|
|
 |
|
Reply
| | | From: Rene (Original Message) | Sent: 6/19/2007 10:42 PM |
Dirty Tap Water May Cause Birth Defects By Michael Smith, MD, WebMD Medical News, Reviewed By Gary Vogin, MD Jan. 8, 2002 -- Two groups report that hundreds of thousands of pregnant women are at risk of birth defects and miscarriages from contaminated tap water.
The Environmental Working Group and U.S. Public Interest Research Group say that the problem is due to byproducts that form when adding chlorine to the tap water.
They admit that adding chlorine to tap water saves thousands of lives each year by reducing the number of harmful bacteria in the water. However, they say that this process itself actually creates hundreds of toxic chemicals called "chlorination byproducts," or CBPs.
According to the report, chlorine added to water interacts with organic matter, particularly the soil and plant material that comes from run-off by agriculture and urban sprawl.
And the problem seems to affect large and small cities alike. They note that a handful of large cities with a history of high CBP levels account for a large portion of the women at risk -- suburban Washington, D.C., and Pittsburgh, as well as urban centers like Philadelphia and San Francisco.
But more than 1,100 small towns (with fewer than 10,000 people) have also reported potentially dangerous levels of CBPs in their tap water over the past six years, according to the report.
They write that pregnant women living in small towns supplied by rivers and reservoirs are more than twice as likely to drink tap water with elevated levels of CBPs than women in large communities.
In total, the investigators list 42 cities across the U.S. -- both large and small -- that expose more than 500 pregnant women each year to trihalomethanes (THM), the most common chlorination byproduct.
A new standard put forth by the Environmental Protection Agency went into effect just this month that will lower the allowed levels of chlorination byproducts, including THMs.
However, the investigators list multiple cities with lower levels of THM in tap water that they say still expose thousands of women to potentially dangerous toxins for an entire trimester.
"It's not a big surprise," Joel Schwartz, PhD, tells WebMD. He is an associate professor of environmental epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston.
Schwartz says a number of recent studies have linked chlorine byproducts to reproduction risks. His group, for example, has found the substances could affect a baby's birth weight. Other research has pointed to risk of birth defects and miscarriage.
"There is potential to cause harm. But there are things we can do to reduce the risk," he says, adding that the following measures won't drop your risk to zero, but they can make things safer:
First, don't kid yourself with the bottled water. There may be no way to tell how long it has been since the company last tested it.
You may want to install filters on the sinks you use for your drinking water. Products that use charcoal can filter out the chlorine byproducts. The more charcoal a particular filter uses, the more contaminants can be sifted from the water before you drink it.
You also may want something for your shower, since these contaminants could evaporate in the steam and be inhaled.
But Schwartz adds there are much bigger issues here that need to be handled at the community level. First, people need to decide how the water will be used. All the water going into your house doesn't really need to be fit to drink, when a lot of it is used to flush toilets, water the lawn, or do the wash. If a town doesn't have to pay to make all household water drinkable, it can then free up some resources to do a better job treating water that people will drink.
Getting rid of chlorine is not the answer, Schwartz says. But communities can use it more responsibly. It's helpful when treatment plants can tailor the amount of chlorine they use according to how much is actually needed. And if more of the particles and debris can be filtered out, germs have fewer hiding places and are easier to kill. That also means less chlorine.
It's also a good idea to clean the plumbing that brings water from the treatment center to your home. The pipes can get crusty with gunk. So facilities have to keep some chlorine in the water to treat it as it makes its way to you. But cleaner pipes mean less chlorine.
"These measures will not be free," Schwartz says. "But there are things we can do that will not bust the bank that will make things better."
The groups are calling for the federal government to take immediate action to clean up the lakes and rivers that provide tap water by reducing the soil erosion and the nutrient and animal waste from farms and feedlots that increase the need for chlorination. The farm bill currently being debated in Congress, they say, would be one step towards protecting America's tap water.
With reporting by David Flegel, MS
[http://foxnews.webmd.com/content/article/25/3606_1134.htm?src=rss_foxnews]
|
|
 First
Previous
2-6 of 6
Next
Last
|
|
Reply
| | | From: Rene | Sent: 6/19/2007 10:44 PM |
Air Pollution Linked to U.S. Birth Defects
By Daniel DeNoon, WebMD Medical News, Reviewed By Michael Smith, MD Dec. 31, 2001 -- One in 33 U.S. babies is born with a serious birth defect. Why so many? Air pollution, says a major new study.
"There seems to be something in the air that can harm developing fetuses," says study leader Beate Ritz, MD, PhD, in a news release. Ritz is an epidemiologist at UCLA.
The huge study analyzed data of more than 9,000 babies born from 1987 to 1993 in southern California. The researchers measured air quality near the homes of babies born with and without birth defects.
The results: women in areas with the worst air pollution were three times more likely to have a baby with a serious heart defect than women in areas with clean air. Women in areas with more moderate air pollution were twice as likely to have a baby with a serious heart defect. This type of birth defect almost always means surgery before the child is 1 year old.
The increased risk of birth defects was seen only in women who breathed bad air during the second trimester of pregnancy. This is the crucial time when the complex structure and function of the heart and other organs develop.
"The fact that certain heart defects are turning up in the second month of pregnancy when hearts are being formed suggests something serious may be happening," says study co-author Gary Shaw, DrPH.
Shaw, a researcher in the current study, notes that increasing levels of air pollution are linked to increasing levels of birth defects. This, he says, strengthens the study findings and means that urgent research is needed.
"We need answers," he says.
The study found that high levels of carbon monoxide and ozone were linked to birth defects. Whether it is these contaminants -- or something else in the air -- remains unknown.
[http://foxnews.webmd.com/content/article/25/3606_1120.htm?printing=true] |
|
Reply
| | | From: Rene | Sent: 6/19/2007 10:46 PM |
Study Shows Toxic Chemicals in Newborns By Todd Zwillich July 14, 2005 ~ Hundreds of toxins, including industrial chemicals, pesticides, and other pollutants may be contaminating some U.S. newborns, according to a small study. In a study of newborn blood released by the Environmental Working Group, an average of 200 industrial chemicals and pollutants were found in umbilical cord blood from 10 babies. The babies were born in August and September of 2004 in U.S. hospitals. The newborns' blood was collected after the umbilical cord was cut, according to the EWG, which may indicate that the infants were exposed to the compounds while still in the womb. The American Chemistry Council, which represents chemical manufacturers, released a statement saying that the information in Thursday's report was not new. "Scientists have long understood that our bodies can absorb substances present in our environment," the statement says. "The measurements by themselves are not an indication of a health risk and should not be cause for alarm," the group says. Researchers randomly tested cord blood anonymously donated to the Red Cross. They did not pinpoint where in the U.S. the exposures occurred. Environmental activists are taking the study as evidence that hundreds of common industrial chemicals �?some of them never before detected in newborns �?can pass from mothers to fetuses. "This study represents the first reported cord blood tests for 261 of the targeted chemicals and the first reported detections in cord blood for 209 compounds." they write in their report. Read Web MD's "Air Pollution Linked to U.S. Birth Defects."
Chemicals and Public Policy
The study's release was timed to coincide with the introduction of a bill on Capitol Hill designed to force manufacturers to test the safety of chemicals before putting them on the market. The measure would also require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to determine the safety of 300 industrial chemicals within the next five years. "It's not a definitive measure of pollution in newborns, but we think it should spur public health researchers and spur policy makers," says Timothy Kropp, PhD, senior scientist with the Environmental Working Group. Tests uncovered an average of 200 different chemicals in each cord blood sample, including a wide variety of pesticides, fire retardants, and industrial coatings used in electrical insulation, carpets, furniture, and other products. "We don't know what safe levels are for many of them. We must know more before chemicals end up in children," Kropp says. Eighteen different forms of dioxin were also found in the samples, according to the report. The International Agency for Research on Cancer designated dioxin as a "known human carcinogen" in 1997, though very low levels of exposure are believed not to cause tumors in humans, according to the World Health Organization. A Government Accountability Office report released Wednesday concluded that manufacturers have provided the EPA with health and safety data on only 15 percent of industrial chemicals sold in the U.S. in the last three decades. Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., told reporters Thursday that she was one of several who anonymously donated blood for a continuation of the analysis. More than 270 toxic chemicals were found in her blood, said Slaughter, who is 75 years old. "I'm a walking chemical plant. That's hardly the picture of health I had hoped for," she said.
By Todd Zwillich, reviewed by Brunilda Nazario, MD
SOURCES: Environmental Working Group. Timothy Kropp, PhD, senior scientist, Environmental Working Group. World Health Organization. American Chemistry Council. Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.). [http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,162572,00.html] |
|
Reply
| | | From: Rene | Sent: 8/8/2007 5:33 PM |
Study: Pesticides linked to preterm births
May 2007:- TORONTO (UPI) -- Premature births in the United States may be linked to seasonal levels of pesticides and nitrates in surface water, a study reports. Dr. Paul Winchester and colleagues at the Indiana University School of Medicine found that preterm birth rates peaked when pesticides and nitrates measurements in surface water were highest -- from April to July -- and were lowest when nitrates and pesticides were lowest, from August to September. More than 27 million U.S. live births were studied from 1996 to 2002. The highest rate of prematurity occurred in May-June, at 11.91 percent, and the lowest for August-September, at 10.79 percent regardless of maternal age, race, education, marital status, alcohol or cigarette use, or whether the mother was an urban, suburban or rural resident. Pesticide and nitrate levels in surface water were also highest in May-June and lowest in August/September, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. The findings are being presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies' annual meeting in Toronto. "Preterm births in the United States vary month to month in a recurrent and seasonal manner," Winchester said in a statement. "Pesticides and nitrates similarly vary seasonally in surface water throughout the United States and nitrates and pesticides can disrupt endocrine hormones and nitric oxide pathways in the developing fetus." |
|
Reply
| | | From: Rene | Sent: 2/8/2008 4:41 PM |
Tuesday, February 5, 2008 by The Los Angeles Times
Study Finds High Levels of Chemicals in Infants Using Baby Cosmetics
by Maria Cone
Infants and toddlers exposed to baby lotions, shampoos and powders carry high concentrations of hormone-altering chemicals in their bodies that might have reproductive effects, according to a new scientific study of babies born in Los Angeles and two other U.S. cities. The research, to be published today in the medical journal Pediatrics, found that as the use of baby care products rose, so did the concentration of phthalates, which are used in many fragrances. The lead scientist in the study, Dr. Sheela Sathyanarayana of the University of Washington’s Department of Pediatrics, said the findings suggested that many baby care products contain a variety of phthalates that enter children’s bodies through their skin. Manufacturers do not list phthalates as ingredients on labels, so it is unknown which products contain them. The researchers at the University of Washington and the University of Rochester stressed that the potential effects on babies were uncertain. But previous animal and human research suggests that early exposure to some phthalates could reduce testosterone and alter reproductive organs, particularly in males. The three phthalate compounds found in the highest concentrations in babies in the study were linked to reduced testosterone in a 2006 study of newborns in Denmark. Some scientists theorize such changes in hormones could lead to fertility problems and male reproductive disorders. Representatives of the fragrance and cosmetics industries said they were surprised by the findings and questioned their validity. They said only one phthalate compound is used in baby products, and it is found in such low levels that they doubt it could explain high concentrations found in the babies. In the study, doctors tested the urine of 163 children between the ages of 2 months and 28 months born in Los Angeles, Minneapolis and Columbia, Mo., between 2000 and 2005. All had detectable amounts of at least one type of phthalate, and more than 80% had seven or more types. “Phthalate exposure is widespread and variable in infants. We found that mothers�?reported use of infant lotion, infant powder and shampoo was significantly associated with . . . urinary concentrations,�?the scientists wrote in the new study. In the study, babies exposed to baby lotion, shampoo and powder had more than four times the level of phthalates in their urine than babies whose parents had not used the products. The highest levels were reported in babies under 8 months old, and those exposed to lotions. Previous studies have focused on a different route of exposure for children: sucking on soft, vinyl toys. Phthalates, in addition to helping cosmetics retain fragrance and color, are used as plasticizers in some vinyl. A recently passed California law will ban six types in children’s toys and feeding products, beginning next year. But no federal or state law in the United States prohibits their use in personal care products or cosmetics. The study is the first to report that skin transfer may be a main route of exposure for babies. In their report, the scientists advised parents who want to reduce their baby’s exposure to stop using lotions and powders unless their doctors recommend them for medical reasons. They also suggested limiting use of shampoos and other products. Many adult lotions and other personal care products also contain phthalates. John Bailey, chief scientist for the Personal Care Products Council, an industry trade group, said diethyl phthalate, or DEP, is used in the fragrances of some baby lotions and other baby products. But DEP is used at “very low levels, in the part-per-million range, below what could possibly account for the levels they are finding�?in the babies�?urine, Bailey said. “All of the other phthalates, if they’re present, have to be coming from someplace else,�?such as plastics or other products, he said. Bailey said he couldn’t explain why the researchers found such high concentrations in the babies that used lotions and the other products. But he said the scientists shouldn’t have advised parents to stop using them because they did not test any products and cannot prove they were the source. “The results that are being presented and the conclusions being made don’t make a great deal of scientific sense,�?Bailey said. “There’s a lot that makes you question whether their findings are valid.�?/FONT> Europe has banned some phthalates in baby toys and cosmetics, but not the DEP found in fragrances. More than half the mothers in the new study reported using baby shampoos on their infants within 24 hours of the urine tests, and about one-third had used lotion, and 14% used powder within the same time period. No link was found to baby wipes or to diaper creams.
The highest concentrations in the babies were for a phthalate known as MEP, which comes from DEP, the compound used in fragrances. One baby had an extremely high level of MEP �?4.4 parts per million. From: [http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/05/6865/] The Los Angeles Times
|
|
Reply
| | | From: Rene | Sent: 3/10/2008 6:05 PM |
Chemicals in Baby Products Linked to Reproductive Problems in Children by Julie Hurley
(NaturalNews) A new study brings to light a potentially dangerous link between chemicals used in ordinary products, such as baby shampoos and lotions, to reproductive problems in children. The chemicals, called phthalates, have been under attack by some environmental advocacy groups, according to a Feb. 4, 2008 AP News article, although experts are uncertain what dangers they might pose.
The study, which appears in the February issue of the journal Pediatrics, found elevated levels of phthalates in the urine of babies who recently had baby products applied to them. The federal government does not limit their use, even though California and some European countries will have restricted their use beginning in 2009. Although the Food and Drug Administration stated that this study "has no compelling evidence that phthalates pose a safety risk when used in cosmetics," it has many parents paying closer attention to what products they are putting on their children. "We really need to take a look at the number of products we use on a daily basis and figure out what we truly need," said Stacy Malkan, spokeswoman for the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and author of Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Cosmetic Industry. According to Malkan, these chemicals do not remain in the body for long periods of time. They can be flushed out within 24 hours. However, due to the ubiquitous use of the chemicals in thousands of personal care products used daily, we are continuously exposed to them. Malkan said that phthalates are hormone disruptors and block the production of testosterone. This can cause problems in utero as well as through adulthood, causing a cascade of reproductive issues. The chemicals have been linked to undescended testicles, testicular tumors, low fertility and infertility. "This study directly correlates the phthalate level in babies with the use of personal care products," Malkan said. "Reproductive toxins just do not belong in baby shampoos and lotions." Of the 163 babies between two and 28 months that participated in the study, 100 percent of them had at least one phthalate, and 80 percent had at least seven different types. But many parents are stuck with their hands tied, because retail products aren't required to list individual ingredients of fragrances, which are a common phthalate source. A group of concerned mothers on a Babyfit.com message board have decided to take it upon themselves to learn more about the ingredients in the products they are using, and make drastic changes to ensure to the best of their ability that their children remain safe. After one mother posted a link to the Web site [www.cosmeticdatabase.com], the floodgates opened up. Some of the sentiments were: "Between the BPA and the phthalates, I want to scream. This just is not fair to our children. I shudder to think about the possible harm I've already caused." "I have always tried to be cautious about what I put in and on my body, but this just takes it to a whole new level! Companies don't even have to add these bad ingredients on their lists, so how are we to be sure?" "We need to demand better of these companies. Most chemicals and preservatives are added because it is cheaper and increases shelf life. They aren't necessary." "I just lost someone close to me to cancer and the statistics say 1 out of every 3 people will get cancer... Why? So we can buy cheap crap?" "I had worked in an environmental lab for seven years before I quit to become a stay-at-home-mom. If you ladies saw what I saw, you would lose your minds." Every day, children are exposed to an average of 27 personal care ingredients that have not been found safe for kids, according to a national survey conducted in 2007 by Environmental Working Group (EWG), creator of (cosmeticdatabase.com) . A search for Huggies Baby Lotion with Chamomile and Lavender reveals a wealth of information about the product, including but not limited to: its ranking (both as an average for the entire project and per ingredient), whether or not it does animal testing, and a list of concerns (cancer, endocrine disruption, allergies, developmental/reproductive toxicity) paralleled with each specific ingredient.
The ranking system is color-coded for easy viewing: products with a low hazard ranking are given a green 0-2, products with a medium hazard ranking are given a yellow 3-6, and products with a high hazard are given a red 7-10. Huggies Baby Lotion with Chamomile ranks overall as a red 8, largely due to the fragrance component of the product, and does practice animal testing. According to the search, ingredients in this product are linked to: developmental/reproductive toxicity; violations, restrictions and warnings; allergies/immunotoxicity; neurotoxicity, endocrine disruption, and skin irritation - to name a few. According to EWG, by law, the government cannot mandate safety studies of cosmetics products or their ingredients, and only 13 percent of the 10,500 ingredients in personal care products have been reviewed for safety by the cosmetic industry's own review panel. For virtually every product on the market, safety decisions are made behind closed doors, guided by an industry-funded panel, without the benefit of peer-review or independent pre-market safety testing. "Under federal law, companies can put virtually anything they wish into personal care products, and many of them do. Mercury, lead, and placenta extract - all of these and many other hazardous materials are in products that millions of Americans, including children, use every day," said Jane Houlihan, Vice President of Research at EWG. "Mothers shouldn't have to worry about what is in the baby lotion they use, and now they don't have to. The new Skin Deep database provides information on nearly 25,000 personal care products so people can find out for themselves which products are the best choices for them and their families."
About the author
Julie Hurley is a working mother of two children. She has a degree in journalism from Grand Valley State University in Michigan, and has an increasing interest in holistic living.
She is an Independent Distributor for the It Works product line, which features the Ultimate Body Applicator [www.itworks.net/juliehurley].
Julie is also training for her first 25k in May after picking up running in April 2007. Follow her training journey on her blog at: [http://tinyurl.com/37t4yf].
From: [http://www.naturalnews.com/022777.html]
|
|
|
First
Previous
2-6 of 6
Next
Last
|
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Return to �?Toxins �?/A>