environmental Working Group, which gave risk ratings to thousands
of shaving creams, shampoos, colognes and lotions, says no one
shampoo, conditioner or styling product stood out as particularly
toxic or worrisome. But hair dyes, especially the dark ones, were of
some concern, the consumer group says.

For example, it rated Just For Men Shampoo-In Haircolor in Jet Black
as a 9.5 out of 10 on the potential concern scale, because it includes
coal tar dye. The dye has been linked to bladder cancer, but there
have been no studies confirming a cause-and-effect relationship.

Consumers should be aware of the basics, particularly products to
which they may be sensitive or allergic, Begoun says. ON THE WEB To
search specific products, go to www.ewg.org/ issues/cosmetics/
virtualdrugstore.php. PEPPERMINT/ MENTHOL They smell great, but can
irritate skin. PARABENS Used to prevent bacterial growth. They have
been found to disrupt rats' hormone systems, but it is not known
whether they are harmful to humans. PHTHALATES Often listed simply as
"fragrance" on labels, these chemicals have been cited as potential
carcinogens. A few rat and mouse studies have linked them to cancer; a
link has

not been found in humans. COAL TAR Used in some hair-coloring
products, particularly dark colors, it has been linked in recent
studies to various cancers. But according to the Food and Drug
Administration, the link remains unclear. The agency suggests that
consumers may want to use henna products, which are plant- or
acetate-based.

Do you really want a Flu Shot? (ways to avoid the flu!)

2004-11-06T06:37:00.000-08:00

FLU VACCINE SHORTAGE - MUCH A DO ABOUT NOTHING

Folks

Last Sunday, we drove through an area of accumulated snow on our way to
the Bill's game. I guess this means winter is on its way along with
potential exposure to the bugs that seem to come along at this time of
year... particularly the flu virus.

Almost daily, people ask me if it's a good idea to get a flu shot. I
don't personally get one but that is a personal decision each of you
will have to make. Let me give you some information that may help you in
making that decision.

There is no such thing as the flu. There a many strains involved and
this year's flu is not the same as last years. If you do get a flu
shot, it is last year's strains. The National Institutes of Health
(NIH) state that the best you can hope for is about 30% protection.
If you and your doctor decide that a flu shot is best for you, there are
three things you can do to improve the effectiveness of the vaccination.
According to two different studies reported last year, regular exercise,
combined with a balanced diet of nutritious foods, will help your
vaccination keep the flu away, especially if stress levels are also
managed. What these studies don't reveal (because they weren't designed
to) is that a regimen of regular exercise, nutritious foods, and habits
that promote lower stress levels will help prevent the flu WITHOUT a
vaccine, because all of these methods do the one essential thing that
has to be done to avoid the flu: they enhance the immune system.
IF YOU DONT GET A FLU SHOT AND YOUR IMMUNE SYSTEM IS DEPRESSED YOU
WILL VERY LIKELY GET THE FLU.
IF YOU DO GET A FLU SHOT AND YOUR IMMUNE SYSTEM IS DEPRESSED YOU
WILL VERY LIKELY GET THE FLU.
One of the most troubling problems with flu shots is that you're not
just being injected with flu strains, you're also getting dosed with
several unpleasant additives, such as; thimerosal (a mercury derivative
added as a preservative), formaldehyde (to kill viruses), aluminum (to
promote antibody response), and ethylene glycol (also known as
antifreeze, used in vaccines as a disinfectant).

Two words: NO THANKS!

I think the risk/reward ratio is too heavily stacked in favor of the
risk side.

The biggest risk in my opinion comes from the additives (or
contaminants) within the vaccine. The most controversial one being
thimerosal. there is a very strong scientific line of thinking that
relates the increasing incidence of Autism to this substance which is
injected via vaccines into babies. Not only is the finger being pointed
at thimerosal as being the villain in the case of Autism but it is being
suggested that it is a contributing factor in the increasing prevalence
of Alzheimer's. Many cases of Guillemin-Barre syndrome have also been
reported.

One of the worlds leading immunogeneticists and biologists Hugh
Fudenberg MD suggests that if an individual has had five consecutive flu
shots, their chance of getting Alzheimer's disease is ten times greater
than if they had only had a maximum of two shots. (Dr Fudenberg is
considered a world authority on the matter with over 850 papers
published in peer reviewed journals.)

Dr Fudenberg claims that this is due to the mercury and aluminum in flu
shots. These toxins build up in the brain causing cognitive dysfunction.

Of course not everyone agrees with his and other experts findings. In
fact a group of Toronto MD's disagreed to such an extent that they went
to nursing homes and asked people with Alzheimer's if they remember
getting a flu injection? Most could not remember getting one If this
was not such a serious subject this would be funny given that many
patients cannot even remember
their own spouse's name! Anyway, this research was reported by the
media as being proof that the flu shots were safe. The media neglected
to mention that the research was tagged with a
disclaimer which said "Because of the self reported nature of the risk
factor questionnaire we cannot exclude the possibility of recall bias."

NASAL FLU VACCINE...

The patent medicine manufacturer of Flu-Mist, the flu vaccine given by
nasal spray, is still at. I heard a radio advertisement for the product
today. The manufacturers MedImmune/Wyeth, have earmarked $25M for direct
to consumer advertising and another $75M for marketing to Doctors. They
will have a highly convincing sales pitch, wouldn't you rather use a
nasal spray instead of being poked with a needle. What you have to
consider is if it really is worth taking.

Consider what the manufacturer has to say about this nasal vaccine:

1. It is not approved for children under 5 years of age because it
increases the risk of asthma attacks.

2. They admit it is only effective in about 50% of the people who take
it.

3. It is not approved for adults over 50 years of age as trials have not
shown it to be either effective or safe for that age group.

4. Typical side effects are sore throat, coughing, runny nose and nasal
congestion. Aren't these the symptoms of the flu? WHY would anyone give
themselves flu symptoms?

BUT... this is the biggest point to bear in mind!

5. It should only be taken by HEALTHY people who do not have compromised
immune systems. This is somewhat ironic given that these are the very
group of people who are the least susceptible to the flu. It is those
people who have sub standard immune systems that are most at risk and
these people should not take this product.

Most people do not know the state of their immune system so I guess that
a lot of people will get sick after taking this vaccine...

WHAT ELSE CAN YOU DO?

There are alternative steps that you can take however to avoid becoming
a flu victim. Of course as with all measures they are not guaranteed
but if you adopt them, your chances of coming down with the flu are
considerably lessened and in the event that you do succumb to it your
recovery will certainly be much quicker and the impact less severe. If
you do come down with the flu please remember, flu is a virus.
ANTIBIOTICS have NO effect on viruses. DO NOT ASK FOR OR ACCEPT
ANTIBIOTICS FOR YOUR TREATMENT.

The key in avoiding the flu and many other ailments is building a strong
immune system. The importance of a strong immune system goes way beyond
protection from flu and viruses. What needs to be appreciated is that
without a healthy immune system other body systems will not function
correctly. A case in point is the digestive system. A healthy digestive
system depends on a healthy immune system which is why nutrients for the
immune system are so important.

Here are the steps that you need to take to achieve a healthy immune
system:

1. Get adequate sleep.

2. Eat a nutritious diet.

3. Maintain a reasonable level of exercise.

4. Avoid stress.

5. Supplement with nutrients that have a scientifically proven record
for building up immune systems.

The first four points are self explanatory so I will just briefly deal
with point five

Activating an under active system can be achieved in several ways:

Stimulate macrophage production and activity with complex sugars or
polysaccharides. Examples include: Astragalus promotes resistance
against disease and appears to help restore normal immune function for
cancer patients. It is also a powerful antioxidant and protects the
liver from toxins. Echinacea has profound immune-enhancing effects and
anti-viral activities.
Ginkgo biloba improves blood supply throughout the body and is a
powerful antioxidant.
St. John's Wort is a natural blood purifier and fights viral infections.

Other herbs that are used to boost the immune system protecting the body
against infection and disease include ginger and quercetin,
The immune system can be maintained or returned to normal by providing
immune boosters such as vitamins A, E and C, minerals, other
antioxidants and super anti-oxidants particularly proanthocyanadins and
quercitin.
Probiotics introduced to the digestive tract are good bacteria that
promote a healthy functioning digestive system and help to destroy
harmful bacteria.

Cosmetic Products Containing Chemicals

2004-10-25T20:33:00.002-07:00

Cosmetic products containing the chemicals
Broadcast: January 28, 2003 | Reporter: Erica Johnson; Producer: Carmel Smyth; Researcher: Colman Jones

Sources: The Safe Shoppers Bible, 1995; Unreasonable Risk, 2001

Feminine care and body powders

Product: Talcum Powder
Manufactured by: Johnson and Johnson
Contains: talc

Shaving creams

Product: Foamy Skin Conditioning Shaving Cream
Manufactured by: Gilette, Inc.
Contains: BHA, quarternium-15 (formaldehyde releaser), TEA (interacts with nitrites to form carcinogenic nitrosamines)

Toothpastes and powders

Product: Crest Tartar Contol Toothpaste
Manufactured by: Procter and Gamble, Inc.
Contains: FD & C Blue #1, saccharin

Product: Colgate Toothpowder, Fluoride Gel Toothpaste, Tartar Control Flouride Toothpaste
Manufactured by: Colgate-Palmolive, Inc.
Contains: saccharin

Mouthwashes

Product: Scope Mint Mouthwash
Manufactured by: Procter & Gamble
Contains: FD & C Blue #1, FD & C Yellow #5, saccharin

Hair conditioners

Product: Alberto VO5 Conditioner (Balsam and Protein, Collagen, Essence of Natural Henna & Natural Body)
Manufactured by: Alberto Culver Canada, Inc.
Contains: formaldehyde, FD & C Red #4, FD & C Yellow #6, polysorbate 80 (usually contaminated with 1,4 dioxane)

Hair sprays and styling preparations

Product: Alberto VO5 Conditioning Hairdressing (Normal/Dry Hair)
Manufactured by: Alberto Culver Canada, Inc.
Contains: BHA, lanolin (often contaminated with DDT and other carcinogenic pesticides)

Dandruff shampoos

Product: Neutrogena Therapeutic T/Gel Shampoo
Manufactured by: Neutrogena Corporation
Contains: coal tar

Product: Tegrin Advanced Formula Dandruff Shampoo (Extra Conditioning or Fresh Herbal)
Manufactured by: GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Consumer Health Care
Contains: coal tar, DEA (interacts with nitrites to form carcinogenic nitrosamines), FD&C Blue #1

Hair-colouring products for men

Product: Clairol Option Instant Natural Black
Manufactured by: Clairol, Inc.
Contains:phenylenediamines, DEA (interacts with nitrites to form carcinogenic nitrosamines)

Product: Grecian Formula Liquid with Conditioner
Manufactured by: Combe Inc.
Contains: lead acetate

[N.B. From the website of the Oakland, California-based Center for Environmental Health: "Combe Inc. is the manufacturer of the Grecian Formula line of gradual hair dyes, and many other products. Lead is one of the active ingredients in Grecian Formula. As a result of CEH action, Combe agreed to reduce the lead content of the product by 50 per cent. Because of the chemistry of this product, we believe that this reduction actually reduced lead exposures to users and their families by far greater than 50 per cent."]

Hair-colouring products for women

Product: Clairol Nice 'n Easy
Manufactured by: Clairol, Inc.
Contains: phenylenediamines, DEA (interacts with nitrites to form carcinogenic nitrosamines)

Product: Clairol Nice n' Easy (Permanent Haircolor)
Manufactured by: Clairol, Inc.
Contains: quarternium-15 (formaldehyde releaser), DEA (interacts with nitrites to form carcinogenic nitrosamines), phenylene-diamines

Product: Clairol Ultress Gel Clourant (Dark Blonde)
Manufactured by: Clairol, Inc.
Contains: phenylenediamines, D&C Red #FD&C Yellow #5, DEA (interacts with nitrites to form carcinogenic nitrosamines), FD&C Yellow #6

Product: L'Oreal Excellence Color Reliance (Dark Brown)
Manufactured by: L'Oréal Canada
Contains: phenylenediamines, TEA & DEA (interact with nitrites to form carcinogenic nitrosamines)

Product: Revlon Colorsilk Salon Formula Ammonia-Free Haircolor
Manufactured by: Revlon, Inc.
Contains: phenylenediamines, TEA & DEA (interact with nitrites to form carcinogenic nitrosamines)

Product: Clairesse Gentle Colors for Permed & Delicate Hair (Medium Ash Brown)
Manufactured by: Clairol, Inc.
Contains: phenylenediamines, DEA (interacts with nitrites to form carcinogenic nitrosamines)

Lipsticks, glosses and lip pencils

Product: Maybelline Revitalizing Color Lipstick
Manufactured by: Maybelline, Inc.
Contains: butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), FD&C Blue #1, FD&C Yellow #5

Product: Bonne Bell Dr. Pepper Lip Smacker Flavored Lip Gloss
Manufactured by: Bonne Bell, Inc.
Contains: FD&C Blue #1, FD&C Yellow #5, saccharin

Product: Almay Glossy Lip Shine
Manufactured by: Revlon, Inc.
Contains: butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), FD&C Blue #1, FD&C Yellow #5, FD&C Yellow #6

Eye shadows

Product: Maybelline Ultra Brow
Manufactured by: Maybelline, Inc.
Contains: butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), lanolin (often contaminated with DDT and other carcinogenic pesticides), talc

Product: Cover Girl Professional ColorMatch Frost Shades
Manufactured by: Procter and Gamble, Inc.
Contains: formaldehyde, butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), talc

Mascaras

Product: Maybelline Contact Lens Safe Mascara
Manufactured by: Maybelline, Inc.
Contains: butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), lanolin (often contaminated with DDT and other carcinogenic pesticides)

Product: Cover Girl Clean Lash Washable Waterproof Mascara
Manufactured by: Procter and Gamble, Inc.
Contains: butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), quarternium-15 (formaldehyde releaser)

Facial powders

Product: Revlon Powdercreme Make-Up Pressed Powder Full Matte
Manufactured by: Revlon, Inc.
Contains: butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA)

Product: Max Factor Powder Pure Translucent Loose Powder
Manufactured by: Procter and Gamble, Inc.
Contains: butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), FD&C Yellow #5

Product: Cover Girl Professional Finishing Loose Powder
Manufactured by: Procter and Gamble, Inc.
Contains: butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), FD&C Yellow #5, talc

Foundations

Product: Cover Girl Replenishing Natural Finish Make-up
Manufactured by: Procter and Gamble, Inc.
Contains: BHA, talc, titanium dioxide, TEA (interacts with nitrites to form carcinogenic nitrosamines), lanolin (often contaminated with DDT and other carcinogenic pesticides)

Product: Max Factor Satin Splendor Flawless Complexion Make-up
Manufactured by: Procter and Gamble, Inc.
Contains: butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), octyl dimethyl PABA (padimate-O)

Concealers

Product: Cover Girl Moisture Wear All-Day Perfecting Concealer
Manufactured by: Procter and Gamble, Inc.
Contains: butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA)

Blushes

Product: Cover Girl Moisture Wear Nourishing All-day Blush
Manufactured by: Procter and Gamble, Inc.
Contains: butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), formaldehyde, FD&C Yellow #5, talc

Product: Revlon Powder Creme Blush
Manufactured by: Revlon, Inc.
Contains: butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), FD&C Yellow #5, silica

Product: Maybelline Brush/Blush III
Manufactured by: Maybelline, Inc.
Contains: butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), talc

Product: Max Factor New Definition
Manufactured by: Procter and Gamble, Inc.
Contains: FD&C Yellow #5, FD&C Yellow #6, silica

Emergancy Medical Treatment for Sodium Hydroxide

2004-10-15T17:10:00.000-07:00

SODIUM HYDROXIDE
CASRN: 1310-73-2

Emergency Medical Treatment:

EMT Copyright Disclaimer:
Portions of the POISINDEX(R) and MEDITEXT(R) database have been provided here for general reference. THE COMPLETE POISINDEX(R) DATABASE OR MEDITEXT(R) DATABASE SHOULD BE CONSULTED FOR ASSISTANCE IN THE DIAGNOSIS OR TREATMENT OF SPECIFIC CASES. The use of the POISINDEX(R) and MEDITEXT(R) databases is at your sole risk. The POISINDEX(R) and MEDITEXT(R) databases are provided "AS IS" and "as available" for use, without warranties of any kind, either expressed or implied. Micromedex makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy, reliability, timeliness, usefulness or completeness of any of the information contained in the POISINDEX(R) and MEDITEXT(R) databases. ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE ARE HEREBY EXCLUDED. Micromedex does not assume any responsibility or risk for your use of the POISINDEX(R) or MEDITEXT(R) databases. Copyright 1974-2004 Thomson MICROMEDEX. All Rights Reserved. Any duplication, replication, "downloading," sale, redistribution or other use for commercial purposes is a violation of Micromedex' rights and is strictly prohibited.
The following Overview, *** CORROSIVES-ALKALINE ***, is relevant for this HSDB record chemical.

Life Support:
o This overview assumes that basic life support measures
have been instituted.
Clinical Effects:
0.2.1 SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE
0.2.1.1 ACUTE EXPOSURE
A) IRRITANT VS CORROSIVE - Some substances may be
irritating or corrosive depending on the concentration,
molarity, and other factors. In general, serious
esophageal injury is associated with ingestion of
products with a pH of 11.5 or higher.
B) INGESTION - Alkaline corrosive ingestion may produce
burns to the oropharynx, upper airway, esophagus and
occasionally stomach. Spontaneous vomiting may occur.
The absence of visible oral burns does NOT reliably
exclude the presence of esophageal burns. The presence
of stridor, vomiting, drooling, and abdominal pain are
associated with serious esophageal injury in most
cases.
1) Patients with a history of suicidal intent have a
higher rate of positive esophagoscopy findings than
those with accidental ingestion.
2) Delayed sequelae of caustic ingestion include
tracheoesophageal and aortoesophageal fistulae,
strictures of the mouth, esophagus and stomach, and
esophageal carcinoma.
C) INHALATION - Inhalation of alkaline vapors can produce
upper airway edema, respiratory failure, wheezing,
pulmonary edema, and pneumonitis.
D) OCULAR - Ocular exposure can produce severe
conjunctival irritation and chemosis, corneal
epithelial defects, limbal ischemia, permanent visual
loss and in severe cases perforation.
E) DERMAL - Dermal contact with alkaline corrosives may
produce pain, redness, irritation or full thickness
burns.
0.2.3 VITAL SIGNS
0.2.4 HEENT
0.2.4.1 ACUTE EXPOSURE
A) Ingestion may result in burns to the lips, tongue, oral
mucosa, and upper airway.
B) Alkaline eye exposures produce distortion of cellular
membranes, loss of corneal, conjunctival and lens
epithelium and loss of endothelium of the cornea and
blood vessels.
0.2.5 CARDIOVASCULAR
0.2.5.1 ACUTE EXPOSURE
A) Hypotension and tachycardia are uncommon but may occur
with severe GI bleeding or necrosis after ingestion.
0.2.6 RESPIRATORY
0.2.6.1 ACUTE EXPOSURE
A) Stridor, dyspnea, upper airway injury, and pulmonary
edema, especially following inhalation of vaporized
caustics, may occur.
0.2.8 GASTROINTESTINAL
0.2.8.1 ACUTE EXPOSURE
A) Burns of the esophagus and less commonly the stomach
may occur after caustic ingestion; the absence of oral
mucosal injury does NOT reliably exclude esophageal
burns. Patients with stridor, drooling or vomiting are
more likely to have esophageal burns.
B) In severe cases gastrointestinal bleeding or perforated
viscus with mediastinitis or peritonitis may develop.
Delayed sequelae of burns include strictures,
obstruction, fistula formation and esophageal
carcinoma.
0.2.11 ACID-BASE
0.2.11.1 ACUTE EXPOSURE
A) Metabolic acidosis may develop in patients with severe
burns or shock.
0.2.14 DERMATOLOGIC
0.2.14.1 ACUTE EXPOSURE
A) Severe skin irritation and/or burns may occur.
Laboratory:
A) Obtain a complete blood count in patients symptomatic
alkaline corrosive ingestion. In patients with signs and
symptoms suggesting severe burns, perforation, or
bleeding, obtain renal function tests, PT or INR, PTT,
and type and crossmatch for blood.
Treatment Overview:
0.4.2 ORAL EXPOSURE
A) MUCOSAL DECONTAMINATION: If no respiratory compromise is
present, dilute immediately with water or mill; no more
than 8 ounces in adults and 4 ounces in children.
B) GASTRIC DECONTAMINATION: Ipecac contraindicated.
Consider insertion of a small, flexible nasogastric or
orogastric tube to suction gastric contents after recent
large ingestions; the risk of further mucosal injury
must be weighed against potential benefits.
C) NEUTRALIZATION - Is contraindicated.
D) Keep patient NPO following mucosal decontamination until
after endoscopy consultation.
E) ENDOSCOPY: Perform within 24 hours to evaluate for burns
in adults with deliberate ingestion or any signs or
symptoms attributable to ingestion, and in children with
stridor, vomiting, or drooling. Consider endoscopy in
children with dysphagia, refusal to swallow, significant
oral burns, or abdominal pain. If burns are found,
follow 10 to 20 days later with barium swallow or
esophagram.
F) PHARMACOLOGIC TREATMENT: Corticosteroids are
controversial. Consider use in second degree burns
within 48 hours of ingestion in patients without
gastrointestinal bleeding or evidence of perforation.
Antibiotics are indicated for suspected perforation or
infection and in patients receiving corticosteroids.
G) SURGICAL OPTIONS: Initially, if severe esophageal burns
are found a string may be placed in the stomach to
facilitate later dilation. Insertion of a specialized
nasogastric tube after confirmation of a circumferential
burn may prevent strictures. Dilation is indicated after
2 to 4 weeks if strictures are confirmed; if
unsuccessful, either colonic intraposition or gastric
tube placement may be performed. Consider early
laparotomy in patients with severe esophageal and/or
gastric burns.
0.4.3 INHALATION EXPOSURE
A) DECONTAMINATION: Move patient from the toxic environment
to fresh air and administer oxygen as necessary. Monitor
for respiratory distress. If cough or difficulty in
breathing develops, evaluate for hypoxia, respiratory
tract irritation, bronchitis, or pneumonitis.
B) Manage airway aggressively as upper airway edema may
develop.
C) Administer 100% humidified supplemental oxygen, perform
endotracheal intubation and provide assisted ventilation
as required. Administer inhaled beta adrenergic agonists
if bronchospasm develops. Exposed skin and eyes should
be flushed with copious amounts of water.
0.4.4 EYE EXPOSURE
A) HOME IRRIGATION - Exposed eyes should be irrigated with
copious amounts of water for at least 30 minutes. An
examination should always be performed. Ophthalmologic
consultation should be obtained.
B) MEDICAL FACILITY: Irrigate with sterile 0.9% saline for
at least an hour or until the cul-de-sacs are free of
particulate matter and returned to neutrality (confirm
with pH paper).
C) EYE ASSESSMENT: The extent of eye injury (degree of
corneal opacification and perilimbal whitening) may not
be apparent for 48 to 72 hours after the burn.
0.4.5 DERMAL EXPOSURE
A) OVERVIEW
1) Remove contaminated clothes. Irrigate exposed skin with
copious amounts of water for at least 15 minutes or
longer, depending on concentration, amount and duration
of exposure to the chemical. A physician may need to
examine the area if irritation or pain persist.
Range of Toxicity:
A) LIQUID CORROSIVES - With highly concentrated liquids (30%
sodium hydroxide) esophageal burns may occur in up to
100% of patients, even after accidental ingestion

Propylparaben

2004-10-15T17:08:00.000-07:00

http://hpd.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/household/brands?tbl=chem&id=777
too many products to mention! Johnson's bedtime lotion! I used it!

PROPYLPARABEN
CASRN: 94-13-3

Human Health Effects:
Human Toxicity Excerpts:
... CAUSES SEVERE & INTRACTABLE CONTACT DERMATITIS. PARABENS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS THE CAUSE OF CHRONIC DERMATITIS IN NUMEROUS INSTANCES. PT SENSITIVE TO 1 PARABEN SHOW CROSS-SENSITIVITY TO OTHERS. /PARABENS/
[Gilman, A. G., L. S. Goodman, and A. Gilman. (eds.). Goodman and Gilman's The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. 6th ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. 1980. 969]**PEER REVIEWED**

HUMAN INGESTION OF 0.03% SOLN RESULTED IN SIMILAR EFFECTS AS SHOWN WITH THE METHYL & ETHYL DERIVATIVES. /IRRITANT TO INTESTINAL MUCOSA & CNS DEPRESSION, FELT-LIKE SENSATION IN THE MOUTH/
[Clayton, G. D. and F. E. Clayton (eds.). Patty's Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology: Volume 2A, 2B, 2C: Toxicology. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley Sons, 1981-1982. 2315]**PEER REVIEWED**

IN VITRO TESTS ON HUMAN SPERM INDICATED PROPYLPARABEN AS HAVING SPERMICIDAL ACTIVITY.
[KASSEM AA ET AL; BULL FAC PHARM, CAIRO UNIV 12 (2): 25 (1975)]**PEER REVIEWED**

A HYDROCORTISONE PREPN CONTAINING PROPYLPARABEN PROVOKED BRONCHOSPASM & PRURITIS WHEN GIVEN IV TO A 10 YR OLD ASTHMATIC PATIENT. WHEREAS HYDROCORTISONE PREPN WITHOUT PARABEN DID NOT. SKIN TESTS FOR IMMEDIATE HYPERSENSITIVITY TO PARABEN WERE POS.
[NAGEL JE ET AL; PARABEN ALLERGY; J AM MED ASSOC 237 (APR 11): 1594 (1977)]**PEER REVIEWED**

STUDIES OF EFFECTS ON HUMAN RED CELL MEMBRANES SHOWED AN INCR FLUIDIZATION OF THE MEMBRANE LIPID ALKYL CHAINS WITH AN INCR NUMBER OF CH2 RESIDUES OF ESTERIFIED COMPD, & THAT FLUIDIZATION & INHIBITION OF GLUCOSE TRANSPORT IN RED CELLS WERE CORRELATED.
[ZIMMER G ET AL; BIOCHEM PHARMACOL 30 (16): 2362 (1981)]**PEER REVIEWED**

Potent in vitro spermicidal activity of parabens against human spermatozoa was demonstrated in this study. The pass point concentration of propylparaben at which all spermatozoa were immobilized and no immobilized spermatozoon revived after 30 min incubation in phosphate buffered glucose solution, was 3 mg/ml as tested by the Harris' method. It is used as food and pharmaceutic preservatives.
[Song BL et al; Contraception 39 (3): 331-5 (1989)]**PEER REVIEWED**

Skin, Eye and Respiratory Irritations:
... AS SATURATED AQUEOUS SOLN HAS BEEN NOTED TO BE MODERATELY IRRITATING TO THE EYE.
[Grant, W.M. Toxicology of the Eye. 3rd ed. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1986. 695]**PEER REVIEWED**

More info on sodium hydroxide

2004-10-15T17:05:00.000-07:00

(Read post below for what products contain this incredibly toxic chemical)

SODIUM HYDROXIDE (http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov)
CASRN: 1310-73-2

Human Health Effects:
Human Toxicity Excerpts:
DAMAGE OF CORNEA, CONJUNCTIVA, & EPISCLERAL TISSUES IS USUAL, BUT DAMAGE OF INTRAOCULAR STRUCTURES IS RELATIVELY RARE. IN ONE UNUSUAL CASE LOCALIZED BURN OF RETINA ... NOTED ...
[Grant, W.M. Toxicology of the Eye. 3rd ed. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1986. 833]**PEER REVIEWED**

Caustic dusts are irritating to the upper respiratory system. .... prolonged exposure to high concentrations may cause discomfort and ulceration of nasal passages.
[American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Inc. Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure Indices. 6th ed. Volumes I, II, III. Cincinnati, OH: ACGIH, 1991.1417]**PEER REVIEWED**

INTACT /CORNEAL/ EPITHELIUM PRESENTS ... BARRIER TO PENETRATION OF IONS ... UNTIL ... RENDERED PERMEABLE BY INJURY. ... AT PH 10 NO INCR IN PERMEABILITY OF /SODIUM HYDROXIDE/; @ PH 10.5 ... NO INCR FOR @ LEAST AN HR ...; PH 10.8 ... RESISTANCE TO HALF ORIGINAL ... IN ABOUT 30 MIN ...; @ PH 11 TO ... 12 BREAKDOWN OF ... BARRIER ... MORE RAPID ... .
[Grant, W. M. Toxicology of the Eye. 2nd ed. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1974. 97]**PEER REVIEWED**

IN BIOPSY SPECIMENS FROM THE FOREARM VOLAR SURFACE SODIUM HYDROXIDE PRODUCED INTRACELLULAR EDEMA & INCREASED NUMBERS OF LAMELLAR GRANULES ON THE OUTER SURFACE OF THE UPPERMOST GRANULAR CELL LAYER.
[NAGAO S ET AL; ACTA DERMATO-VENEREOL 52 (1): 11-23 (1972)]**PEER REVIEWED**

SYMPTOMATOLOGY: 1. INGESTION OF LYE CAUSES SWALLOWING TO BECOME PAINFUL & DIFFICULT ALMOST IMMEDIATELY. BURNING PAIN EXTENDS DOWN ESOPHAGUS TO STOMACH. CONTAMINATED AREAS OF LIPS, CHIN, TONGUE, & PHARYNX BECOME EDEMATOUS & COVERED WITH EXUDATE. PROFUSE SALIVATION. BECAUSE OF PHARYNGEAL AND ESOPHAGEAL EDEMA, IT MAY BECOME IMPOSSIBLE AFTER A FEW HOURS TO SWALLOW EVEN SALIVA. MUCOUS MEMBRANES ARE AT FIRST WHITE BUT LATER BROWN, EDEMATOUS, GELATINOUS, AND NECROTIC. 2. VOMITUS IS THICK AND SLIMY DUE TO MUCUS; LATER IT MAY CONTAIN BLOOD AND SHREDS OF MUCOUS MEMBRANE. /LYE/
[Gosselin, R.E., R.P. Smith, H.C. Hodge. Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products. 5th ed. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1984.,p. II-66]**PEER REVIEWED**

SYMPTOMATOLOGY /AFTER INGESTION/: 3. PULSE ... RAPID & FEEBLE; RESPIRATIONS ... FAST & SHALLOW; SKIN IS COLD & CLAMMY; COLLAPSE ENSUES. 4. DEATH DUE TO SHOCK, ASPHYXIA FROM GLOTTIC EDEMA OR INTERCURRENT INFECTION (PNEUMONIA) COMMONLY OCCURS ON 2ND OR ... 3RD DAY. ASPIRATION PNEUMONITIS ... DESCRIBED. 5. CONVALESCENCE MAY BE INTERRUPTED DURING FIRST WEEK BY ESOPHAGEAL PERFORATION OR PERHAPS EVEN GASTRIC PERFORATION. MEDIASTINITIS MAY PRESENT AS SEVERE SUBSTERNAL PAIN WITH FEVER. 6. IF COMPLICATIONS DO NOT APPEAR, LIQUID AND SOFT FOOD CAN BE SWALLOWED WITH COMPARATIVE EASE WITHIN 5 TO 7 DAYS. WITHIN 5 TO 7 DAYS. ... IN MOST CASES THIS ABSENCE OF DISTRESS MARKS LATENT PERIOD AND THAT ESOPHAGEAL STRICTURES WILL DEVELOP WITHIN WEEKS OR MONTHS UNLESS EFFECTIVE TREATMENT IS INSTITUTED.
[Gosselin, R.E., R.P. Smith, H.C. Hodge. Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products. 5th ed. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1984.,p. II-66]**PEER REVIEWED**

Contact with the eyes causes disintegration and sloughing of conjunctival and corneal epithelium, corneal opacification, marked edema, and ulceration; After 7 to 13 days either gradual recovery begins, or there is progression of ulceration and corneal opacification. Complications of severe eye burns are symblepharon (adhesion of the lid to the eyeball) with overgrowth of the cornea by a vascularized membrane, progressive or recurrent corneal ulceration, and permanent corneal opacification.
[Mackison, F. W., R. S. Stricoff, and L. J. Partridge, Jr. (eds.). NIOSH/OSHA - Occupational Health Guidelines for Chemical Hazards. DHHS(NIOSH) Publication No. 81-123 (3 VOLS). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Jan. 1981.2]**PEER REVIEWED**

On the skin, solutions of about 25 to 50% cause the sensation of irritation within about 3 minutes; With solutions of 4% this does not occur until after several hours. If not removed from the skin, severe burns with deep ulceration will occur; Exposure to the dust or mist may cause multiple small burns, with temporary loss of hair.
[Mackison, F. W., R. S. Stricoff, and L. J. Partridge, Jr. (eds.). NIOSH/OSHA - Occupational Health Guidelines for Chemical Hazards. DHHS(NIOSH) Publication No. 81-123 (3 VOLS). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Jan. 1981.2]**PEER REVIEWED**

Cases of squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus have occurred with latent periods of 12 to 42 years after ingestion; These cancers may have been sequelae of tissue destruction and possibly scar formation rather than from a direct carcinogenic action of sodium hydroxide itself.
[Mackison, F. W., R. S. Stricoff, and L. J. Partridge, Jr. (eds.). NIOSH/OSHA - Occupational Health Guidelines for Chemical Hazards. DHHS(NIOSH) Publication No. 81-123 (3 VOLS). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Jan. 1981.2]**PEER REVIEWED**

Skin contact; Levels of toxic effect: (1) There is not necessarily an immediate sensation of irritation or pain. (2) Primary irritant dermatitis. (3) Multiple small burns with temporary loss of hair. (4) Deterioration of keratin material. (5) Intracellular edema. (6) Severe burns, corrosion of tissue, and deep ulcerations.
[Environment Canada; Tech Info for Problem Spills: Sodium Hydroxide (Draft) p.81 (1981)]**PEER REVIEWED**

Eye contact; Levels of toxic effect: (1) Irritation. (2) Conjunctivitis, corneal burns. (3) Photophobia. (4) Disintegration and sloughing of conjunctival and corneal epithelium. (5) Corneal edema, ulceration, and opacefication. (6) Symlbepharon. (7) Overgrowth of the cornea by a vascularized membrane. (8) Permanent corneal opacification.
[Environment Canada; Tech Info for Problem Spills: Sodium Hydroxide (Draft) p.81 (1981)]**PEER REVIEWED**

A 28-year old member of an oil-well drilling crew sustained extensive splash burns of the left eye from NaOH and received emergency care from a general physician prior to being hospitalized. At the hospital, initial examination showed vision limited to light perception, corneal clouding to such an extent that iris markings were not discernable, necrosis of most of the bulbar conjunctiva, some sloughing in the masal area of the cornea, blanched and necrotic cul-de-sac, and some involvement of the lids and adjacent skin. The treatment of the patient at the hospital consisted of daily debridement of necrotic areas, local atropine, antibiotics, steroids, systematic ACTH, vitamins, antacids, and proteolytic enzymes. The treatment produced some improvement with time so that usual, late sequelae such as vascular invasion and symblepharon did not occur, and the cornea cleared sufficiently within 7 weeks that vision returned to near normal.
[Horowitz ID; Am J Ophthalmol 61: 340-341 (1966) as cited in NIOSH; Criteria Document: Sodium Hydroxide p.29 (1975) DHEW Pub. NIOSH 76-105]**PEER REVIEWED**

A micropolarographic system was used as a quantitative means of monitoring the healing course of corneal epithelium following a 10 second exposure to 0.20 N sodium hydroxide solution. Concn of less than that strength produced inconsistent flux baselines due to incomplete damage to the epithelium, while higher concn commonly involved the stroma as well. Virtually complete epithelial destruction (down to the basement membrane) and reproducible flux baselines were found, however, with the 0.20 N induced lesion studied in detail here. The healing course following those exposures consisted of two well defined phases: an initial period of hypoflux lasting some 48 hr before rising back up to the pre-lesion baseline, followed then by a period of hyperflux lasting about 7 days before decreasing once again down to the pre-lesion baseline.
[Mauger TF, Hill RM; Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 63 (3): 264-7 (1985)]**PEER REVIEWED**

An in-plant case-control study of 26 renal cancer deaths was conducted to determine whether an occupational exposure may be related to an apparent increase in mortality from this disease observed among a sample of employees at a multiple process chemical production facility. None was found that explained the excess. Elevated odds ratios were identified for employment in the cell maintenance area of chlorine production and with those presumptive exposures considered to occur in this job, asbestos and caustic, but not chlorine. While an association between renal cancer and asbestos has been previously reported, an association with caustic, per se, is not consistent with prior observations made by others. ... Both the increased and decreased risks, while statistically significant, are based on small numbers of exposed subjects and may be spurious owing to the problem of multiple comparisons.
[Bond GG et al; Am J Ind Med 7 (2): 123-39 (1985)]**PEER REVIEWED**

Ocular blood flow was determined using radioactive S 85 microspheres after an alkali NaOH burn to the eye. With 20 ul NaOH, blood flow was significantly increased in the iris, ciliary processes, and choroid from 2 through 4 hr. This correlated well with the sustained increase in intraocular pressure (IOP) seen after a 20 ul burn. A 50 ul burn increased blood flow 1 hr, but it returned toward normal levels beyond 2 hr. .... There appeared to be a meaningful correlation between IOP changes and altered blood flow following ocular alkali burns. The blood flow changes paralleled those occurring after the topical application of prostaglandins and supported the concept that ocular blood flow dynamics are mediated by prostaglandins.
[Green K et al; Arch Ophthalmol (Chicago) 103 (4): 569-71 (1985)]**PEER REVIEWED**

200 patients with suspected caustic ingestation were examined. No steroids were administered to the patients involved. Lesions in the esophagus were found in 93 patients. Thirty-two patients with deep circular burns had nasogastric tubes inserted immediately. Of these patients, 2 developed esophageal strictures, but subsequent dilatation was successful. No stricture formation was observed in the group of patients with noncircular lesions. This low percentage of stricture formation is due to the use of nasogastric tubes. Since neither the presence nor the severity of esophageal burns is predictable, an endoscopy should be performed in all suspected cases. In the absence of severe pharyngeal lesions, the use of a flexible fiberoptic endoscope is preferable because it also allows examination of the stomach and proximal part of the duodenum.
[Wijburg FA et al; Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 94 (4 Part 1): 337-41 (1985)]**PEER REVIEWED**

... has a marked corrosive action upon all body tissue. ... Dangerous.
[Lewis, R.J. Sax's Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials. 9th ed. Volumes 1-3. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1996. 2970]**PEER REVIEWED**

IN TERMS OF TOTAL DOSE CAUSTIC ALKALIS HAVE KILLED ADULT HUMANS WHO INGESTED LESS THAN 10 G.
[Gosselin, R.E., R.P. Smith, H.C. Hodge. Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products. 5th ed. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1984.,p. III-246]**PEER REVIEWED**

Corrosive to all tissues upon contact, ingestion or inhalation.
[Environment Canada; Tech Info for Problem Spills: Sodium Hydroxide (Draft) p.1 (1981)]**PEER REVIEWED**

The irritating nature of the aerosol on the mucous membranes is presumed to be adequate warning to maintain air concn at tolerable levels.
[Environment Canada; Tech Info for Problem Spills: Sodium Hydroxide (Draft) p.74 (Date)]**PEER REVIEWED**

Various climates and skin textures may influence the seriousness of skin injury.
[NIOSH; Criteria Document: Sodium Hydroxide p.32 (1975) DHEW Pub. NIOSH 76-105]**PEER REVIEWED**

There is a latent period between contact of NaOH with the skin and the sensation of irritation.
[NIOSH; Criteria Document: Sodium Hydroxide p.62 (1975) DHEW Pub. NIOSH 76-105]**PEER REVIEWED**

"Button" batteries, which contain concentrated solutions of sodium or potassium hydroxide, represent a serious risk for leakage, corrosion, and perforation when lodged in the esophagus.
[Klaassen, C.D., M.O. Amdur, Doull J. (eds.). Casarett and Doull's Toxicology. The Basic Science of Poisons. 5th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1995. 976]**PEER REVIEWED**

Malfunctioning automobile air-bag inflation systems may release sodium hydroxide powder, a byproduct in the chemical conversion of sodium azide to nitrogen gas that inflates the auto air bags. Chemical surface burns will require symptomatic treatment.
[Ellenhorn, M.J., S. Schonwald, G. Ordog, J. Wasserberger. Ellenhorn's Medical Toxicology: Diagnosis and Treatment of Human Poisoning. 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins, 1997. 1094]**PEER REVIEWED**

Seventy-five percent of all caustic injury to the esophagus in chidren under 5 years results from sodium hydroxide. Eighty-three percent of these victims are under 3 yr, and 62% are males. Gastric acid is not sufficiently strong or present in sufficient quantity to neutralize even small quantities of strong alkali.
[Gossel, T.A., J.D. Bricker. Principles of Clinical Toxicology. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Raven Press, Ltd., 1994. 222]**PEER REVIEWED**

Skin, Eye and Respiratory Irritations:
Liquid or solid sodium hydroxide is a severe skin irritant. It causes second and third degree burns on short contact and is very injurious to the eyes.
[U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Transportation. CHRIS - Hazardous Chemical Data. Volume II. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1984-5.]**PEER REVIEWED**

HAZARD WARNING: The irritating nature of the aerosol on the mucous membranes is presumed to be adequate warning to maintain air concn at tolerable levels.
[Environment Canada; Tech Info for Problem Spills: Sodium Hydroxide (Draft) p.74 (Date)]**PEER REVIEWED**

A corrosive irritant to skin, eyes, and mucous membranes. ... Inhalation of the dust or concentrated mist can cause damage to the upper respiratory tract and to lung tissue, depending on the severity of the exposure.
[Lewis, R.J. Sax's Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials. 9th ed. Volumes 1-3. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1996. 2970]**PEER REVIEWED**

Medical Surveillance:
The skin, eyes, and respiratory tract should receive special attention in any placement or periodic examination. NIOSH recommends that workers subject to sodium hydroxide exposure have comprehensive preplacement medical examinations. Medical examinations shall be made available promptly to all workers with signs or symptoms of skin, eye, or upper respiratory tract irritation resulting from exposure to sodium hydoxide.
[Sittig M; Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals p.606 (1981)]**PEER REVIEWED**

Probable Routes of Human Exposure:
Inhalation of dust or mist, ingestion, and skin or eye contact.
[Sittig M; Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals p.606 (1981)]**PEER REVIEWED**

536,498 employees (102,011 female employees) (est) have been exposed from actual observed occupational use of sodium hydroxide.
[NIOSH; National Occupational Exposure Survey (5/18/85)]**PEER REVIEWED**

Over a six-month period, the New Jersey Poison Information System received 61 calls related to exposures to alkaline corrosives. Seven of these calls related to a new oven-cleaner product, oven-cleaner pads. These pads are sealed in a protective plastic wrap and contain lye in excess of 5%. ... Five of the callers sustained injuries from their exposure, and three of these sustained burns, one in the oral cavity and one in the eye. None suffered permanent sequelae, but the potential for such is considerable. The method of application, concn of base, and prolonged exposure to a widely covered area may make this product particularly hazardous. /Alkaline corrosives/
[Vilogi J et al; Am J Emerg Med 3 (5): 412-4 (1985)]**PEER REVIEWED**

Sodium Hydroxide

2004-10-15T17:01:00.000-07:00

Chemical Information
Chemical Name:
Sodium hydroxide
CAS Registry Number:
001310-73-2
Synonyms:
Caustic soda; Soda lye; Ascarite; Sodium Hydroxide [USAN]; Sodium hydroxide (Na(OH))

Products that contain this ingredient
Brand
Category
Form
Percent

Mothers Magnesium/Aluminum Polish
Auto products
liquid

Classic Car Wash
Auto products
liquid
2-4
Zep Industrial Purple Concentrated Cleaner and Degreaser-02/22/2002
Auto products
liquid
0-10
Armor All No. 7 White Polishing Compound
Auto products
paste
0-1
Castrol Super Clean
Auto products
pump spray
1-5
Mothers Car Wash
Auto products
liquid

Armor All No. 7 Rubbing Compound
Auto products
paste
0-1
Drano Max Liquid
Home inside
liquid
1-5
Clorox Clean Up Gel Kitchen Cleaner
Home inside
gel
<1
Easy Off Heavy Duty Oven Cleaner-Original
Home inside
aerosol
<5
Clorox Clean Up Cleaner with Bleach
Home inside
liquid
0.5-2
Lysol Brand Disinfectant All Purpose Cleaner with Bleach
Home inside
pump spray
0.63
Clorox 2 Ultra Color Safe Bleach
Home inside
liquid
1-5
Spray N Wash Laundry Stain Remover Stain Stick
Home inside
solid
1-2
Drano Max Clog Remover
Home inside
liquid
1-5
Jancyn Main Line Cleaner Power Strength
Home inside
liquid
100
Bold Plus with Fabric Softener
Home inside
liquid

Dow Heavy Duty Oven Cleaner
Home inside
aerosol
4
Tide Free Ultra Liquid
Home inside
liquid

Vanish Mildew Stain Cleaner-Commercial-08/03/2000
Home inside
liquid
1-5
Comet with Bleach Liquid Cleaner
Home inside
liquid
0.1-1
Bold Liquid Laundry Detergent
Home inside
liquid

Tide Ultra Liquid
Home inside
liquid

Dawn Detergent for Power Wash Sinks
Home inside
liquid
<1.0
Vanish Mildew Stain Cleaner-Commercial
Home inside
liquid
1-5
Comet Kitchen Cleaner w/Bleach
Home inside
gel
0.9
Electrasol Gel with Baking Soda
Home inside
gel
<3
Cascade Plastic Booster
Home inside
liquid
<1
Mr Muscle Oven and Grill Cleaner
Home inside
aerosol
1-5
Liquid Plumr Drain Cleaner
Home inside
liquid
<1
Comet with Bleach Liquid Gel Cleanser
Home inside
viscous liquid
0.1-1
Champion Sprayon Oven Cleaner
Home inside
aerosol

Smart Scrub Cleanser with Bleach
Home inside
liquid
<2
Clorox Toilet Bowl Cleaner with Clinging Action, Rain Clean
Home inside
liquid
<1
Clorox Clean Up Spray with Bleach
Home inside
pump spray
<1
Fantastik with Bleach 2 in 1
Home inside
pump spray
<1
Spray N Wash Stain Stick-04/11/2002
Home inside
solid
1-2
Pro Formula 409 Degreaser
Home inside
pump spray
0.1-0.5
Lysol Plus Bleach Toilet Bowl Cleaner
Home inside
liquid
<1
Woolite Fabric Wash Dark Fabric Laundry Liquid
Home inside
liquid
<2
Soft Scrub Scouring Cleanser with Bleach
Home inside
gel
<1
Drano Drain Cleaner (Institutional)
Home inside
crystals
<2.0
Easy Off Heavy Duty Oven Cleaner
Home inside
aerosol
0-5
Aqua Mix Heavy Duty Tile and Grout Cleaner
Home inside
liquid
<4.5
Shout Gel Laundry Stain Remover-Concentrated
Home inside
liquid/brush
0.5-1.5
Drano Crystal Clog Remover
Home inside
powder
30-60
Mr Muscle Oven and Grill Cleaner-03/07/2002
Home inside
aerosol
1-5
Zep Citrus Cleaner and Degreaser
Home inside
pump dispenser
<5
Lysol Brand Plus Bleach
Home inside
liquid
0.63
Comet MultiRoom Liquid Gel Cleanser with Bleach
Home inside
gel
0.9
Floor Science Stripper LT
Home inside
liquid
3-7
Dawn Automatic Dishwashing Liquid
Home inside
liquid
<1.0
Palmolive Gel-Lemon Scent
Home inside
gel
2.23
Cascade Pure Rinse Formula
Home inside
gel
1-5
Mr Muscle Oven and Grill Cleaner-Aerosol
Home inside
aerosol
1-5
Tilex Instant Mildew Remover
Home inside
liquid
0.5-2
SprayPAK Oven Cleaner
Home inside
aerosol

Lasso Bleach
Home inside
liquid
0.3-0.5
Clorox Liquid Toilet Bowl Cleaner
Home inside
liquid
<1
Americas Home Value Oven Cleaner
Home inside
aerosol

Krack Kote Wall & Ceiling Crack Repair Kit
Home maintenance
liquid
<1
Hercules Drain Pipe Cleaner
Home maintenance
granules

Hercules Septic Tank and Cesspool Cleaner
Home maintenance
liquid

M1 Vinyl Wallpaper Cleaner
Home maintenance
pump spray
0.11
Cabot Problem Solver Wood Stripper, No. 8004
Home maintenance
liquid

Aqua Mix Heavy Duty Cleaner
Home maintenance
liquid
<4.5
Hercules Glug Drain Opener
Home maintenance
flakes

Double Agent Drain Opener with Nuggets
Home maintenance
liquid
15
Kem Tek Kemklor II Chlorinating Liquid
Landscaping/Yard
liquid
0.8
Thompsons Deck Wash
Landscaping/Yard
liquid
0.2 - 0.5
Quikrete Concrete and Asphalt Cleaner
Landscaping/Yard
liquid

Spa Kem Liquid Shock
Landscaping/Yard
liquid
0.5
Concrete Cleaner
Landscaping/Yard
liquid
1-3
Topol Whitening Anticavity Toothpaste, Spearmint
Personal care/use
paste

GoJo Creme with Pumice Heavy Duty Hand Cleaner
Personal care/use
gel
<3
GoJo Lemon Hand Cleaner
Personal care/use
liquid
<3
Helmut Lang Men Eau de Cologne Spray
Personal care/use
liquid

ROMA by Laura Biagiotti WOMENS EDT SPRAY
Personal care/use
liquid

Nair 3 in 1 Brush on Cream Hair Remover
Personal care/use
cream

Hugo Boss Eau de Toilette Natural Spray
Personal care/use
pump spray

Oil of Olay Age Defying Series Revitalizing Eye Gel
Personal care/use
gel

Olay Total Effects Moisturizing Vitamin Complex w/UV ProtectFragrance Free
Personal care/use
cream

HELMUT LANG Eau de Parfum Spray For Men
Personal care/use
liquid

Old Spice Red Zone Antiperspirant & Deodorant
Personal care/use
semi-solid

Laura Biagiotti Laura Eau de Toilette Spray
Personal care/use
liquid

Ponds Clear Solutions, Pore Clarifying Astringent, Oily to Normal Skin
Personal care/use
liquid

Night of Olay Firming Cream
Personal care/use
cream

Giorgio Beverly Hills So You Eau de Toilette Spray
Personal care/use
liquid

Clearly Natural Body Soap
Personal care/use
solid

Ultra Brite Toothpaste
Personal care/use
paste

Crest WhiteStrips Supreme
Personal care/use
strips

Lacoste Pour Homme Eau de Toilette Vapo
Personal care/use
liquid

Colgate Baking Soda & Peroxide w/ Tartar Control Whitening Toothpaste
Personal care/use
paste/tube

G BY GIORGIO
Personal care/use
liquid

Neutrogena Moisture for Sensitive Skin-Facial
Personal care/use
pump spray

Dove Ultra Moisturizing Body Wash
Personal care/use
liquid

Crest Whitening Strips
Personal care/use
strips

Lacoste Pour Homme Aftershave Balm
Personal care/use
liquid

Ultra Brite with Baking Soda & Peroxide Toothpaste
Personal care/use
paste/tube

Boss No. 6 Cologne by Hugo Boss For Men
Personal care/use
liquid

Johnsons Baby Lotion, Aloe Vera & Vitamin E
Personal care/use
liquid

Hugo Dark Blue Men Eau de Toilette
Personal care/use
liquid

Colgate Total Toothpaste
Personal care/use
paste

Boss Elements After Shave
Personal care/use
liquid

Jergens Skin Firming Moisturizer with Seaweed Extract
Personal care/use
pump dispenser

GoJo Power Gold with Crushables Hand Cleaner
Personal care/use
liquid
<3
Aquafresh Whitening Toothpaste With Fluoride
Personal care/use
gel/tube

Hugo Boss Baldessarini Eau de Cologne Spray
Personal care/use
liquid

VENEZIA Eau de Toilette For Women by Laura Biagiotti
Personal care/use
liquid

Aire by Giorgio of Beverly Hills Eau de Toilette Spray
Personal care/use
liquid

GoJo Orange Pumice Hand Cleaner
Personal care/use
gel
<3
Aquafresh Multi Action Whitening Toothpaste
Personal care/use
paste/tube

Hugo Boss Baldessarini After Shave
Personal care/use
liquid

TEMPORE UOMO For Men by Laura Biagiotti
Personal care/use
liquid

GoJo Fine Italian Pumice Hand Cleaner
Personal care/use
gel
<3
Helmut Lang Women Parfum Bottle
Personal care/use
liquid

ROMA For Men By Laura Biagiotti
Personal care/use
liquid

Old Spice High Endurance Stick Deodorant, Original
Personal care/use
solid

Crest Baking Soda & Peroxide Whitening with Tartar Protection
Personal care/use
tube

Olay Total Effects Moisturizing Vitamin Complex
Personal care/use
cream

GoJo Creme Heavy Duty Hand Cleaner
Personal care/use
gel
<3
Helmut Lang Men After Shave Lotion
Personal care/use
liquid

Boss Elements Eau de Toilette
Personal care/use
liquid

LAURA by Laura Biagiotti
Personal care/use
liquid

Ponds Fresh Start Daily Wash
Personal care/use
cream

Oil of Olay ProVital Night Cream
Personal care/use
cream

Helmut Lang Curion for Men Aftershave Lotion
Personal care/use
liquid

Ultra Brite Baking Soda Toothpaste
Personal care/use
paste

Laura Biagiotti Emotion Eau de Parfum Spray
Personal care/use
liquid

Colgate Tartar Control Whitening Mint Toothpaste
Personal care/use
paste/tube

Imina Oil Control Facial Moisture Cream
Personal care/use
cream

Giorgio Beverly Hills So You Eau de Parfum Spray
Personal care/use
liquid

Crest Professional Strength WhiteStrips
Personal care/use
strips

Lacoste Pour Homme Aftershave Splash
Personal care/use
liquid

Colgate Baking Soda & Peroxide w/ Tartar Control Clean Mint Toothpaste
Personal care/use
paste/tube

EMOTION For Women By Laura Biagiotti
Personal care/use
liquid

Johnsons Softlotion, 24 Hour Moisture
Personal care/use
liquid
<1
Lacoste Pour Femme Eau de Parfum
Personal care/use
liquid

Colgate Total Toothpaste, Fresh Stripe
Personal care/use
paste

Old Spice Post Shave Conditioner Hydrogel
Personal care/use
gel

Boss No. 1 Cologne by Hugo Boss For Men
Personal care/use
liquid

Revlon Professional Cuticle Remover
Personal care/use
liquid

Johnsons Softwash Baby Wash
Personal care/use
liquid

Hugo Boss Ladies Eau de Toilette
Personal care/use
liquid

Baldessarini Men's Eau de Cologne Spray
Personal care/use
liquid

Jergens Skin Cooling Moisturizer, With Cucumber Extract
Personal care/use
liquid

Aquafresh Striped Gel Whitening Toothpaste
Personal care/use
gel/tube

Hugo Boss Baldessarini After Shave Balm
Personal care/use
liquid

VENEZIA Eau de Toilette For Men by Laura Biagiotti
Personal care/use
liquid

Jergens Moisturizing Body Shampoo, Extra Moisturizing
Personal care/use
liquid

GoJo Lemon Hand Cleaner with Pumice
Personal care/use
gel
<3
HERVE LEGER by Herve Leger For Women
Personal care/use
liquid

TEMPORE For Women by Laura Biagiotti
Personal care/use
liquid

Imina Moisturizing Hand and Body Lotion
Personal care/use
cream

Ortho Diazinon Ultra Insect Spray
Pesticides
liquid

Ortho Ready Spray Flea & Tick Killer
Pesticides
liquid

Bug B Gon Multi Purpose Insect Killer 1
Pesticides
liquid

Tetra Plant Flora Pride Iron Intensive Fertilizer
Pet Care
liquid

pH Up
Pet Care
liquid

National Environmental Trust research on toxic chemicals

2004-10-15T16:53:00.000-07:00

August 10, 2004, Children's Health Environmental Coalition -- Toxic chemicals are widespread in consumer products often found in the home, according to a new report from the National Environmental Trust (NET). The chemicals include many that federal agencies already associate with cancer, reproductive harm and neurotoxicity. The report, Cabinet Confidential, highlights consumer products as a source of chemical exposure that receives little government scrutiny.

NET first analyzed data generated by unique programs in Massachusetts and New Jersey that require manufacturers to document the toxic chemicals they use and whether they end up as pollution or become part of the product that is being made.

NET supplemented those findings by sending dozens of products to independent laboratory for tests to determine which brands contained the same chemicals. The results include:

For every pound of toxic chemicals they emit in pollution, facilities ship 42 pounds of the same toxics chemicals in products.

A substantial portion of toxic chemicals found in products are present as impurities or byproducts -- that is, they were not intended as ingredients in the products.

Of the 40 consumer products that NET had tested, more than half contained toxic chemicals that were not on the label. For example:
Lysol All-Purpose Cleaner contained glycol ethers (neurotoxins) not listed on the label, and
Revlon Moondrops Lipsticks contained unlabeled phthalates (neurotoxins and reproductive toxins).

The five industries that shipped the most problem chemicals by volume were:
paints, varnishes, and enamels
specialty cleaning products
motor vehicle and passenger car bodies
adhesives and sealants
wood preservatives

Cosmetics also contained a variety of industrial chemicals, including phthalates (reproductive toxins) and glycol ethers (neurotoxins). Consumers are exposed to these toxins by absorbing them through their skin (for example in hand lotion), or oral exposure (by ingesting lipstick while eating, for example).

Cosmetics and many other categories of products are not required to list all their ingredients. While manufacturers are required to list most cosmetic ingredients, they do not have to list fragrance ingredients individually. Phthalates are used in fragrances to extend the duration of the scent. Additionally, phthalates can serve other purposes in cosmetics.

Most other household products, such as paints, cleaners and adhesives, may legally exclude ingredient listings. Cleaners with antimicrobial ingredients are considered pesticides and must at least list the active (pesticidal) ingredient.

Cabinet Confidential highlights the lack of official attention to consumer products as a source of chemical exposure, in contrast to strong programs to curb air and water pollution or even to regulate pesticides. The relevant law, the Toxics Substance Control Act (TSCA), exempts virtually all of the chemicals examined in the report from government oversight and does not provide the Environmental Protection Agency enough power to assess the safety of chemicals in consumer products. The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) strict program for drugs does not apply to cosmetics, whose safety is largely left to a private industry panel. And while the Consumer Product Safety Commission effectively handles issues concerning immediate injury - like lawn darts - it has an ad hoc process to deal with the longer-term health threats like those posed by chemicals.

"Most people assume the government polices commercial chemicals in the same way the FDA polices drugs, but it's not true." said Andy Igrejas, the Director of the Environmental Health campaign for NET. "When it comes to the safety of things like cosmetics, there's no sheriff in town."

Igrejas called on Congress to look at Europe and several states for guidance. Europe is overhauling its chemical policy to require safety evaluations for commercially-used chemicals. New Jersey and Massachusetts track chemical use. California's legislature is considering regulating cosmetic safety. In addition, NET called on the Centers for Disease Control to include some of the most common commercial chemicals in its new program to measure pollution in the American public, a process called bio-monitoring.

The National Environmental Trust is a non-profit, non-partisan organization established in 1994 to inform citizens about environmental problems and how they affect our health and quality of life.

First Magazine Aricle 9/13/04

2004-10-12T08:06:00.000-07:00

This is an article in the magazine First 9/13/04 issue:

To see the article in full, please see the magazine.

“An everyday chemical was stealing my energy”
By: Nancy Kalish

(I have only typed out some of the article here. I took the most important parts out. If you want to read the whole article the magazine is available at the stores now)

Joellen Sutterfield braced herself against the podium and wondered, “How am I going to get through this?” She was directing a fashion show to benefit charity, but suddenly overcome with intense fatigue and stricken by a case of hives, all she wanted to do was curl up under the hot spotlights and sleep. “My head felt as heavy as a watermelon. I couldn’t think straight, let alone be a good emcee,” she recalls. “I’d felt this way before, but this time I knew I had to do something about it.” Unfortunately, her doctor was no help. “It’s all in your mind; you’re just stressed,” he had said smugly. He was wrong. Here, how Joellen discovered the real cause of her energy-draining symptoms.

“Everyday activities left me totally exhausted.”

Since childhood, I’d suffered occasionally from mild allergies. Then one day 15 years ago I was singing a hymn during church when I suddenly broke out in blistery white hives that itched like crazy. The doctor thought it was chicken pox. But after a culture came back negative he admitted he had no idea what it was. The hives faded on their own, but three weeks later it happened again, this time at home. I was really puzzled and worried. I went to a dermatologist, who thought it might be rosacea and told me to stay away from harsh skin cleansers. I took her advice, but it didn’t help, I soon realized that my problem had to be something more, much more. Now I seemed to be allergic to everything. I’d put on a pair of pants and break out in hives around the waistband. When a hairstylist tried a new product on me, hives erupted along my hairline. Everyday activities would bring on headaches, dizziness, and nausea that drained all my energy leaving me exhausted.

“My doctor said I was overeating.”
Soon I was taking so many antihistamines that my husband’s pet name for me was Benadryl head. But the meds weren’t helping, and neither was my doctor. In his eyes I was just another stressed-out, depressed woman, and if I would relax and stop overreacting, I’d be fine. I was desperate I almost believed him.

But my outbreaks just kept coming... in fact, they got worse. Sometimes they were so bad that I wanted to put a bag over my head. One night at a business meeting, I wiped my face with a napkin and within an hour my cheek and lips began to swell right where the napkin had touched them. Then one eye swelled shut. The next morning I was so puffy that a client asked if I’d been in a fight!

As if that weren’t weird enough, my sense of smell was becoming overly sensitive. When I unloaded the dishwasher, a whiff of the detergent’s chlorine would nauseate me. In traffic, a little exhaust coming through my window could make me so sick that I’d have to pull over.

Somehow I carried on like this for years. But then I switched to a doctor who took me seriously. She told me I was having extreme allergic reactions to everyday chemicals, a condition called multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS). She said my immune system was like a bucket that was already full and couldn’t take exposure to one more chemical without overflowing and causing hives, headaches, nausea and fatigue. Finally I had an answer!!!

I went home and read everything I could find on chemical sensitivity and learned that MCS can start at any time. Once you have it, your immune system overreacts whenever it comes in contact with chemicals-even small amounts. Yep, I thought that’s me! I became a detective, tracking down every irritating chemical in my house. I discovered that one of the worst offenders-formaldehyde- is in practically everything, including most of my cosmetics and household cleansers...even my toothpaste. So out it all went. The carpet had it, too, so I had it ripped up.

It has been 10 years since I learned about my chemical sensitivity and how to control it. I’ve regained my energy, and headaches and hives no longer the norm. I still have to be hyper vigilant, though.

Could formaldehyde be triggering your fatigue?
If you experience any of the following and suspect a chemical link, see your doctor or visit aaem.com to find a specialist in MCS.

· Fatigue, trouble sleeping
· Memory loss, trouble focusing
· Depression
· Weakness, dizziness
· Headaches, migraines
· Abdominal pain, nausea
· Aching joints and muscles
· Difficulty breathing
· Irritated eyes, nose, ears, throat and/or skin

Dodge the household chemicals that make women tired and foggy!
Statistics reveal that nearly 40 million women between the ages 30 and 50 have multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS). A chief culprit: formaldehyde. “It’s in hundreds of products, including cosmetics, paper, wood and clothes,” says Doris Rapp, M.D., author of Our Toxic World. “Touching those products, or just breathing the formaldehyde they release into the air can cause intense symptoms.” Dr. Rapp says the best defense is to limit exposure to as few chemicals as possible. The chemical can be hard to spot since it may be listed under different names (including formalin, methanal, methyl aldehyde, methylene oxide, morbicid acid and oxymethylene).

Visit other sites for more info on harmful products in your home

2004-10-10T18:42:00.000-07:00

Unsafe Home
Head Lice Report
Take a virtual tour of each room in your home

Phenol and Formaldehyde

2004-10-10T17:46:00.000-07:00

Phenol is an extremely caustic chemical that burns the skin. Absorption of phenol through the lungs or skin can cause:

central nervous system damage
pneumonia
respiratory tract infection
heart-rate irregularities
skin irritation
kidney and liver damage
numbness
vomiting
and can be fatal

Phenol is a very common chemical and is regularly found in the following common products:

air fresheners
aftershave
bronchial mists
chloroseptic throat spray
deodorants
feminine powders & sprays
hair spray
decongestants
mouthwash
aspirin
solvents
acne medications
antiseptics
calamine lotions
cleaning products
detergents
furniture polish
hair setting lotions
lice shampoo
polishes
cold capsules
all-purpose cleaners
aerosol disinfectants
anti-itching lotions
carmex
cosmetics
disinfectant cleaners
hand lotions
lip balms
sunscreen and lotions
insecticides
cough syrups
just to name a few

DO YOU STILL WANT TO USE PRODUCTS IN YOUR HOME THAT CONTAIN PHENOL?

Learn what the EPA says about chemicals around your house by visiting
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/kids/hometour/tour.htm

Formaldehyde is a highly toxic substance. It is a known cancer-causing agent. It damages the neurological connectors in the body. B It is an irritant to the eyes, nose, throat and lungs and may cause:

skin reactions
ear infections
headaches
depression
asthma
joint pain
dizziness
mental confusion
nausea
disorientation
phlebitis
fatigue
vomiting
sleep disturbances
laryngitis

One in five people are sensitive to formaldehyde. Formaldehyde is commonly found in:
drugs
mouthwash
hairspray
cosmetics
cleaning products
perfumes
waxes
hair setting lotions
shampoo
air fresheners
fungicides
fingernail polish
floor polishes
dry cleaning solvents
toothpaste
laundry spray starch
antiperspirants
just to name a few

DO YOU STILL WANT TO USE PRODUCTS IN YOUR HOME THAT CONTAIN FORMALDEHYDE?

Due to the increase in toxic buildup in our bodies, including the toxic buildup of formaldehyde, dead bodies are not decomposing as fast as they used to.

Bodies now start to decompose within 7 to 10 days after death.
During the Vietnam War, Vietnamese bodies started to decompose within 24 to 48 hours.
However, Americans didn't start to decompose for 4 to 5 days.
Twice as much formaldehyde was needed to embalm a person 20 years ago as compared to today.

How many of these names would you have recognized as formaldehyde?
Formalin
Methanal
Methyl Aldehyde
Methylene Oxide
Oxymethylene
Bfv*
Fannoform*
Formol*
Fyde*
Karsan*
Methaldehyde
Formalith*
Methylene Glycol
Ivalon*
Oxomethane
Formalin 40
Formalin
Formic Aldehyde
Hoch
Paraform
Lysoform*
Morbocid
Trioxane
Polyoxmethylene
* denotes trade name

The following products are just a few that are so toxic that they should be disposed of in a toxic waste dump [Source: Water Pollution Control
Federation]:
floor care products
furniture polish
window cleaners
bug spray
nail polish remover

Warning labels on containers refer only to toxic hazards from ingestion
However, only 10% of health problems from chemicals are caused by ingestion;
90% are caused by the inhalation of vapors and absorption of particles.

Government regulations require that only the most EXTREMELY toxic substances must contain a warning label. Labels that say the following should be removed from your house immediately:

"Do not induce vomiting"
"Corrosive - rinse from skin immediately"
"Harmful or fatal if swallowed"
"Call physician immediately"
"Warning!" (May mean that as little as 1 teaspoon of product can harm or kill an adult)
"Danger!" (Means that as little as 5 drops can harm or kill an adult)

Buyer Beware

2004-10-01T22:02:00.000-07:00

The USA Federal Code of Regulations exempts manufactures from full labeling of products if used for personal, family or household care: Section 1910.1200C, Title 29, Section 1500.82 2Q1A

Manufacturers are only limited to 1% of EACH carcinogen in a product

Unfortunately, everyday personal care and household products can and do contain several carcinogens.

The Consumer Protection Agency (CPA) connects 150 chemicals found in the home to allergies, birth defects, cancer and psychological disorders.

The fumes and residue left behind from these household products causes slow poisoning to your immune system. This system is attacked and weakened over time, thus causing you to become more susceptible to infection, disease and chronic illness.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) categorizes toxins in 2 categories:

Acute Hazard (immediate damage or death)

Chronic Hazard (long term danger)

READ THE WARNING LABELS ON YOUR PRODUCTS

Formaldehyde damages neurological connectors in the body
Sadly, many of the products containing formaldehyde are touted to be "safe and gentle". Two of the most popular products are Dove and Johnson’s Baby Shampoo.

They contain Quaternium 15 (formaldehyde), Platernium 15 ( a formaldehyde precursor causing cancer and dermatitis – also being studied as a possible cause of ADD) and FD&C 400 (carcinogen and known to cause contact dermatitis)

Laundry Detergent that contains toxic chemicals is obviously one of the greatest dangers as they are dermally absorbed into bloodstream through our skin and breathed in to our lungs while we sleep.

It takes 16 rinse cycles in the washer to get the chemicals out of the fibers in the fabric of our clothes (no washer has 16 rinse cycles, most have 1 or 2)

Therefore, 60% of the chemicals we wash with are left in our clothes

Toxins active once they become damp or wet again. Think about what happens when we perspire?..

Sodium Silicate/Sodium Sulfate, Trisodium nitrolotriacetate found in most leading laundry detergents cause tissue damage and can trigger asthma attacks (found in both Tide and Cheer)

Bleach is especially dangerous for people who suffer from asthma and/or heart conditions

Clorox – 6,000 children each year are damaged from bleach

Dishwashing Detergents: Cascade – ever wonder what that steam contains that comes out of the dishwasher that you breathe in? Sodium Hypochlorite and

Sodium Silicate

Not only is it in the air after you run the dishwasher, but it also is not completely rinsed off your forks, spoons, glasses and dishes. You and your family are putting these things directly into your mouth and placing your hot food (activates toxins) on the dishes and then eating it.

Household Cleaners – many contain Butyl-Cellosolve: this is also a neurotoxin and damages you bodies’ ability to make blood cells. It also damages the central nervous system, kidneys and liver

Windex, Fantastic and Formula 409’s active ingredient is Butyl-Cellosolve

Active cleaning ingredient found in Lysol is Dioxin – also known as Agent Orange which is 500,000 more deadly than DDT (Would you store DDT under your sink?)

Why do manufacturers put both Phenol and Formaldehyde in household cleaners? Because one kills what the other cannot

The enemies are: Staph, E Coli, Strep, Adeno Virus Type 3, Herpes, Influenza, Rubella and Fungi

Dioxin kills them all

SO DOES MELALEUCA OIL – WHICH IS 100% SAFE!!!

In 1901, cancer was rare: 1 out of 8,000. According to the American Cancer Society, since the industrial revolution, the cancer rate today has risen to 1 in 2.

Toxins in Heated Plastics

2004-10-01T22:00:00.000-07:00

John Hopkins has recently sent this out in their
newsletters

Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

Dioxin Carcinogens cause cancer. Especially breast
cancer. Don't freeze plastic water bottles with water
in them as this also releases dioxin from the plastic.
Dr. Edward Fujimoto from Castle hospital was on a TV
program explaining this health hazard. (He is the
manager of the Wellness Program at the hospital.) He
was talking about dioxins and how bad they are for us.

He said we should not heat our food in the microwave
using plastic containers. This applies particularly to
foods that contain fat. He said that the combination
of fat, high heat and plastics releases dioxin into
the food and ultimately into the cells of the body
Dioxin are carcinogens and highly toxic to the cells
of our bodies. Instead, he recommends using glass,
Corning Ware, or ceramic containers for heating food.
You get the same results ...without the dioxin.
So such things as TV dinners, instant ramen and soups,
etc., should be removed from the container and heated
in something else. Paper isn't bad but you don't know
what is in the paper. Just safer to use tempered
glass, Corning Ware, etc.
Remember when some of the fast food restaurants moved
away from the foam containers to paper? The dioxin
problem is one of the reasons.
To add to this: Saran wrap placed over foods as they
are nuked, with the high heat, actually drips
poisonous toxins into the food, use paper towels
instead.

Please pass this on to your family & friends, & those
who are important in your life.

Your products and their link to childhood cancers.

2004-10-01T21:57:00.000-07:00

Report Links Chemicals To Rise In Childhood Cancers

Harmful Chemicals Can Be Found In Household Products

POSTED: 3:28 p.m. EDT May 8, 2003

BOSTON -- A new report states that most cancer in children is not inherited but rather caused by chemicals in air, water and household products.
NewsCenter 5's Liz Brunner reported that the report says that childhood cancer in Massachusetts is rising at a rate of 1 percent each year, higher than the national average. Researchers said chemical exposure is responsible, especially in incidences of leukemia, brain cancers and cancers of the central nervous system.

The study released by University of Massachusetts-Lowell and the Boston University School of Public Health shows childhood cancer cases increased 21 percent between 1975 and 1998.
"Most people think that if chemicals are in products they use every day, they must be proven safe by the government," said Joel Tickner, of UMass-Lowell. "The government wouldn't let them into their products if they weren't, indeed, safe. And that's not true."
The state has investigated cancer clusters in various communities. Lee Brooks, of Wilmington, volunteered to have her water tested two years ago. As the parent of two healthy children, she wanted to help.
"For the parents, you're thinking, how do they go through this?" Brooks said. "How do they deal with it?"
A year later, her son, Paul, was diagnosed with leukemia.
"My son came down with leukemia," she said. "I was in shock."
Researchers said the increase in childhood cancers can be linked to chemicals from car emissions, pesticides used on lawns and exposure by parents before conception to dangerous workplace toxins, such as paints and petroleum-based solvents.
"Dioxin is one of those," said Richard Clapp, of the BU School of Public Health. "Dioxin is released when plastics are incinerated or medical waste is incinerated, so there are ways to reduce that or use less-toxic materials in the first place."
No one will ever know whether chemicals found in the Wilmington water supply caused Paul Brooks' leukemia, but his mother said prevention needs to be a priority.
"I would like to see people become more involved so that they know where these cancers are coming from and what is causing them," she said.
While childhood cancer may be increasing, it affects just 16 out of every 100,000 children each year.
New legislation is being debated that would replace 10 of the most dangerous chemicals listed in the report with safer substitutes.

Copyright 2003 by TheBostonChannel. All rights reserved.
Also here is the link to the full report mentioned above. It is a 54 page report in PDF format entitled "Toxic Chemicals and Childhood Cancer: A review of the evidence". I think it will be useful to all of you. Also, this is the website that you can find the report if you want to have that credibility for others. http://www.headlice.org/news/2003/cancerrise-report.pdf

Your cleaning products and your kid's asthma

2004-10-01T21:56:00.000-07:00

Here is the site:
http://www.babycenter.com/news/?id=520880#story

Here is the story:
Cleaning products may raise kids' asthma risk
THURSDAY, Aug. 26 (HealthDayNews)

— The fumes emitted from homecleaning products and solvents may increase the risk of childhoodasthma, according to a new Australian study.The study included 88 toddlers with asthma and 104 without asthma.The children were tested for allergic reactions, and their parentsfilled out detailed questionnaires about the children's health.Researchers at Curtin University of Technology in Perth alsoassessed levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in thechildren's homes. VOCs are found in cigarette smoke, cleaningproducts, room fresheners, polishes, fitted carpets, solvents,paints, and floor adhesives.Indoor levels of VOCs were much higher in the homes of children withasthma. The highest asthma risk was associated with benzene,ethylbenzene, and toluene.The study authors concluded that their study, though small, supportstheir theory that exposure to indoor pollutants early in life may bean important factor in later development of asthma.The research was published Thursday in the journal Thorax.In another study, researchers from the University of Sydney found noassociation between the current use of indoor heating appliancesthat emit fumes and the development of respiratory problems inchildren. But the researchers did find a 47 percent greaterlikelihood of wheezing and hyperactive airways among children wholived in a home with this type of heater during the first year oflife.-- Robert Preidt, HealthDayNews

Toxins in general

2004-10-01T21:47:00.000-07:00

Did You know?
We are exposed to 500 chemicals every day and Manufacturers aren't required to list the ingredients used in their cleaning products.

According to the American cancer society 55% of all American women with cancer either work from home or stay home with their children and it’s being linked to daily exposure to the hazardous chemicals found in households products.

In the USA the #1 cause of accidental poisonings is Dawn dishwashing liquid. Why? Because it’s the #1 seller.

We are exposed to toxins through inhaling, absorption and ingestion..The top three culprits of poison control are household cleaners, bleach and medications.

Many Laundry soaps that people buy contain a chemical called LYE and lye is caustic to the immune system and is also the number one pollutant to our environment.

Formaldehyde, phenol and benzene are all found in common household products and cosmetics. They are known to be cancer causing and toxic to the immune and nervous system.

Formaldehyde for instance is in many products like Johnson and Johnson’s baby shampoo. You won’t find the actual name formaldehyde but what you find is the trade name Quarternium 15 or poly-Quarternium 10. Formaldehyde is very toxic. It weakens the immune system making you more vulnerable to other toxic chemicals, but is also a reason why our children may have dry skin, eczema or psoriasis. You may not be aware that harmful things are in your everyday products.

And why is the baby shampoo NO TEARS…they put a desensitizing agent like Novocain to prevent stinging and burning.

What’s wrong with fabric softeners that we’re using to make our clothes so soft and cuddly? They contain chemicals like camphor, chloroform, benzyl acetate, limonene and pentane and they are know to cause cancer and /or damage to lungs brain and nerves.

These chemicals are even more dangerous when heated in clothes dryers. Steam from our dryer vents is extremely toxic, because of the chemicals from dryer sheets and residue from laundry soap and bleach and then the fumes go into our neighborhood air and everyone for blocks around is forced to breathe them in.

Fabric softener chemicals are made to stay in clothes fibers and slowly release for a very long time. That slow release of chemicals into the air affects the health of those wearing the clothes and of people around them. Some symptoms caused by fabric softener fumes are: tiredness that is not cured by resting, difficulty breathing, nervousness for no known reason, difficulty concentrating and remembering, dizziness, headaches, sick stomach, feeling faint, rashes and/or difficulty controlling body movements. Babies, children, older people, and people who are already sick are especially hurt by these chemicals. Damage can be permanent, causing lifelong illness. Babies often react with rashes, frequent crying and/or diarrhea. Most fabric softeners have fragrance added to them, which makes them even more toxicDisinfectants can have the same effects.

Experts suggest a possible connection between Sudden Infant Death ("crib death") and the use of these products for washing baby clothes and crib sheets and blankets.Folks, the products we are talking about here are used in a majority of North American homes but you will not find the chemicals listed on the label because they are considered trade secrets.

Some of the more popular ones are Proctor & Gamble’s Downy and Bounce and Lever Brothers’ Snuggle.

WHAT’S WRONG WITH SCENTED DETERGENT?

Almost all detergents contain fragrance - even many that are labeled "no perfume" or "unscented"! 95% of the chemicals used in fragrances are made from petroleum products. Many are known to cause cancer, birth defects, and damage to lungs, brain, and nerves. Some chemicals commonly used in fragrances, such as toluene, are listed as hazardous waste worldwide.

Fragrances are not regulated by any government or health agency. There is no law that requires fragrance ingredients to be put on product labels. For example, Para-dichlorobenzene is a cancer-causing chemical used in many "air fresheners", as well as in some pesticides. U.S. law requires that it be listed as an active ingredient in pesticides, but it does not have to be listed at all on "air freshener" labels.

Speaking of air fresheners they desensitize the nerves in your nose so you cannot smell and the oils from the air wicks or plug-ins coat your nose with fine oil.The more often you breathe in these chemicals (24 hours a day if they are in clothes and bedding), the more likely you are to permanently damage your body. They also add to the damage done by chemicals present at work and in public places. You may feel tired, breathless or lightheaded, sick to your stomach, or get a headache, and not realize these are early signs of chemical poisoning.

Lysol (c) is even more dangerous than we thought. It contains phenols and dioxin (Agent Orange).

Bleach must be safe because people have been using it for years, right? WRONG! When using bleach, antiseptics or chlorine in industrial areas you are required by OSHA to wear impervious protective clothing, hard hats, boots, gloves, apron or coveralls, chemical goggles or full face shield and use only in well ventilated areas. And did you know that bleach is banned in Europe!! And they’re trying to have it banned in Canada and the united states now. You ever get bleach on your hands and they feel slimy?? The bleach is actually melting the skin cells on your hands and then they’re extremely dry…and remember the bleach and laundry detergents do not wash out…you are living in clothes, sleeping on sheets and blankets that all have these residues still in them.

From the Environmental Health Newsletter, spring 1991: We've known for a long time that Lysol contains a substance called Phenol, the ingestion of which even in small amounts can cause nausea, vomiting, circulatory collapse, paralysis, convulsions, coma, respiratory failure and cardiac arrest. (Why would anyone with children keep such a product in their home?)

We have learned recently Lysol also contains Dioxin. That's the deadly ingredient used in Agent Orange that can cause genetic mutation, birth defects and cancer. In a recent court case, Monsanto, (Lysol's parent corporation) admitted to a 30 year cover-up, lying about the presence of Dioxin in the Chloro-phenol used in Lysol. They admitted knowing how devastating Dioxin is to the environment and in the human body...yet they still put it in and they still lied and said it wasn't there. A recent article in Greenpeace Magazine recently discussed Dioxin at length. The article explained Dioxin causes cancer, birth defects and reproductive problems, as well as developmental and nervous and immune system abnormalities and damage to the kidneys, liver and skin. Even worse, it not only causes cancer, it promotes the growth of cancers begun by other carcinogens! Not surprisingly, the article also pointed out that Monsanto (one of the nation's largest manufacturers of Dioxin) manipulated studies designed to test Dioxin's effect on the environment and made the studies scientifically invalid. In other words... they changed the data and lied again.

Household chemicals cause all kinds of problems that you would never suspect could be related to cleaning your home and clothes such as: cardiovascular problems, panic and anxiety attacks, and bedwetting.We have no choice but to breathe the air, and eat the food, and drink thewater, but, we DO have a CHOICE of what we put on our skin and what productswe have in our homes.Why are these chemicals in our homes at all? - Probably because you didn’t realize how dangerous they can be. I know I didn’t! - Probably because if they’re in the stores there must be some kind of regulation right? But there aren’t!·

Why are we taking unnecessary chances with our children?Most poisonings happen slowly, over a long period of time, by daily exposure to toxins in the air, and toxic chemicals that come into contact with the skin?

Consumer Product Safety Commission report identified 150 chemicals commonly found in homes that have been linked to allergies, birth defects, cancer, and psychological abnormalities. These toxic chemicals act as endocrine disrupters and can result in a variety of ways; fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, lack of fertility, etc. But when children are exposed to these day in and day out, their little immune systems can only take so much and their little bodies respond with learning difficulties or disabilities, allergies, lung problems, ADD, ADHD1.

So you wonder Why asthma rate is up 600% from 19802. Why cancer rates have almost doubled since 1960? (Cancer has become the #1 killer of kids)3. Specifically, why breast cancer rates have increased 26% since 1982?4. Why we never even heard of ADD or ADHD when we were growing up? It’s like an epidemic now.5. Why EVERYONE seems to have allergies of some kind or another?All of these have been linked back, at least somewhat, to exposure to toxic chemicals commonly found in household cleaners and cosmetics.

WHAT IS A CARCINOGEN Anyway? A Carcinogen is a substance or agent producing or inciting cancer.Today, cancer is the leading cause of death for women aged 35-74.In 1901 cancer was considered a rare disease. Statistics show that 1 out of8000 persons had cancer.TODAY, according to the American Cancer Society, 1 out of 3 people havecancer.By the year 2010, 1 out of 2 persons will be touched by cancer.

BTW, Airborne chemical are now a suspected cause of SIDSOF COURSE household cleaning and personal care products are NOT the only source of chemicals in your home, although they ARE some of the most deadly. They are also the most easiest to replace. Why not at least cut back on the constant bombardment of chemicals in our lives with something we can control?

So what do we DO as Parents?· This is a call to action. Don’t wait! Make your home a healthier and safer place today.· switch to non-toxic brands.

What is in your make up? (part 2)

2004-10-01T21:43:00.000-07:00

FDA Failing to Remove Toxic Chemicals from Cosmetics

Posted 6/1/04

HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT Activists Push for Safer Ingredients in Makeup
By Molly M. Ginty - WeNews correspondent

(WOMENSENEWS)--It's the beauty industry's ugly secret.
For decades, cosmetic companies have made products containing chemicalcompounds that have been linked to reproductive birth defects and cancer.The compounds are phthalates (pronounced THA-laytes) and they help cosmeticsadhere without smudging.

The European Union has banned phthalates from all cosmetics and now acoalition of advocacy groups has given U.S. companies a deadline of Monday,May 3 to support a ban.

Three environmentally-conscious manufacturers (Body Shop International,Urban Decay Cosmetics and Aveda Corporation) have already volunteered toremove phthalates from all their products. But New York-based Estee LauderCompanies, Inc. (which has annual revenues of $4.7 billion) andCincinnati-based Procter and Gamble Company (which has annual revenues of$40.2 billion) are the only large, multinational companies to followsuit--and they have done so by removing phthalates from one product, nailpolish.

Representatives of the $29 billion cosmetics industry (which is not subjectto regulatory approval before putting its products on the market and whichdoes not have to list phthalates on ingredient labels) are balking at theproposed ban.
Industry insiders say levels of the substance are safe and the outcry is allbased on tests of animal subjects that do not translate into human risks.They argue that there is no need for them to reformulate their U.S. productsand use substitutes for phthalates, as they will for all products sold inEurope starting in September 2004.

On April 19, Estee Lauder pledged to eliminate the chemicals from its MACand Clinique nail polish lines, while on the same day, Procter and Gamblepromised to remove them from its Max Factor and Cover Girl nail polishlines.
"This is a much bigger issue than nail polish or phthalates," says BarbaraBrenner, the executive director of the San-Francisco-based Breast CancerAction, one of the advocacy groups putting pressure on the cosmeticsindustry. "It could be the beginning of a revolution in consumer safety.People need to know that some cosmetics contain toxic chemicals and theyneed to demand that safer ingredients be used."

Industry Minimizes Risks
For their part, many cosmetic industry representatives insist that phthalatelevels in makeup do not pose a hazard to human health. "Science clearlysupports the continued safe use of these ingredients," says Gerald McEwan,vice president for science at the Cosmetic, Toiletry, and FragranceAssociation, a Washington-based trade group. He invokes studies done byindependent researchers and by the cosmetics companies themselves.
Health advocates, however, say a growing body of research indicates that theingredient is not worth the risk.

A 2000 study at the University of Puerto Rico in San Juan linked phthalates(which are also used to soften plastic) to early puberty in girls. Studiesconducted at Harvard University in Cambridge in 2002 and 2003 linked thechemicals to decreased sperm counts in men. Researchers from severaldifferent environmental groups say that phthalates, which disrupt hormonefunction, may contribute to the rising incidence of uterine problems inwomen, testicular cancer in men and infertility in both sexes.

In May 2002, the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based advocacyorganization, tested 72 cosmetics and found measurable levels of phthalatesin three-quarters of them. Though the levels were minimal, scientists warnedthat their combined effect could pose health problems. They pointed to a2000 study by the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,which found that phthalate levels in young women (who represent the bulk ofcosmetics consumers) may be 20 times higher than average. The group'sresearchers called on the scientific community to study phthalates in moredepth and to reassess exposure levels that are considered safe.
Intensifying Campaign

The decision to remove phthalates from nail polish comes in the wake ofintense lobbying from health and environmental groups.
In March, Breast Cancer Action and 60 other organizations sent a letter toEstee Lauder Companies Inc., the Procter and Gamble Company, Avon ProductsInc., Revlon Consumer Products Corporation, Unilever, and the L'Oreal Groupdemanding that these companies comply with European regulations banning"carcinogens, mutagens and reproductive toxins." The chemicals they'retargeting include di-n-butyl phthalate (DBP, commonly found in nail polish)and di(2-ehtylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP, found in perfumes).

The Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association calls the Europeanregulation "unnecessary" and dismisses research on phthalates for tworeasons: Phthalate levels in cosmetics are well within U.S. safety standardsand because most studies on the chemicals' ill effects have been conductedon animals and not humans.

Some Human Effects Reported
While it's true that most phthalate studies have been done on mice and rats,adverse effects in humans have been reported.
When Olivia James gave birth to her son Darren seven years ago, she learnedhe had bright eyes and a dimple on his right cheek. She also learned he hadhypospadias, a birth defect in which the urethra fails to extend the wholelength of the penis.

Repeated surgeries have corrected Darren's problem. But his mother, now 40and living in Princeton, N.J., still can't shake the horror she felt whenlearned about phthalates and realized her son's condition could be linked tothe chemicals in the makeup and hair products she used during her 15 yearsas a professional model.

Every day of her career, James slathered on foundation, eye shadow, lipstickand mascara containing phthalates. In addition to wearing heavy makeup,James also had her hair straightened once a month. Like many hair productsaimed at African Americans, the straightener she used contained a highconcentration of phthalates.

"American manufacturers argue that no single product has been proven to havea detrimental effect," says James, 40, of Princeton, N. J. "But when you'reusing 10 or 20 of these products each day, the cumulative exposure does addup."

The cosmetic industry's defense--that it follows safety standards--is comingunder fire.

Federal authorities have set the safety level for phthalate exposure at2,800 milligrams of phthalates per kilogram of body weight per day--athreshold the critics say is too high.

"This standard is based on old studies," says Stacy Malkan, a spokespersonfor Health Care Without Harm, an environmental advocacy group based inWashington, D.C. "Information is not only incomplete, but conflicting. TheNational Toxicology Program lists some phthalates as carcinogens, but othergovernment agencies do not."

Putting Risks on Labels
Health advocates are urging authorities to reform labeling practices andstudy cosmetic ingredients in more depth.

The federal Food and Drug Administration takes a hands-off approach tocosmetics. Instead of testing products before they hit the market, the FDAregulates these products only after they are sold, investigating healthcomplaints when and if complaints are filed.

"The FDA says there is no harm until harm is proven," says Malkan.

"U.S.cosmetic companies are not required by law to mention phthalates or manyother chemical compounds on their labels. Nail polish is actually one of thefew products for which phthalates must be listed."

With the nail polish victory behind them, health advocates are demandingthat U.S. cosmetics manufacturers starting using the same formulations theyuse in Europe, where cosmetics are made in factories separate those sold inthe United States. In addition, they're calling for further study of othersuspect ingredients: parabens (which are in face creams and lotions and havebeen found in human breast tumors) and formaldehyde (which is found in nailpolish and blush and has been linked to cancer).

Health advocates have made some headway in California, where regulators haveadded the phthalate DEHP to the list of chemicals known to cause birthdefects. Later this year, California legislators plan to vote on a billrequiring more detailed labeling of cosmetics and banning all ingredientsthat fail to meet standards for "safe use."

"Chemicals linked to birth defects and infertility don't belong incosmetics," says Bryony Schwan, a spokesperson for the Montana-basedadvocacy group Women's Voices for the Earth. "We demand that manufacturersact responsibly and immediately remove them from the products that we useevery day."

Molly M. Ginty is a freelance writer based in New York City.

What is in your make up?

2004-10-01T21:42:00.000-07:00

Make-up kit holds hidden danger of cancer! New study claims legal loopholes allow beauty products to contain deadly toxins Amelia Hill Sunday April 7, 2002 The Observer Women are being exposed to deadly diseases through the everyday use of common cosmetics bought over the counter, according to a new study. The growing list of synthetic ingredients manufacturers add to their products are turning the most innocent-looking shampoos and moisturizers into cocktails of toxins that could cause cancer over years of sustained use. In Drop Dead Gorgeous: Protecting Yourself From The Hidden Dangers of Cosmetics, to be published in Britain next month, authors Kim Erickson and Dr Samuel S. Epstein reveal how manufacturers exploit loopholes in legislation designed to protect the public. 'These synthetic ingredients are inexpensive, stable and have a long shelf-life,' said Erickson. 'Manufacturers love them, but although the majority of products appear safe in the short run the results from long-term use could be deadly.' The UK cosmetics industry, which employs more than 20,000 people and accounts for £4.5 billion in sales each year, is regulated under the Department of Trade and Industry's 1996 Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations. But while the regulations have approved more than 3,000 ingredients for cosmetic use in Europe, Erickson warns that many more find their way into use through loopholes, such as the caveat that allows products to contain traces of banned substances if they could not reasonably be removed during or after manufacture. 'Modern cosmetics contain a host of dubious ingredients which would be more at home in a test tube than on our faces,' said Erickson. 'Coal tar colors, phenylenediamine, benzene, even formaldehyde, are just a few of the synthetic chemicals commonly included in shampoos, skin creams and blushes - toxins which are absorbed into your skin with every use.' Unlike food or drugs, cosmetics and their raw ingredients are not subject to review or independent pre-market approval, a situation criticized by experts including Dr Jean Munro, medical director of The Breakspear Hospital, Hertfordshire, which specializes in allergies and has seen 8,000 women since opening in 1982 - nearly all of whom were found to have a sensitivity to cosmetics. 'There is no question that people are being damaged by their cosmetics,' Munro said. 'How can they not be? So many things are put into cosmetics now that are carcinogenic and it is allowed because cosmetics are not considered to be as serious as drugs or food.' Munro believes the presence of large numbers of even small amounts of banned substances means that, over time, users will have been exposed to danger. 'One of the most extreme cases I have seen was a woman whose bone marrow was affected by chemicals used in hair dye. The level of her blood platelets dropped and she broke out in a severe rash,' she said. 'The situation as it is is plainly dangerous - unacceptably so.' Denise Santamarina, a 34-year-old beautician, has spent 10 years battling chemically induced lupus. 'I started getting sick when I began taking cosmetology classes,' she said. 'Over the next 10 years I suffered from a string of digestive problems, sinus infections and excruciating pain in my back, ribcage and arms. There were days when I would crawl across the floor in pain.' Santamarina was given a chemical screening by doctors which showed high levels of benzene and toluene C, both common ingredients in nail polish and polish remover. After leaving her job and removing all synthetic cosmetics from her dressing table, Santamarina gradually began to recover. 'I am basically better now, but it was a long road to travel,' she said. 'I still find it hard to believe that I was poisoned by cosmetics, but the cause and effect leave no room for argument.' Erickson believes the adverse effects of toxins is compounded over decades, confusing hormone receptors and slowly altering cell structure. Chemicals are transmitted into the bloodstream in a number of ways: powders have the least absorption, while oily solutions or those designed to increase moisture allow more of the chemical to be absorbed. Eye makeup can be absorbed by the highly sensitive mucous membranes. Hair sprays, perfumes and dusting powders can be inhaled, irritating the lungs. Lipstick is often chewed off and swallowed. The United Nations Environmental Programme estimates that approximately 70,000 chemicals are in common use across the world with 1,000 new chemicals being introduced every year. Of all the chemicals used in cosmetics, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health has reported that nearly 900 are toxic - although other groups attack that figure as being far too conservative. 'Compared to the toxins found in our air, soil and waterways, cosmetics seem a trivial pursuit to many environmental health and consumer advocacy groups,' said Erickson. 'But many of the same poisons that pollute our environment, from dioxins to petrochemicals, can be found in the jars and bottles that line our bathroom shelves.' Erickson admits it is too early to know with certainty how serious the long-term impact could be on health, but warns that hormone-disrupting chemicals may lurk in cosmetics which could lower immunity to disease and cause neurological and reproductive damage. 'Many of these same ingredients have been found to cause cancer in laboratory animals,' she said. 'At best, a visit to your neighborhood cosmetic counter could result in allergies, irritations and sensitivities.' Some companies are moving slowly towards producing synthetic-free cosmetics, but experts say it is too early to judge whether these ranges are all they claim to be.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002

Do you know what is in your diet soda?

2004-10-01T21:39:00.000-07:00

$350 MILLION RICO LAWSUIT FILED OVER ASPARTAME

By DevvyPosted: September 16, 200412:05 AM EasternNewsWithViews.com

A $350 million class action lawsuit was filed on September 15, 2004 in United States District Court in San Francisco, California, case no: C 04 3872. This class action racketeering (RICO) lawsuit was filed against the NutraSweet Corporation, American Diabetes Association, Dr. Robert H. Moser and John Does 1-50. Plaintiffs maintain that this lawsuit will prove how deadly the chemical sweetener aspartame is when consumed by humans.
Contained in the lawsuit is the key role played by current Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld (search) in helping to get aspartame pushed through the FDA. Back in the 1980s, Rumsfeld was the President and CEO of Searle who originally owned the patent on aspartame. Plaintiffs maintain that Rumsfeld used his political muscle to get aspartame approved by the FDA despite objections of many FDA health researchers and negative studies.
According to spokesman attorney Britt Groom from Idaho, this lawsuit was filed on behalf of a Mr. Joe Bellon of Concord, California. Groom says a press conference is scheduled for Thursday, September 16, 2004, 11:00 AM at the Sheraton Grand Hotel, 1230 J Street, Sacramento, California. At the press conference, details of the lawsuit will be discussed.

The lawsuit contains the following counts:
1. R.I.C.O. (racketeering charges)
2. Unfair Competition
3. False Advertising
4. Consumer Remedies Act
5. Fraud
6. Breach of Warranty
7. Breach of Merchantability
8. Filed as a Class Action representing the People as a whole and Joe Bellon's personal injuries as well.

According to the press release issued on this RICO lawsuit: "On or about September 8, 2004 an affidavit was signed describing the initial third world studies and the health hazards of aspartame. These studies conducted in 1983/84 by the J.D. Searle Company were translated to English from Spanish by a translator in 1984. The "double blind" studies showed conclusive evidence that aspartame caused severe health problems and even death to the exposed study group. According to the Affidavit, the doctor directing the studies has been missing since the approval of aspartame in 1984. The affidavit also describes how the affiant was directed by J.D. Searle officials to destroy all records of the studies - including filed notes and/or translations - possessed by the affiant. The affiant describes in detail how the translations were forwarded upon completion to J.D. Searle corporate offices in Illinois."
This isn't the first lawsuit filed alleging that aspartame is hazardous to the health of humans. The National Justice League filed three other lawsuit on April 26, 2004, in three separate California courts. The defendants in those lawsuits number twelve and all produce or use the artificial sweetener aspartame as a sugar substitute in their products. Defendants in those lawsuits include Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Bayer Corp., the Dannon Company, William Wrigley Jr. Company, Walmart, ConAgra Foods, Wyeth, Inc., The NutraSweet Company, and Altria Corp. (parent company of Kraft Foods and Philip Morris).
This lawsuit charges the defendants engaged in unlawful acts of "knowingly and intentionally using the neurotoxic Aspartame as a sugar substitute in the manufacture of Equal, while knowing that exposure to Aspartame causes among other diseases/symptoms:abdominal pain, arthritis, asthma, brain cancer, breathing difficulties, burning eyes or throat, burning urination, chest pains, chronic cough, chronic fatigue, death, depression, diarrhea, headaches/migraines, hearing loss, heart palpitations, hives (urticaria), hypertension, impotency and sexual problems, memory loss, menstrual problems or changes, nausea or vomiting, slurring of speech, tremors, tinnitus, vertigo and/or vision loss." The lawsuit also states, "Further, Aspartame disease mimics symptoms or worsens the following diseases: Fibromyalgia, Arthritis, Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson's Disease, Lupus, Diabetes and diabetic complications, Epilepsy, Alzheimer's Disease, birth defects, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Lymphoma, Lyme Disease, Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), Panic Disorder, Depression and other psychological disorders."
Further allegations include, "G.D. Searle denied knowledge of/or involvement with the initiation, design or performance of the study. Yet, the false results were submitted to the FDA like the rest of the 150 G.D. Searle studies (on aspartame and other products), bearing a Searle Pathology-Toxicology project number. Both Dr.Waisman and G.D.Searle were responsible for the study design. A number of false statements were made by G.D. Searle, including that reported the animals were unavailable for purchase for autopsy after the termination of the study."

Defendants in this lawsuit continue to maintain that aspartame is safe for consumption. Aspartame is found in more than 5,000 food products and all diet soft drinks sold in the United States.

Article is here http://www.newswithviews.com/BreakingNews/breaking25.htm

Laundry Detergent

2004-10-01T21:33:00.000-07:00

Where to start on this one? Most laundery detergents are filled with chemicals that can affect your kids (and yourself). Read the following article.

Laundry Detergents

Lets talk about something that "almost everyone" wears on their clothes,
breathes on their pillow cases, destroys many septic systems and leaches
into the lakes and streams. Think about it when you lay your face down on
your pillowcase, especially in the winter when it is cold your warm moist
breath breaks down the following chemicals:

For those of you that listened and watched the story about the Bassett
hound in Portland that bit a hole in a bottle of liquid Tide and then laid in the
tide will understand what I am talking about.

http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?id=57295

Consider what you are wearing on your clothes and the safety of what you
have in your house…not to mention what you are doing to OUR environment!

Phosphates (phosphorus a fertilizer that causes algae to grow and depletes oxygen out of the water.)

Chlorine Bleach (Sodium Hypochlorite)

Lye (Sodium Hydroxide)

Ammonia

Phenols

Fillers

NTA’s

An assortment of toxic chemicals with un-pronounceable
names like Nitrilotriacetic

Acid (NTA). The Merck Index refers to NTA as a
"substance we may reasonably anticipate to be a carcinogen (cancer causing
substance.) Amazingly it is still allowed in our laundry compounds.

Consider the residue from the caustic detergents, oily-film fabric
softeners fats and talo, chemical perfumes and dyes, phosphates that are against your skin all day and covering your body at night? Asthma is up 400% in the past 20 years…it must be a genetic problem??

Why are these caustic ingredients used in laundry detergents? Because they
soften the water and enhance performance. Phosphates and other caustic
ingredients contributed to the virtual death of Lake Erie in the 1970’s.
These ingredients also contributed to the ruining of Cascade Reservoir in
Idaho. In the future the government will be requiring that all manufacturers
must remove phosphates from their products. I have to ask the question….why
haven’t the manufacturers taken the responsibility to remove the phosphates
and other caustic ingredients without the government forcing them to do
it?

Melaleuca Inc. has never used phosphates and caustics for over 16 years
in their home hygiene line of products! Unfortunately in the 1980’s the
general public was not concerned about caustic chemicals in their homes or
OUR environment.

According to David Kullberg’s new publication, House Work May Be Hazardous to Your Health, many areas of the country are requiring laundry detergents
to be low-phosphate. Now manufactures replace phosphates with caustics. The
misconception now is that low phosphates are safe. They may be safer for
the environment, but they are 100 times more caustic than phosphate
detergents. Caustics such as Lye (sodium hydroxide or potassium
hypochlorite) clean by a chemical reaction that burns or eats away other
substances. Caustics also wear out your clothes faster and dull the
fabric’s colors.

Why would any rational thinking individual want to use the above, when they
can use a safer, more effective non-phosphate, non-caustic clothes
detergent for about one half the price? Maybe it is because "mom used it and they cannot break their habit" For those of you who are not already using the
new EcoSense Melapower clothes detergent, Melabrite whitener, PreSpot and
MelaSoft, you owe it to yourselves to try it. Save some money and use a
safer more effective product. You might be surprised that you can breath
better at night and have fewer allergies and don't’ forget the fact that
dust mites don’t like the smell of the Melaleuca oil that is in the
Melapower. By the way, headlice don’t like the smell of it either!
If you would like to read more about this you can buy David Kullberg’s
publication called Housework may be Hazardous to Your Health, available
through RM Barry call 1-888-209-0510.

Let's start with Lysol.

2004-10-01T21:22:00.000-07:00

Can the disenfectent that we use to rid our home of germs actually be causing more problems than it cures? Read the following article to get more info.

Lysol...Even More Dangerous than we thought!

From the Environmental Health Newsletter, spring 1991:

We've known for a long time that Lysol contains a substance called Phenol, the ingestion of which even in small amounts can cause nausea, vomiting, circulatory collapse, paralysis, convulsions, coma, respiratory failure and cardiac arrest. (Why would anyone with children keep such a product in their home?) We have learned recently Lysol also contains Dioxin. that's the deadly ingredient used in Agent Orange that can cause genetic mutation, birth defects and cancer. In a recent court case, Monsanto, (Lysol's parent corporation) admitted to a 30 year cover-up, lying about the presence of Dioxin in the Chlorophenol used in Lysol. They admitted knowing how devastating Dioxin is to the environment and in the human body...yet they still put it in and they still lied and said it wasn't there. A recent article in Greenpeace Magazine recently discussed Dioxin at length. The article explained Dioxin causes cancer, birth defects and reproductive problems, as well as developmental and nervous and immune system abnormalities and damage to the kidneys, liver and skin. Even worse, it not only causes cancer, it promotes the growth of cancers begun by other carcinogens! Not surprisingly, the article also pointed out that Monsanto (one of the nation's largest manufacturers of Dioxin) manipulated studies designed to test Dioxin's effect on the environment and made the studies scientifically invalid. In other words... They changed the data and lied again.

The preceding article is from Dr. Rexroad's "Natural Living Association's Newsletter"
Dr. Arloa Rexroad, N.O.,Ph.D.
419 W. 5th Ave.
North Esthervile, IA 51334-1222