Six New Studies Confirm Health Dangers of Plastic

Six New Studies Confirm Health Dangers of Plastic
by www.SixWise.com


The most up-to-date research shows that exposure to chemicals released from various plastic products and flame-retardant materials cause "adverse health effects in humans and laboratory animals." An entire section of the October 2008 issue of Environmental Research, "A Plastic World," was devoted to the results of a series of six environmental research studies.

Chemicals in plastic products

Chemicals in plastic products you likely use everyday have been definitively linked to serious health problems including brain and reproductive damage and cancer.

These research studies investigated the health effects of chemicals such as bisphenol A (BPA), polyvinyl chlorate (PVC), phthalates, and polybrominated diphenylether (PBDE). Results showed that plastics contain "endocrine disrupting chemicals" that can interfere with the thyroid hormone, block the production of testosterone, and mimic the action of estrogen in your body.

These studies specified that fetal exposure to phthalates caused changes in male reproductive organs of humans and rats. Fetal exposure of rats and mice to BPAs and PBDEs showed a disruption in normal brain development and behavior. Research also provided evidence to show that great harm is being done to aquatic wildlife because our oceans are being polluted by enormous amounts of these plastic-related chemicals.

"For the first time a series of articles will appear together that identify that billions of kilograms of a number of chemicals used in the manufacture of different types of plastic can leach out of plastic products and cause harm to the brain and reproductive system when exposure occurs during fetal life or prior to weaning," according to Dr. Frederick vom Saal, guest editor of the "Plastic World."

PVC, a highly toxic chemical found in shower curtains

PVC, a highly toxic chemical found in shower curtains, plastic piping, toys and building supplies, is not something you want in your home, particularly if you have small children or are pregnant.

This most recent research reported that prenatal exposure to rats, and exposure around the time of gestation to even small amounts of BPA led to abnormalities in the development of mammary tissue, which led to an increase in pre-cancerous lesions and mammary tumors. Adult exposure to BPA led to an increase in mammary tumors as well.

BPA mimics estrogen in the body. As a result of this, research involving cultures of human breast cancer cells showed that BPA causes changes in cell growth and proliferation as well as damage to cellular DNA -- potential precursors to cancer.

Some Facts About These Toxic Chemicals

* BPA
o Highly toxic
o Used to make many plastic consumer products
o Toxins released over time and when heating liquids in plastic containers
o

Found in plastic water bottles, drinking glasses, food containers, baby bottles, lacquer lining of metal food cans, microwave ovenware, plastic utensils, etc.
* PVC (polyvinyl chlorate)
o Highly toxic
o Found in many toys, building supplies, plastic piping, shower curtains, various soft plastic products, etc

* Phthalates
o Mimics the effects of estrogen in the body
o Causes skin irritations
o Found in many cosmetics and shampoos, PVC products (i.e. toys), etc.

* PBDEs (polybrominated diphenylether)
o Highly toxic
o Found in flame-retardant materials, furniture foam, back coatings for draperies and upholsteries, electronics, small appliances, etc.


Protecting Yourself From Plastic

The safest way to prevent adverse health effects from these chemicals is to avoid exposure to the plastics and products that contain them.

* Use glass and paper products instead of plastic.
* Avoid drinking bottled water.
* Replace toxic plastic products with safer plastics, such as bio-based materials.
* Be aware that a "3" or a "V" stamped underneath the recycling symbol of your plastic product indicates that the product contains PVC.
* Smell your plastic! PVC products give off a distinct odor from toxic gases being released, such as the smell from a vinyl shower curtain.
* During the construction process -- when building a house, for instance -- make sure to avoid installing PVC plastic piping.

What's Worse - The Condition or Side Effect?

We have all seen the pharmaceutical commercials where the list of side effects is 10 times worse than the condition it is "treating". Does anyone have any common sense left or are we all brainwashed to believe everything they are told by TV and doctors (and TV doctors)?

The media couldn't be biased towards their largest revenue source (pharmaceutical advertising) could they? Why are the same pharmaceutical drugs more expensive in the USA than EVERY OTHER COUNTRY? BECAUSE THEY GET IT. Our laws and socialized medicine (Medicare and other welfare programs) allow it. Who's the chump here? We all are.

From Healthmad.com

http://www.healthmad.com/Medicine/Prescription-Drugs.95408

Terrifying Side Effects of Prescription Drugs

Here are 25+ terrifying side effects that can be caused by prescription drugs.

Reading or hearing about side effects of prescription medication can sometimes be horrific. I often wonder if taking the medication to ease a condition is worth the risk of experiencing some of the awful side effects that come with medicine. The following is a list of some of terrifying side effects that come with many prescription drugs currently on the market.

* Drainage, crusting, or oozing of your eyes or eyelids
* Swollen, black, or "hairy" tongue
* Changes in the shape or location of body fat
* Decrease in testicle size
* Sores or swelling in your rectal or genital area
* Blue lips or fingernails
* Purple spots on the skin
* White patches or sores inside your mouth or on your lips
* Irregular back-and- forth movements of the eyes
* Enlarged breasts in males.
* Unusual risk-taking behavior, no fear of danger
* Extreme Fear
* Hallucinations, fainting, coma
* Fussiness, irritability, crying for an hour or longer
* Paralysis
* Thoracic Hematoma (bleeding into the chest)
* A blood clot in the lung
* Liver damage
* Kidney damage
* A lump in your breast.
* Decreased bone marrow function
* Congestive heart failure
* Shingles
* Nerve pain lasting for several weeks or months
* Bleeding that will not stop
* Coughing up blood or vomit that looks like coffee grounds

Finally, there is one drug on the market, EvaMist, which includes all of the following possible side effects:

* Breast cancer
* Cancer of the uterus
* Stroke
* Heart attack
* Blood clots
* Dementia
* Gallbladder disease
* Ovarian cancer
* High blood pressure
* Liver problems
* High blood sugar
* Enlargement of benign tumors of the uterus ("fibroids")

These are only some of the possible side effects of prescription drugs. Unfortunately, there are many more.

What do you think? Want some?

Diseases and Conditions

MRSA - Rapid Blood Test

On January 28, 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced its approval to begin marketing the first rapid blood test for the drug-resistant staph bacterium known as MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus). MRSA is a dangerous mutant strain of bacterium resistant to methicillin, an antibiotic that has previously been used successfully to treat Staphylococcus aureus infections. MRSA can cause potentially life-threatening infections to your blood stream... surgical site infections... even pneumonia, and has an even higher fatality rate! MRSA has long been a problem in the health care setting, but it is increasingly a community problem as well.

The test, known as the BD GeneOhm StaphSR Assay, can differentiate the methicillin-resistant variant from the methicillin-susceptible variant in two hours, rather than the 24 to 48 hours or longer that currently available technology takes. Distinguishing between the two sources of infection is critical to successful treatment. Studies leading to the test's approval found that it could identify 100% of MRSA samples and 98% of the susceptible types. According to an FDA statement, this test should be used in patients already suspected of having a staph infection but not to monitor treatment or initially detect it.

"This test is good news for the public health community," said Daniel G. Schultz, MD, director of the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health. This test previously was given FDA approval to identify colonized patients. The product's manufacturer, BD (Becton, Dickinson and Co.), is pursuing U.S. approvals for it to be used for nasal swabbing and the detection of MRSA in wounds.

Doctors still might have to conduct follow-up testing to pin down precisely what will kill particular bacteria, but physicians say the information provided by this product will be enough to narrow down treatment choices early on. According to Ed Septimus, MD, an infectious disease physician in Houston and a board member of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, "Compared to what we have now, this is terrific. We will be able to get appropriate treatment to the patient much faster, and we will be able to intervene at a much earlier time so transmission does not occur." Initially, this test most likely will be used on the sickest, hospitalized patients.

Although there is a lot of hope for the test's potential, there are also concerns. Experts, for instance, expect there may be a lag between this test becoming available and doctors becoming comfortable enough with it to use it for decision-making. "Having more tools is good, but there's going to be a certain learning curve," said Thomas Fekete, MD, professor of medicine and an infectious disease specialist at Temple University in Philadelphia. "And I don't know if laboratories will be financially prepared to take on this new technology. I'm not saying it's not worth it, but there's a price to pay."

Experts say getting a better handle on MRSA is key, because evidence is accumulating that it may be far more common than previously thought. A study in the December 2007 American Journal of Infection Control found that nationally, 46.3 per 1,000 in-patients carried the bacteria. Of these, at least 34 were infected and 12 were colonized. The remainder of cases were unclassified. Approximately 70% of cases appear to have been contracted in the health care setting. The authors suspect that the true numbers may be much higher. Only 29% of institutions surveyed actively hunted for these bacteria, and most did not use highly sensitive means to do it.

"This is the minimum estimate, because the majority are not doing screening and [are] testing by less sensitive methods. It's a much bigger problem than anyone had predicted," said William Jarvis, MD, lead author on that paper and a consultant with Jason & Jarvis Associates, a private firm that provides expertise on public health, infection control and patient safety. Other papers have documented MRSA's impact. One of the most recent, in the Oct. 17 2007, Journal of the American Medical Association, estimated that there were 94,360 cases of invasive MRSA infections and 18,650 deaths in 2005. Patients older than 65 were particularly vulnerable.

For those not wanting to take chances on uncertain, delayed treatment, it's good to know that there is a completely 100% natural product that can not only KILL MRSA, but may also prevent the potentially life-threatening infection from harming you. Prevention of infectious diseases is far more preferable than any treatment, even a successful one.


Natural MRSA Fighter

New and Improved CPR

"You know you're doing it right when you hear the ribs crack." Those words -- spoken by a paramedic teaching me how to do CPR -- have always stuck with me. They made sense at the time: In order for traditional CPR to work, the rescuer needs to compress the victim's sternum by at least an inch-and-a-half to two inches, over and over again -- and doing that can definitely result in a cracked rib or two.

But a new CPR technique, devised by Leslie Geddes, PhD, DSc, Showalter Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Purdue University's Weldon School of Biomedical Engineering, does away with both cracked ribs and mouth to mouth resuscitation (a concern due to the risk of infection), while also pumping 40% more oxygen-rich blood through the heart. Since conventional CPR has a success rate of just 5% to 10%, Dr. Geddes was looking for a better form of CPR that would improve blood flow and be easier for one person to perform. The technique, known as "Only Abdominal Compression" or OAC-CPR, works by pushing rhythmically on the abdomen (above the belly button), instead of the chest, to squeeze blood through the circulatory system. At the same time, the compression forces the diaphragm to move rhythmically so that air flows into and out of the lungs. In the preliminary tests on pigs Dr. Geddes and his colleagues have done thus far, there's no apparent increased risk of injury to internal organs using OAC-CPR or any increase in the victim's risk of vomiting.

NOT YET OFFICIAL

Dr. Geddes has great hopes that this new form of CPR will gain popularity and save lives -- though he says it will take time before it becomes official. Research is underway to learn more about risks and benefits, and a device Dr. Geddes and his team developed to make the procedure easier needs to be reviewed by the government before it can be recommended for use on people. We'll keep you posted.


Source(s):

Leslie Geddes, PhD, DSc, Showalter Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Weldon School of Biomedical Engineering, Purdue University.


Vital Wellness