Tag: clean-water

  • Carcinogen Pollutes Mountain Home AFB Tap Water Supplies

    Drinking water supplies for 14 million Americans are contaminated with a cancer-causing industrial solvent made notorious by the book and film “A Civil Action,” according to a new EWG analysis of tests from public utilities nationwide.  Drinking TCE-contaminated (trichloroethylene) water has been linked to birth defects; damage to the brain and the nervous, reproductive and immune systems; and increased risk of cancer. The EPA’s legal limit for TCE in drinking water is 5 parts per billion, or ppb. That limit was set in 1987, but more recent research suggests TCE could be harmful at much lower levels. 

    In 2015, the latest year for which comprehensive data are available, TCE was detected in EPA-mandated tests by 321 public water systems in 36 states. EWG’s Tap Water Database, which aggregates test results from utilities nationwide, shows that in about half of those systems, average annual levels of TCE were above what some health authorities say is safe for infants and developing fetuses. EWG’s interactive map shows the location of all systems with TCE contamination in 2015.

    Mountain Home Air Force Base

    • Population served: 6,500
    • TCE average: 0.58 ppb

    In June 2018, the EPA released so-called problem formulation documents that refine the scope of the risk evaluations for the first batch of chemicals, including TCE, to be assessed under the recently updated TSCA law. But for TCE and three other chemicals, the EPA excluded key exposures from polluted air, water and soil from the scope of its safety assessments. This approach could dramatically underestimate the total number of Americans who are exposed to TCE and the other chemicals the agency is assessing.

    People whose water is polluted with TCE can inhale the chemical during bathing, showering, washing dishes and other everyday activities. The health risk from TCE is greatest for children because of their small size – on a body weight basis, they breathe in more air and drink more water each day than older children or adults.

    “The health risk from TCE is greatest for children because of their small size – on a body weight basis, they breathe in more air and drink more water each day than older children or adults.”

    Levels of pollutants in the water flowing from customers’ taps fluctuate during the year, so the annual averages shown on EWG map reflect the overall level of concern for TCE contamination in a given water supply. For our calculations, we treated samples reported as “no detection” as having no TCE contamination, even though TCE may have been detected in concentrations below the minimum reporting levels required by the EPA or state agencies.

    TCE exposure is particularly harmful during pregnancy and childhood. TCE exposure during pregnancy has been linked with heart malformations in the fetus. And it’s not just from drinking water: TCE volatizes from water into indoor air.

    Don’t Wait For Government Action – Protect Your Family 

    The EPA should include exposures from all TCE uses in its safety assessment, and take immediate steps to protect American workers and communities from this dangerous chemical. The EPA should also establish a new federal drinking water standard for TCE at a level that would protect children’s health. Getting government action can take time. Treating a single TCE-contaminated water source can cost between $100,000 and $200,000 a year. For a water utility, the costs add up quickly, because TCE-removing treatment may be needed at multiple wells, and the level of TCE in a well may rise as the contaminated groundwater plume spreads. Full remediation of contaminated groundwater and installation of modern water treatment plants that can tackle contamination in the long term can cost tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.Many people – especially pregnant women and families with infants or small children – may not want to wait until their public water system installs TCE treatment.

    Test and Treat at Home

    TCE contamination of tap water can be remedied. Granular activated carbon and air stripping or aeration are the two most common approaches for removing TCE. But it’s expensive and the cost depends on how much the source water is contaminated and the treatment method used.

    As an immediate, in-home solution, TCE can be removed from tap water with an inexpensive carbon-based filter. Minnesota health officials also recommend ventilating indoor air while bathing/showering, cooking, and while running the dishwasher or washing machine as an effective way to reduce the amounts of TCE in indoor air.

    Well Water Doesn’t Make You Safer

    TCE is also a serious health concern for those who depend on private wells for their drinking water supply. U.S. Geological Survey data from 2006 suggest that almost 3.5 percent of private domestic wells may be at risk of TCE contamination. Because more than 40 million Americans rely on private wells for their water, up to 1.5 million people may be affected. The actual number of private wells with TCE contamination is likely much higher because private wells aren’t tested regularly.

    EWG’s advice for families

    • If TCE is found in your water, even at levels below the federal legal limit, EWG highly recommends filtering your water. Look for a carbon-based filter that is certified to remove TCE.
    • All public water utilities are required to provide consumers with an annual Consumer Confidence Report, but these reports often don’t give the full results of tests for contaminants. You should contact your utility to learn about the full range of the most recent tests for TCE, and ask what the utility is doing to remove TCE from tap water if it is present.
    • If TCE is measured in your indoor air, contact your state health department about recommendations for ongoing monitoring or the need for a mitigation system.
    • If you have a private well, and suspect any sources of contamination or hear of TCE detections in your area, get your well tested. The  This information can be helpful in deciding for which other contaminants, in addition to TCE, you may need to test.

    This article originally appeared at: https://www.ewg.org/childrenshealth/carcinogen-pollutes-tap-water-supplies-14-million-americans.

    ‘A Civil Action’ Carcinogen Pollutes Tap Water Supplies for 14 Million Americans Under Trump, EPA Retreats From Proposed Ban on Key Uses of TCE TUESDAY, JULY 24, 2018

    EWG mapped public water systems according to the information available in the EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Information System. The mapped locations may not exactly match the service area. Instead, they are intended to show the general location of a public water system. Information about the size of the population served also comes from the EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Information System. 

    National Library of Medicine ToxMap lets users look up hazardous and contaminated sites in their communities, and find out which chemicals have been found.

    Original Article By Tasha Stoiber, PhD, Senior Scientist and Olga Naidenko, PhD, Senior Science Advisor for Children’s Environmental Health

  • Teflon Chemicals Bigger Health Threat Than Previously Disclosed

    Chemicals used for decades in hundreds of consumer products – including DuPont’s Teflon and 3M’s Scotchgard – are hazardous for human health and for the environment. PFOA and its cousin, PFOS, never break down in the environment. They build up in people’s bodies, and can be passed from mother to child in the womb and though breast milk.By the 1970s, DuPont and 3M had used them to develop Teflon and Scotchgard, and they slipped into an array of everyday products, from gum wrappers to sofas to frying pans to carpets. Known as perfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, they were a boon to the military, too, which used them in foam that snuffed out explosive oil and fuel fires.

    It’s long been known that, in certain concentrations, the compounds could be dangerous if they got into water or if people breathed dust or ate food that contained them. Tests showed they accumulated in the blood of chemical factory workers and residents living nearby, and studies linked some of the chemicals to cancers and birth defects.

    Now two new analyses of drinking water data and the science used to analyze it make clear the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Defense have downplayed the public threat posed by these chemicals. Far more people have likely been exposed to dangerous levels of them than has previously been reported because contamination from them is more widespread than has ever been officially acknowledged.

    Moreover, ProPublica has found, the government’s understatement of the threat appears to be no accident. The EPA and DOD have quite deliberately chosen not to use the most advanced tools or to collect the most comprehensive data on contamination, researchers say.

    The EPA and the Department of Defense calibrated water tests to exclude some harmful levels of contamination and only register especially high concentrations of chemicals, according to the vice president of one testing company. Several prominent scientists told ProPublica the DOD chose to use tests that would identify only a handful of chemicals rather than more advanced tests that the agencies’ own scientists had helped develop which could potentially identify the presence of hundreds of additional compounds.  

    “If you were going to spend $200 million testing DoD sites across the country, wouldn’t you want to test for all of the chemicals you know you used?” asked Jane Williams, executive director of California Communities Against Toxics, who has been active on chemical cleanup issues at Defense sites.

    “It’s almost like a deliberate thing, where you’re going to tell people their water is safe to drink, and you know that you have a gap in your testing and you know that you haven’t found all of the chemicals in the water.” The new analyses suggest these findings likely represent just a fraction of the true number of people and drinking water systems affected.

    Scientists are only now beginning to understand the importance of the information the government is choosing to leave out. Field has found, for example, not only that there are more variations of PFAS compounds, but that some degrade over time into PFOS or PFOA, or, like PFBS, travel faster in the environment, making them predictors for other contaminants soon to come.

    “Widespread contamination may be harming the health of millions or even tens of millions of Americans and the government is intentionally covering up some of the evidence,” said Erik Olson, a senior director for health, food and agriculture initiatives at the Natural Resources Defense Council, in an interview. The EPA and Defense Department “have done all they can to sort of drag their feet and avoid meaningful regulatory action in making significant investment in cleanups.”

    Read More at: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/09/how-the-epa-and-the-pentagon-downplayed-a-growing-toxic-threat.html.

  • The World’s Biggest Bottled Water Brand Admits: “It’s Just Tap Water”

    Aquafina. Processed tap water in a plastic bottle. You are paying $7.50 a gallon for water that doesn’t have to be tested for contaminants as often as tap water. 

    The world’s biggest bottled water brand has been forced to admit that their water comes from the exact same source as your tap water.

    USA Today reports Aquafina has changed its labels to specify P.W.S. — Public Water Source — under pressure from Accountability International.

    The company said it was reasonable to make people understand that they were paying for water that is easily available in their bathroom sink.

    Of course, Aquafina is filtered and purified, but it’s certainly not mountain spring water. It’s just processed tap water — the same stuff that you can find in your kitchen sink.

    As ConvergEx Group Chief Market Strategist Nick Colas stated in an interview with Business Insider:

    “The [bottled water] industry grossed a total of $11.8 billion on those 9.7 billion gallons in 2012, making bottled water about $1.22/gallon nationwide and 300x the cost of a gallon of tap water,” Colas says. 

    “If we take into account the fact that almost 2/3 of all bottled water sales are single 16.9oz (500 mL) bottles, though, this cost is much, much higher: about $7.50 per gallon,” according to the American Water Works Association. 

    That’s almost 2,000x the cost of a gallon of tap water and twice the cost of a gallon of regular gasoline.

    According to the Beverage Marketing Association, a trade group, nearly 50% of all bottled water sold in the U.S. is just tap water that’s been purified.

    Unfortunately, bottled water is often just as bad, or even worse, than tap water in the United States and elsewhere.

    For instance, the EPA requires large public water suppliers to test for contaminants as often as several times a day, but the FDA requires private bottlers to test for contaminants only once a week, once a year, or once every four years, depending on the contaminant.

    Have you seen the new EWG.org files about the quality of our tap water? https://www.ewg.org/tapwater/#.WY-u6lF96Uk

     

    Ouch!

    If you want to save yourself a whole bunch of money – and cut down on plastic water bottles! – just filter your tap water yourself. You can easily find a good filter for the price of not so many of those plastic bottles.

    Sources

    http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2012/07/do-you-know-where-your-bottled-water-comes-from/index.htm

    ABCNews

    Featured Image – Daniel Orth/Flickr

    If you enjoyed this article or learned something new, please don’t forget to share it with others so they have a chance to enjoy this free information. This article is open source and free to reblog or use if you give a direct link back to the original article URL. Thanks for taking the time to support an open source initiative. We believe all information should be free and available to everyone. Have a good day and we hope to see you soon!

    This article originally appeared at: http://livetheorganicdream.com/worlds-biggest-bottled-water-brand-admits-just-tap-water/.

  • What’s in Your Drinking Water?

    When most Americans drink a glass of tap water, they’re also getting a dose of industrial or agricultural contaminants linked to cancer, brain and nervous system damage, developmental defects, fertility problems or hormone disruption. That’s the disturbing truth documented by EWG’s Tap Water Database – the most complete source available on the quality of U.S. drinking water, aggregating and analyzing data from almost 50,000 public water utilities nationwide.
    What’s in YOUR WATER Idaho ?
    Idaho water systems added fluoride is approved of by City Councils. More than 35% of Idaho’s citizens are drinking fluoride contaminated water. A simple request from the city council could change that. 

    http://deq.idaho.gov/water-quality/drinking-water/pws-monitoring-reporting/contaminants/

    Drinking Water Program Manager
    Jerri Henry
    DEQ State Office
    Water Quality Division
    1410 N. Hilton
    Boise, ID 83706
    (208) 373-0471
    jerri.henry@deq.idaho.gov

    Safe Drinking Water Hotline

    1-800-426-4791

    More Information

    Drinking Water Contaminants

    National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

    SELECT YOUR STATE

    This article originally appeared at: https://www.ewg.org/tapwater/#.WXleoogrKUk.

  • They just voted to be fluoride free!

    Latest Fluoride-Free Victories

    • Battlefield, Missouri (June 21)– The water district board voted unanimously to end fluoridation for the town of 6,000 due to corrosion caused by the chemical, and because of the availability of safer and more effective alternatives to reduce decay.  The dental lobby and regional health officials who have received grants to promote the practice have vowed to fight the vote, despite the significant health risks to residents, the water infrastructure, and water employees.
    • Nipawin, Saskatchewan (July 13)– After months of consideration and a presentation by public health administrators, the Mayor and Council in Nipawin, Saskatchewan (pop. 4,401) voted 4-1 to reject a proposal by the Saskatchewan medical health officer to fluoridate the drinking water. As one councilor said, “It’s not our job to supply medication.”  The Mayor also voted against the proposal because she felt the decision should be made by residents via a ballot referendum, not by councilors.
    • Johnstown, Pennsylvania (July 21)– The Greater Johnstown Water Authority voted unanimously (11-0) to end the addition of fluoridation chemicals to the drinking water.  The vote was influenced by significant opposition to the practice by water consumers, which was highlighted by the results of a customer survey on the issue in which 70% of respondents opposed fluoridation. 

    The Greater Johnstown Water Authority serves an estimated population of 52,657. In Cambria County: the City of Johnstown (19,712), Brownstown Borough (700), Dale Borough (1,160), Ferndale Borough (1,600), Lorain Borough (714), Westmont Borough (4,876), East Conemaugh Borough (1,145), Franklin Borough (300), Southmont Borough (2,150), Conemaugh Township (2,000), Middle Taylor Township (800), Stonycreek Township (2,000), Lower Yoder Township (2,500), Upper Yoder Township (5,000) and West Taylor (6,000).  Also included is Conemaugh Township in Somerset County (2,000).

    FAN Senior Advisor and chemist, Paul Connett, PhD, was recently in Pennsylvania for a public debate against retired Florida dentist and fluoridation propagandist Johnny Johnson, DDS.  Click here to watch the 90-minute debate.

    Residents and campaigners in Pennsylvania have supplied steady wins for our movement, and have made it one of the most active states for fluoridation votes and decisions. Here are the additional Pennsylvania victories since 2011:

    In 2016, Guilford & Greene Township, with a combined population of 26,000

    In 2015, Bellefonte with a population of 6,224

    In 2015, Brackenridge Borough with a population of 3,240

    In 2015, Schuylkill Haven with a population of 5,340

    In 2014, Ford City with a population of 3,000

    In 2014, Bucks County with a population of 385,000

    In 2013, Tyrone with a population of 5,500

    In 2012, West Manheim with a population of 8,000

    In 2012, Myerstown with a population of 3,500

    In 2011, Pottstown with a population of 15,500

    In 2011, Schuylkill Haven with a population of 5,500

    New Fluorosis Video

    Do your teeth, or your child’s teeth have white spots, white streaks, cloudy splotches, brown stains, or pitting? If so, you or your child may be among the millions of Americans who now have a condition called dental fluorosis.

    Fluorosis is a defect of tooth enamel caused by too much fluoride intake during the first 8 years of life, and in the U.S. fluorosis rates have increased by 600% in just the last 60 years.  

    Watch this new short video to learn more, and please share our Facebook and Twitterposts on the video to help warn others via social media.  You can also visit our webpage on dental fluorosis to learn more. 


    2017 Chilean review: fluoridation is ineffective & harmful

    A team of experts from Chile–including doctors, biologists, a lawyer, a civil engineer, a toxicologist, an environmental expert, and a chemist–have published a damning review of water fluoridation in the Medical Journal of Chile, February 2017.  The review was financed by the Medical College of Chile.

    Chile is considered a pioneer in the fluoridation of drinking water, starting in 1953 when Curico was fluoridated.  By 1958, nearly 60% of the country was fluoridated, and constant expansion has led to a current rate of 82.5%.

    Despite the long history of national support for the practice, the article entitled, “Consequences of Fluoridation of Drinking Water on Human Health,” concludes that artificial fluoridation of drinking water and milk has not only been ineffective at reducing dental decay in children, but is likely harmful to health.  According to the researchers:

    “A) The effects of fluoride intake pose risks of various diseases in the asthmatic-skeletal, neurological, endocrine and skin systems. Dental and skeletal fluorosis are signs of chronic and excessive ingestion of fluoride.

    B) Infants, children and adolescents are at high risk of diseases due to over-intake of fluorides, through drinking water and / or fluoridated milk, as the deterioration of health is proportional to the dose and the time of exposure .


    C) The fluoridation of drinking water does not significantly impact on caries prevention. For their effectiveness is rather a topical and non-systemic effect, as demonstrated by countries that do not fluoride drinking water, and do not use milk or fluoride salts, decreasing dental deterioration at the same rate as those that fluoride drinking water.”

    The research team based their analysis on a review of all available studies that included control of confounding variables.  They discuss fluoride’s ability to cause bone, thyroid, neurological, and skin damage.  There is also in indepth analysis of WHO data that shows, “fluoridation of drinking water and salts have no incidence at all in reducing dental [decay].”

    There was also a brief discussion on the legal aspects of water fluoridation, which found the following:

    “The fluoridation of drinking water in Chile forces citizens to involuntarly consume a chemical they do not require.  For decade the majority of the Chilean population has been overexposed to this potentially unhealthy element, transgressing constitional guarantees.”

    In response to their findings the research team made the following recommendations:


    “
    1. To amend Decree No. 735 of November 7, 1969, updating it with Supreme Decree No. 131 of 2006, and the Regulations for Services for Human Consumption of 2007, to avoid fluoridation of drinking water and avoid fluoridation Of milk, in all regions of the country.


    2. Prioritize the use of dental hygiene products containing the necessary, but minimal, amounts of fluoride to maintain dental health, strengthen education for better dental care and better nutrition.


    3. Educate health and education professionals about the adverse consequences of fluoride intake.


    4. To carry out epidemiological studies in Chile, to evaluate the adverse effects on health, through ingestion and use of fluorides, for decades.”

    READ THE FULL STUDY


    FAN’s Fluoride Conference in September

    If you missed July’s International Fluoride Free Teleconference, the audio is now available to download or stream.  During the call, Paul and Ellen Connett made some exciting announcements about the upcoming 6th Citizen’s Conference on Fluoride in Washington, D.C. from September 16th through 18th.

    The three-day Conference will focus on Science (Saturday, Sept 16), Strategy(Sunday, Sept 17), and Action (Monday, Sept 18), with two days of speakers followed by a day of lobbying and sightseeing on Capital Hill. 

    Hotel rooms are available at significantly discounted rates, but availability is limited and rooms will return to full price on August 24th, so CLICK HERE to make your arrangements before it’s too late.  


    To listen to July’s teleconference audio and register for next month’s call, CLICK HERE.


    Latest Fluoride News:

    –Public Takes Out Fluoride Frustration at Meadville Council Meeting (Pennsylvania)

    –Some Businesses and Individuals Plan to Remove Fluoride (Pennsylvania)

    –Northern Tasmania: Fluoride Could Be Put to the People (Australia)

    –Tasmanian Council Says Towns Should Decide What is Added to Water (Australia)

    –Jonesborough Fluoride Battle Continues as Town Ends Addition (Tennessee)

    –Lead, Arsenic, Fluoride Found in Water Under Memphis Power Plant (Tennessee)

    –11.5 Million People in India at High Risk of Fluorosis Due to Water (India)

    –In Some Areas, Fluoride Debate Rages (Indiana)

    –Dentist: Water Fluoridation – Reduce or Eliminate? (Ohio)

    –Port Angeles City Council Candidates Debate Fluoridation (Washington)

    –Fluoride as a Ballot Measure in Sheridan (Wyoming)

    –Fluoridation to Appear on Petersburg Ballot (Alaska)

    –Kidney Calamity Caused by Fluoride in Water (Vietnam)

    –Franklin, Windsor, and Courtland City Have High Fluoride Levels (Virginia)

    –Actress Olivia Munn Cut Fluoride From her Diet to Clear Acne (USA)

    –Eau Claire Fluoridation Debate (Wisconsin)

    –Sheridan Still Mulling Fluoride Options (Wyoming)

    For more fluoride related media, please visit FAN’s News Archive.


     

    Sincerely,

    Stuart Cooper
    Campaign Director
    Fluoride Action Network

    See all FAN bulletins online

  • #FluorideFree Idaho! Sign The Petition

    Unlike other chemicals added to water, which are intended to treat the water itself, fluoride is intended to treat the people who drink the water, whether they want the treatment or not. There is NO HEALTH BENEFIT IN INGESTING FLUORIDE, only risks.

    *Fluoride is toxic waste from aluminum and fertilizer factories and contains a high concentration of toxins and heavy metals such as arsenic, lead and chromium. All proven to be carcinogens. 

    *Fluoride is now classified as a neurotoxin as supported by more than 180 studies. 

    *Fluoride’s impact is cumulative. It is more poisonous than lead and just slightly less poisonous than arsenic. No one will die from drinking one glass of fluoridated water, but it is the long term chronic effects of drinking fluoridated water that affects health. 

    At Health Freedom Idaho, our view is that we should each have the right to determine what medicines we intake – or don’t. 

    -Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd, Past President of the American Medical Association.

    “I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs. Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a long range basis. Any attempt to use water this way is deplorable.”

    WE AGREE – IDAHO SHOULD BE FLUORIDE FREE! SIGN THE PETITION! 

    RESOURCES FOR RESEARCH: http://healthfreedomidaho.flutter.co/fluoride-just-when-you-thought-it-was-safe-to-drink-the-water

  • Measles: A Treatable Disease

    Large portions of this editorial are from vaccine choice advocate Shawn Siegel as posted publicly on Facebook here.

    There’s no such thing as an illness or disease that doesn’t have sometimes associated complications and death – even the common cold. Yet, we wouldn’t call the common cold anything other than benign. The pictograph posted below, of pre-vaccine America, makes it as plain as the nose on your face: measles is a benign illness. It should also make it obvious that the one child in 7,500 cases who died had some pretty serious health issues; that complications and death don’t follow the virus, or bacteria, they follow the person.

    There have been no childhood deaths in the U.S. from measles in the past 15 years. Those measles death statistics in the CDC and pharma-backed “science” blogs are in third-world countries, not in the US! Measles is not a deadly disease for people with food and water.  The 98% decline in disease rates for measles was PRIOR to the introduction of the vaccine due to advancements in living conditions, nutrition and healthcare.

    Once again, the media is discarding factual reporting in favor of mindless sensationalism, attributing an alleged measles resurgence — even this claim is specious — to the unvaccinated and a push for vaccination for everyone. 

    Interestingly, a  report on Jan 31, 2019 124 cases of measles confirmed in New York October 2018 to present, NO FATALITIES 
    and media reports only 34 were unvaccinated. That means that 90 of the 124 cases were vaccinated – that would be close to a 75% vaccine failure rate. 

    Whether or not this claim is actually true pales in importance compared to the fact that measles really isn’t much of a threat in the first place. The measles vaccine, on the other hand, is a whole different story.

    RESEARCH LINKS AND RESOUCES can be found on this article: FACTS ABOUT OUTBREAKS and MEASLES

    Health issues can often be improved through proper treatments and therapies. 

    Health in no way can be improved through vaccination – through injection of disease, certainly of multiple diseases, known neurotoxins – literal poisons – carcinogens and other chemicals, none of which belong in the human bloodstream. 

    That’s why the MMR vaccine – sticking to measles – is listed by Health and Human Services as causing brain inflammation, brain damage, potentially fatal anaphylactic shock, chronic arthritis, thrombocytopenic purpura – a blood platelet autoimmune disorder so named because the resulting accumulation of internal bruises ultimately turns the body purple – and “Any acute complication or sequela, including death,…”.

     “preventable diseases” are actually treatable with modern medicine or even with just – better nutrition. Measles is treated with vitamin A. The severity of whooping cough can be greatly reduced with high doses of vitamin C. These diseases were hardly considered dangerous and rather more like a rite of passage for kids in the 50s & early 60s, and now we know so much more about how to treat them. But the fear-mongering in the media and from medical professionals is intense. And ridiculous. Ashley Everly ThinkLoveHealthy.com

    The USCDC lists measles as “the deadliest of the fever / rash diseases”, giving a terribly misleading, dishonest impression of the reality of the illness, when they know full well that what was stated by an MD in a 1959 British Medical Journal issue is true:

    “In this practice measles is considered as a relatively mild and inevitable childhood ailment that is best encountered any time from 3 to 7 years of age. Over the past 10 years there have been few serious complications at any age, and all children have made complete recoveries. As a result of this reasoning no special attempts have been made at prevention even in young infants in whom the disease has not been found to be especially serious.”

    Critically, multiple studies tell us “preventable diseases” are actually beneficial to the immune system to contract and are linked to having a reduced risk of cancer. 

    That is, from a valid perspective the process we call infectious illness is corrective in nature – an adjustment, if you will, to afford better immunological strength in adolescence and adulthood. 

    Beyond being terribly divisive, the notion that vaccination is protective in any way, for anyone – most of all, ironically, for the vaccinated – is false.

    The final irony is that it’s not really about choice; that no parent who’s seen enough honest vaccine information would ever choose to vaccinate in the first place.

    – Shawn Siegel

    By definition, benign diseases are: generally without complications, and a good prognosis (outcome) is usual. – via Britannica.com. 

    MORE RESEARCH RESOURCES: 

    Researching Vaccines: Where to Start

    Measles Vaccine Injury and Death

    Vitamin A for Treating Measles in Children

    Lead image courtesy of David D. on Flickr.

  • A new generation of water pollutants in your medicine cabinet

    Every day, we each use a variety of personal care products. We wash our hands with antibacterial soaps and clean our faces with specialty cleansers. We wash and maintain our hair with shampoo, conditioner and other hair care products. We use deodorant and perfume or cologne to smell nice. Depending on the day, we may apply sunscreen or insect repellent.The Conversation

    But where do they go after we use them?

    When we bathe, personal care products wash off of our bodies and into sewer systems that carry them to regional wastewater treatment plants. However, these plants are not designed to treat the thousands of specialty chemicals in pharmaceuticals and personal care products. Many of the active and inactive ingredients present in these products pass through our wastewater treatment plants and ultimately end up in rivers, streams or oceans.

    Once in the environment, these chemicals may cause hormonal effects and toxicity in aquatic animals. In my laboratory, we are studying these emerging water pollutants, which are turning up in surface water, groundwater and even treated drinking water. Although they are typically found at low concentrations, they may still threaten human and ecological health.

    New pollutants, present worldwide

    Personal care products and their ingredients are widely distributed throughout our environment. In one recent study, our lab aggregated more than 5,000 measurements of active ingredients from a variety of personal care products that were found in untreated wastewater, treated wastewater and surface waters such as rivers and streams. They included N,N-diethyl-3-methylbenzamide, or DEET(an insect repellent); galaxolide(a fragrance); oxybenzone(a sunscreen); and triclosan(an antibacterial compound).

    Other studies conducted near the Mario Zucchelli and McMurdo & Scott research bases confirmed that chemicals in personal care products were even present in Antarctic seawater. Those reports identified the presence of plasticizers, antibacterials, preservatives, sunscreens and fragrances in the Antarctic marine environment. Together, these studies suggest that the active ingredients in personal care products can be found in any water body influenced by human activity.

    These substances are typically present in the aquatic environment at concentrations of 10 to 100 nanograms per liter, which is equivalent to 1 to 2 drops in an Olympic-sized swimming pool. But even at these low levels, some still pose a risk.

    Moving up the food chain

    Depending on their chemical properties, we can classify some of these products as hydrophilic (“water-loving”) or lipophilic (“lipid-loving”). The fat layers in our bodies are comprised of lipids, so lipophilic personal care products can accumulate in the tissue and organs of aquatic animals like fish, birds and even dolphins.

    Our group has recently detected a suite of sunscreen agents and 17α-ethinylestradiol, a synthetic form of the hormone estrogen that is the active ingredient in birth control pills, in crayfish from urban streams near Baltimore, Maryland. We have also measured sunscreens in oysters and mussels collected from the Chesapeake Bay. The uptake of these chemicals by aquatic animals raises environmental concerns.

    Specifically, as lipophilic chemicals from personal care products accumulate in animals at higher concentrations, there is a greater potential for them to cause toxic effects. For instance, many personal care products disrupt hormone systems in the body. Some chemicals used in personal care products affect reproductive systems and function, causing the feminization of male fish.

    These reproductive effects can have important consequences for aquatic animals in the environment, and they may even represent a potential health risk for humans. Last year, the Food and Drug Administration banned the use of triclosan and a number of other antibacterial agents in antiseptic wash products due, in part, to health risks associated with hormonal effects.

    Recent research has shown that oxybenzone, a sunscreen agent used in many personal care products, is toxic to corals. For many coastal communities, coral reefs are critical to local economies. For example, the net value of Hawaii’s coral reefs is estimated to be $34 billion.

    Earlier this year Hawaii introduced legislation to ban the sale of sunscreens containing oxybenzone and octinoxate in order to protect coral reefs. While research and policymaking are still ongoing in this area, it is important to note that a number of new consumer products have started using labels like “coral safe” and “reef safe.”

    Multiple solutions

    Typical wastewater treatment plants are designed to treat multiple pollutants, including organic carbon from human and food waste; nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus; and pathogenic bacteria and viruses that cause disease. However, they are not equipped to handle the many ingredients of concern that are present in personal care products.

    Protecting the environment and human health from these substances will require progress in several areas. They include improving technologies for wastewater treatment plants; conducting more testing and regulation of personal care products to avoid unintended toxicity to aquatic animals; and designing “green chemicals” that do not pose toxicity concerns. This multi-pronged approach will help us to ensure that personal care products continue to improve our quality of life without harming the environment.

    Lee Blaney, Assistant Professor of Environmental Engineering, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

     Read the original article.

    .

  • Potent carcinogen contaminated drinking water used by millions

    According to a new nationwide Gallup survey, Americans are really worried about contaminants in their drinking water. Nearly two-thirds of Americans have “a great deal” concern about pollution of tap water, and 57 percent worry “a great deal” about pollution of the nation’s rivers, lakes and reservoirs. Concern hasn’t been this high since 2001.

    The worry is well founded Shell Oil Co. and Dow Chemical hid a known cancer-causing substance in two commonly-used pesticides that contaminated the drinking water of millions of people in California, according to lawsuits detailed in a report from the Environmental Working Group earlier this month.

  • Fluoride Dangers acknowledged

    Fluoride Dangers acknowledged

    Scientists in England have found that fluoride could be causing depression and weight gain and have urged councils to stop adding it to the drinking water. The new findings directly contradict a report released by Public Health England last year that called fluoride a “safe and effective” way of improving dental health.

    According to a study of 98 percent of GP practices in England, high rates of underactive thyroid were 30 percent more likely in areas of the greatest fluoridation.

    The Telegraph reports that up to 15,000 people are needlessly experiencing thyroid problems, which include depression, weight gain, pain, and fatigue.

    Approximately 10 percent of the population in England live in areas with a naturally or artificially fluoridated water supply, according to the Telegraph. Researchers from the University of Kent suggest that the number of cases of underactive thyroid was higher in areas such as the West Midlands and the North East of England. Professor Stephen Peckham of the Centre for Health Service Studies, lead author of the study, asserts that the findings should be particularly disconcerting for those who reside in those regions.

    “The difference between the West Midlands, which fluoridates, and Manchester, which doesn’t was particularly striking,” Peckham noted. “There were nearly double the number of cases in Manchester.”

    Advocates of fluoridation contend it helps to fight tooth decay by making enamel more resistant to bacteria; however, studies have shown that the adverse effects of fluoridation far outweigh any purported good it does.

    The University of Kent study found that fluoride inhibits the production of iodine, which is necessary for the health of the thyroid gland, resulting in an underactive thyroid, or hypothyroidism.

    “Underactive thyroid is a particularly nasty thing to have and it can lead to other long term health problems,” stated Professor Peckham. He added, “I do think councils need to think again about putting fluoride in the water. There are far safer ways to improve dental health.”

    What’s worse is that the levels of fluoride analyzed in that study were less than four milligrams per liter, less than the amounts permitted to be used in water fluoridation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

    “Our very great concern is that children worldwide are being exposed to unrecognized toxic chemicals that are silently eroding intelligence, disrupting behaviors, truncating future achievements and damaging societies, perhaps most seriously in developing countries,” added the authors, who also warned of additional problems associated with exposure to these kinds of substances, including autism.

    As a result of those findings, a 2014 report in the medical  journal The Lancet labelled fluoride a dangerous developmental neurotoxicant, placing it alongside other toxins such as lead, mercury, and arsenic.

    Critics have seized upon the various findings against fluoride to call for a complete end to water fluoridation.

    “In light of the new classification of fluoride as a dangerous neurotoxin, adding more fluoride to Americans’ already excessive intake no longer has any conceivable justification,” declared Fluoride Action Network Executive Director and retired chemistry professor Dr. Paul Connett in a statement. “We should follow the evidence and try to reduce fluoride intake, not increase it.”

    This article originally appeared at: https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/20186-new-research-underscores-the-dangers-of-fluoride.