Is bluefin tuna healthy to eat?

The consumption of bluefish tuna is neither healthy nor ethical. Here's why -- and what is being done about it.

Read more...

Australia exposes fluoridation fraud

This video documents the public outcry in Queensland over the state's plans to bring water fluoridation to more communities. Listen to state Department of Human Services representative John Carnie tell Australians that people like him know what's good for them. He is well cast for the role. Why Australians obey the dictates of people like Carnie is a mystery to me:



Why do Australians allow their government to be bought off by industry? Why do Aussies allow men like Carnie -- pictured in the above video -- to dictate what is good for them? To think that toxic waste is added to the water supply in spite of the weight of the scientific evidence indicating this is a stupid thing to do. What is wrong with Australia? What is wrong with us?

Read more...

Florida exposes fluoride deception

Would you believe that the American Dental Association has warned parents in Florida not to make baby formula with tap water -- due to the dangers associated with the fluoride in the drinking water?

Remind me, what was the purpose of fluoridation in the first place?



To avoid fluoride, I don't drink tap water in when I am in the US or Singapore.

Read more...

Toxic chemical fumes from new mattresses?

Salon's Rebecca Clarren reports on the damage done to America's Environmental Protection Agency under the Bush Administration.

The point of the article?

As the US EPA has more or less stopped studying and regulating toxic chemicals for the past 8 years, then there are going to be all kinds of hazards out there that will take years to identify and fix.

Just the other day I came across a possible example of the trend. I was reading that as of 2007, all mattresses made in the US must be treated with a fire retardant that seems to be quite toxic. It is one example of the what the EPA's failure to regulate could mean for people living not only in the US, but all over the world:

Read more...

Cell phones pose cancer risk for children

I'm watching a congressional hearing on mobile phone use on C-Span. Some highlights of the testimony.

• David Carpenter, U Albany, is telling a Senate Committee that the government should put warnings on cell phones. Their use by children should be restricted. He says adolescents would also be at greater risk than adults.

• Ronald Herberman, Director U Pittsburgh, concurs with Carpenter. Children may be at risk from radiation, and advocates warning labels on cell phones.
  

• Latency period for cancer would likely longer than the 10 year maximum duration of most studies. "Maybe another 5 years or more before we see effects of almost ubiquitous use of cell phones."
  

• Dr. Robert Hoover, National Cancer Institute Epidemiology says he wants more information before supporting calls for warning labels about children and cell phones. Neglected to provide sub-committee with written testimony.
  

• Herberman: sperm counts lower in men who carry cell phones in pockets.

• Testimony from a citizen, apparently this woman whose husband has cancer attributed to phone use: she says 80-90% of children take cell phones to one elementary school. Many kids sleep with their cell phones. AT&T has a phone-message advertisement urging parents to restrict kids' cell phone use.

• David Carpenter says strongest evidence reason to be concerned is that there is association -- "really quite strong" -- between cell phone use and brain cancer use after 10 years of exposure. This evidence concerns me the most.
  

• Herberman: a number of studies animal and otherwise "several reports from credible scientists of damage to DNA which we know plays a role in tumor formation." Reactive oxygen species could be explanation.
  

• Rep. Denis Kucinich of Ohio: Current exposure limits assume 6 foot tall male. We just heard testimony that children at greater risk -- should allowable exposure be higher or lower?
  

• Fed Com Com Engin and Tech Dir. Julius Knapp responds to Kucinich: The FCC does not have the expertise to say whether standard is OK, need other agencies to tell us what to do.

• Herberman says having billing records from the cell phone companies could make more definitive studies possible. Sounds as if government's help might be required to force phone companies to provide these records for study participants. Wants the US government to press the cell phone industry to cooperate in studies.
  

• Carpenter: says FCC assumption no risk due to "heating" is flat-out wrong. These FCC people are engineers, not biologists. Government needs to take responsibility on this issue, can't be left to industry.
  

• Julius Knapp of FCC says applying standards based in part on other agencies' advice.
  

CNN did a story on this congressional testimony here.

Read more...

When US bottled water is actually tap water or worse

The Environmental Working Group recently tested leading brands of bottled water, and this was its conclusion:

EWG's study has revealed that bottled water can contain complex mixtures of industrial chemicals never tested for safety, and may be no cleaner than tap water. Given some bottled water company's failure to adhere to the industry's own purity standards, Americans cannot take the quality of bottled water for granted. Indeed, test results like those presented in this study may give many Americans reason enough to reconsider their habit of purchasing bottled water and turn back to the tap.

Two brands tested were nothing other than tapwater:

Two of 10 brands tested, Walmart's and Giant's store brands, bore the chemical signature of standard municipal water treatment — a cocktail of chlorine disinfection byproducts, and for Giant water, even fluoride. In other words, this bottled water was chemically indistinguishable from tap water. The only striking difference: the price tag.

The other brands were not much better:

Laboratory tests conducted for EWG at one of the country’s leading water quality laboratories found that 10 popular brands of bottled water, purchased from grocery stores and other retailers in 9 states and the District of Columbia, contained 38 chemical pollutants altogether, with an average of 8 contaminants in each brand. More than one-third of the chemicals found are not regulated in bottled water. In the Sam's Choice and Acadia brands levels of some chemicals exceeded legal limits in California as well as industry-sponsored voluntary safety standards. Four brands were also contaminated with bacteria.

After 8 years of loosening regulatory standards under the Bush administration -- no it's not just the financial markets -- should this report come as any surprise?
__
See my post "Tap water vs bottled water" for another perspective.

Read more...

Health hazards of sunscreen

It seems the FDA has dropped the ball on sunscreens; their safety increasingly uncertain. World-Wire reports:

Sunscreens are based on six ingredients, some of which actively penetrate the skin, accumulate in the body, and have been identified in urine and breast milk.

More ominously, these ingredients have toxic hormonal effects, known technically as “endocrine disruptive.” Evidence for these effects has been well documented over the last decade. This includes stimulation of human breast cancer cells in test tube experiments, and increased uterine growth in immature female rats following skin painting or feeding.

Read more...

New carpet is toxic

Remember concerns raised, some time ago, about how toxic a carpet can be? What has happened since? The Townsend Letter reported in 2001:

Recent conversations with EPA officials and the Anderson Lab confirm that no followup studies have been done since the early 1990's. Another example of how the political/scientific partnership carefully avoids studying problems which might yield results unfriendly to industry.

The article provides a good synopsis of some issues concerning the safety of carpeting.

Some recommendations for safer carpet handling include:

• air the carpet before you install it
• avoid exposure to a newly installed carpet
• use felt padding
• tack or staple the carpet rather than glue it
• consider a HEPA air purifier

Read more...

Air fresheners hazardous, contain toxic chemicals

Plug-in oils to dryer sheets, fabric softeners and detergents are increasingly ubiquitous, but just how safe are they? According to a University of Washington study, all these products pose a hazard to your health. Fox News reports:

In fact, researchers said all six products tested gave off at least one chemical regulated as toxic or hazardous under federal laws. . . .

For example, a plug-in air freshener contained more than 20 different volatile organic compounds. Of these, seven are regulated as toxic or hazardous under federal laws.

Steinemann had this advice for consumers.

"Be careful if you buy products with fragrance, because you really don't know what's in them," she said. "I'd like to see better labeling. In the meantime, I'd recommend that instead of air fresheners people use ventilation, and with laundry products, choose fragrance-free."

Also see this Seatle PI report on the recent research study.

This finding will come as no surprise to Jotman readers. See this previous Jot Your Life post, or this report at Jot Around the World about the Asian air freshener epidemic.

Read more...

Chemical in clear plastic toxic, at least in Canada's view

"The first thing is that it's an endocrine disrupter, there's no question about that," Professor Bend said, referring to the chemical's impact on the hormonal system. "Should people that are exposed to these low levels of this chemical be outrageously concerned? I'd err on the side of not creating panic. We simply don't know. But we should find out."

Professor Bend added that the impact of B.P.A. on the development of human fetuses was worrisome. It may prove to cause damage in much the same way as early exposure to mercury, he said.

More from a recent NY Times article here.

Read more...

Are air fresheners safe?

Rick B writes at Ten Percent blog

I’m not really asthmatic but plug in air fresheners, odour eliminating/spray cans, in general- chemical cocktail air polluting things whether fragranced or supposedly to remove odours seem to give me symptoms of asthma. I mooched around the web quickly and found I am not completely alone and mad on this (although as this is a new area of research there are not a lot of studies, but certainly something is afoot). It looks like what goes into these things has yet to be fully assessed for their combined impact on the people who willingly buy the things then slowly gas themselves in their own home-

Rick quotes some studies:

A study recently published in American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, found the regular use of sprays increased the risk of asthma by 30 to 50 percent. The study was done by the European Community Respiratory Health Survey, and followed 3,500 people in 10 European countries. . .

Rick comments, "Jeebus, I might as well have continued smoking, at least I’d look cool while I died. . . ." As a non-smoker, I much prefer breathing second smoke to chemical air freshener. Another dubious chemical people are deliberately putting into the air they breathe is mosquito coils smoke.

Photo: Shows a popular air freshener made in Thailand. I walked into a room that had been freshly sprayed with the stuff and was coughing for a month thereafter. Who knows what it contains? The bottles sure don't say! Spraying made-in-China, Made-in-Thailand, made-anywhere synthetic anything into the air these days is not such a good idea.

Read more...

How safe are plastic bags or containers?

Bisphenol A (BPA) is a chemical used to manufacture polycarbonate plastic, a clear, hard type of plastic. Controversy about it has flared up again recently. Here is the source of the concern:

In rats scientists have found BPA imitates the sex hormone estradiol. This has prompted scientists to test the substance upon laboratory rats and mice. As a result, they have discovered that even low doses of BPA can cause hyperactivity, increased formation of fat, early onset of puberty, abnormal sexual behavior, disruption to normal reproductive cycles, and structural damage to the brain.

Besides being found in various types of plastic containers. BPA is also found in the linings of soda cans. In fact, epoxy resins containing bisphenol A are used to line nearly all metal food cans. Some polymers used in dental fillings and sealants also contain bisphenol A. It gets released when you wash or heat it or expose it to acids (fruit juices or colas are acidic).

It's been around for a long time. But in the last couple years, there has been some action:

• Canada's largest outdoor-goods chain, Mountain Equipment Co-op (MEC) pulled products made of polycarbonate plastic from its shelves in 2007 due to concerns about bisphenol A. Patagonian this action.
• The City of San Francisco actually banned its use in products intended for infants, but then repealed the ban in 2007.
• Health Canada is investigating polycarbonates as part of its Challenge to Industry Program, calling for product information from manufacturers and distributors.
• In January 2006, the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment announced that polycarbonate baby bottles are safe, stating that published research is "difficult to interpret and [is] occasionally contradictory."
  
• A subsequent study by the European Union’s Food Safety Authority reached a similar conclusion, and sharply criticized the methodology used in many of the low-dose exposure studies on rodents.

Comment: This stuff is really hard to avoid. I must say I find it somewhat reassuring that these European agencies have looked into it and not found it to be unsafe.

Because I have far more confidence in the European regulators than their industry-dominated American counterparts. Moreover, the EU has generally taken a tough stand on the regulation of toxic chemicals.

Sources: Pristine Planet, Wikipedia, Ottawa Citizen.

Read more...

Tap Water Vs Bottled Water

"In Praise of Tap Water," a NY Times editorial, states that ". . . almost all municipal water in America is so good that nobody needs to import a single bottle from Italy or France or the Fiji Islands."

Not necessarily. It depends largely on where you live. Many municipalities throughout the developed world (Sydney, Chicago, Toronto, and many others) routinely add fluoride to the drinking water. It has long been assumed that adding the fluoride prevents cavities and builds stronger bones. Unfortunately, despite this decades long "experiment" in which millions of citizens have played the guinea-pig, the evidence that fluoridation is the cause of healthier teeth is at best, inconclusive, and quite likely, just plain wrong. For example, children in Vancouver, where water is not fluoridated, have better teeth than those in Montreal where the water is fluoridated. According to an EPA study fluoridation of the water supply may harm teeth. Moreover, an accumulating body of research points to the conclusion that fluoridated tap water presents a serious health hazard, as even low fluoride levels have been implicated in a variety of chronic medical ailments.

• For a history of tap water fluoridation (highlighting the role of corporate interests) click here.
• For up-to-date information on the fight against tap water fluoridation, check out the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).
• For FAN's compilation of research studies into the health effects of Flouride, click here.

Read more...