bling is banned

Last week, research on children’s toys showed high levels of toxic material, such as lead.

In a similar study, on costume jewelry, lead content exceeded the allowable limits per Proposition 65. Five percent of the jewelry, from stores such asWal-Mart, Banana Republic, Lane Bryant and Express, were found with higher than acceptable limits.

According to Prop 65 the amount of lead in the coating of children’s jewelry must be limited to 600 parts per million, according to a state law that went into effect in September 2007.

Lead is known to cause cancer and reproductive problems, as well as mental and physical retardation.

A surface coating on a frog charm on a Wal-Mart brand child’s necklace contained 37 percent lead, or more than 600 times the legal limit. A Wal-Mart spokeswoman said the company directed stores in California to remove this item from shelves and blocked its sale at registers as it investigates further.

Once again, it seems as though our children are going to suffer from the result of limited compliance from manufacturers. The products being tested are heavily marketed to children as cheap accessories that update their clothes. There seems to be a lot of evidence recently that the chemicals and toxins allowed in products are hurting our male population, who knows what kind of impact we are going to see on females because of similar issues.

The article can be found HERE, via the San Francisco Chronicle

air, part 2

Yesterday, USA Today released its report from testing air quality around schools, which indicated not so great results.

In reaction to the investigation, officials have stated they will make this right, by testing air quality around schools.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) promised to change that. Her committee oversees the U.S. EPA.

“Your story is a shocking story of child neglect, and I plan to ensure that this monitoring takes place and that our children are protected,” Boxer said. “If legislation is needed, I’m going to do it immediately. If it can be done with current authority, then it’s going to happen.

“I’ll do what I have to do,” she said, “but either way, it’s going to be done.”

She also mentioned that it is a shocking since something that can be done by a newspaper, should easily be able to be done by the Environmental Protection Agency.

You can find the entire reaction to the study HERE.

the air they breathe

In probably the most comprehensive study of its kind, in a series from USA Today (beginning Dec 8th, 2008) on “Toxic Air and America’s Schools”, the reporters Brad Heath and Blake Morrison, pinpoint toxic hotspots near schools in over 34 states. Working with the University of Massachusetts – Amherst, they looked at over 127,000 public, private and parochial schools, ranking them by air quality.

Thirteen thousand schools across California were involved, with 3, 266 schools residing in Los Angeles County. The worst school in Los Angeles: Stephens Middle School in Long Beach. In fact, Long Beach had six of the top ten schools with the worst air quality, in Los Angeles.

There were also a listing of the schools with the most chemical concerns where the chemicals in the air were at concentrations well above EPA guidelines, and including such things as the carcinogen benzene and naphthalene. Of the 57 schools listed as having chemical concerns, Beverly Hills High School and Cesar Chavez Elementary (Long Beach) were included due to high levels of chloroform. It has been found that people exposed for a long period of time will face a cancer risk of 1 in 100, 000.

USA Today found that there were failings by the EPA since a search in the EPA records found only about 3% of the nation’s schools were within a mile of a long-term monitor set up to detect hazardous air pollutants. Even fewer — the newspaper identified only 125 of almost 128,000 schools — had monitors within a few blocks. The EPA has already passed it off saying that they provide the grants for each state to monitor air quality. but critics have come back and said that the EPA gives no direction that monitoring needs to be done near schools.

All of this is especially timely given potential midnight rulings by the Bush Adminstration to alter the Clean Air Act for the allowance of more toxins to be emitted by power plants. It will be interesting to follow the fallout from this study and if there is push back in the many proposed changes to the allowed emissions.

There is a very interactive website, where you can get more information and actually search by school name at USA Today

man oh man

A few weeks ago, I wrote about a documentary called The Disappearing Male. Unfortunately, it is still unavailable in the United States. However, more and more data is supporting the same claim.

In new reports released, data is continuing to indicate that “a host of common chemicals is feminising the males of every class of vertebrate animals, including humans. For some time scientists have been concerned about the “gender-bending” effects of some artificial chemicals, especially phthalates, used to soften plastics. The latest research, however, suggests that the scale of the problem is greater than anyone had realised.”

We have worried for many years, now, about the harm to the environment and its effect on our longevity as members of this planet. I don’t think anyone considered that the affect would be on our ability to reproduce or the extinction of one sex over another. That does seem to be the direction we are going.

If you want more information on hormone altering chemicals, you can go to the category of Bisphenol-A (the side bar) and learn more about it. One promising thing is a panel of scientists meeting with President-elect Obama to discuss a ban on these chemicals. We just hope it isn’t too late.

The whole article can be found HERE

an editorial side note to discuss irony: I recently saw a documentary on homosexuality, and specifically the psychology to being homophobic against gay males. It is in large part due to the societal belief that feminine men are something to be feared. What happens when all the men are becoming feminine? Is this an ironic form of self fulfilling prophecy?

look before you buy

So, as we all know, the holiday season is upon us. This is the time of year when kids re-stock on all the latest and greatest toys. But, parents be warned. New data released today shows that many of the toys on the market are full of harmful chemicals.

One in every three of the more than 1,500 children’s toys tested in time for the holiday shopping season have been found to contain “medium” or “high” levels of chemicals of concern such as lead, mercury, cadmium and arsenic.

This testing is part of an annual report with www.HealthyToys.org, The website allows searches by product name, brand, or toy type to see if certain toys have toxic chemicals.

Some examples of toxic levels are:

Forty-five products tested showed bromine at concentrations of 1,000 ppm or higher, indicating the use of brominated flame retardants – chemicals that may pose hazards to children’s health.

Arsenic was detected at levels greater than 100 ppm in 22 products, while 289 products contained detectable levels of arsenic.

Cadmium, a heavy metal, was found above 100 ppm in 30 products, while 38 of products contained detectable levels of cadmium.

If you are buying toys this holiday season, please go to the site and check to see if they are on the list.

with climate change, comes disease

This weekend there was a medical conference about the health effects of climate change.

“There is a personal responsibility that everyone has to be prepared,” Caid said.

The scientists who spoke on specific diseases, professor Andrew Comrie of the University of Arizona and Jeremy Hess, a consultant for the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, are backed up by many scientists worldwide in linking warming to health problems. But they acknowledge a lack of hard research documenting or predicting climate-change-disease links.

While they acknowledge that much more data needs to be gathered and evaluated, they all believe that climate change will see an increase in disease. “Climate change will likely amplify existing health problems, and problems will be linked in a way that hasn’t happened before, Hess said in an interview. While society has adequate means to deal with many of the diseases, a breakdown in public infrastructure systems from climate-related emergencies could cause severe problems, he added.”

I thought this was particularly interesting:
Diseases linked to climate change
• Valley fever: Spiked from less than 1,000 cases in 1997 to 5,000 or more cases in Arizona in 2006 and 2007. Increase causes are under study, but they’re possibly linked to drought caused or aggravated by warming. Also could be caused by better reporting, construction dust and more vulnerable elderly people moving here.
• Dengue fever: 100 million cases caused annually worldwide and generally agreed to be moving north into northern Mexico. The aedes aegypti mosquitoes that cause it already live in Tucson. Warmer weather could move the disease to Arizona. The presence of swimming pools, artificial ponds and stagnant water could also draw disease-bearing mosquitoes.
• Chronic respiratory disease: Could rise if hotter temperatures raise ozone air pollution levels.
• Allergies: Could rise if earlier growing seasons for plants generate more pollen.
• West Nile virus: Could also increase with the continued northward movement of mosquitoes due to warmer weather.
• Asthma and other respiratory diseases: Could rise due to fungus and mold growth caused by extreme variations in temperature and precipitation.
• Heat-related desert deaths of illegal immigrants: Could increase as temperatures rise.
• Heart disease, coughing and breathing problems, decreased lung function: Could be aggravated if global warming brings more drought and dust.
• Malaria: Some areas of Arizona not now suitable for malaria-carrying mosquitoes could become suitable by 2050 due to warmer, more humid weather.

I also thought this was a significant statement: “”Climate is complicated. It forces us to think through what our responsibility is to future generations. It is expensive to deal with. A lot of people don’t want to talk about it,” said Hess, from Emory University.”

I am always writing about the effects of our decisions now, on the children. The truth is that with climate change it is unlikely that you or I may develop asthma or allergies. We are conditioned and we have years of immunity due to exposure. However, children have week immune systems, they are more likely to get dehydrated, and more often outdoors. Yes. It is expensive to deal with, but not compared to the medical cost that will be force upon us if we do not start taking action.

HERE is the article.

won’t you be glad when I stop posting news like this?

It starts off really, really well:

Looking to bolster the fight against childhood lead poisoning, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency last month approved a tough new rule aimed at clearing the nation’s air of the toxic metal. A key part of the initiative is a new network of monitors that will track lead emissions from factories.

But then… it takes a turn:

But the Bush administration quietly weakened that provision at the last minute by exempting dozens of polluters from scrutiny, federal documents show.

I have to be honest, I don’t even know how to write about this anymore. Scientists determined that even low levels of toxic metals in children lead to learning disabilities, aggression and even criminal behavior. So, they sought to lower acceptable levels in air. I am unclear, because I don’t know where the air is tested, but I imagine outside of factories that use lead in their processes.

The reason this is important is because the lead leaves the air, by falling to the ground and embedding itself in the soil. It stays there for years, while children play and dig and kick up all that contaminated soil and breath it in.

The new levels were about to be put into place and mandated before the Bush Administration stepped in and supported corporations instead of the people.

There is much more information in the article. I recommend reading it. The one thing it states is that it will take many, many months for the “new” EPA, under Obama, to be able to overturn this decision. You can find the article HERE.

HERE’S a link to lead poisoning on Wikipedia

I’m going to let this article stand on it’s own….

Study Finds Obese Kids Have Arteries Like 45 year olds, from the LA Times.

Again, how is this NOT child abuse? Find my original post about that question HERE.

oh boy….

“We are conducting a vast toxicological experiment in which our children and our children’s children are the experimental subjects.” Dr. Herbert Needleman

That is taken from a Canadian documentary called “The Disappearing Male”. Unfortunately, footage is not available in the United States, so I cannot share what looks to be a good movie. Below I have taken excerpts from one article, found HERE:

The last few decades have seen steady and dramatic increases in the incidence of boys and young men suffering from genital deformities, low sperm count, sperm abnormalities and testicular cancer. At the same time, boys are now far more at risk of suffering from ADHD, autism, Tourette’s syndrome, cerebral palsy, and dyslexia.

And, from another article, which you can find HERE:

Although the link between pollutants and human reproduction has not been firmly established, there is growing evidence that the birth sex ratio can be altered by exposure to certain chemicals, such as dioxin, PCBs and pesticides. Brophy said studies done in the United States, Japan and Europe seem to support the theory that the so-called endocrine disrupting chemicals have a particular effect on males.

Some of these chemicals are found in commonly used products such as baby bottles and cosmetics. They can also cause miscarriages and a “whole host” of disorders in a male child, Brophy said.

I have emailed some resources I found to see how we might be able to get the movie in the states. I will let you know if anything does become available.

Happy Halloween

I got a late afternoon treat that put a big smile on my face.

The FDA’s science board, a group of outside experts, voted unanimously to endorse a report that found major flaws in the agency’s decision to declare BPA safe.

The science board agreed with the finding that that the FDA was wrong to base its August decision that BPA is safe only on studies funded by the chemical industry. Excluded studies suggest that BPA, which acts like the hormone estrogen, could pose harm to children at levels at least 10 times lower than what the agency allows.

It is not good when an organization like the FDA lets itself get manipulated into approving a chemical by ignoring that it is harmful and instead focusing on the corporate interest and revenue.

I am so happy that the public outcry created the need for an independent review!

HERE is an article about the decision. Although, I will warn you, it is depressing to see how little the FDA did to ensure our safety. For example:

When measuring the amount of BPA to which babies are exposed from liquid infant formula, for example, the FDA used data from more than a decade ago and sampled only 14 liquid formula cans, all from the Washington, D.C. area. It also based its exposure estimate on the average BPA level. That could allow children fed from cans with above-average BPA levels to receive far more of the chemical.

I am sure you will be hearing more about this as the week goes on.

« Previous Page — Next Page »