Natural Resources Defense Council

US warning on antibacterial soaps.

Posted by

0


US health watchdog cracks down on antibacterial soaps

A woman washes her hands with antibacterial soap in a September 2009 file photo
Scientists warn antibacterial products may create resistance to antibiotics in humans (file photo)

The US health regulator has warned that antibacterial chemicals in soaps and body washes may pose health risks.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) called for a safety review of such products.

It proposed a rule requiring manufacturers to prove such soaps are safe and more effective against infection than plain soap and water.

Recent studies indicate an ingredient in such products could scramble hormone levels and boost drug-proof bacteria.

The proposal rule does not apply to alcohol-based hand sanitizers and products used in healthcare settings.

Manufacturers have until the end of 2014 to submit the results of clinical trials on their products, the FDA said. The new regulations would be finalised in 2016.

‘Unanticipated hormonal effects’

“New data suggest that the risks associated with long-term, daily use of antibacterial soaps may outweigh the benefits,” Colleen Rogers, an FDA microbiologist, wrote in a statement on Monday.

Certain ingredients in such products – such as triclosan in liquid soaps and triclocarban in bar soaps – may contribute to bacterial resistance to antibiotics, the agency added.

Such products may also have “unanticipated hormonal effects that are of concern”, according to the statement.

Recent studies of such chemicals on animals have shown they may alter hormones, the FDA said, but such results have not yet been proven in humans.

“Because so many consumers use them, FDA believes that there should be clearly demonstrated benefits to balance any potential risks,” the statement added.

If the FDA’s proposed rule is finalised, companies would be required to provide data to support their product’s health claims.

If they cannot, the products would be reformulated or relabelled in order to remain on the market.

In March, a federal appeals court approved a lawsuit by the non-profit Natural Resources Defense Council, aimed at forcing the FDA to review the health impacts of triclosan.

Surprising Source of Arsenic in Your Drinking Water—Will EPA Take Steps to Protect Your Health?

Posted by

0


Story at-a-glance

  • While naturally-occurring arsenic in groundwater is one of the most common sources of exposure, hydrofluorosilicic acid (fluoride) added to drinking water is commonly contaminated with toxic arsenic
  • According to recent research, diluted fluorosilic acid adds, on average, about 0.08 ppb of arsenic to your drinking water
  • Low-level chronic exposure to arsenic can lead to a wide variety of health problems, including chronic fatigue, reproductive problems, reduced IQ and other neurological problems, and various cancers
  • As petition urges the EPA to change the source of fluoride in US drinking water, as the most commonly used form, hydrofluorosilicic acid, increases lung and bladder cancer risk
  • Switching from hydrofluorosilicic acid to pharmaceutical-grade fluoride could save the US $1-6 billion annually and prevent an estimated 1,800 cases of lung and bladder cancer

Pure water is one of the most important foundations for optimal health.Unfortunately, most tap water is far from pure, containing a vast array ofdisinfection byproducts, chemicals, heavy metals and even pharmaceutical drugs.Fluoride and arsenic are two prime examples of hazardous water contaminants.

Image

Not only is the level of arsenic in US tap water high due to natural groundwater contamination,1 the most commonly used form of fluoride added to water supplies also tends to be contaminated with arsenic. As reported by the featured article:2

“In early August, the Environmental Protection Agency is set to decide on a petition to change the source of fluoride in US drinking water.

Currently, the source of fluoride in most public water supplies isfluorosilicic acid, according to government records. The petition calls for the EPA to instead require the use of pharmaceutical-grade sodium fluoride in water fluoridation, which is the addition of fluoride to drinking water for the purpose of preventing cavities.

Fluorosilicic acid is often contaminated with arsenic, and recent research has linked the arsenic from fluorosilicic acid in drinking water to as many as 1,800 extra cases of cancer yearly in the United States…”

The petition3 was submitted by William Hirzy, a chemistry researcher at the American University in Washington, D.C. Hirzy previously worked at the EPA for 27 years.

His team recently published a study entitled: Comparison of hydrofluorosilicic acid and pharmaceutical sodium fluoride as fluoridating agents – a cost-benefit analysis, in the journal Environmental Science & Policy.4

According to their estimation, switching the type of fluoride used to pharmaceutical-grade sodium fluoride would reduce the amount of inorganic arsenic contamination in drinking water by 99 percent!

The Health Dangers of Inorganic Arsenic

Inorganic arsenic is a powerful carcinogen that has been linked to an increased risk of several types of cancer. In 2001 the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) lowered the maximum level of arsenic permitted in drinking water from 50 ug/L to 10 ug/L (or 10 parts per billion (ppb)) due to the established cancer risk.

The Natural Resources Defense Council5 estimates that as many as 56 million Americans living in 25 states drink water with arsenic at unsafe levels. According to the EPA:6

“Chronic inorganic arsenic exposure is known to be associated with adverse health effects on several systems of the body, but is most known for causing specific types of skin lesions (sores, hyperpigmentation, and other lesions) and increased risks of cancer of the lungs and skin.”

Other impacts of chronic arsenic exposure include, according to the EPA:

Kidney damage and failure Anemia Low blood pressure
Shock Headaches Weakness
Delirium Increased risk of diabetes Adverse liver and respiratory effects, including irritation of mucous membranes
During development, increased incidence of preterm delivery, miscarriage, stillbirths, low birth weight, and infant mortality During childhood, decreased performance in tests of intelligence and long-term memory Skin lesions

Water Fluoridation Chemicals Are NOT Pharmaceutical Grade

While naturally-occurring arsenic in groundwater is one of the most common sources of exposure, hydrofluorosilicic acid—the most commonly used form of fluoride added to water supplies—is a toxic waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry that is commonly contaminated with arsenic, radionucleotides, aluminum and other industrial contaminants.

According to the featured research, diluted fluorosilic acid adds, on average, about 0.08 ppb of arsenic to your drinking water.

Most people are shocked when they realize that the fluoride added to their water supply is actually a toxic byproduct from the fertilizer industry, opposed to a pharmaceutical-grade chemical. The source of most water fluoridation chemicals is explained by Michael Miller, a minerals commodity specialist for the US Geological Survey, in the featured article:7

“During the production of phosphate fertilizer, phosphate ore is reacted with sulfuric acid to produce toxic gases. These are taken out of the air after being sprayed with water, which produces fluorosilicic acid… The solution is sold to water systems nation-wide, where it is diluted and put into drinking water. Occasionally, it is treated to create sodium fluorosilicate. Together, these compounds (called silicofluorides) provide fluoride to 90 percent of U.S. drinking water systems that are fluoridated…”

Water Fluoridation May Be Placing Infants at Great Risk

Not only is there mounting evidence that fluoride poses grave health risks to infants and children—including reductions in IQ—arsenic exposure in utero and during early childhood is also particularly problematic, as it can cause lasting harm to children’s developing brains, and endocrine- and immune systems.

For example:

  • A 2006 study8 found that Chileans exposed to high levels (peaking at 1,000 ppb) of naturally-occurring arsenic in drinking water in utero and during early childhood had a six times higher lung cancer death rate compared to Chileans living in areas with lower levels of arsenic in their water. And their mortality rate in their 30s and 40s from another form of lung disease was almost 50 times higher than for people without that arsenic exposure.
  • A 2004 study9 showed children exposed to arsenic in drinking water at levels above 5 ppb had lower IQ scores. Earlier studies have linked chronic arsenic exposure to a range of cognitive dysfunctions, including learning disabilities, memory problems, poor concentration, and peripheral and central neuropathies.
  • A study10 published in 2011 examined the long-term effects of low-level exposure on more than 300 rural Texans whose groundwater was estimated to have arsenic at median levels below the federal drinking-water standard. It also found that exposure was related to poor scores in language, memory, and other brain functions.

Is It Worth Increasing Cancer Risk for Minimal, if Any, Benefit to Teeth?

Some proponents of fluoridation believe that the large dilution of these fluoridating chemicals that takes place when they are added at the public water works ameliorates concerns about the known contaminants. However, arsenic is a known human carcinogen, for which there is no safe level.

Inevitably, the addition of contaminated hexafluorosilicic acid to the water supply by definition must increase the cancer rate in the US because of the arsenic it contains, and this is exactly what Hirzy’s research shows. Why would any rational government do that to reduce – at best – a miniscule amount of tooth decay? According to Hirzy:11

“We found that the United States as a society is spending, conservatively speaking, $1 billion to $6 billion treating the excess bladder and lung cancers caused by arsenic in the most commonly used fluoridation chemical, fluorosilicic acid… The switch [to pharmaceutical-grade sodium fluoride] would cost $100 million, but would save billions in reduced cancer costs.”

For people living in areas with fluoridated tap water, fluoride is a part of every glass of water, every bath and shower, and every meal cooked using that water. This makes absolutely no sense considering the carcinogenic nature of arsenic—especially in light of the epidemic of cancer.

Hirzy’s study is actually the first risk assessment of arsenic-contaminated fluoride in drinking water. This is particularly shocking considering the fact that fluorosilicic acids have been used since the early 1950’s12 (prior to that, sodium fluoride, a byproduct of the aluminum industry, was typically used). Incredibly, while the EPA performs risk assessments for most drinking water contaminants, the agency does NOT oversee the addition of fluoridation chemicals. As stated in the featured article, this policy makes no sense whatsoever.

“Under the Toxic Substances Control Act, the EPA has the authority to regulate or ban almost any substance — including fluorosilicic acid — that poses an ‘unreasonable risk’ to public health, [Hirzy] said.”

Appropriations Bill Would Prohibit EPA’s Phase-Out of Sulfuryl Fluoride

While we’re on the topic of fluoride, a related news item13 is worthy of note. Drinking water is not the only source of fluoride, as I’ve discussed previously. Fluoride also enters the human food chain via fluoridated pesticides. According to a recent report, the House of Representatives Appropriations Interior and Environmental subcommittee has voted to approve an appropriations bill that cuts the EPA’s budget by nearly one-third.

What’s worse, the bill specifically prevents the EPA from enforcing its decision to phase out sulfuryl fluoride—a neurotoxic fumigant that has been linked to cancer and neurological-, developmental-, and reproductive damage. If it passes once markups by the Appropriations Committee are completed, it will move to a House vote. According to the news report:

“This is an outrageous attempt to circumvent a basic risk assessment calculation that EPA acknowledges puts the public at risk, given current exposure patterns, to a chemical that is especially hazardous to children.”

In response, Beyond Pesticides, the Environmental Working Group (EWG), and the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) submitted a letter14 to the House Appropriation Committee Chairman and Ranking members, urging them to remove the section in question (section 449) from the bill. You can help by writing or calling your state Representative, asking him or her to uphold the EPA’s ability to protect the health of all Americans by removing this hazardous pesticide from our food production. There’s no need for it, as there are many other viable alternatives, including:

  • Temperature manipulation (heating and cooling)
  • Atmospheric controls (low oxygen and fumigation with carbon dioxide)
  • Biological controls (pheromones, viruses and nematodes)
  • Less toxic chemical controls, such as diatomaceous earth

Water Filtration – A Must for Clean Pure Water…

If you have well water, it would be prudent to have your water tested for arsenic and other contaminants. If you have public water, you can get local drinking water quality reports from the EPA.15

In general, most water supplies contain a number of potentially hazardous contaminants, from fluoride, to drugs and disinfection byproducts (DBP’s), just to name a few. You can get a good idea of what types of contaminants could be in your drinking water right now by viewing this awesome graphic from GOOD Environment16 (reprinted with permission.) It gives you a look at the five most and least polluted water systems in America (in cities with more than 100,000 population), including pointing out the pollutants of largest concern.

I strongly recommend using a high quality water filtration system unless you can verify the purity of your water. To be absolutely certain you are getting the purest water you can, you’ll want to filter the water both at the point of entry and at the point of use. This means filtering all the water that comes into the house, and then filtering again at the kitchen sink. I currently use a whole house carbon-based water filtration system, and prior to this I used reverse osmosis (RO) to purify my water.

You can read more about water filtration in this previous article to help you make a decision about what type of water filtration system will be best for you and your family. Since most water sources are now severely polluted, the issue of water filtration and purification couldn’t be more important.

Ideal Water Sources

Besides purification, I also believe it’s critical to drink living water. I recently interviewed Dr. Gerald Pollack about his book, The Fourth Phase of Water: Beyond Solid, Liquid, and Vapor. This fourth phase of water is referred to as “structured water” and is the type of water found in all of your cells. This water has healing properties, and is naturally created in a variety of ways.

Water from a deep spring is one excellent source of structured water. The deeper the better, as structured water is created under pressure. There’s a great website called FindaSpring.com17 where you can find a natural spring in your area.

But you can also promote structured water through vortexing. I personally drink vortexed water nearly exclusively as I became a big fan of Viktor Schauberger who did much pioneering work on vortexing about a century ago. Dr. Pollack found that by creating a vortex in a glass of water, you’re putting more energy into it, thereby increasing the structure of the water. According to Dr. Pollack, virtually ANY energy put into the water seems to create or build structured water.

My own R&D team is working on a careful study in which we use vortexed water to grow sprouts, to evaluate the vitality and effectiveness of the water. We are conducting extensive internal research to develop the best vortex machine on the market, because we believe an ideal vortexer could be one of the simplest ways to improve people’s health.

Water Fluoridation Is Anything But Safe…

According to Bill Hirzy, water fluoridation remains a government policy because of “institutional inertia [and] embarrassment among government agencies that have been promoting this stuff as safe.” This is probably true, yet it’s shameful that the practice is allowed to continue in the face of overwhelming evidence showing the health hazards of not just fluoride itself, but also of related contaminants such as arsenic.

Clean pure water is a prerequisite to optimal health. Industrial chemicals, drugs and other toxic additives really have no place in our water supplies.

Source: mercola.com

So Which Toilet Paper Really Is the Best?.

Posted by

0


Story at-a-glance

  • Consumer Reports highlighted top-recommended toilet paper brands based on strength, tearing ease, softness and disintegration
  • Toilet paper made from ‘virgin fiber’ is contributing to the destruction of forests around the world, and is often bleached using chlorine, which leads to the production of cancer-causing dioxins
  • Toilet paper made from recycled content, and that is not bleached using chlorine, is a preferable option
  • The best choice for superior hygiene and protecting the environment is to use a bidet in lieu of toilet paper for hygienic cleaning

toilet-paper

If you’ve bought toilet paper recently, you know that there are more than a handful of brands to choose from, but how different can two rolls of toilet paper really be? Quite different, actually, as a new investigation from Consumer Reports recently revealed.

In their tests of 25 toilet paper brands, they rated products based on four key criteria: strength, tearing ease, softness and disintegration (how well the paper moves through your home’s plumbing system).

A few clear “winners” emerged based on their results, however they missed some very important variables to consider before you buy your next roll…

Consumer Reports Top-Recommended Toilet Paper Brands

Three of the top five brands, according to Consumer Reports’ evaluation, are found exclusively at Walmart, a store I believe most people would be far better off avoiding. These included two White Cloud products and one called Great Value Ultra Strong.

Other top-rated toilet paper options included brands from Quilted Northern and CVS, while Whole Foods’ 365 Everyday Value and Walgreens’ Big Roll brands came out on the bottom for strength and softness.

However, there’s much more to choosing toilet paper than simply softness and strength, namely whether or not it’s bleached and comes from “virgin” fiber (paper made from virgin fiber, typically obtained from trees, is manufactured without the use of any recycled or alternative fibers).

Consumer Reports did evaluate some eco-friendly options, and although none made the top-recommended list, Seventh Generation did receive positive marks for softness.

How Many Trees Are Being Flushed Down the Toilet?

Cutting down a mature tree to make a product that’s going to be thrown away (toilet paper, napkins, paper towels, facial tissues, etc.) is an environmental tragedy virtually any way you look at it.

Americans use close to 8 million tons of toilet paper every year,1 and forests are being destroyed to keep up with this demand. As reported by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC):2

“Giant paper producers are forcing the destruction of our continent’s most vibrant forests, and devastating the habitat for countless wildlife species in the process.

Instead of making better use of materials such as post-consumer recycled fiber and agricultural residue to meet the escalating demand for toilet paper, paper towels and other disposable tissue products, these companies buy virgin pulp from suppliers that reach deep into North American forests for timber, from northern Canada to the southeastern United States.”

If every US household replaced even one roll of virgin fiber toilet paper with one made from 100% recycled fibers, 423,900 trees would be saved!3 Toilet paper made from 80-100 percent recycled fibers is widely available, but if you do purchase toilet paper made from virgin fiber, be sure that it is at least sourced from forests certified by the Forest Stewardship Council, which ensures it has been harvested responsibly.

That said, even toilet paper that comes from specially planted tree plantations is not a sustainable choice in the long run, as these single-species plantations cannot compare with the species-rich forests that have formed a natural habitat for centuries. NRDC continues:

“… sprawling plantations of single-species pine are quickly taking the place of crucial forest habitat and food sources in [the southeastern United States]. The southern United States now contains approximately half of the world’s tree plantations, and due in part to increasing demand for paper products, the area of these plantations is expected to increase by 63 percent — to 52 million acres — by 2040.”

The Process Used to Make Your Toilet Paper White Is Toxic

Did you ever wonder how toilet paper (or any paper, for that matter), gets to be so white? Paper made from wood would ordinarily be brown (like paper bags or cardboard boxes) and would yellow in time (as newspaper does), so the pulp and paper industry, which some say is among the worst-polluting industries on Earth, uses chlorine and its derivatives, such as chlorine dioxide, to bleach it.

This process leads to the creation of cancer-causing chemicals like dioxins and furans, which not only enter the air but also waterways, soil and the food chain. Exposure to even low levels of dioxins has been linked to hormone alterations, immune system impairments, reduced fertility, birth defects and other reproductive problems.

At this point, virtually everyone has some level of dioxins stored in their body fat and the chemical has been detected all over the world, including the Arctic and Antarctic.4 And it is (in part) because of this toxic bleaching process that the pulp and paper industry is so detrimental to the environment. NRDC stated:

“The pulp and paper industry may contribute to more global and local environmental problems than any other industry in the world. Paper manufacturers reach deep into species-rich forests for virgin timber, razing trees, polluting waterways and destroying precious wildlife habitat. Pulp and paper mills that use virgin timber are major generators of hazardous air pollutants, including dioxins and other cancer-causing chemicals. And the industry is the third largest industrial emitter of global warming pollution.”

If you purchase toilet paper, look for non-bleached varieties or those with the following labels:

  • TCF (Totally Chlorine-Free): Paper produced without chlorine or chlorine derivatives
  • PCF (Processed Chlorine-Free): Contains recycled content produced without elemental chlorine or derivatives, but the original fiber components bay have been bleached with chlorine

Think Outside the Box: Toilet Paper Is Not Actually a Necessity

Obviously, toilet paper hasn’t been around that long. Before its invention, people around the world turned to their environment for the best ways to clean up, using whatever items were most practical and available. This included objects like corncobs, leaves and coconut shells to handfuls of snow… but no, I’m not suggesting you give this a try (unless you’re so inclined!).

That said, many environmentally- (and cost-) conscious families use what’s called “family cloths” in lieu of toilet paper in their homes. Similar to using cloth wipes for a baby, you can use cut up flannel, sheets or any soft cloth (such as an old t-shirt) to make reusable wipes. This works even better when paired with one of my personal favorite hygiene items, a bidet, and makes toilet paper absolutely unnecessary.

If You Want Superior Cleaning and Comfort, Use a Bidet

There are many reasons why I prefer a bidet to toilet paper, and I’m far from the only one. Bidets are the norm in Europe and nearly everyone that I know who has received one just loves it. I have been using the bidet we sell in our store for years and I love it so much that one of the worst aspects of traveling for me is that I am unable to pack my bidet.

A bidet is refreshing in a way toilet paper could never be, is gentler and less irritating than wiping with paper, and practically eliminates potential hand contamination. But more importantly, it cleans your bottom far more effectively than simply using dry toilet paper. Plus, a bidet pays for itself in no time with the money saved on toilet paper, and helps save valuable environmental resources while reducing pollution.

Source: mercola.com

 

Does Tar Sand Oil Increase the Risk of Pipeline Spills?

Posted by

0


 

tar-sand-oil-and-pipeline-spill-risk_1

Recent pipeline spills may have been caused by the combination of aging infrastructure and new types of oil

An oil flood through an Arkansas subdivision on March 29 is just the most recent example of pipeline problems in the U.S. In recent weeks, months and years diesel has leaked from a pipeline into wetlands near Salt Lake City; oil has spilled into the Yellowstone River in Montana; and about 20,000 barrels of oil have spewed into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan. The question: Is the problem the pipelines themselves or what they carry?

The answer may be an unfortunate combination of the two. Certainly, the infrastructure has issues. The U.S. is crisscrossed by more than four million kilometers of such pipelines, many decades old. These pipelines spring hundreds of leaks every year, most small. The pipelines can fail for reasons ranging from a backhoe inadvertently striking one to the slow but steady weakening from corrosion. “It’s not a matter of if, but when,” says Susan Connolly, a resident of Marshall, Mich., right near where the Kalamazoo River spill occurred in 2010 as a result of external corrosion.

Critics charge that pipelines carrying diluted bitumen, or “dilbit”—a heavy oil extracted from tar sands mined in northern Alberta—pose a special risk because, compared with more conventional crude, they must operate at higher temperatures, which have been linked to increased corrosion. These pipelines also have to flow at higher pressures that may contribute to rupture as well. Environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) notes that pipelines in the upper Midwest that routinely carry oil from tar sands have spilled 3.6 times more oil per pipeline mile than the U.S. average. The Arkansas and Kalamazoo accidents both involved dilbit.

The chemistry of the tar sands oil could contribute to corrosion as well. In processing, the tar sands are boiled to separate the bitumen from the surrounding sand and water, and then mixed with diluent—light hydrocarbons produced along with natural gas—to make the oil less viscous and able to flow. But even so, the resulting dilbit is among the lowest in hydrogen as well as the most viscous, sulfurous and acidic form of oil produced today.

Some think the Arkansas spill could have resulted from just this combination of aged infrastructure and added stress from dilbit, although an exact cause has yet to be determined. The breached Pegasus Pipeline involved in the Arkansas incident can carry nearly 100,000 barrels of oil per day from Illinois to Texas. Originally constructed in the 1940s to bring Texas crude oil up to Illinois, it had been reversed in recent years to stream dilbit. The operator, ExxonMobil, retrofitted the 50-centimeter tube to compensate for the demands of pushing tar sand oil through in the opposite direction, but the higher temperatures and pressures may nonetheless have contributed to the rupture or sped up preexisting corrosion, suggest critics such as NRDC’s Anthony Swift.

A study from the Alberta government, however, casts doubt on the notion that dilbit is worse for pipelines than any other oil is. It found that dilbit is not corrosive at pipeline temperatures of as much as 65 degrees Celsius, although it is highly corrosive at refinery temperatures above 100 degrees C. Nor is the fine sand that remains in some of the dilbit eroding pipelines, though it does form sludges that must be cleaned. The higher temperature operation may even kill off the bacteria that help to corrode pipelines carrying other types of oil. “There is no evidence that dilbit causes more failure than conventional oil,” geologist John Zhou of the provincial government research firm Alberta Innovates said during an interview in November on a trip to the tar sands; Zhou helped prepare the Canadian province’s analysis of dilbit. The U.S. National Academies is currently studying the issue.

The good news for residents of Arkansas is that a dilbit spill on land may prove easier to clean than one in water. Thanks to its more viscous nature, Zhou says, “it’s not going to move very far on a spill”—as long as it does not get into waterways, as occurred in Michigan. Regardless, the sour smell of dilbit is likely to remain in the air of Mayflower, Ark., until all the diluent evaporates. “Before you get into town, you can already smell the oil,” says Glen Hooks of the Sierra Club Arkansas, who visited the spill site. “There is no reason to trust oil companies when they say pipelines are safe when there’s been spill after spill after spill.”

The mishap also highlights some of the concerns around the building of the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline, which could carry 830,000 barrels per day of dilbit or other tar sands products 2,700 kilometers from Alberta to Texas. That pipeline would incorporate the latest technologies, such as epoxy coatings and electrical current to reduce corrosion. Yet, even brand-new pipelines can spring a leak: TransCanada’s Keystone I Pipeline, which began carrying dilbit from Alberta to the U.S. Midwest in 2010, has already suffered 14 different leaks.

Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com