Letting babies swim in chlorinated pools harms their health for life

(NaturalNews) Young children who swim in chlorinated pools may suffer an increased risk of lung infections and even lifelong asthma and respiratory allergies, according to a study conducted by researchers from Catholic University Louvain in Brussels, Belgium, and published in the European Respiratory Journal.

“This suggests that chlorinated pool attendance can increase the risk of asthma and respiratory allergies by making the airways more sensitive not only to allergens but also to infectious agents,” senior researcher Alfred Bernard said.

Researchers conducted health tests on 430 Belgian kindergarteners and had their parents fill out questionnaires about their health history and swimming habits. They found that while 36 percent of children who had been exposed to chlorinated pools before the age of two had a history of the lung infection known as bronchiolitis, compared with only 24 percent of children who had not been exposed.

Bronchiolitis is a usually viral infection of the small airways of the lungs. Researchers believe that chlorine in swimming pools may combine with sweat, saliva and urine from swimmers to produce chemicals that irritate and weaken the lungs. In the weaker, developing lungs of children, this can raise the risk of infection.

Supporting this hypothesis, researchers found that indoor pools increased infection risk more than outdoor pools. Children who had been to chlorinated outdoor pools for 20 or more hours by age two are twice as likely to suffer from bronchiolitis as children who had not been to chlorinated pools at all. Children who had been to indoor pools were 3.5 times as likely to have a history of the infection.

Researchers found that while neither swimming nor a history of bronchiolitis appeared to raise the risk of asthma or respiratory allergies by age five on their own, the combination of these factors led to a significantly higher risk.

Bernard noted that swimming is an “enjoyable” way to get kids exercise, but that chlorinated pools carry risks. He suggested that children use pools disinfected without chlorine whenever possible.

Sources for this story include: health.asiaone.com/Health/News/Story/A1Story20100127-194703.html.

The best, and worst, laundry detergents with 1,4-dioxane contamination

Saturday, May 22, 2010 by: Ethan A. Huff

(NaturalNews) One of the major issues being tackled by consumer watchdog groups this year is the presence of 1,4-dioxane, a synthetic petrochemical carcinogen, in consumer products. Since hair care products, cleaning formulas and laundry detergents are all susceptible to containing this toxic chemical byproduct, which is not listed on product labels, David Steinman from the Green Patriot Working Group (GPWG) began a study in 2007 to see which consumer products are the worst offenders. This year, his organization along with the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), released the results of a portion of the study conducted last year on laundry detergents.

When cleaning products and detergents are processed using ethoxylation, a cheap technique that lessens the severity of the harsher ingredients, 1,4-dioxane is created. Since it is considered a byproduct of ethylene oxide reacting with other ingredients, 1,4-dioxane is technically considered a contaminant and thus does not have to be included on product labeling. As a result, consumers are largely unaware of its presence in major household products.

For the study, Steinman evaluated 20 different laundry detergents from both conventional and “natural” brands. Evoxa, an independent, third-party laboratory that is highly respected for its rigorous methods and high standards, conducted all product testing. The results are as follows:

Conventional brands:
1. Tide (P&G) – 55 parts per million (ppm)
2. Ivory Snow Gentle (P&G) – 31 ppm
3. Tide Free (P&G) – 29 ppm
4. Purex (Dial Corp.) – 25 ppm
5. Gain 2X Ultra (P&G) – 21 ppm
6. Cheer BrightClean Detergent (P&G) – 20 ppm
7. Era 2X Ultra (P&G) – 14 ppm
8. Arm & Hammer (Church & Dwight Co.) – 5.0 ppm
9. Wisk 2X Ultra (Sun Products Corp.) – 3.9 ppm
10. Woolite Complete Detergent (Reckitt Benckiser) – 1.3 ppm
11. All laundry detergent (Unilever) – 0.6 ppm
12. Dreft powdered detergent (P&G) – non-detectable (ND)
13. Sun Burst (Sun Products Corp.) – ND

“Natural” brands:
1. Planet Ultra Liquid laundry detergent – 6.1 ppm
2. Mrs. Meyers laundry detergent – 1.5 ppm
3. Clorox Green Works Natural laundry detergent – ND
4. Ecos laundry detergent (Earth Friendly Products) – ND
5. Life Tree Laundry Liquid – ND
6. Method Squeaky Green laundry detergent – ND
7. Seventh Generation Free & Clear laundry detergent – ND

Of the products detected, P&G products came up the highest in 1,4-dioxane levels, as did most of the conventional brands. Of the natural brands tested, only two were found to contain 1,4-dioxane, and in levels far below the average conventional brand. While not all available brands were tested, it is clear from the results that consumers need to be wary of most conventional brands. They also must perform due diligence in verifying that their “natural” brand of choice is truly free of 1,4-dioxane as well.

The 1,4-dioxane found in laundry detergent is particularly harmful in the fact that the chemical binds easily to water and remains there. Even after water containing the chemical has been purified and filtered, low levels have been detected, indicating that it is not easily removed from water. Numerous water supplies across the country have been found to be tainted with 1,4-dioxane.

Of the 80,000 known chemicals, only 200 are tested by the EPA; 1,4-dioxane is not one of the ones tested. Average aggregate exposure to 1,4-dioxane is unknown since it is found in numerous consumer care products. Because it is a known carcinogen that is implicated in causing cancer, liver disease and other serious problems, it is important to avoid it whenever possible.

OCA has prepared a Personal Care and Cleaning Products Safety Guide outlining which consumer products are safe and free of 1,4-dioxane and which ones are not. Categories include dishwashing soap, hand soap, all-purpose soap, laundry detergents, household cleaners, body washes and shampoos, conditioners, facial cleansers, lotions, sunscreens and deodorants.

Central Nervous System Damage from Fluorides

by Phyllis J. Mullenix, Ph.D. September 14, 1998

It was 1982 when fluoride was first brought to my attention as a substance in need of investigation. At that time, I was in the Departments of Psychiatry at Boston’s Children’s Hospital and Neuropathology at the Harvard Medical School. My studies focused on detection procedures for neurotoxicity, and they typically considered a variety of environmental and therapeutic agents, i.e., radiation, lead, amphetamine, phenytoin, nitrous oxide. Dr. John Hein, then Director of Forsyth’s Dental Infirmary for Children in Boston, was interested in neurotoxicity studies and invited me to continue this research at Forsyth and to apply it to substances used in dentistry. Fluoride was prominent on his list.

Five years lapsed before our investigations of fluoride began. The delay was due to time spent on technological improvements, specifically development of a computer pattern recognition system for the objective quantification of behavior in an animal model. In early June of 1986, the Forsyth Dental Center was noted for this achievement in the Wall Street Journal and the Boston Herald, and applications of our research grew. The new technology enabled us to study the clinically recognized neurotoxicity associated with the treatment for childhood leukemia. Simultaneously, we started investigations of fluoride, the “safe and effective” treatment for dental caries.

Initially, the fluoride study sparked little interest, and in fact we were quite anxious to move on to something academically more exciting. Using an animal model developed for the study of dental fluorosis, we expected rats drinking fluoride-treated water would behave the same as matching controls. They did not. The scientific literature led us to believe that rats would easily tolerate 175 ppm fluoride in their drinking water. They did not. Reports in the literature indicated that fluoride would not cross the blood brain barrier. But it did. Prenatal exposure to fluoride was not supposed to permanently alter behavioral outcome. It did. Like walking into quicksand, our confidence that brain function was impervious to fluoride was sinking.

Our 1995 paper in Neurotoxicology and Teratology was the first laboratory study to demonstrate in vivo that central nervous system (CNS) function was vulnerable to fluoride, that the effects on behavior depended on the age at exposure and that fluoride accumulated in brain tissues. The behavioral changes common to weanling and adult exposures were different from those after prenatal exposure. Whereas prenatal exposure dispersed many behaviors as seen in drug-induced hyperactivity, weanling and adult exposures led to behavior- specific changes more related to cognitive deficits. Brain histology was not examined in this study, but we suggested that the effects on behavior were consistent with interrupted hippocampal development (a brain region generally linked with memory).

Establishing a threshold dose for effects on the CNS, in rats or humans, was not the intent of this initial investigation. Yet, one fact relevant to human exposure emerged quite clear. When rats consumed 75-125 ppm and humans 5-10 ppm fluoride in their respective drinking waters, the result was equivalent ranges of plasma fluoride levels. This range is observed with some treatments for osteoporosis, and it is exceeded ten times over, one hour after children receive topical applications of some dental fluoride gels. Thus, humans are being exposed to levels of fluoride we know alters behavior in rats.

We concluded that the rat study flagged potential for motor dysfunction, IQ deficits and/or learning disabilities in humans. Confident as we were, the data were only one piece of the puzzle, the overall picture was still emerging. Soon thereafter we learned of two epidemiological studies (Fluoride, 1995-1996) from China showing IQ deficits in children over-exposed to fluoride via drinking water or soot from burning coal. A recent review (International Clinical Psychopharmacology, 1994) listed case reports of CNS effects in humans excessively exposed to fluoride, information that spans almost 60 years. A common theme appeared in the reported effects: impaired memory and concentration, lethargy, headache, depression and confusion. The same theme was echoed in once classified reports about workers from the Manhatten Project. In all, our rat data seem to fit a consistent picture.

Information linking fluoride and CNS dysfunction continues in 1998.

1) A recent study in Brain Research demonstrated that chronic exposure to fluoride in drinking water of rats compromised neuronal (hippocampal) and cerebrovascular integrity (blood brain barrier) and increased aluminum concentrations in brain tissues.
2) Masters and Coplan have reported (International Journal of Environmental Studies, in press) that silicofluorides in fluoridated drinking water increased levels of lead in children’s blood, a risk factor that predicts higher crime rates, ADD and learning disabilities.
3) Luke at the International Society for Fluoride Research (ISFR) meeting in August reported that fluoride accumulated in the human pineal gland, as much or more so than in bones and teeth, and the pineal gland’s melatonin biosynthesis pathway is affected by fluoride.
4) Also at the ISFR meeting, I reported that the fluorinated steroid (dexamethasone) disrupts behavior in rats to a greater degree than does the nonfluorinated steroid (prednisolone). This finding matched results just completed in a study of children receiving steroids as a part of their treatment for childhood leukemia. Dexamethasone, compared to prednisolone, further reduced IQ, specifically impairing reading comprehension, arithmetic calculation and short-term working memory.

Exposure to fluoride goes well beyond that in our drinking water, toothpastes and mouth rinses. Fluoridation of water dictates that it is in food and processed beverages. Pesticides such as cryolite also increase fluoride content of foods. The trend toward fluorinating pharmaceuticals increases fluoride exposure via medication. Fluoride, in various compounds, plays a heavy role in occupational exposures and for people living in close proximity to industry, i.e., aluminum, steel, brick, glass, petroleum, etc. With exposure so common, we can no longer afford to ignore potential CNS consequences of fluoride.

Phyllis J. Mullenix, Ph.D.

Sebelius Asks Media to Censor Autism Debate

By Katie Wright, noonehastodietomorrow.com
03-17-2010 01:18

“There are groups out there that insist that vaccines are responsible for a variety of problems, despite all scientific evidence to the contrary. We (the office of Secretary of Health and Human Services) have reached out to media outlets to try to get them not to give the views of these people equal weight in their reporting.”

See Reader’s Digest HERE.

That’s right. Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of HHS, has asked newspapers, magazines, television journalists, who knows who else- specifically NOT to listen to parents and scientists in the autism community, not to respect their concerns, not to take seriously the condition of chronically ill children with autism and to disregard a growing body of evidence questioning the safety of our infant and toddlers’ immunization schedule. If I have got anything wrong I would love to hear a tape or see a transcripts of these media “outreaches.”

Pretty frightening stuff. Thank you to Jake Crosby who uncovered this frank and disturbing exchange between Arthur (autism is not so bad and there is no increase anyway) Allen and Ms. Sebelius.

I am taking Ms. Sebelius at her word. Ms. Sebelius has unilaterally said that she knows that every single American parent who saw their child regress post vaccination or experience a severe adverse reaction is wrong and she knows better. Ms. Sebelius has ordered, suggested, beseeched, implored (?) American journalists NOT to “give these people (anyone concerned with vaccine safety) equal weight in their reporting” because she has decided by informal governmental decree that the debate is closed?

Sounds like something that would happen in a communist dictatorship, right? Was there a similar decree when “citizen dissidents” questioned the safety of hormone replacement therapy for women? Was the media instructed to ignore those nuisances who were suspicious of a long denied link between hormone therapy and breast cancer? Did the HHS order a first amendment crackdown of those trouble-making women who had long complained that Fibromalgia was a real disease and not a psychosomatic condition. Menaces everywhere who dared to question medical authorities! They must be silenced! You have got to be kidding.

Sebelius boasts that she holds an H1N1 meeting every single day but cannot find the time to attend one IACC meeting or meet with any autism organizations. Well, not exactly, apparently Ms. Sebelius is personal friends with Ms. Alison Singer, leader a vaccine marketing/ autism org financed in part by Dr. Paul Offit. Newsflash Ms. Seblius: 1 in 100 American children, and rising, have autism and this is a much bigger deal than H1N1. One in four American parents do not think vaccines are safe for their children. At least half of all families affected by autism believe too many vaccines too soon triggered their child’s autism. Hundreds of thousands of parents saw their child regress post multiple vaccinations. Sebelius’ answer to this massive crisis of confidence is media censorship?

Hmmmm…..Censorship has a long and illustrious history- of not working. Thankfully, we live in a democracy with a free press. So I don’t know what is worse, the fact Sebelius asked that journalists censor the autism debate or the fact that they did.
While I have not read more than a few reasoned, balanced or well written pieces of journalism on the subject of autism and vaccines I have read a host of spoon fed press releases masquerading as “news” stories about supposedly important autism research. Journalists from “Time”, “Newsweek”, “The New York Times”, online health resources etc. have reported in depth on such “breakthroughs” as a recent study concluding that “maternal sensitivity” is a good thing for autistic children, or Kennedy Krieger’s incredible finding that autistic kids have bad handwriting (amazing, I know!) or the Children’s Hospital of Boston study which found that cousins from the Middle East who marry are more likely to produce autistic kids. I know, stop the presses, a cure is within sight!

In this embarrassing interview with Arthur Allen Ms. Sebelius asserts all the science is a closed book. At the top of the list of the science of vaccine safety studies are the definitive 2001 and 2003 “Pediatrics” articles. While the media has kept us front row center in the breaking developments regarding ASD kids with bad handwriting, journalists have neglected to report on perhaps one of the most striking recent events concerning the subject of autism research.

An author of one of the most frequently cited “vaccines do not trigger autism” articles is Dr. Poul Thorsen. Well, well, well… this week we learned that Thorsen has allegedly absconded with approximately $2 million of CDC research money and is the target of an international police manhunt. We also learned that the Univ. of Aarhus, Denmark, where Thorsen was employed when conducting the studies (naturally in close cooperation w/ the CDC) has released a letter detailing Thorsen’s recently uncovered crimes. These crimes include but are not limited to: theft, forgery and assorted serious breaches of ethical norms.

Apparently Thorsen was a very, very busy scientist. He was simultaneously and secretly employed at the Univ of Aarhus, Emory University, Drexel University and as a “visiting scientist at the CDC.” Emory and Drexel have, some might say, inappropriately close relationships with the CDC. There appears to be very little room for independent or unbiased science at these research centers. All three are heavily invested in denying any relationships between vaccines and autism. The CDC owns numerous vaccine patents and Emory and Drexel receive tremendous financial support from vaccine companies.

Hmmmm…I know some of you might be thinking “Emory University is in the news a lot lately!” Yes, Emory has been in the news a great deal thanks to the amazing anti- corruption work of Senator Charles Grassley. Ms. Sebelius should dump Arthur Allen and have a conversation with someone who is actually doing something to restore public confidence in our health systems by fighting the fraud and greed inherent at places like Emory. Grassley is conducting an investigation a pervasive pattern of corruption among Emory researchers who fail to disclose significant financial conflicts of interest in the outcomes of the research they conduct. Isn’t it interesting that Thorsen found a second home there?

Thorsen was working hard for everyone’s benefit: his own, his employers, pharmaceutical companies- everyone’s benefit, that is, except the public’s. The health and safety of American kids being administered the world’s most aggressive infant vaccine schedule was last on his list. Thorsen was also employed as a consultant on the official revisions of the all-important DMS V. Thorsen was advising how to count and classify autism cases. It is absolutely frightening that a wanted felon has such an enormous and pervasive influence on the lives of our children.

So I am trying to get this straight Ms. Sebelius. Help me out here. We should take lying thieves with no interest in operating in the public’s interest at their word but the media should ignore parents and legitimate scientists who question the validity of vaccine science research performed by alleged criminals? I’m really confused!

Wouldn’t it be great if Sebelius lifted her fatwa on vaccine research reporting and someone discovered what this creep Thorsen was actually up to at Drexel and Emory? Why was Thorsen a “visiting scientist at the CDC” at the same time? Apparently the CDC has known about this theft (of our money) for some time but has chosen to remain silent. I wonder why? How likely is it that Thorsen was the only scientist involved in what appears to be a massive and long term scheme to manipulate and forge scientific documents? Most importantly, why should the public believe that a thief and a liar with no ethical standards would be honest and scrupulous in his research? I shudder at the thought of Thorsen recounting “the facts” of his studies to students while asserting, as he frequently did, that “absolutely no more vaccine/autism research is warranted.” Now there’s a guarantee you can take to the bank. Oops, maybe a bank Thorsen hasn’t robbed.

Consumers of aspartame (Nutra-Sweet): check out this documentary

Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World