Why Do Airlines Force Us To Breath Toxic Air From Jet Engines? (VIDEO)

Most air travelers are oblivious to the fact that the airline industry forces them to breath in highly toxic jet engine air due to what is, from the perspective of the public health, imbecilic and ruthlessly neglectful aircraft design. 

When the issue of so-called aerotoxicity first came to my attention, I could hardly believe what I was learning: namely, that hundreds of thousands of passengers and crew each day are forced to breath in highly toxic chemicals, which the airline industry knows about but has done virtually nothing to mitigate or resolve since the inception of the practice almost six decades ago.

The facts speak for themselves, and today nearly every airplane designed and produced by the world’s airplane manufacturers forces everyone within them to breath in highly neurotoxic chemicals like tri-cresyl phosphates (TCPs) which are used to lubricate and maintain the jet engines. Were this seat belt safety design, it would be the equivalent of mandating passengers ride on the roof of cars without anything holding them down! 

Here are some of the known side effects of short term exposures to the fumes:

“Blurred or tunnel vision, disorientation, memory impairment, shaking and tremors, nausea/vomiting, paresthesias, loss of balance and vertigo, seizures, loss of consciousness, headache, lightheadedness, dizziness, confusion and feeling intoxicated, breathing difficulties (shortness of breath, tightness in chest, respiratory failure), increased heart rate and palpitations, nystagmus, irritation (eyes, nose and upper airways).” [Source]

Here are some of the known symptoms of long term low level exposure or residual symptoms from short term exposure to the fumes: 

“memory impairment, forgetfulness, lack of coordination, nausea/vomiting, diarrhoea, respiratory problems, chest pain, severe headaches, dizziness and feeling intoxicated, weakness and fatigue (leading to chronic fatigue), exhaustion, increased heart rate and palpitations, numbness (fingers, lips, limbs), hot flashes, joint pain, muscle weakness and pain, salivation, irritation (eyes, nose and upper airways), skin itching and rashes, skin blisters (on uncovered body parts), signs of immunosupression, hair loss, chemical sensitivity leading to acquired or multiple chemical sensitivity.” [Source]

We’ve covered this topic before in greater depth. For instance, you can read, “Asbestos of the Sky” – The Aviation Industry’s Darkest Coverup, to learn more. You can also take a look at the full version of the timeline poster below which covers the issue going all the way back to 1936!

I’m writing about the topic again mainly because as a regular air traveler, I can not escape the clear harm that is being done to me and my fellow humankind, every time I fly. And it literally pains me not to do something about this profound health issue. I take protective supplements as often as I can before and after flying, but the reality is that until the root problem is addressed and the chemicals are removed from the air we breath, slapping band-aids on a problem will only go so far. As one prominent US lawyer once opined: “The only thing filtering this toxic soup out of the cabin are the lungs of the passenger and crew.” 

Consumers and Activists Making Waves

The good news is that, after decades of ignoring or actively covering up the issues, minor but significant reforms are taking place internally within the airline industry. For instance, back in 2009 Boeing introduced the 787 Dreamliner, which — finally! — takes its cabin air from outside the plane and NOT directly from the engines. This move lead to Airbus officially announcing in 2016 it would allow a “bleed free” filtering option on their A320 Neo.

More recently, in September of last year, the Australian airline EasyJet announced it was retrofitting their aircraft with filters, “…to stop toxic fumes entering its passenger cabins and cockpits in a move seen as the industry’s first acknowledgment of “aerotoxic syndrome,”” as reported by The Australian.  Even foreward thinking legislators are starting to take action.  In July of last year, Connecticut senator Richard Blumenthal proposed new legislation (The Cabin Safety Act) to protect pilots, flight attendants, and passengers from this completely preventable public health problem.  While the bill appears stalled, it is part of a growing number of trends which indicate a critical mass of awareness is gathering, and this is putting pressure on the industry to reform.

Can you imagine the mass appeal among recently awoken health activated consumers for an airline alternative which would ensure that the planes provided clean air to their passengers?  Take notice. Speak up. Write about it online or via social media. Also, contacting your airlines directly will have a significant impact if enough of us do it.

If you are interested in learning more there are a number of citizens’ organizations who are doing their part in keeping the public educated on the topic. Here are just a few:

• www.aerotoxic.org 


• https://www.aerotoxicteam.com/


• AEROTOXIC SYNDROME | BLEEDFREE.EU

© April 8, 2018 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.

The post Why Do Airlines Force Us To Breath Toxic Air From Jet Engines? (VIDEO) appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

These Bottled Water Brands Are LOADED with THOUSANDS of Plastic Particles: Is Your Favorite on the List?

Many people try to make a better choice by drinking bottled water instead of tap water since the municipal water from our faucets is loaded with all sorts of chemicals and pollutants. Unfortunately, bottled water may not be that much better.

It’s old news that some brands of bottled water are little more than tap water, but now there’s new research that tells us it gets even worse than that. Each bottle of water could be contaminated with hundreds -or even thousands – of plastic particles, which we ingest every time we take a sip.

A study was performed on 250 bottles of water purchased in 9 different countries at the State University of New York in Fredonia. The following brands were tested:

A few of the brands tested were:

• Aquafina


• Dasani


• Arrowhead


• Boxed Water


• Crystal Geyser


• Evian


• Nestle Pure Life


• Deer Park


• Eternal Water


• Trader Joe’s Mountain Spring


• San Pellegrino


• Aqua (Indonesia)


• Bisleri (India)


• Epura (Mexico)


• Gerolsteiner (Germany)


• Minalba (Brazil)


• Wahaha (China)


• Fiji


• Glaceau Smart


• Ice Mountain


• Icelandic Glacial


• Ozarka


• Penta


• Poland Spring


• Texas Spring Water


• True Zealand


• Zephyrhills

The results of the bottled water testing

93% of the water bottles had some contamination from plastic particles. The plastic particles were identified as 54% polypropylene, 16% nylon, 11% polystyrene 10% polyethylene, 6% polyester, and 3% other types of plastic.

One report said that the worst offenders in US brands were said to be Boxed Water, Fiji, Ozarka, Evian, Icelandic Glacial and Crystal Geyser.

An Australian news outlet posted the following chart with numbers on the highest and lowest counts of plastic in certain brands. Look at Nestle’s high.

LOWEST/HIGHEST NUMBER OF PARTICLES FOUND PER LITRE, PER BRAND:

Aquafina: Lowest – 2, Highest – 1295

Dasani: Lowest – 2, Highest -335

Evian: Lowest – 0, Highest – 5230

Nestle Pure Life: Lowest – 6, Highest – 10390

San Pellegrino: Lowest – 0, Highest – 74

Interestingly, some bottles from the same case included widely varying amounts of plastic.

Orb Media, who performed the test, said:

Some of the bottles we tested contained so many particles that we asked a former astrophysicist to use his experience counting stars in the heavens to help us tally these fluorescing constellations.

Sizes ranged from the width of a human hair down to the size of a red blood cell. Some bottles had thousands. A few effectively had no plastic at all.

One bottle had a concentration of more than 10,000 particles per liter. (source)

What are the effects on human health?

It’s actually the smaller particles that you have to be more worried about, according to this chart by Orb Media.

photo credit: Orb Media

While you may be drinking bottled water to avoid contamination such as that found in the water of Flint, Michigan, it looks like you may be consuming a completely different type of contaminant.

Although we don’t fully understand yet the health implications of consuming microplastic, [Abigail] Barrows says the preliminary results of this study are clear: “People are directly ingesting plastic particles when drinking most types of bottled water.” (source)

I seriously doubt that drinking plastic particles is good for you, considering all the concern that plastic could be a major contributing factor to the cancer boom in the first world. (Learn more about what’s in our water in my book, The Prepper’s Water Survival Guide.)

Bottling companies refuted the findings

The BBC contacted some of the bottling companies to ask them what they thought about the tests performed by Orb Media.

Nestle told us its own internal testing for microplastics began more than two years ago and had not detected any “above trace level”. A spokesman added that Prof Mason’s study missed key steps to avoid “false positives” but he invited Orb Media to compare methods.

Gerolsteiner also said it had been testing its water for microplastics for a number of years and that the results showed levels “significantly below the limits for particles” set for pharmaceutical companies. It said it could not understand how Prof Mason’s study reached its conclusions.

It also said its measures exceeded industry standards but added that microparticles are “everywhere” so “the possibility of them entering the product from ambient air or packaging materials during the bottling process can therefore not be completely ruled out”.

Coca-Cola said it had some of the most stringent quality standards in the industry and used a “multi-step filtration process”. But it too acknowledged that microplastics “appear to be ubiquitous and therefore may be found at minute levels even in highly treated products”.

Danone said it could not comment on the study because “the methodology used is unclear” but added that its own bottles had “food grade packaging”.

It pointed out that there are no regulations on microplastics or a scientific consensus on how to test for them, and it also highlighted a much smaller German study last year that found plastic particles in single use bottles but not above a statistically significant amount.

PepsiCo said Aquafina had “rigorous quality control measures sanitary manufacturing practices, filtration and other food safety mechanisms which yield a reliably safe product”.

It described the science of microplastics as “an emerging field, in its infancy, which requires further scientific analysis, peer-reviewed research and greater collaboration across many stakeholders”. (source)

Some articles noted that the plastic in the water was environmental, and not occurring at the factories, but isn’t the reason people buy bottled water to get the environmental contaminants filtered out?

How can you ensure your water is safe?

Your very best bet for safe water is water that you filter yourself using a high-quality device. Clearly, it’s impossible to trust the industry, which is probably of little surprise to most reading this website.

Sources for this article:

• https://orbmedia.org/stories/plus-plastic/


• https://www.9news.com.au/national/2018/03/15/11/10/bottled-water-brands-contain-plastic-particles-research


• http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43388870


• http://malaysiandigest.com/world/728084-new-study-reveals-shocking-results-of-bottled-water-brands-with-highest-plastic-contamination.html

The post These Bottled Water Brands Are LOADED with THOUSANDS of Plastic Particles: Is Your Favorite on the List? appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Human Hormones Are Being Eclipsed By Synthetic Chemicals

A study published in the Journal of Applied Toxicology has raised some disturbing possibilities regarding the dangers of common hormone-mimicking preservatives found in thousands of consumer products on the market today.[1]

Titled “Parabens detection in different zones of the human breast: consideration of source and implications of findings,” researchers discussed the role that parabens — a class of estrogen-mimicking chemicals widely used in drugs, foods and cosmetics — may have in breast cancer and childhood disease.

The report focused on the findings of The Genesis Breast Cancer Prevention Centre at the University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust published last month (March, 2012), which discovered five paraben esters in human breast tissue samples collected from 40 mastectomies from women with primary breast cancer.[2] The report revealed three things:

1) The ester form of parabens found within the breast tissue samples indicated a dermal route of exposure, as would occur through skin care products and underarm deodorants.

2) The paraben residues were found at concentrations up to 1 million times higher than the estrogen (estradiol) levels naturally found in human breast tissue.

3) Propylparaben was found in the highest concentration in the underarm area (axilla), where underarm deodorants are most used and breast cancer prevalence is at its highest.

While the World Health Organization considers the estrogenic properties of parabens to be a low toxicological risk due to it being 10,000-100,000 less potent than estradiol (E2), the 1 million-fold higher levels found within breast tissue sampled clearly indicate the magnitude of exposure more than compensates for the reduction in potency.

Also noted in the new study was a highly disturbing possibility: “For exposures in children, concern has already been raised that ‘the estrogenic burden of parabens and their metabolites in blood may exceed the action of endogenous estradiol in childhood and the safety margin for propylparaben is very low when comparing worst-case exposure’ (Boberg et al., 2010).”

In other words, synthetic hormones from chemicals like parabens may actually be eclipsing the activity of endogenously produced (natural) hormones in our children.  Given that 99.1% of the US population’s urine samples (ages 6 or older) contain methylparaben, this issue has broad-ranging implications.

Presently, European regulations allow for the use of parabens in cosmetics at up to 0.4% by volume.  The limits in the US are much less restricted. According to the FDA’s website: “The Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) reviewed the safety of methylparaben, propylparaben, and butylparaben in 1984 and concluded they were safe for use in cosmetic products at levels up to 25%. Typically parabens are used at levels ranging from 0.01 to 0.3%.” Parabens are also FDA-approved for use as food preservatives.

Given the fact that modern-day toxicological risk assessments do not account for the adverse effects of chronic, low-dose exposures, nor the reality of synergistic toxicities, i.e. the reality that a chemical’s adverse effects may be amplified when present alongside other chemicals, this new research points to a disturbing possibility: commonly used preservatives may be contributing greatly to the burden of disease in exposed populations — especially infants and children, whose body burden is higher (lower body weight vs. chemical dose), susceptibility to chemically-induced genotoxicity higher (because their cells replicate more rapidly), and detoxification systems are less developed than adults.

It is becoming increasingly clear that in order to protect ourselves and especially our offspring from avoidable chemical exposures this country needs to implement the precautionary principle in its toxicological risk assessments: if there is indication that a chemical could do harm (based on cell and animal studies), it should be treated as if it does do harm, and be regulated accordingly. Until then, we are effectively a living and breathing nation of guinea pigs.

For additional research on paraben toxicity visit our research page on the topic. Also, view four studies on ginger’s ability to reduce paraben toxicity.

---

[1] Measurement of paraben concentrations in human breast tissue at serial locations across the breast from axilla to sternum. J Appl Toxicol. 2012 Mar ;32(3):219-32. Epub 2012 Jan 12. PMID: 22237600

[2] Parabens detection in different zones of the human breast: consideration of source and implications of findings. J Appl Toxicol. 2012 May ;32(5):305-9. Epub 2012 Mar 7. PMID: 22408000

© March 12, 2018 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.

The post Human Hormones Are Being Eclipsed By Synthetic Chemicals appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

California Gov’t Caught Building Housing on Contaminated Nuclear Test Sites

As a city prepares to spend $8 billion building government housing, the $1 billion it paid contractors to clean up the contamination from the former nuclear test site, appears to have been wasted.

The post California Gov’t Caught Building Housing on Contaminated Nuclear Test Sites appeared first on The Free Thought Project.

Top Pharma-Brand of Children’s Vitamins Contains Aspartame, GMOs and Other Hazardous Chemicals

The #1 Children’s Vitamin Brand in the US contains ingredients that most parents would never intentionally expose their children to, so why aren’t more opting for healthier alternatives?

Kids vitamins are supposed to be healthy, right? Well then, what’s going on with Flintstones Vitamins, which proudly claims to be “Pediatricians’ #1 Choice”?  Produced by the global pharmaceutical corporation Bayer, this wildly successful brand features a shocking list of unhealthy ingredients, including:

• Aspartame


• Cupric Oxide


• Coal tar artificial coloring agents (FD&C Blue #2, Red #40, Yellow #6)


• Zinc Oxide


• Sorbitol


• Ferrous Fumarate


• Hydrogenated Oil (Soybean)


• GMO Corn starch

On Bayer Health Science’s Flintstones product page designed for healthcare professionals they lead into the product description with the following tidbit of information:

82% of kids aren’t eating all of their veggies¹. Without enough vegetables, kids may not be getting all of the nutrients they need.

References: 1. Lorson BA, Melgar-Quinonez HR, Taylor CA. Correlates of fruit and vegetable intakes in US children. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009;109(3):474-478.

The implication? That Flintstones vitamins somehow fill this nutritional void. But let’s look a little closer at some of these presumably healthy ingredients….

ASPARTAME

Aspartame is a synthetic combination of the amino acids aspartic acid and l-phenylalanine, and is known to convert into highly toxic methanol and formaldehyde in the body.  Aspartame has been linked to over 40 adverse health effects in the biomedical literature, and has been shown to exhibit both neurotoxicity and carcinogenicity [1]  What business does a chemical like this have doing in a children’s vitamin, especially when non-toxic, non-synthetic non-nutritive sweeteners like stevia already exist?

CUPRIC OXIDE

Next, let’s look closer at Cupric Oxide, 2mg of which is included in each serving of Flinstone’s Complete chewable vitamins as a presumably  ‘nutritional’ source of ‘copper,’ supplying “100% of the Daily Value  (Ages 4+), according to Flintstones Vitamins Web site’s Nutritional Info.[2]

But what is Cupric Oxide? A nutrient or a chemical?

According to the European Union’s Dangerous Substance Directive, one of the main EU laws concerning chemical safety, Cupric Oxide is listed as a Hazardous substance, classified as both  “Harmful (XN)” and “Dangerous for the environment” (N).  Consider that it has industrial applications as a pigment in ceramics, and as a chemical in the production of rayon fabric and dry cell batteries. In may be technically correct to call it a mineral, but should it be listed as a nutrient in a children’s vitamin? We think not.

COAL TAR ARTIFICIAL COLORING AGENTS

A well-known side effect of using synthetic dyes is attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. For direct access to study abstracts on this topic view our Food Coloring research page.  There is also indication that the neurotoxicity of artificial food coloring agents increase when combined with aspartame,[3] making the combination of ingredients in Flintstones even more concerning.

ZINC OXIDE

Each serving of Flinstones Complete Chewable vitamins contain 12 mg of zinc oxide, which the manufacturer claims delivers 75% of the Daily Value to children 2  & 3 years of age.  Widely used as a sun protection factor (SPF) in sunscreens, The EU’s Dangerous Substance Directive classifies it as an environmental Hazard, “Dangerous for the environment (N).”  How it can be dangerous to the environment, but not for humans ingesting it, escapes me.  One thing is for sure, if one is to ingest supplemental zinc, or market it for use by children, it makes much more sense using a form that is organically bound (i.e. ‘chelated’) to an amino acid like glycine, as it will be more bioavailable and less toxic.

SORBITOL

Sorbitol is a synthetic sugar substitute which is classified as a sugar alcohol. It can be argued that it has no place in the human diet, much less in a child’s. The ingestion of higher amounts have been linked to gastrointestinal disturbances from abdominal pain to more serious conditions such as irritable bowel syndrome.[4]

FERROUS FUMARATE

The one clear warning on the Flinstone’s Web site concerns this chemical. While it is impossible to die from consuming iron from food, e.g. spinach, ferrous fumarate is an industrial mineral and not found in nature as food. In fact, ferrous fumarate is so toxic that accidental overdose of products containing this form is “a leading cause of fatal poisoning in children under 6.” The manufacturer further warns:

Keep this product out of reach of children. In case of accidental overdose, call a doctor or poison control center immediately.

HYDROGENATED SOYBEAN OIL

Finding hydrogenated oil in anything marketed to children is absolutely unacceptable. These semi-synthetic fatty acids incorporate into our tissues and have been linked to over a dozen adverse health effects, from coronary artery disease to cancer, violent behavior to fatty liver disease.[5]

GMO CORN STARCH

While it can be argued that the amount of GMO corn starch in this product is negligible, even irrelevant, we disagree. It is important to hold accountable brands that refuse to label their products honestly, especially when they contain ingredients that have been produced through genetic modification. The ‘vitamin C’ listed as ascorbic acid in Flintstones is likely also produced from GMO corn. Let’s remember that Bayer’s Ag-biotech division, Bayer CropScience, poured $381,600 of cash into defeating the proposition 37 GMO labeling bill in California. Parents have a right to protect their children against the well-known dangers of genetically modified foods and the agrichemicals that contaminate them, don’t they? GMO corn starch is GMO, plain and simple. We’d appreciate it if Bayer would label their “vitamins” accordingly.

In summary, Bayer’s Flintstone’s vitamin brand is far from a natural product, and the consumer should be aware of the unintended, adverse health effects that may occur as a result of using it.

---

Resources

• [1] GreenMedInfo.com, Adverse Health Effects of Aspartame

• [2] FlinstonesVitamins.com, FLINSTONES Complete Chewable, Nutritional Info Overview

• [3] Karen Lau, W Graham McLean, Dominic P Williams, C Vyvyan Howard. Synergistic interactions between commonly used food additives in a developmental neurotoxicity test. Toxicol Sci. 2006 Mar;90(1):178-87. Epub 2005 Dec 13. PMID: 16352620

• [4] GreenMedInfo.com, Sorbitol’s Adverse Health Effects

• [5] GreenMedInfo.com, Health Effects of Hydrogenated Oil

 

©  February 12, 2o18 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.

 

The post Top Pharma-Brand of Children’s Vitamins Contains Aspartame, GMOs and Other Hazardous Chemicals appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Why Touching Receipts Can Harm Your Health

Keeping your receipts may make good financial sense, but it can seriously harm your health. 

If you are like me, you hesitate at the checkout counter whenever the cashier asks you “would you like your receipt”? If your inner accountant is alive and well, you will find yourself wanting to keep it, which means touch it. But on the other hand, if you are already aware of the information in this article, the idea of handling a bisphenol A saturated thermal printer receipt without gloves makes as much sense as handling gasoline or paint thinner without protection.

And if you are really “neurotic” like me, you may find yourself thinking about the health of the cashier, who undoubtedly has been handling receipts all shift long, and will continue to be exposed — often unwittingly — to a significant dose of bisphenol A throughout the course of their employment. This is why I cringe doubly when I refuse a receipt, because I realize that the cashier has no idea why I would do so, nor that they have suffered a harmful chemical exposure in the very act of offering the receipt to me.

All this might sound overly cautious if it had not already been proven that exposure to  is one of the primary routes through which our bodies become contaminated with the toxic synthetic chemical known as bisphenol A (BPA), a potent endocrine disruptor, carcinogen, and neurotoxic and cardiotoxic chemical, linked to over 50 adverse health effects. BPA is also found in airline tickets, gas and ATM receipts, and paper currency absorbs the BPA contained within these receipts, making daily exposure even more likely.

There are other important variables that play into how much of this chemical we absorb. For instance, bisphenol absorption is exponentially enhanced with the use of mass market skin care products, which are themselves mainly comprised of petrochemically-derived ingredients whose toxicities are also a major concern. For instance, back in 2014, a highly concerning study published in PLoS titled, “Holding thermal receipt paper and eating food after using hand sanitizer results in high serum bioactive and urine total levels of bisphenol A (BPA),” found that hand sanitizers, as well as other skin care products, contain mixtures of chemicals that can increase the absorption of fat-soluble compounds such as BPA by as much as 100 fold.

There is also the disturbing fact that 93% of healthy infants aged 3-15 months were found to be contaminated with BPA without any known cause of environmental exposure, revealing how truly widespread contamination is, regardless of direct exposure to thermal printer receipts.¹

Now a new study published in Environmental Health Perspectives titled, “Bisphenol A, Bisphenol S, and 4-Hydroxyphenyl 4-Isoprooxyphenylsulfone (BPSIP) in Urine and Blood of Cashiers“, reveals that the problem of chemical exposure through paper receipts is not simply associated with bisphenol A exposure, but with other bisphenol analogs as well. As we have seen with the recent increase in products explicitly labeled as “bisphenol A free“, the industries that have become reliant on the chemical are now substituting bisphenol S (and perhaps other bisphenols) in these products, despite the fact that it possesses similar toxicity.  This is all the more disturbing considering recent research revealing that bisphenol S may be 100x more potent an endocrine disruptor than bisphenol A.

The chemical class known as bisphenols actually includes over a dozen different forms, including bisphenols A, B, C, F, P. The new study found that the printer receipts contained between 1-2% BPA, BPS, or BPSIP (a bisphenol S variation), by weight. The blood and urine samples of cashiers were evaluated for bisphenol levels in post-shift samples compared with pre-shift samples, finding that the receipts contained between 1-2% BPA, PBS, or BPSIP, by weight, and that their levels of BPS were significantly higher than non-cashiers. Based on the cashier’s toxicological profile, the study concluded, “Thermal receipt paper is a potential source of occupational exposure to BPA, BPS, and BPSIP.”

So, what do you do if you shouldn’t touch or keep your receipts?

One easy ‘no touch’ way to track receipts is to take a photo of it and email it to yourself or a special email account you create to account for them. You could also use one of many phone apps that help you photo and track your receipts. Here is an article on IGeeksBlog.com on the “Best iPhone Receipt Tracking Apps: Never Miss An Expense Again.”

Also, consider that there is research on natural ways to mitigate bisphenol toxicity. We have a list of 13 natural substances, including kimchi, royal jelly, genistein and black tea, that have been shown to protect against this ubiquitous toxicant.

References

¹ K Mendonca, R Hauser, A M Calafat, T E Arbuckle, S M Duty. Bisphenol A concentrations in maternal breast milk and infant urine. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2012 Dec 5. Epub 2012 Dec 5. PMID: 23212895

The post Why Touching Receipts Can Harm Your Health appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Why There Is No Such Thing As ‘Safe’ Tap Water

Despite being at the top of the global food chain and industrial developmental ladder, the United States has a poor track record for delivering uncontaminated drinking water to the public. Even the nicest restaurants are guilty of serving you directly from the tap. It’s time to get real about the ‘tap water problem,’ one of the most significant vectors of toxicity of our age…

Water is life, as the saying goes. And it’s more than just a poetic phrase. Water is so intrinsically connected to life, if you counted all the molecules in the human body, 99% of them would be water!

On average, a human life can be sustained for up to three weeks without food, but a person won’t survive more than a few days without water. Under extreme conditions, an adult can lose around one liter of water per hour, all of which needs to be readily replaced to maintain a healthy fluid balance. So, what could be more important than consuming high quality, non-contaminated water?

In the United States, most of the water we utilize comes from our domestic water tap. We cook with it, we bathe in it; we use it on our yards, and in our pools. And we rarely, if ever, consider how clean or safe it is to do so. But when it comes to drinking water, quality is not something that can be sacrificed in exchange for plentiful supply.

One of the most profound technological developments in the modern era was the implementation of mass public sanitation infrastructures and the subsequent availability of water free from feces and other biological contaminants. Indeed, this, along with improved nutrition and refrigeration technologies, was what was behind the widespread reduction in epidemic outbreaks in ‘infectitious diseases’ in the mid-tweintieth century and not the introduction of mass vaccination campaigns which came afterwards.  Drinking unclean water can cause either acute or chronic effects, depending on the nature of the contaminant, and the concentration. Dysentery, a common water-borne bacterial infection, causes acute reactions such as intestinal inflammation, and severe diarrhea. A serious condition, dysentery causes rapid dehydration, and an infection which can be fatal, if left untreated. It is still a common third-world killer today.

Yet, with the introduction of modern water sanitation technologies, another problem emerged: chronic, culminative poisoning to nonlethal doses of contaminants, such as most industrial chemicals. Fertilizer runoff, and other industrial pollutants, contaminate streams and rivers worldwide.

The Illusion of Safety / Not MY Tap!

It’s easy to think that living in the United States gives us a free pass from such concerns. But recent headlines speak to a darker reality.

You’ve heard about the ongoing battle for clean water in Flint, Michigan. But unsafe tap water is not a localized phenomenon. A recently released report found that 62 million Americans are exposed to unsafe drinking water. And often, these flag-raising issues don’t trigger safety responses until people start getting sick.

Safeguarding the health of our bodies includes ensuring that the water we drink has been properly filtered, or comes from a known-clean source such as a spring or an uncontaminated well. Only trust bottled water that comes from a reputable company.

And don’t let being in a nice restaurant in a big city lull you into a sense of complacency. From New York City to Encinitas, Portland to Boulder, veritable meccas of food quality and health consciousness are serving unfiltered tap water. You don’t have to see it to believe it.

Lead and Fluoride: Lethal Offenders

Among the most common water contaminants, none are as dangerous to our health as lead and fluoride. Studies show even low-dose lead exposure can cause brain damageand developmental problems in young people. Lead leaches into water systems through old, corroded pipes like the ones found in many turn-of-the-century cities and towns. This problem will worsen in coming years, as 20th century infrastructure continues to decay, and increased testing efforts raise awareness.

Fluoride is one of the greatest cons ever perpetrated on the American public. While some areas of the country can have high-levels of naturally occurring fluoride, the type that is added to about 90% of municipal water supplies are the silicofluorides, fluorosilicic acid (FSA) and sodium fluosilicate (NaFSA), by-products of the aluminum industry.

Done under the assertion that it helps prevent dental caries in underserved populations, this claim has been widely debunked in recent years. Authors of A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride, concluded that “Available evidence suggests that fluoride has a potential to cause major adverse human health problems, while having only a modest dental caries prevention effect.” These studies show that dental remineralization occurs when small amounts of fluoride are topically applied to teeth, not when ingested.

Although the medical establishment works hard to hide the dangers of fluoride, science is beginning to sound the alarm. In 2014, fluoride was added to a growing list of developmental neurotoxins, and the evidence of a link between ingested fluoride and the development of cancer is deepening.

What are some of the lesser-known but still frighteningly common contaminants being found in our drinking water? We’ve compiled five of the top reasons to find an alternative to tap water. (And no, single-step carbon filters don’t fix the problem.)

1) Disinfectant By-products

Chemicals like chlorine, bromine, and iodine are in the class known as halogens (“salt-producing”), and are frequently used as industrial disinfectants. Water treatment facilities are dependent on them, especially chlorine, to kill harmful bacteria that is commonly present in public water systems.

Trihalomethanes, a class of chemicals that includes chloroform, are dangerous by-products of these treatment processes. Trihalomethanes have been linked to colon and rectal cancers, as well as birth defects, low birth weight and miscarriage.

Scientists suspect that trihalomethanes in drinking water may also be causing thousands of cases of bladder cancer every year. In a 2007 report, a startling 50% increase in bladder cancer risk was identified in a group of subjects who consumed water with trihalomethane concentrations higher than 21 parts per billion. The current EPA limit for total trihalomethanes in drinking water is 100 micrograms per liter, or 1 part per billion in water.

Shockingly, 600 disinfectant by-products that are known to cause harm to the human body have been identified in municipal tap water. Even more alarming is the fact that potentially harmful interactions between these chemicals are not reflected in any of the toxicology studies of individual chemicals.

While the water-treatment industry has sought alternatives to chlorination, initial efforts have not found safe alternatives. Until that time, treatment facilities will continue mixing these dangerous chemicals in the petri dish of our public water supply, until the cost to public health clearly outweighs the short-term benefits

2) Radionuclides

It’s hard to dispute that we live in an age of radioactive fallout. From the nuclear weapons tests of the last century, to the meltdowns at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, highly toxic, radioactive elements called radionuclides have found their way into the environment, and inevitably, into our food supply.

Our water is not immune from these contaminants. The disaster at Fukushimaprompted the Japanese government to authorize the dumping of 777,000 tons of water tainted with tritium, the radioactive version of hydrogen, into the Pacific Ocean. This nuclear waste makes its way into the broader atmosphere via condensation of contaminated water, and eventually into groundwater supplies.

And it doesn’t take a meltdown to release this dangerous radiation into the environment. High levels of tritium have recently been found in the groundwater around the Miami, Florida nuclear complex at Turkey Point. Believed to be the result of seepage from underground cooling canals, these leaks are even more troubling due to their positioning between two national parks known for flourishing marine habitats, and their value to the public as recreation areas.

3) Pharmaceuticals

Scientists were alerted to something “fishy” going on in the Potomac River in the late 1990’s, when fish were found with both male and female sex organs. It was soon discovered that phytoestrogens in the water, likely from synthetic birth control pills, were affecting the hormones of these aquatic “canaries in the coal mine.”

This signaled a big wake-up call regarding the presence of pharmaceutical drugs in public water supplies.

Drugs are xenobiotics, treated by the body as foreign substances that must be eliminated. This means they don’t biodegrade well, and are often found persisting in the environment as pollutants. Not unlike pesticides, a wide range of pharmaceuticals can be found in minute but still significant quantities in environmental and municipal water samples, making second-hand pharmaceutical exposure a now-pervasive problem.

It is often argued that the concentrations of drugs showing up in municipal water supplies are so low as to render them insignificant. This is a dangerous brush-off, considering that most of these drugs are formulated to be effective at low doses. Furthermore, the long-term effects of these “accidental” exposures have never been tested, especially in combination with other chemicals.

While the EPA doesn’t want to “alarm the public”, a representative admits they “are concerned”, and have allocated funds to research this issue further.

4) Fluorosilicic Acid

Fluorosilicic acid is another dangerous waste product that has found its way into our drinking water. A by-product of the phosphate fertilizer industry, fluorosilicic acid is heavily contaminated with toxins and heavy metals (including arsenic, lead and cadmium), as well as radioactive materials.

And it doesn’t get into our water supply merely by groundwater leaching; it’s actively used in water treatment as an alternative to sodium fluoride in the government’s dangerous fluoridation campaign.

Fluorosilicic acid has been shown to contain the carcinogens arsenic and lead, and its high salt content leaches lead from water pipes. Fluorosilicic acid is so dangerous, the website PolyProcessing.com explains the difficulties of ensuring safe, industrial containment: “FSA interacts negatively with metals to produce a flammable hydrogen gas, meaning a stainless steel chemical storage tank is not a viable option. It attacks glass, eats through concrete, and poses a serious storage concern.…”

Not a pharmaceutical grade substance, even the EPA admits that the use of fluorosilicic acid (in the form hydrofluorosilicic acid) constitutes a practice akin to turning the public water supply systems of the United States into “hazardous waste disposal for these products.’

In 2013, concerned researchers petitioned the EPA to mandate a switch from using these industrial chemical waste products to fluoridate drinking water, to pharmaceutical-grade fluoride. Despite an estimated 100-fold decrease in risk of cancers, the EPA rejected the switch as being “too costly.”

5) Chemical pesticides

Groundwater provides the drinking water for more than half of the U.S. population, and is the source for most springs and wells that supply many rural homes. Just like the run-off in the bottom of your potted plant, when our nation’s farms and fields get watered, all the fertilizers, herbicides, and other chemicals used to treat them pass right through the soil, eventually leaching into groundwater supplies.

Knowing which substances are passing into your glass can be helpful for both monitoring and advocating tighter controls on agricultural practices that contribute many of these chemicals to the nation’s water table. These are just a few of the offenders that you don’t want in your glass!

DDT (Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane)

You may have heard that DDT, the insecticide made famous for its near-decimation of our nation’s bald eagle population, was banned from use in the 1970’s. So how can it still be a problem?

Thanks to a chemical phenomenon known as biopersistence, this widely-used chemical is still posing a cancer risk to Americans.

Biopersistent chemicals are resistant to break-down through metabolic processes. Once inside the body, these chemicals accumulate, often in fat cells and adipose tissue, where they can wreak long-term havoc on hormones, and overall health.

Another factor in this ongoing contamination is the fact that DDT remains legal for use in many countries. DDT molecules can travel vast distances in the atmosphere, leaving toxic soil in their wake.

DDT is acknowledged to be carcinogenic by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, as well as causing reproductive health issues and liver damage.

HCB (Hexachlorobenzene)

Originally used on cereal crops to prevent the growth of fungi, HCB is another dangerous chemical whose dark effects were brought to light in the 1970’s. Although use has been discontinued in the U.S., use worldwide has not been eliminated. HCB has been detected at measurable levels in air, water, soil, and food samples in the United States in recent years.

A by-product that is produced via numerous chemical processes, HCB ingestion is known to cause liver damage, neurological symptoms, and tainted breast milk. Large doses can be fatal.

To demonstrate HCB’s ability to biopersist, studies found that 30 years after acute exposure, breast milk of affected women still contained up to 150 times the allowable limit for consumption.

Dacthal® (DCPA, dimethyl tetrachloro terephthalate)

Dacthal is a popular herbicide used to control grasses and weeds. Unlike HBA and DDT, Dacthal is still legal for use in the United States, despite its growing fame as a dangerous ground water contaminant.

Dacthal first hit the radar as a chemical troublemaker around 1999, when the EPA launched large-scale monitoring of public water systems. Dacthal degradates were found in concentrations as high as 15% in several states, primarily where agriculture was prominent.

Dacthal bio-persists in adipose (fatty) tissue, and was found in animal studies to negatively impact multiple regions of the body, including liver, kidney, thyroid, and lungs.

A comprehensive groundwater study conducted by the Michigan Department of Community Health to gather toxicological data, determined that the herbicide Dacthal and its metabolites constituted a public health hazard.

For more information on tap water research, consult GreenMedInfo’s Tap Water Research database.

The Environmental Working Group’s Tap Water database allows you to search by state for relevant information about the safety of tap water in your area.

References

1. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=34150#.WaSDtj6GOUk


2. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/08/14/63-million-americans-exposed-unsafe-drinking-water/564278001/


3. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071120111526.htm


4. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/lead/health.html


5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3956646/


6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24719570/


7. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422(13)70278-3/abstract


8. National Research Council (NRC) Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards.Washington, DC, USA: National Academies Press; 2006.


9. NHDES. 2006. Trihalomethanes: Health Information Summary. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. Available: www.des.nh.gov [accessed January 2013]


10. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15287390701459031


11. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp6-c1.pdf


12. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5865306_Occurrence_Genotoxicity_and_Carcinogenicity_of_Regulated_and_Emerging_Disinfection_By-Products_in_Drinking_Water_A_Review_and_Roadmap_for_Research


13. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/07/14/national/science-health/tepco-says-decision-already-made-release-radioactive-low-toxic-tritium-sea-fishermen-irate/#.WaUTuz6GOUk


14. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/23/us/nuclear-plant-leak-threatens-drinking-water-wells-in-florida.html?mcubz=1


15. http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/features/drugs-in-our-drinking-water


16. http://blog.polyprocessing.com/blog/fsa


17. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/tsca_21_petition_hfsa_2013-04-22.pdf


18. https://www.livescience.com/38952-epa-arsenic-petition-response.html


19. (Solley and others, 1993)


20. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent,_bioaccumulative_and_toxic_substances


21. http://www.cardnochemrisk.com/index.php?option=com_easyblog&view=entry&id=181&Itemid=2


22. http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/carbaryl-dicrotophos/ddt-ext.html


23. http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/chemicals/hexachlorobenzene.pdf


24. https://www.nrdc.org/media/2001/010522


25. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-09/documents/drinking_water_health_advisory_for_dacthal_and_dacthal_degradates_tpa_and_mtp.pdf


26. https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ncap/pages/26/attachments/original/1428423346/dacthal.pdf?1428423346


27. https://www.michigan.gov/documents/DacthalDiAcidHealthConsult_71729_7.pdf

© December 17, 2017 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.

The post Why There Is No Such Thing As ‘Safe’ Tap Water appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Soda Contains Cancer-Causing Chemicals

The caramel coloring in soda such as Coke and Pepsi, among other includes a cancer causing chemical known as 4-MEI.

The chemical 4-MEI caused cancer in laboratory studies and the International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified 4-MEI as a human carcinogenic.

This chemical is a by-product of the caramel color manufacturing, which is later put into soft drinks.

A less known soft drink brand, Malta Goya, which is more commonly found in Latin America, was found to contain 300 micrograms per 12 ounce serving.

There are no laws on labeling products such as soft drinks when they contain carcinogenics such as 4-MEI.

The only way to avoid this cancer causing chemical is avoiding the consumption of any product that contains caramel color on its list of ingredients.

A detailed presentation about the sodas that were tested and the levels of 4-MEI found in them can be seen below in a ConsumerReports infograph.

It is important to remember that according to industry safety standards, 29 micrograms a day is the limit when it comes to daily consumption of products that use caramel coloring.

Also, although 29 micrograms are said to be a safe limit, consumers need to take into account the consequences of biological accumulation of this chemical in their bodies in the long run.

Please access the complete ConsumerReports article.

The post Soda Contains Cancer-Causing Chemicals appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

What Are Obesogens?

Obesogens is an umbrella term given to the dozens of endocrine disruptors that play a role in obesity. Chemicals from plastics, like BPA, are known obesogens, and these chemicals pollute our waterways and pervade our homes. The effects of obesogens have been studied intensely over the past few years and the research shows that they have a hand in uncontrolled weight gain.

Obesogens: A Worldwide Issue

A closer look at amphibians and the endocrine disrupting chemicals in their environment is showing how obesogens translate to human health, particularly when it relates to metabolic disorder. ^[1] Since many chemicals from pollution and man-made items end up in the water supply, it isn’t surprising to see drastic changes in fish and other aquatic mammals. These life forms receive abundant doses of PCBs, PBDEs, and other chemicals, much more so than we receive, but it does lead us to some insight into their effects. Some obesogens not only contribute to altered lipid metabolism in ocean dwellers, but it has also shown gender-bending qualities among fish. ^[2]

The Health Effects of Obesogens

Research is showing that obesogenic effects can be transferred from mother to child, revealing why some people may be born with metabolic problems from the start. Findings like this display the importance of avoiding chemicals during pregnancy. ^[3] The plastics industry is a heavy user of obesogenic chemicals, many of which are used in furniture, food storage, and building materials. ^[4] While completely eliminating chemical exposure is difficult, incorporating detoxification strategies can be helpful.

How to Combat Obesogens

Fortunately, obesogens may not be permanent in their effects. Avoidance of chemicals as much as possible, eating an organic diet, and drinking pure, filtered water goes a long way. Definitely avoid all plastics, including those that use BPA or BPS. Performing a regular cleansing protocol may also be helpful for relieving the toxic burden that ineluctably accumulates over time. Taking a high-quality probiotic could also strengthen defenses against invasive endocrine disruptors.

References:

1. Lindsey Konkel. A Closer Look at Obesogens: Lipid Homeostasis Disruption in Daphnia. Environ Health Perspect; DOI:10.1289/ehp.123-A219.


2. Catherine A. Harris, Patrick B. Hamilton, Tamsin J. Runnalls, et al. The Consequences of Feminization in Breeding Groups of WIld Fish. Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Mar; 119(3): 306-311.


3. Endocrine Society. Exposure to endocrine disruptors during pregnancy affects the brain two generations later, rat study shows. ScienceDaily. 5 March 2015.


4. Wendee Holtcamp. Obesogens: An Environmental Link to Obesity. Environ Health Perspect. 2012 Feb; 120(2): a62-a68. doi: 10.1289/ehp.120-a62.

The post What Are Obesogens? appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Drugs In Our Water Supply

Did you know that when you ingest or are injected with prescription drugs, your body doesn’t necessarily use everything? Excess drugs are excreted as waste material.

That’s good news for your body since pharmaceuticals can be very hard on your system, it’s not good news for the ecosystem since these residues work their way into our waterways and water processing plants.

Things you need to know about municipal water

Tap water has been unsafe for a very long time. Tap water may contain toxic chemicals, some known carcinogens, added to make it “safe” for drinking. Three of the poisons that can be found in faucet water are chlorine, fluoride, and arsenic, a Category 1 carcinogen (cancer causing agent).

The newest acknowledgment of prescription drugs in waterways is one more toxin added to an already contaminated water supply and prescription medications are not easily filtered.

The drugs are not present in large quantities but they are a contaminant. This means you may be ingesting them continuously over a period of years and we don’t yet know what the long-term effects of such intake will be.

Studies are showing that the effects are already manifesting in fish (male fish producing female egg yolk proteins) and even earthworms and zooplankton. Antibiotics, for example, are less and less effective as treatments for ailments in humans, due to excessive prescribing practices. Bacteria have the ability to adapt to the antibiotics. Antibiotics in open water give bacteria more time to mutate.

How pervasive is the problem?

In America, traces of drugs are found in nearly every source of drinking water, including:

• Bottled drinking water – many bottlers do not test water for drugs right now and many just repackage tap water.


• Well-water – people dig these under the mistaken belief that this is a safe way to collect the most healthful drinking water.


• Home filtration systems – most don’t filter everything and they can get contaminated with drug residue.


• Aquifers which are deep underground water systems – they supply us with 40% of our drinking water in the United States and are also becoming effected in rural areas.

The business of prescription & over-the-counter medications

Prescription drugs are a major business in this country. Medical professionals have a history of pushing chemicals before natural, alternative treatments. These chemicals are designed to inhibit one function or another in the body and supposedly treat the symptoms of disease instead of the ROOT CAUSE.

One medication often leads to the necessity of taking another one. Don’t take my word for it; read the possible side effects that come with your medications. Side effects, like diarrhea, constipation, bloating, itchiness, and more, may cause you to return to the doctor for another prescription drug or suggestion for over-the-counter relief. This cycle is almost self-perpetuating.

What’s being done to fix the problem?

Not everyone is in denial about the true safety of municipal water. There are those who persist in trying to help the environment. For example, Benjamin H. Grumbles, assistant administrator for water at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has stated that his group takes the threat seriously.

Water suppliers are searching for ways to filter the impurities from the water. New screening methods must be developed to find the different chemicals. As states become more aware of the problem; they are implementing rules and guidelines to affect change. Several states are now requiring that testing be done and the appropriate filtration practices be implemented. Testing is being done to determine which method is the most effective.

Reverse osmosis is being studied, along with carbon filtration and other means of cleaning water. It may be that a combination of techniques and pre and post filtering may get the most done.

What can you do?

First, drink purified bottled water or distilled water. If you’re not drinking purified water, start. It’s the safest and healthiest thing that you can do for your body, since water sustains your body’s life force. Your body has enough work to do and doesn’t need to be hindered.

Our bodies already have a first line of defense, our immune systems. Take care of your body and search for natural methods to replace the need for prescription medication. Remember, there are alternatives. If you do drink distilled water be sure to add a small amount of organic raw apple cider vinegar to replace the minerals lost during the distillation process.

Next, consider the water that comes into your home. I personally use and recommend a high tech, carafe purifier which filters even the smallest toxins from the water.

The post Drugs In Our Water Supply appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.