Special Report: Mercury Contamination

We are constantly warned about mercury levels in fish.  We are told to stay away from many varieties because of the effects of long term exposure and links to brain damage, severe respiratory issues, and kidney and liver failure.  This is something that we laugh at when Jeremy Piven claims he has it, but should take all precautions to ensure our children are not exposed to it.

In a new report released about our children and their exposure to mercury, we find that it is much more common than expected and quite expensive to clean up.

In fact, in a four year period, 37,000 calls were made to the Poison Control Center  regarding possible mercury exposure.  While many are centralized to broken thermometers, there are a significant amount due to mishandling in science labs at schools.  One researcher found that of 300 schoools inspected, 40% of schools have high levels of mercury in the atmosphere due to unknown or unreported spills.

Despite the high level found in schools, 75% of mercury exposure comes from the home.  The EPA feels that the way to reduce is exposure is to educate parents and children on proper clean up techniques, as well as, reminding them what products contain mercury.  For exmple, with the positive shift to an eco-friendly lifestyle, CFL’s have become the most common household item to contain mercury.  These lightbulbs cannot be disposed of by placing them in the normal trash, where they contaminate the land fills and surrounding areas.  They need to be disposed of properly.

Mercury poisoning symptoms start within hours of exposure and are indicated by tremors, chills, vomiting, abdominal pain, headache and anxiety.  If you feel there is cause, take the individual to the emergency room immediately for treatment.

the unknowing victims

It is one thing, as an adult, to eat unhealthfully.

I figure you are of an age where you can make a decision for yourself on what you choose to put in your body. However, I also believe, by doing so, you give big food companies carte blanche to put whatever they what in that food because.  You are making a ‘vote’ by spending money on a Big Mac or a Coke or Crispy Creme.  If you aren’t going to hold them accountable by not speaking up, that is your choice.  You are an adult human and I trust you to make a decision for yourself.

I do not, and will never, believe the same thing for a child.

A child is completely dependent on its parent to make a wise and safe choice for its well-being.  I also feel it is the responsibility of a company to make good choices when they are creating convenient food, marketed to a parent, for the betterment of their children.

Sadly, a list came out today that makes it seem as though at least some companies have no care for the health of our children.

Dietitians Name Five Worst Packaged Kids Meals via the Cancer Project

The thing that is upsetting is that Lunchables, the dominant force in convenient school kids meals, tops the list.

Lunchables Maxed Out Ham and Cheddar Cracker Combo topped the list because it has 22 grams of fat, 50 milligrams of cholesterol, and 1,600 milligrams of sodium—more salt than younger children should consume in an entire day.

The report found that most packaged lunchbox meals have little or no fiber and are high in fat, sugar, sodium, and cholesterol. Many also contain processed meats, which are linked to increased cancer risk later in life.

And while these foods may be convenient, they are foods that are hard on your child’s body.  Currenty, the United States sees a 60% obesity rate in children and “adult onset diabetes” is being seen in children as young as eight.

I know that it may be hard to find the time to make a lunch.  Or, maybe your child is a picky eater.  I don’t know what the various reason may be.  But, I do know that I find it hard to justify giving your kids a meal that may cause long term health problems.  A parents job is to create an environment where their children are well taken care of, not subjected to disease and malnuriishment for the rest of their lives.

Children are the victims of the bad decisions parents are making, around the country.  I fully believe that if we want to create a sustainable future, we have to stop this behavior of performing a genocide on our youth.  Even if we, as a species, are able to survive and adapt to changes in the weather, are we going to have individuals that are healthy enough to reproduce and provide for the next generations.

by Shelley Boyle

please understand the severity of this

I have re-typed this opening sentence about five times now, because I do not have the words to explain how important it is to STOP DRINKING SODAS!!!  (Here’s hoping the all caps gives the effect I’m looking for.)

You can go to many a link on this page about High Fructose Corn Syrup or Crystalline Fructose and read about the disease issues related to both of these chemicals…. (yes, CHEMICALS.  Make no mistake about it, despite what the Corn Bureau may say, these are chemicals.  They are not natural. They are not “just like sugar”).  To continue… first off, sodas are bad because of HFCS and the associated diseases.

However, I have a second, and maybe a more important reason why I am on my knees begging you to stop.  And, even if you do not want to stop, if you have a child… please have them stop.

Tests find Bisphenol A in majority of soft drinks: controversial chemical found in at least 84% of canned soda, with highest levels in energy drinks

I have written about the dangers of BPA and you can go to the dedicated section to read more.  But to summarize:

1.) BPA is used in the synthesis of plastic to make it more flexible.  It is used in canned goods as a “protective” liner to stop contact between the content and the metal.

2.) BPA is known to leach during heat (in plastic) and under acidic conditions (metal). (Sodas and energy drinks are HIGHLY acidic materials).

3.) BPA is a known hormone mimicker causing serious developmental problems in children leading to diseases such as cancer, insulin resistance, sterility, other fertility related illnesses such as spontaneous miscarriages, and the list goes on.

4.) In studies, it has been found to cross the blood brain barrier, resulting in cancers in less than 30 days of exposure

In other words, this is a chemical that we are all exposed to, however, due to its influence during developmental stages children are more affected by it than adults. There has been a push to create BPA free baby bottles and toys, which is great and necessary.

Until now, there had been very little research done on its levels in soda.  

I can’t tell you what to do or how to raise your children.  I will tell you that I think in America we are not only in an epidemic of obesity and food related illnesses, but we are harming our children in ways unimaginable.  Children today are exposed to much more than anything even 20 years ago… and I am not talking about racy music videos. I do feel it is up to the parents to stop being friends and start being parents, again, to their children and take control of how they eat and drink.

If someone doesn’t start acting soon, it may be too late.

opinion: carbon calculator, week 5

 

Week 5 in the continuing series of what is missing from Carbon Calculators.  

There is a list of the things that those calculators don’t ask, thereby eliminating them from their algorithm. These are the things that are sometimes the meat of the matter, so to speak. By altering these things, you could affect your true footprint in ways unimaginable and truly make our planet sustainable.

DRYING YOUR CLOTHES

So.. you now wash your clothes in cold water.  And, despite loving the mountain fresh scent, you got rid of your Tide and replaced it with Seventh Generation.  But then you still throw everything in the dryer, effectively canceling out what you did by all the other improvements.

According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), the average household dryer consumes 1,079 kilowatt-hours of electricity per year, which amounts to 2,224 pounds of carbon dioxide. If every US household let one load of laundry air-dry, 250,000 tons of CO2 could be saved.  This is equivalent to shutting down 15 nuclear power plants or cutting back coal use by 30 million tons each year. 

Can you imagine what could be done if you let every load air dry?  

But I’m not done with all the benefits.  Many people have humidifiers in there home, using even more energy, as it churns away putting moisture into the air.  However, if you replace that humidifier with a standing dryer rack ($20 at most home marts) filled with wet clothes, you will have the exact same affect.  For free.

There is also the reduction in environmental contaminants.  There have been many studies lately on the harmful affects of phthalates.  These are commonly found in artificial scents, like those found in laundry detergent and dryer sheets.  These chemicals are known hormone mimickers, having harmful effects on children.  They are most often release when heated.  Every time you or your neighbor runs their dryer and the exhaust goes out into the community, the chemicals are released into the air we breathe.  In other words, you would be wise to cover your mouth and nose when you smell the spring rain as you walk your dog through the neighborhood.  By not using a dryer, you have eliminated this entire situation.

Cost.  Drying clothes is 7% of the household electricity usage.  It is estimated that your household can save $135 per year on utility costs.  It is the equivalent of energy and cost savings by draft proofing your home.

But there is a secret cost that is saved, as well.  A standard t-shirt lasts about 25-30 dryer cycles before most people decide it is faded and damaged enough to throw it away.  The damage is caused by the heat and the exposure to the chemicals.  As the clothes are dried they shrink, ever so slightly.  As you put the clothes on they stretch and either the elastic goes out, or the material thins and tears.  Also, because of the heat, your favorite kelly green shirt is now closer to key lime green and doesn’t match the jeans you bought to go with it.  When you throw away the one shirt and buy another, you are spending the $30-60, months, or years, sooner than you needed to.

to test or not to test

 

The ban on toys and other products containing levels of toxic substances was set to take effect on Feb 10th.  However, under pressure by manufacturers and retailers, the testing requirements have been delayed by Congress, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The stay allows manufacturers, which have been hit hard by the recession, to put off costly product testing for levels of lead, used to stabilize the plastic in products, and phthalates, which are chemicals used to soften plastic.  Under the new laws, lead was not allowed above 600 ppm and phthalates had to be less than 1000 ppm.  

Producers and sellers of the products were concerned that in this economy the added cost to comply with the requirements would have put them out of business.

Many consumer groups, however, think this was a poor decision on the part of our lawmakers.  Citing most recent testing done on products out of CVS pharmacies, in which at least one toy tested at 15 times higher than the allowable limits, “there should be something to back up a claim that the products are safe, but without testing and certification there’s no assurance,” said Charles Margulis, a spokesman for the Center for Environmental Health.

Ever since the ban was voted into law, both sides have been very vocal about the pros and cons of the new requirements.  The manufacturers and sellers have been arguing that much of the product already on the shelves would have to be recalled, which also causes concern for many environmental groups because of the potential illegal dumping of contaminated product.  However, the flip side is that children should not be exposed to such products, either.  

This is a debate that will effect our lawmakers for years to come.  Making the wrong decision will be sure to hurt one party in irreversible ways.

phthalates in the news

So, a pretty important study was released today from Taiwan regarding the impact of exposure to phthalates during pregnancy.  Essentially the data has proven that mother’s can pass on the hormone altering chemical while the child is in utero, resulting in deformities, according to Environmental Health News.

 

Amniotic fluid and urine samples from 65 pregnant women undergoing amniocentesis were analyzed for five kinds of phthalates. At birth, the researchers measured the distance from the anus to the genitals in both male and female babies. This measure is called the anogenital distance (AGD) and indicates abnormal sexual development (specifically, differentiation) in the womb.

The metabolite monobutyl phthalate (MBP) in the amniotic fluid and urine was correlated in all newborns. This means the pollutant was able to pass from the mother, through the placenta and into the fetal circulation system.

Phthalates is a chemical that is, most commonly used, in the synthesis of plastics, but has also been found in fragrance used in everyday household items.  It acts as a hormone mimicker and has been linked to a higher occurrence of cancers, genital deformities and learning disabilities.

This is just another example proving that the approval of the chemical was premature on the part of the FDA and the chemical companies.

bpa lingers

 

Researchers from the Univeristy of Rochester in NY have found that Bisphenol-A lingers in the body longer than first expected.  The significance of which is that the longer the chemical is in the body, the more likely it is to cause harm, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Most often BPA is transferred to the body through plastic products like water bottles, baby bottles, re-usable food storage containers, and the like.  This study found that the transfer can also occur through plastic water pipes, like those that might be found in your home, and dust off of carbonless paper, for example a receipt.

The American Chemistry Council still maintains that BPA is safe.  There has been a lot of debate in the various studies of the safety of Bisphenol-A.  Arguments for safety is that the studies that had the largest sample population, therefore the study deemed statistically significant, has shown the chemical to be safe.  However, these studies were done by the chemical companies making the product, which is a $6 billion per year chemical.  Many of the independent studies, performed by chemical researchers throughout the world, have shown time after time that BPA results in cancers, genital deformities, sterility, brain disorders, and the list goes on.

This latest data indicates that either people are being constantly bombarded with exposure to BPA, from non-food sources, or they are storing the chemical in their fat cells and are unable to effectively rid them from their bodies.  Either way, if you believe the data that this chemical is dangerous, this does not bode well for the future health of the human population.

u.s. launches study, too

 

Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York is launching the largest study in children’s health ever in the United States, according to the Wichita Eagle.

The National Children’s Study will track up to 100,000 children’s exposure to environmental factors from their first trimester before birth until they’re at least 21, in an effort to learn more about the effects of pollution on American children.

The study will be funded by the National Institute of Health, with support from the CDC and EPA.  An additional intent is that they will gather enough information to advance the diagnosis and treatment of such diseases like asthma and autism, and other illnesses that environment is a strong factor.

Initially, the study will begin with a selected group of pregnant women from the Queens, NY and Duplin County, N.C. areas.  After 18 months, it will be expanded to include 100,000 children from 105 differing locations.

This study comes on the heels of an announcement of a $6-million study in Canada of environmental risks while in utero.  In either case, we should start seeing valuable data, soon, on how our living conditions are affecting our youth.

phthalates… rxn’s are bad

Phthalates may cause more damage than originally reported.

An investigation released by a committee from the National Research Council has found that the government risk assessment methods likely underestimate the effects of phthalates. The report has concluded that the EPA could understate the risk of phthalates if it does not consider the effect of combined exposure to different compounds. In other words, mixed with other chemicals, phthalates could be even more damaging.

Phthalate compounds with different chemical structures can interfere with androgen activity in ways that are different, yet lead to the same health outcome. The report stresses that particularly for hormone-mediated effects, risk assessments should group chemicals by common outcome, regardless of the chemical structure or mechanism involved. That will mean assessing products that may contain multiple phthalates or multiple products that may be used together or frequently in ways that could compound an individual’s total phthalate intake. Surprisingly, one such product may be certain types of medications.

In addition, scientists at Harvard, Boston University, and the CDC have identified phthalates in 47 different pharmaceuticals. Versions of the chemical are used in the coating surrounding some medications. Samples of urine were tested, and depending on dosage, some individuals were found with concentrations higher that allowed by the EPA.

Obviously, this has raised concern in over the counter medication, especially those used on pregnant women and children.

The article came via Consumer Reports, HERE.

ban in effect

At least in California, effective on Jan 1st, phthalates are banned in children’s products.

Found mostly in children’s toys, phthalates is a colorless, oily chemical used in thousands of products to impart flexibility and durability. Due to leaching, children come in contact with the chemical with hand-to-mouth contact or by chewing on the toy. Most scientists believe, from verifiable data, that phthalates are hormone altering chemicals, that affect the reproductive systems of developing children. There is a greater impact on young boys where genital deformities and sterility are increasing problems.

With the ban in place, consumers can feel more confident that the products their children are exposed to are safe. The ban also applies to online retailers that sell to California consumers.

Specifically, the law bans the use of six types of phthalates found in some children’s toys containing plastic and in “child-care articles” intended “to facilitate sleep, relaxation, or the feeding of children, or to help children with sucking or teething.”

The law also requires that phthalate substitutes be less toxic. The San Francisco Department of the Environment throughout 2008 tested toys made with polyvinyl chloride — which often contains high phthalate levels — bought in city stores.

California is the first state to implement such a ban and it came after a long and arduous fight from chemical and plastic manufacturers. Many states are expected to not place similar bans due to the cost of battling these companies in court and in the law books.

However, this may be one case in which the science will create a natural progression of elimination of this product. You can go HERE for more information.

Next Page »