Jump to content

Endocrine disrupting chemicals- silent weapons in a quiet war


Macnamara

Recommended Posts

Michigan's toxic 1973 PBB food contamination associated with more health effects

Michigan Radio | By Rebecca Williams
Published October 5, 2017 at 9:56 AM EDT

Researchers find there could be more health effects lingering decades after a toxic contamination of Michigan’s food supply.

 

In 1973, a plant owned by Velsicol Chemical made a mistake and shipped a toxic flame retardant chemical to a livestock feed plant. It’s called polybrominated biphenyl, or PBB. It took about a year to discover the accident. Millions of Michiganders ate contaminated beef, chicken, pork, milk and eggs.

 

 

After the chemical mix-up in the 1970s, the state of Michigan enrolled about 6,000 people in a registry to track their health. A team at Emory University has been following those people and their children.

Melanie Jacobson is the lead author of the latest study from Emory. She and her team measured PBB levels (along with a related chemical, polychlorinated biphenyl, or PCB) as well as self-reported thyroid conditions and thyroid hormone levels in more than 700 participants.

“And we found that the prevalence of thyroid disease was greater than expected - up to 25% of women reported thyroid disease. And we also found that higher PBB levels were associated with an increased prevalence of thyroid disease. But this was only true among women, although estimates were somewhat imprecise.”

Jacobson says the implications of thyroid problems can be major, but she notes thyroid conditions are often easily treatable.

“Thyroid function is really important.” she explains, “It’s the major endocrine organ in the body. Thyroid function is also really important for other body systems - cardiovascular health, reproductive health - and so it’s just important for overall health and people may also want to get it screened.”

But this chemical exposure is associated with more than just thyroid problems. PBB can remain in the body for many years. Jacobson says Emory's previous studies have largely focused on reproductive health.

“PBB has been found to be associated in this cohort with changes to the menstrual cycle; altered timing of puberty for both girls and boys exposed to PBB in utero," she says. "We found that women who were exposed in utero, when they became adults they had a higher risk of miscarriage.”

Here are some of the team's findings noted on Emory's PBB research website:

  • 60% of Michiganders recently tested have PBB levels above the U.S. population 95th percentile. In 2003-2004, as part of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, the CDC tested blood samples for PBB 153, but have not tested for PBB in more recent surveys.

    Click here to view the distribution of PBB levels in Michigan PBB Research Registry participants

  • Some women with high exposure to PBB had fewer days between menstrual periods, more days of bleeding, and lower estrogen levels. However, there was no evidence that these women had reduced fertility.
  • There were a few more breast cancer cases among women with high exposure to PBB than expected.
  • Chemical workers were more likely to have abnormal thyroid hormone levels.
  • PBB was transferred to children in the womb and through breast milk. Children who were born after contaminated products were removed from farms had PBB detected in their blood, and those who were breastfed were much more likely to have PBB in their blood.
  • On average, breastfed daughters of women with high PBB exposure started menstruating a year earlier than unexposed girls.
  • Daughters of women with high exposure to PBB were more likely to experience a miscarriage.
  • Sons of women with high exposure to PBB were more likely to report a genital or urinary condition.

Jacobson says the Emory team will continue to study other potential health effects, as well.
“One of the big priorities - and this was from community input - is looking at these multiple generation-type health effects, specifically when the father was exposed - in the family unit, can those types of health effects be passed down to future generations? And there is work looking into, is there something we can do about reducing PBB body burden in the people who were exposed to this 1970s contamination?” says Jacobson.

https://www.michiganradio.org/environment-science/2017-10-05/michigans-toxic-1973-pbb-food-contamination-associated-with-more-health-effects

Michigan beef found to contain dangerous levels of ‘forever chemicals’

This article is more than 1 year old

Contamination at a small farm discovered after sewage sludge was tested for PFAS, but officials downplayed incident as ‘isolated’

Fri 11 Feb 2022 11.00 GMT

Cattle from a small south-east Michigan farm that sold beef to schools and at farmers’ markets in the state have been found to contain dangerous levels of PFAS, so-called “forever chemicals” that can pose a serious risk to human health.

The news comes after consumer groups in 2019 warned that using PFAS-laden sewage sludge as fertilizer would contaminate dairy, beef, crops and other food products. However, at the time a Michigan agricultural regulator publicly assured the state’s dairy farmers her agency wouldn’t test milk for the toxic chemicals as they didn’t want to inflict economic pain on the $15bn industry, she said.

Now just over two years later, consumer groups say their fears may have come true.

Michigan discovered the contamination because it tests sewage sludge for PFAS more than any other state, but officials have downplayed the incident as “isolated” and for now won’t conduct further testing on livestock, dairy or crops.

“It’s not enough – we need a lot more monitoring of our agriculture to make sure we’re keeping toxic chemicals out of our food supply,” said Christy McGillivray, executive director of Sierra Club of Michigan.

Sludge isn’t the only route PFAS takes into the nation’s food. It’s also found in pesticides, rain, packaging and water used on crops, and testing is increasingly finding the chemicals in vegetables, seafood, meat, dairy and processed foods. Consumer groups say regulators are failing to keep the dangerous compounds out of food, a problem highlighted by the Michigan contamination.

PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a class of over 9,000 compounds that are used to make products heat, water and stain resistant. They are dubbed “forever chemicals” because they don’t naturally break down, and they are so effective that they are used in thousands of products across dozens of industries.

The chemicals are also linked to a range of serious health problems like cancer, liver disease, kidney issues, high cholesterol, birth defects and decreased immunity.

Still, the US Department of Agriculture has largely been absent from the PFAS discussion while the US Food And Drug Administration hasn’t yet established health limits for food. The agency only conducts limited annual testing and recently adjusted its methodology so it will only catch what consumer groups say are extremely high contamination levels, and ignore relatively low to moderate levels that can still pose a health risk.

 

In 2019, the FDA initially found 182 food samples to be contaminated with PFAS, but, after changing its methodology part way through the study, that figure dropped to 78, drawing accusations that it was intentionally covering up contamination.

“Imagine using a radar gun to detect speeding in cars, but then manipulating the radar so that it only detects speeding in cars going over 100mph,” wrote Brian Ronholm, a former deputy under secretary of food safety at the US Department of Agriculture, in Consumer Reports after the FDA announced the change.

Meanwhile, the FDA allows short-chain PFAS to be used in food packaging despite a growing body of evidence that the chemicals bioaccumulate, leach into food and are toxic at very low levels.

Though health limits for PFAS in water have been dropping in recent years, the FDA seems to be allowing relatively high levels in food, and the agency “hasn’t really explained why they don’t have any concerns”, said Maricel Maffini, an independent food safety scientist who has petitioned the FDA to restrict PFAS in food packaging.

“There’s a health risk in water at very, very small levels of exposure, so why would food be different?” she asked. “The FDA could be doing a lot more.”

Meanwhile, sewage sludge is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which allows the substance to be spread even as it investigates potential health risks. Wastewater treatment plants clean sewer system water, and sludge is the process’s semi-solid byproduct. It’s expensive to dispose of, and about 60% of it is now lightly treated and sold or given away as “biosolid” fertilizer because it’s high in plant nutrients.

Consumer groups note sludge can also contain any of 90,000 manmade chemicals discharged into sewers, and the Sierra Club has characterized it as “the most pollutant-rich manmade substance on Earth”.

In a scathing 2018 report the EPA office of inspector general wrote that the EPA couldn’t properly regulate biosolids because “it lacked the data or risk assessment tools needed to make a determination on the safety of 352 pollutants” that the office found in sludge samples.

PFAS is the chemical in sludge getting the most attention, and Michigan’s biosolid program, run by the department of environment, Great Lakes and energy (EGLE), requires wastewater treatment plants to monitor for one type of PFAS. The agency has also identified dozens of PFAS polluters and required them to stop discharging the chemicals, and prohibits highly contaminated sludge from being spread.

 

But questions remain about whether that’s enough to keep PFAS out of the food supply. Instead of implementing a wide-scale program to test livestock, crops and dairy for the chemicals, state agencies identified 13 farm fields considered most at risk for high levels of PFAS contamination, then checked nearby soil, surface water and groundwater for the compounds.

State officials say the beef incident is isolated because the farm received some of the state’s most contaminated sludge, and because of its allegedly unique farming practices – the cows were fed on contaminated crops grown on the farm.

But consumer groups say the limited testing process leaves huge blind spots, and is guided by arbitrary health risk standards. All biosolids contain PFAS, and EGLE considers sludge with less than 150 parts per billion (ppb) of PFAS to be safe to spread on farmland. But no one knows if sludge with less than 150 ppb of PFAS is safe to use. A spokesperson said the agency is waiting on the EPA to develop health risk standards, and called EGLE’s biosolids program “a good interim step”.

Moreover, state regulators only have the authority to regulate PFAS in sludge, but thousands more types of PFAS exist, evidence suggests the entire chemical class poses health risks, and PFAS levels in sludge are likely much higher when other compounds are included.

The state also relies on industry to self report and must get farmers’ permission to test cows. Already some farmers with high levels of the chemical in soil and water around their fields won’t let EGLE test cows.

McGillivray said Sierra Club Michigan is calling on the state to prohibit the use of biosolids as a fertilizer, establish health risk standards, compensate farmers who are impacted, and hold chemical companies and polluters accountable. Ultimately, the incident is more evidence that PFAS need to be banned, she added.

“The companies that make them have not had to show that they are safe, and instead the public has to show that harm has been caused, and that leads to rolling public health crises like this one with PFAS,” McGillivray said.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/11/michigan-beef-dangerous-levels-forever-chemicals


 
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

03/16/23
Report Linking Fluoride to Lower IQ in Children Made Public After CDC, HHS Tried to Block It

The National Toxicology Program on Wednesday released a draft report linking prenatal and childhood fluoride exposure to reduced IQ in children, after public health officials tried for almost a year to block its publication.

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) on Wednesday released a draft report linking prenatal and childhood fluoride exposure to reduced IQ in children, after public health officials tried for almost a year to block its publication.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) initially blocked the NTP from releasing the report, according to emails obtained via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

But a court order stemming from a lawsuit filed by Food and Water Watch against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) forced the report’s release this week.

The NTP, an interagency program run by HHS that researches and reports on environmental toxins, conducted a six-year systematic review to assess scientific studies on fluoride exposure and potential neurodevelopmental and cognitive health effects in humans.

The report, containing a monograph and a meta-analysis, went through two rounds of peer review by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Comments from reviewers and HHS and NTP’s responses also were included in the report released Wednesday.

According to its website, the NTP “removed the hazardous classification of fluoride” in response to comments in the peer-review process. Yet, the report states:

“Our meta-analysis confirms results of previous meta-analyses and extends them by including newer, more precise studies with individual-level exposure measures.

“The data support a consistent inverse association between fluoride exposure and children’s IQ …

“The results were robust to stratifications by risk of bias, gender, age group, outcome assessment, study location, exposure timing, and exposure type (including both drinking water and urinary fluoride).”

“These findings fly in the face of the empty, unscientific claims U.S. health officials have propagated for years, namely that water fluoridation is safe and beneficial,” said Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Children’s Health Defense chairman and chief litigation counsel. “It’s past time to eliminate this neurotoxin from our water supply.”

The controversial report will play a key role in determining the outcome of a lawsuit brought in 2017 by several nonprofits against the EPA to end fluoridation of drinking water, plaintiffs’ attorney Michael Connett told The Defender.

“We had to fight hard to have this report even made public,” Connett said. “They [CDC and HHS] buried this. If they had gotten their way, this report would have never even seen the light of day,” Connett said.

Since the trial began in 2020, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen has been waiting for the NTP to complete a systematic review of fluoride’s neurotoxicity before ruling on the case.

Groups like the American Dental Association publicly pressured the NTP to “exclude any neurotoxin claims” from the reports.

Connett said during the trial, the EPA repeatedly claimed that the plaintiffs’ allegations about toxicity could not be verified because there was no “systematic review.”

The documents released Wednesday fill that gap.

Connett said:

“So now what do we have? We have a systematic review by one of the pioneering, leading, most authoritative research groups on toxicology in the world.

“They just completed a systematic review that took them six years to complete, so if that’s not enough to demonstrate a hazard under the toxic substances control act, then how would any citizen group ever be able to meet the standard?”

The findings: fluoride and lowered IQ in children

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/ntp-report-fluoride-lower-iq-children/

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are your pans, make-up or toiletries making you infertile? New warning to women over toxic 'forever chemicals' littered in everyday items

By John Ely Senior Health Reporter For Mailonline

Updated: 14:35 GMT, 21 March 2023

Toxic chemicals lurking in cookware, make-up and toiletries may be making women infertile, another study suggested today.

Scientists have for years warned about the dangers of perfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS.

Such 'forever chemicals' - nicknamed so because they can linger in the environment for thousands of years - have been linked to everything from cancer to infertility.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11885199/Urgent-fertility-warning-women-toxic-chemicals-littered-everyday-items.html

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

03/20/23

Toxic PFAS Chemicals Found in Ketchup, Mayo, Other Common Foods

Highly hazardous PFAS, or per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances, are leaching out of plastic containers and contaminating food products, according to research published by the American Chemical Society this month.

Highly hazardous PFAS, or per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances, are leaching out of plastic containers and contaminating food products, according to research published in Environmental Science & Technology Letters this month.

The data confirm the results of prior research focused on the propensity of PFAS to contaminate various pesticide products through storage containers.

That data led the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue a warning over the potential for direct PFAS contamination of food.

The current study, conducted by scientists at Notre Dame University, confirms these worst fears and shows that the containers of commonly used products like ketchup and mayonnaise are leaching out levels that post a threat to human health.

“Not only did we measure significant concentrations of PFAS in these containers, we can estimate the PFAS that were leaching off creating a direct path of exposure,” said study co-author Graham Peaslee, Ph.D., professor of physics in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Notre Dame.

In breaking news on Tuesday, EPA is setting standards for two PFAS, PFOA and PFOS at no more than 4 parts per trillion in drinking water.

While testing will be required, this measure is limited by its scope, requiring only monitoring of a few other PFAS compounds.

At issue are HDPE, or high-density polyethylene, containers, a type of plastic that may or may not be fluorinated prior to filling them with various materials.

Fluorinating these containers “allows for cheaper and more efficient production of plastics that contain desirable properties, primarily increased barrier properties,” according to the study.

In other words, fluoridation is being used to address the potential for gasses, water vapor, light and other factors that would impact the quality of product in the packaging.

The material is as common as your milk jug and used to store a wide variety of substances — from foodstuffs to shampoo, motor oil, detergents and pesticides.

Using food samples retrieved from glass jars, scientists tested them by adding samples to both fluorinated and non-fluorinated HDPE containers. Scientists tested the amount of PFAS in these containers using plain water, methanol and acetone as reference.

And food samples added to both treated and untreated HDPE containers, including ketchup, olive oil and mayonnaise were also analyzed for their PFAS levels.

Further tests were conducted where containers and food were heated, to determine if that increased the effects. Testing methods employed a similar approach recently taken by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to measure PFAS in foods.

Results from even nonfluorinated containers represented a risk, ranging from 10 parts per trillion to 880 parts per trillion. Fluorinated containers hit between an astounding 45,120 and 94,810 ppt.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/toxic-pfas-chemicals-ketchup-mayo-foods/

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GMOs linked to increased pesticide use and loss of biodiversity

 

According to the biotech industry, genetically modified (GM) foods would help reduce pesticide use and increase the nutritional content of various food products. They also promised that GM crops could help farmers by boosting their profits and feed the world by increasing crop yields.

But data has proven that GM crops have done more harm than good by providing cheap, unhealthy ingredients for ultra-processed ready meals, pre-packaged foods and fast food restaurants.

Over 40,000 people in America have filed lawsuits claiming that exposure to Roundup has caused cancer, specifically non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Once a rare cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma is currently the seventh most common cancer in men and women in the country.

Despite these adverse effects on crops, the food industry and public health, the agricultural biotech industry continues to develop a new suite of genetic engineering technologies called gene editing, which includes techniques such as CRISPR, synthetic biology and gene drives.

Like most business that are all about profits, the toxic world of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and industrial agriculture relies on false promises.

For nearly 30 years big biotech companies like Monsanto/Bayer, BASF and others have lied about how genetic engineering can help revolutionize farming and food production.

GMOs increase pesticide use

In the past, GMO crops were sold to reduce on-farm pesticide use.

But since GM crops were introduced, data has revealed that there had been a significant and alarming increase in pesticide use on the same crops worldwide.

 

Most GM crops fall into one of two types:

Pesticide “resisters ” or “Roundup Ready” crops

Pesticide “resisters ” or “Roundup Ready” crops, which are made up of mostly corn and soya, are genetically engineered to withstand Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. It’s made with the active ingredient glyphosate.

To date, pesticide resisters have also been engineered to resist other highly toxic pesticides like 2,4-D and dicamba.

GM crops have turned glyphosate into one of the most widely and dangerously used herbicides in history.

According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), more than 90 percent of the soybeans harvested on farms in America are genetically engineered to withstand herbicides like Roundup.

http://www.womensystems.com/2023/03/gmos-linked-to-increased-pesticide-use.html

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Macnamara said:

GM crops have turned glyphosate into one of the most widely and dangerously used herbicides in history.

 

And funnily enough glyphosate was banned for sale to the public a few years ago. I still have a bit left in the shed but don't use it now. I'm experimenting with more natural weedkillers like salt, vinegar and bicarb. Salt works quite well on the dandelions in dry weather as it dehydrates them. But am I wasting my time when the veg I have to buy in is full of glyphosate? If only I had a bigger garden! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Campion said:

 

And funnily enough glyphosate was banned for sale to the public a few years ago. I still have a bit left in the shed but don't use it now. I'm experimenting with more natural weedkillers like salt, vinegar and bicarb. Salt works quite well on the dandelions in dry weather as it dehydrates them. But am I wasting my time when the veg I have to buy in is full of glyphosate? If only I had a bigger garden! 

Not in this country. Most weedkillers on sale are glyphosate -very difficult to get anything else. I still have some ancient diquat left - at least it only messes you up if you drink it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Campion said:

And funnily enough glyphosate was banned for sale to the public a few years ago. I still have a bit left in the shed but don't use it now. I'm experimenting with more natural weedkillers like salt, vinegar and bicarb.

 

i have tried salt in hot water and had mixed success! It hardly touched the docks.

 

I guess physically removing the weeds is the way to go and sometime there will be a story in the papers saying that a council has stopped using glyphosate and now the council area is becoming overgrown with weeds but how come when i look at old photos of britain that are pre-glyphosate and pre-chemicals the roads are not buried under weeds?

 

did people just use more manpower back then and more elbow grease? i saw a clip recently with a photo of where a council had gone around sticking hazard stickers on bags of rubbish that had been flytipped but they didn't actually pick up the bags! I can't help but think that in say 1920's britain someone would have just picked up that bag and put it in a bin and when there were weeds i imagine someone would come along with the requisite weeding tool and hoicked that weed out and disposed of it

 

modern britain however is not a country playing to win. We are now a country playing to lose with sabateurs embedded at all levels of the system that have no intention of actually fixing anything

 

20 hours ago, Campion said:

Salt works quite well on the dandelions in dry weather as it dehydrates them. But am I wasting my time when the veg I have to buy in is full of glyphosate? If only I had a bigger garden! 

 

what about buying organic veg?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, k_j_evans said:

Not in this country. Most weedkillers on sale are glyphosate -very difficult to get anything else. I still have some ancient diquat left - at least it only messes you up if you drink it.

 

glyphosate has a category 2b designation which is classified as 'probably carcinogenic' to humans because it has been tested on animals and it gave them cancer. However as it is cancerous to animals they cannot test it on humans and therefore cannot get it confirmed as DEFINATELY carcinogenic to humans. However many people....like tens of thousands of people have sued claiming that it gave them cancer

 

And imo cancer is only the half of it because i believe it to be a genotoxin that is also able to work synergistically with other substances in the body to cause unforeseen harms and dr seneff has done some research into that

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Macnamara said:

 

glyphosate has a category 2b designation which is classified as 'probably carcinogenic' to humans because it has been tested on animals and it gave them cancer. However as it is cancerous to animals they cannot test it on humans and therefore cannot get it confirmed as DEFINATELY carcinogenic to humans. However many people....like tens of thousands of people have sued claiming that it gave them cancer

 

And imo cancer is only the half of it because i believe it to be a genotoxin that is also able to work synergistically with other substances in the body to cause unforeseen harms and dr seneff has done some research into that

I'm pretty sure it is carcinogenic - certainly it disrupts gut bacteria. I dig up my weeds in areas with soil and use the diquat if the weeds on the drive get too bad,. Don't know what I'll do when the diquat runs out. I have a butane gas weed burner but it's not very effective against deep rooted weeds where the surface is hard. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, k_j_evans said:

I'm pretty sure it is carcinogenic - certainly it disrupts gut bacteria. I dig up my weeds in areas with soil and use the diquat if the weeds on the drive get too bad,. Don't know what I'll do when the diquat runs out. I have a butane gas weed burner but it's not very effective against deep rooted weeds where the surface is hard. 

 

i don't know anything about diquat. I avoid any chemicals and just dig or pull stuff out.

 

As a society we have become too dependent on chemicals since the second world war and since that point where chemicals have proliferated cancer has also proliferated. Not only are the chemicals produced by the petro-chemical industry which is by and large controlled by the illuminati families but i personally believe that they weaponise all of their products. When they claim they don't know that such and such product is harmful they are lying but they never see jail time and even when a product doesn't get granted a license anymore they just move on to their next harmful product

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Macnamara said:

 

i don't know anything about diquat. I avoid any chemicals and just dig or pull stuff out.

 

As a society we have become too dependent on chemicals since the second world war and since that point where chemicals have proliferated cancer has also proliferated. Not only are the chemicals produced by the petro-chemical industry which is by and large controlled by the illuminati families but i personally believe that they weaponise all of their products. When they claim they don't know that such and such product is harmful they are lying but they never see jail time and even when a product doesn't get granted a license anymore they just move on to their next harmful product

Paraquat and diquat were banned a few decades ago - absolutely lethal if ingested (has been used for suicide). When they were banned you were supposed to hand in any you had left over, but I never did. I probably use it once a year on the drive if the wire brush and knife technique fails. Otherwise I rely on mulching and digging (and the not very effective weed burner). Definitely too many chemicals, but I hate to see anything go to waste.

Edited by k_j_evans
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Macnamara said:

I have tried salt in hot water and had mixed success! It hardly touched the docks.

 

I guess physically removing the weeds is the way to go 

 

I dig them up if I can, but if they're in the joints of the patio or some such inaccessible place, I just pile some dry salt on top of the weed during the summer, and they shrivel up after a week or so. If it rains I reapply it. Luckily I don't have bindweed here which was resistant to practically everything apart from glyphosate. 

 

23 hours ago, Macnamara said:

what about buying organic veg?

 

Price. My household budget is stretched to the limit but I'd buy it if I could afford it. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Campion said:

 

I dig them up if I can, but if they're in the joints of the patio or some such inaccessible place, I just pile some dry salt on top of the weed during the summer, and they shrivel up after a week or so. If it rains I reapply it. Luckily I don't have bindweed here which was resistant to practically everything apart from glyphosate. 

 

 

Price. My household budget is stretched to the limit but I'd buy it if I could afford it. 

 

 

A cheap alternative that I use around my bee hives is a mixture of table salt, white vinegar, and water. It doesn't kill the weeds directly, but changes the PH that inhibits their growth. It does have to be applied more often, but does work. The man in the video uses pool salt that is ground extra fine; but I've found that regular white salt works just as well, as long as it is dissolved.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, JCP said:

 

A cheap alternative that I use around my bee hives is a mixture of table salt, white vinegar, and water. It doesn't kill the weeds directly, but changes the PH that inhibits their growth. It does have to be applied more often, but does work. The man in the video uses pool salt that is ground extra fine; but I've found that regular white salt works just as well, as long as it is dissolved.

 

 

 

FYI, the author, in a subsequent video, has changed the recipe to 2 cups of salt and 2 cups of vinegar per gallon of water.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

80 Percent of Retail Receipts Contain Toxic Substances

Apr 6 2023

The Ecology Center (EC) recently published the results of a 2022 study of the chemical composition of retail receipts in the United States. It found that 80 percent of the receipts contained toxic substances.

The EC tested receipts from 144 major chain stores in 22 states, plus the District of Columbia. Bisphenols (most commonly BPA or BPS) were found in 80 percent of the receipts tested—a 13 percent decrease from the center’s findings in 2017.

The Ecology Center’s Lab conducts research and tests consumer products, air, soil, water, fish, food and more for toxic chemicals—with a special focus on lead in drinking water.

 The Center’s stance is that “toxic chemicals have no place in our everyday products or our natural environment. Retailers and manufacturers have a role to play in driving the market toward safer alternatives.

According to the new study, “purchase receipts are an underrecognized source of hormone-disrupting chemicals in our bodies–especially for workers who frequently handle receipts.”

The study went on to explain that “nearly all receipts are made from thermal paper, which is coated with layers of chemicals that allow an image to form when a special print head applies heat.” The researchers used a rapid screening technique to identify developer chemicals, such as BPS, BPA, and non-bisphenol alternatives present on the receipts.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/80-percent-of-retail-receipts-contain-toxic-substances_5169022.html?src_src=Health&src_cmp=health-2023-04-08&est=LBAhZrTiIdYx56kVnIwvrZ2R2Akdxat1%2FOUHVz8Hf4GsjfQB9Bh7ZCP8Ag%3D%3D

  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Macnamara said:

80 Percent of Retail Receipts Contain Toxic Substances

 

The simple fact that all this toxicity is permitted by the ptb says it all. Massive increases in so many diseases and infertility, and there's no alarm bells ringing at the top? It adds up to something sinister. We are told to care about the climate but not care about ourselves. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Campion said:

 

The simple fact that all this toxicity is permitted by the ptb says it all. Massive increases in so many diseases and infertility, and there's no alarm bells ringing at the top? It adds up to something sinister. We are told to care about the climate but not care about ourselves. 

 

the purpose of the thread is to show the WEIGHT of the toxification issue so that people can see a more complete picture AT A GLANCE which then enables them to advance their cognition from a deluded state of ''sometimes harmful products might slip through the net but mostly the government protects us through stringent testing'' to a more accurate state of: ''holy shit we are being deliberately poisoned by the corporations and a complicit government....we are UNDER ATTACK''

Edited by Macnamara
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

‘New car smell’ can increase risk of cancer: study

April 13, 2023

The “new car smell” that everyone knows and loves might actually be a health risk.

A new study published in the journal Cell Reports Physical Science suggested that the scent could increase the risk of cancer.

Scientists at Harvard University and the Beijing Institute of Technology conducted their research in real-world settings and conditions rather than in a laboratory.

They looked at the air in new cars that were left parked outside for 12 days straight and used sensors to monitor 20 commonly produced chemicals.

Researchers discovered chemical levels that exceeded China’s national safety standard for air quality in cars.

Formaldehyde, a known cancer-causing compound, surpassed standards by 35%. Another dangerous carcinogen, acetaldehyde, was 61% higher than the standard.

A 2021 study showed that there could be a “potential risk” for people who spend significant amounts of time driving — but this new research suggests people can be at risk even if they don’t have a long commute.

https://nypost.com/2023/04/13/new-car-smell-can-increase-risk-of-cancer-study/?utm_medium=social

 
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Macnamara said:

‘New car smell’ can increase risk of cancer: study

April 13, 2023

The “new car smell” that everyone knows and loves might actually be a health risk.

A new study published in the journal Cell Reports Physical Science suggested that the scent could increase the risk of cancer.

Scientists at Harvard University and the Beijing Institute of Technology conducted their research in real-world settings and conditions rather than in a laboratory.

They looked at the air in new cars that were left parked outside for 12 days straight and used sensors to monitor 20 commonly produced chemicals.

Researchers discovered chemical levels that exceeded China’s national safety standard for air quality in cars.

Formaldehyde, a known cancer-causing compound, surpassed standards by 35%. Another dangerous carcinogen, acetaldehyde, was 61% higher than the standard.

A 2021 study showed that there could be a “potential risk” for people who spend significant amounts of time driving — but this new research suggests people can be at risk even if they don’t have a long commute.

https://nypost.com/2023/04/13/new-car-smell-can-increase-risk-of-cancer-study/?utm_medium=social

 

Hmm, only in cars, not new clothes, furniture etc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, k_j_evans said:

Hmm, only in cars, not new clothes, furniture etc?

 

i'm sure i read somewhere that britain has higher quantities of endocrine disrupting fire retardants in furnishings, than pretty much anywhere, because of the regulations in this country

26th August 2019

Flame retardants in our furniture; UK regulations and ten years of ‘imminent change’

Look around you right now. Are you at work? Are you sitting on a foam-filled desk chair, fabric blinds keeping light from bouncing off a computer monitor in its black plastic casing, your hand gently resting on the smooth shell of a mouse or dusty keyboard as you scroll through these words? Or are you at home? Perhaps slouching comfortably in a favourite armchair, the curtains pulled closed, a TV in the corner and a mobile phone in your hand. Is there a carpet? Each of these items, be they in your home, your office, your car, no matter the location, they are all likely to contain potentially toxic flame retardants.

Of course, in writing this I’ve made an assumption; I’ve assumed you are reading this in the UK or Ireland. If you are sitting in California, Washington, Sweden, Norway, France, New Zealand, Liechtenstein, anywhere else in the EU, anywhere else in the world in fact, you will not be subject to the same legislation that requires furniture to be laden with

chemical flame retardants; there are US states and EU countries where many of the flame retardants you are being exposed to in the UK have actually been banned.

What’s the problem?

A recent parliamentary inquiry carried out by the Environmental Audit Committee on ‘Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life1’, heard evidence from a wide range of experts on the growing body of research linking flame retardants to adverse effects on humans and the environment. Breast Cancer UK provided evidence suggesting the US and UK have the highest levels of flame retardants in human body fluids and highlighted a study that found PBDEs (flame retardants banned under EU legislation) in breast milk2. Meanwhile, the Cancer Prevention and Education Society listed the effects of flame retardant exposure as cancer, neurotoxicity, developmental, behavioural, metabolic and reproductive problems, endocrine disruption and allergy3.

The media attention that followed focused strongly on the presence of flame retardants in breastmilk, with headlines such as  ‘British mums have some of world’s most fireproof breast milk’ or ‘Cocktail of chemicals’ found in UK mothers’ breast milk…’. Whilst the headlines undoubtedly draw on public fear for attention, they do highlight an important issue; their message is not that breastfeeding is bad, expert opinion on its benefits remain unchanged, but that it is unacceptable that even the most innocent and vulnerable members of our society are exposed to these chemicals. The question is not should we implement change, but why haven’t we implemented change? It is clear we need effective and immediate action to reduce our exposure to harmful flame retardants, safe-guarding both our health and our environment.

https://www.fidra.org.uk/news/flame-retardants-in-our-furniture-uk-regulations-and-ten-years-of-imminent-change/

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Urgent health warning over toxic 'gender-bending' chemicals in food as EU officials rule current 'safe' limit is 20 THOUSAND times too high

By John Ely Senior Health Reporter For Mailonline

Updated: 16:32 BST, 19 April 2023 

Health chiefs have today issued a fresh warning about the sky-high levels of toxic 'gender bending' chemical found in food and drink — saying millions are probably consuming too much.

Bisphenol A is found in swathes of water dispensers, food containers and reusable bottles because it makes plastics more flexible and harder to break.

But the 'gender-bending' chemical, also called BPA, mimics the female sex hormone oestrogen and has been linked to low sperm counts and infertility in men, as well as breast and prostate cancer.

EU officials have now said the current level of recommended BPA exposure via food and drink is 20,000 times too high.

Officials made this decision after reviewing 800 new studies.

This included one in mice that suggested high exposure to BPA could cause the immune system to mistakenly attack the body. 

Concerns have raged for years about BPA leaking from packaging directly into food and drink and potentially damaging the body.

EU watchdogs previously ruled in 2015 that a safe daily exposure, through the small amounts leaking from plastic packaging, was 4 micrograms per kilogram of a person's body weight.

But experts from the bloc's European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have now revised this down to 0.2 nanograms per kilogram per day.

With a nanogram representing a billionth of a gram, this means the new safe figure is 20,000 times lower than the old limit.

EU experts estimated that all age groups are, on average, exceeding the safe BPA threshold 'by two to three orders of magnitude'.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11989991/Warning-chemical-food-EU-officials-rule-current-safe-limit-20-000-times-high.html

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

EXCLUSIVE: US experts call for crackdown on 'gender-bending' chemicals found in food — these are the other everyday items that are loaded with the toxins

By Cassidy Morrison Senior Health Reporter For Dailymail.Com

Updated: 21:32 BST, 21 April 2023

Experts are calling on America to crack down on the amount of 'gender bending' chemicals found in many everyday items after health officials in Europe slashed the cap to a new low.

Bisphenol A (BPA) is an industrial chemical used in the production of plastics and aluminum cans that is present in a wide range of consumer products, from canned soups to sunglasses.

But experts have known for decades that BPA is an ‘endocrine disruptor’ - meaning it can imitate the body's hormones and interfere with the production of and response to natural hormones like estrogen.

European officials drastically reduced the maximum amount of BPA by 20,000 times after finding that millions of people are likely consuming too much of the dangerous chemical, further widening the gap between what the EU considers acceptable versus the US Food and Drug Administration

Matthew Casale director of environmental campaigns at the Public Interest Research Groups told DailyMail.com: 'The FDA should take stronger steps to reduce our exposure to BPA in popular household products.' 

Mr Casale added: 'Americans expect and believe that our government is safeguarding their health and the health of their families from dangerous chemical exposure.' 

When packaging is made with BPA, there is a high likelihood that small amounts of BPA will seep into the food it contains. Over time, the harmful effects of exposure build up and may lead to severe health problems, including infertility, certain cancers, heart disease, and behavioral issues. 

Laura Vandenberg, a public health expert at University of Massachusetts Amherst said: 'There's nothing different about the physiology of an American compared to a European. So, if it's hazardous in Europe, it's hazardous for us.'

Dr Vandenberg added: 'We need to acknowledge that if another agency has looked at these data and is drawing a conclusion that's intended to protect public health, then we're the ones who are behind... We're the ones who aren't being protective enough in the U.S.'

BPA is relatively common in food packaging, cans, and plastic containers. And the problem of contamination is widespread in the US. 

In a nationally-representative survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, researchers concluded found BPA in 93 percent of people six and older

BPA has a similar shape and structure to the hormone estrogen and can bind to those estrogen receptors to influence a range of bodily processes from cell growth and repair to fetal development.

BPA contamination is also known to influence someone’s risk of obesity, asthma, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, and neurological problems.

With that in mind, DailyMail.com broke down different familiar products that could pose a threat of BPA exposure:

Canned foods

Most concern around BPA in foods has focused on canned goods ranging from soups to tuna which are commonly lined on the inside with BPA to guard against corrosion and extend shelf life.

When the inside of a can contains a BPA coating, that harmful chemical seeps into the food itself. Canned foods are responsible for 6.6 micrograms per person per day of BPA exposure.

When compared to the Food and Drug Administration’s current maximum standard for BPA content – 500 nanograms per kilogram of body weight per day – that concentration appears fairly innocuous. But it is far higher than the level accepted by European health authorities, just 0.2 nanograms per kilograms of body weight per day.

Brian Ronholm, Director of Food Policy at Consumer Reports told DailyMail.com: 'Consumer Reports supports the EU number and that the FDA should be more closely aligned with those limits.'

Manufacturers have largely phased out the use of BPA in their factories over the past decade as studies detailing the dangers of consuming it have piled up. The Can Manufacturers Institute, a trade group for metal can companies, maintains that over 95 percent of food cans are made without BPA-based linings.

Store receipts

Shoppers who are handed their receipts after making a purchase may not be aware that they have come in contact with BPA, which leeches through the skin and enter the bloodstream.

Researchers from the Ecology Center in Detroit have found that a staggering 80 percent of paper receipts printed in 22 states and DC contain bisphenols, namely BPA and its chemical cousin Bisphenol-S (BPS).

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11992321/The-six-toxic-gender-bending-chemical-lurking-common-household-products.html

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...