Re: OT - National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Wrap-Up

[Guest guest]

exercise ?

a resounding yes, and no bras at home, only when at work

and whoever heard of panties under a swimsuit?

and yes we must breath, no underwear under pjs , please

hope that helps

Re: Re: OT - National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Wrap-Up

Just curious.... for the women with large breasts who complain of back problems, do you exercise? Do you workout your back? Back exercises? Just curious...

[Guest guest]

O.K girls I just gotta add my 2 cents to this!

Why do you think that God put us in the garden of Eden naked.....He

knew what was best. I blame the new designers as the fig leaf wasn't

much support after the fall.

Now that I'm mid -age I'm afraid of the ol' ball in sock look as the

laws of gravity is working against me here! I wear a sports bra at

home but when I go out I like to keep them up where they belong.

LOL Laurie

> > > >

> > > > > http://snipurl.com/4w9gx [www_feministpeacenetwork_org]

> > > > > *October 30th, 2008*

> > > > > *National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Wrap-

> > > Up<http://www.feministpeacenetwork.org/2008/10/30/national-

breast-

> > > cancer-awareness-month-wrap-up/>

> > > > > ***

> > > > >

> > > > > For the last several years, I have been spouting off about

the

> > > > > hyper-commercialism and crass profiteering that has

pinkified the

> > > month of

> > > > > October for the supposed purpose of finding a cure for

breast

> > > cancer. No

> > > > > doubt about it, pink products galore are available at any

retail

> > > > > establishment but it seems that things have been a bit less

> > > absurd this year

> > > > > than in the past. Maybe it's the economy or the election or

just

> > > that even

> > > > > for a a good cause there is so much pepto pink schtuff we

can be

> > > expected to

> > > > > buy.

> > > > > While I haven't had a chance to write about it, this year's

> > > women's mags

> > > > > were far more temperate in their coverage, a bit more

realistic

> > > in talking

> > > > > about causes and there was less framing of breast cancer as

a

> > > young pretty

> > > > > white girl's disease. Here's hoping that trend continues.

> > > > >

> > > > > I was also pleased to see *Rita Arditti's piece in the

Boston

> > >

Globe*<http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articl

> > > es/2008/10/27/why_cancers_gaining_on_us/> discussing

> > > > > the relationship between chemicals and breast cancer.

> > > > >

> > > > > She points out that,

> > > > > " Since World War II, the proliferation of synthetic

chemicals has

> > > gone

> > > > > hand-in-hand with the increased incidence of breast cancer.

About

> > > 80,000

> > > > > synthetic chemicals are used today in the United States, and

> > > their number

> > > > > increases by about 1,000 each year. Only about 7 percent of

them

> > > have been

> > > > > screened for their health effects. These chemicals can

persist in

> > > the

> > > > > environment and accumulate in our bodies. According to a

recent

> > > review by

> > > > > the Silent Spring Institute in Newton, 216 chemicals and

> > > radiation sources

> > > > > cause breast cancer in animals.

> > > > > Nearly all of the chemicals cause mutations, and most cause

> > > tumors in

> > > > > multiple organs and animal species, findings that are

generally

> > > believed to

> > > > > indicate they likely cause cancer in humans. Yet few have

been

> > > closely

> > > > > studied by regulatory bodies. There is concern about

benzene,

> > > which is in

> > > > > gasoline; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are in air

> > > pollution from

> > > > > vehicle exhaust, tobacco smoke, and charred foods; ethylene

> > > oxide, which is

> > > > > widely used in medical settings; and methylene chloride, a

common

> > > solvent in

> > > > > paint strippers and glues.

> > > > > There is also broad agreement that exposure over time to

natural

> > > estrogens

> > > > > in the body increases the risk of breast cancer, so it is

> > > important to

> > > > > consider the role of synthetic estrogens in breast cancer

> > > development. Many

> > > > > other chemicals, especially endocrine-disrupting compounds -

> > > chemicals that

> > > > > affect hormones, such as the ubiquitous bisphenol A, which

is

> > > found in

> > > > > plastic bottles and cans - are also thought to raise breast

> > > cancer risk.

> > > > > Endocrine-disrupting compounds are present in many

pesticides,

> > > fuels,

> > > > > plastics, air pollution, detergents, industrial solvents,

tobacco

> > > smoke,

> > > > > prescription drugs, food additives, metals, and personal-

care

> > > products

> > > > > including sunscreens. "

> > > > >

> > > > > Bisphenol A or BPA is the chemical that the EPA continues to

> > > claim is safe

> > > > > while other countries are moving to ban it. It is also

important

> > > to note

> > > > > that automotive companies are big donors to organizations

like

> > > the Komen

> > > > > Foundation and Ford has created a cause-branding Warriors

in Pink

> > > line of

> > > > > clothing while this year BMW was offering to donate money

to find

> > > a cure for

> > > > > test driving their toxic exhaust spewing vehicles. As I have

> > > said way too

> > > > > many times before, as long as the organizations that claim

to be

> > > helping

> > > > > fight this disease take money from those whose products are

part

> > > of the

> > > > > problem, we will not be able to fully address the cause and

until

> > > we do

> > > > > that, the 'cure' will just be a profitable farce that

bankrupts

> > > and kills

> > > > > women.

> > > > >

> > > > > =====

> > > > >

> > > > > In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this

material is

> > > > > distributed without profit to those who have expressed a

prior

> > > interest in

> > > > > receiving the included information for research and

educational

> > > purposes.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> > ------------------------------------

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

,

I too have big breasts but, intuitively and from experience I know

that not wearing a bra is much more healthy than the alternative. On

the rare occasions that I do wear one, it is always a soft cotton

sports bra. And I can't wait to get it off, as soon as I set foot in

the house.

Although there may be (probably are) many other threats of breast

cancer from other sources, such as heavy metals accumulations, untold

numbers of toxic substances and vapors we are exposed to on a daily

basis, I still think we have a much better chance of coping with all

those other threats if we leave our lymphatic system unfettered and

flowing freely. It's like in nature: there is a lot of sewage and

sludge floating around out there in/on the waters, but the places that

get into real trouble are where this sewage/sludge gets into a pool

with no motion, where it all stagnates. As long as there is flow,

there is a possibility of cleansing and healing. Stagnation just

breeds more sludge and more bacteria and more dis-ease. Think about it!

As for our bows to " society " .... Well, the reason most of us are here

on this newsgroup is because we are resisting " society " and its need

to conform and ask no questions and follow health-threatening

practices submissively. " Society " as such, is no more ready to accept

resisting the government and saying NO to vaccines, than it is ready

to see you and me without our bras. The only way we stand a chance of

staying healthy and keeping our children healthy is by questioning and

resisting the wrongful " norms " of " society " . I don't yearn to blend

into a " society " that acts like mindless sheep. I could care less if

they think I am a " kook " . Why would I? I have about as much respect

for their uninformed opinions as I do for the nearest cow's. I

certainly don't give a hoot if they are " ready " to see my unfettered,

natural (saggy) breasts or not. If it bothers them, they can look the

other way.

Theresa,

Thanks for the tip on the book. Have already ordered it. Looks very

interesting. As do many of those authors' other books.

Thanks to all for making this OT into a lively, interesting

discussion. I have to add that I've also noticed that, when I am at

home in the buff, I don't get cold quite as readily as when I have

some clothes on already. I tend to want to pile on more clothes when

it gets colder, as soon as the thermostat wanders below 70 F, if I'm

wearing clothes already. If I'm not, I see the thermometer going to 65

F and much lower without the need to compensate with clothing or

cover. Odd, that....

Nice to work from home. Can't tell you how many times I've wandered

down to my office in the morning with just a cotton T-shirt on and got

started working, got enmeshed in it, only to realize that it was

coming up on 3-4 PM when the UPS man was due, so I had to sprint

upstairs to make myself a bit more 'presentable'. (Yes, yes, we live

in the country...)

Healthseeker

> >

> > I would like to add my own observations regarding possible causes

> of breast

> > cancer, if I may. I noticed many years ago that the slight pains I

> would

> > get almost daily in my breasts and underarms would disappear when I

> removed

> > my bra for extended periods of time (like over a weekend, when I

> was just

> > staying around the house, or when I was in bed with a cold or a flu

> for a

> > few days). This discovery, along with hearing and reading about how

> people

> > who discovered lumps in their breasts were immediately sent to get

> their

> > lymph nodes from under their arms biopsied, caused me to read up a

> bit more

> > about lymph nodes and their actual (known) functions at the time.

> >

> > I discovered that one of the main functions of the lymph nodes is

> to act as

> > a blood filtering/purifying system. And the lymph nodes under our

> arm pits,

> > in particular, act in such a way to keep the blood going to our

> breasts pure

> > and clean.

> >

> > This set me to thinking about the restrictive qualities of bras,

> not so much

> > on the breasts themselves, but the part that goes around the upper

> abdomen

> > and attaches in the back. This part is usually quite snug (it needs

> to be,

> > to provide the proper solid base for the rest of the garment,

> otherwise it

> > would slide around and there would be spillage all the time) and,

> as such,

> > it must restrict blood flow to some degree. And where would this

> restriction

> > occur, but right under the underarm lymph nodes.

> >

> > So what are these bras doing to us then? They restrict the flow of

> blood to

> > the lymph nodes, which in turn need that blood flowing freely in

> order to

> > perform their purifying functions properly. Just think how the

> impurities

> > must be clogging things up in there without sufficient blood flow

> to carry

> > oxygen, nutrients and all the necessary cleansing agents used by

> the lymph

> > nodes to perform their intended functions properly.

> >

> > I tested out my theory on myself over and over again. I wore my bra

> for long

> > stretches and noted the little pains that kept coming and going in

> my

> > underarms and breasts and how my underarm lymph nodes seemed

> somewhat

> > swollen when these pains occurred. Then I would stop wearing my bra

> for

> > weeks and months at a time and realize that these pains absolutely

> ceased to

> > manifest themselves when I did this. Also, my lymph nodes never felt

> > enlarged either during these times. Just to be sure I was not in

> the land

> > of " coincidences " , I repeated this experiment many times, at

> differing time

> > intervals over several years, until I finally convinced myself,

> that what I

> > was experiencing was not due to any " coincidences " , but purely

> > physiological, cause and effect reactions.

> >

> > Well, after becoming sure of this, beyond the shadow of a doubt, I

> stopped

> > wearing my bra almost completely. I only wear it very rarely in the

> > summertime when I need to wear light clothing in public. Then, as

> soon as I

> > get back home, I remove the bra immediately and massage my underarm

> lymph

> > nodes for about 5-10 minutes on each side. This has been going on

> for well

> > over 15 years now. I have not had a single recurrence of pains in

> my breasts

> > or under my arms in all this time!

> >

> > It also occurs to me that the allopathic doctors (as usual), tend

> to be

> > throwing out the baby with the bathwater, when they carefully

> remove all the

> > lymph nodes from under the armpits when they are treating someone

> for breast

> > cancer. Seems to me they are effectively removing the filtration

> system that

> > keeps those breasts supplied with clean, life-giving blood. When

> the trap in

> > the sink gets clogged, you don't throw out the trap, you clean it

> and make

> > sure it can resume performing its given function again. Why can't

> these

> > learned men (women) figure this out and stop aggravating the

> situation by

> > removing women's defense systems (the lymph nodes), instead of

> finding ways

> > to rectify the damage (eliminate the cause of the obstruction) and

> improve

> > the situation?

> >

> > I guess the reason might be because Big Pharma won't make much

> money on

> > discarded undergarments...

> >

> > Healthseeker

> >

[Guest guest]

I have kinda avoided this OT conversation....but I have to add that I have never liked wearing a bra. I am 50+ gramma now, and I havent hardly worn a bra in the last 5 years or so. But I have always Flunked the Pencil test anyhooo. lol. I had avoided bras before then, when I could. And remember well the Burning of the Bra era. I was overjoyed by all that. Since you are telling personal stories and Exposing yourselves, lol....there is a story my sister Loves to tell, grrrrrr, back when I was first blossuming, where I wouldn't wear or ask for a bra like her (she is 13 mo. older than myself). I guess, being the ultimate tomboy, I didnt want to grow up and have breasts, so I tied them down with rags from around the house, usually having to cut them off from the knot I tied. Anyway, oneday she and my grandmother took me to the undergarment department of a store and made me try on

teenybopbras. I was really huffy about it, and not too cooperative. I couldnt get the Knot out of my rags to try them on, and then they saw the rag, it was a checkered thing that day as I recall. OMG well.......they laughed, I cried. Back about 10 years ago or more, I read/heard in the media or somewhere that women who did not wear bra's were not getting breast cancer, few to none. I think it was a pretty official report, for the person who said they never heard that bra's cause cancer. True story. I think I remember it most at the time, because the office manager where I worked did not wear one. Think Pink tho, for all those who have suffered and died from breast disease. And remember that getting mammograms can have bad problems too, from all that squishing, OWWIE. If you Must, insist on

the newer echo's and ultrasounds. A little less invasive. Men can get breast cancer too. Search engine Wearing Bras Cause Cancer and fibrocystic disease. There is a lot of info! About the undies tho........some men dont like them either! Now it has me wondering if breast feeding or not breast feeding might contribute to breast disease too. I did not breast feed my babies, as it wasn't too trendy in the 70's, and I was given that Stop Milk shot they gave us in the hosptital. That couldn't have been a good thing. I dont even know What it WAS! (I hope none of the men have been offended) http://www.all-natural.com/bras.html Glad Day ~ Karla in IL

[Guest guest]

It has been interesting! Not offensive!

Dennis

From:

no-forced-vaccination

[mailto:no-forced-vaccination ] On Behalf Of karla walsh

Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 5:59 PM

no-forced-vaccination

Subject: Re: Re: OT - National Breast Cancer

Awareness Month Wrap-Up

I have kinda avoided this OT conversation....but I have to

add that I have never liked wearing a bra. I am 50+ gramma now, and I havent

hardly worn a bra in the last 5 years or so. But I have always Flunked the

Pencil test anyhooo. lol. I had avoided bras before then, when

I could. And remember well the Burning of the Bra era. I was overjoyed by

all that.

Since you are telling personal stories and Exposing

yourselves, lol....there is a story my sister Loves to tell, grrrrrr, back

when I was first blossuming, where I wouldn't wear or ask for a bra like

her (she is 13 mo. older than myself). I guess, being the ultimate

tomboy, I didnt want to grow up and have breasts, so I tied them down

with rags from around the house, usually having to cut them off from the knot I

tied. Anyway, oneday she and my grandmother took me to the

undergarment department of a store and made me try on teenybopbras. I

was really huffy about it, and not too cooperative.

I couldnt get the Knot out of my rags to try

them on, and then they saw the rag, it was a checkered thing that day as I

recall. OMG well.......they laughed, I cried.

Back about 10 years ago or more, I read/heard in

the media or somewhere that women who did not wear bra's were not getting

breast cancer, few to none. I think it was a pretty official report, for

the person who said they never heard that bra's cause cancer. True story.

I think I remember it most at the time, because the

office manager where I worked did not wear one.

Think Pink

tho, for all those who have suffered and died from breast

disease. And remember that getting mammograms can have bad problems too,

from all that squishing, OWWIE. If you Must, insist on the newer echo's

and ultrasounds. A little less invasive.

Men can get breast cancer too. Search

engine Wearing Bras Cause Cancer and fibrocystic disease. There is a

lot of info! About the undies tho........some men dont like them

either!

Now it has me wondering if breast feeding or not breast

feeding might contribute to breast disease too. I did not breast feed my

babies, as it wasn't too trendy in the 70's, and I was given that Stop

Milk shot they gave us in the hosptital. That couldn't have been a good

thing. I dont even know What it WAS!

(I hope none of the men have been offended)

http://www.all-natural.com/bras.html

Glad Day ~ Karla in IL

[Guest guest]

I wasn't talking about wearing panties under a swimsuit - I was

talking about not wearing any swimsuit at all - and yes - to breath is

to live.

t

On Nov 2, 2008, at 6:30 PM, Debora Tyler wrote:

>

> exercise ?

> a resounding yes, and no bras at home, only when at work

>

> and whoever heard of panties under a swimsuit?

>

> and yes we must breath, no underwear under pjs , please

>

> hope that helps

> Re: Re: OT - National Breast Cancer

> Awareness Month Wrap-Up

>

> Just curious.... for the women with large breasts who complain of

> back problems, do you exercise? Do you workout your back? Back

> exercises? Just curious...

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

It's about time this list had a laugh or two - hope it does everyone a

little bit of good!

And just for the record - I don't care what anybody thinks about my

sagging boobs which nursed continuously for 17 years. They did their

job, and now I'm gonna take good care of them!

lol

t

On Nov 2, 2008, at 6:37 PM, Laurie wrote:

> O.K girls I just gotta add my 2 cents to this!

> Why do you think that God put us in the garden of Eden naked.....He

> knew what was best. I blame the new designers as the fig leaf wasn't

> much support after the fall.

> Now that I'm mid -age I'm afraid of the ol' ball in sock look as the

> laws of gravity is working against me here! I wear a sports bra at

> home but when I go out I like to keep them up where they belong.

> LOL Laurie

>

>

> > > > >

> > > > > > http://snipurl.com/4w9gx [www_feministpeacenetwork_org]

> > > > > > *October 30th, 2008*

> > > > > > *National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Wrap-

> > > > Up<http://www.feministpeacenetwork.org/2008/10/30/national-

> breast-

> > > > cancer-awareness-month-wrap-up/>

> > > > > > ***

> > > > > >

> > > > > > For the last several years, I have been spouting off about

> the

> > > > > > hyper-commercialism and crass profiteering that has

> pinkified the

> > > > month of

> > > > > > October for the supposed purpose of finding a cure for

> breast

> > > > cancer. No

> > > > > > doubt about it, pink products galore are available at any

> retail

> > > > > > establishment but it seems that things have been a bit less

> > > > absurd this year

> > > > > > than in the past. Maybe it's the economy or the election or

> just

> > > > that even

> > > > > > for a a good cause there is so much pepto pink schtuff we

> can be

> > > > expected to

> > > > > > buy.

> > > > > > While I haven't had a chance to write about it, this year's

> > > > women's mags

> > > > > > were far more temperate in their coverage, a bit more

> realistic

> > > > in talking

> > > > > > about causes and there was less framing of breast cancer as

> a

> > > > young pretty

> > > > > > white girl's disease. Here's hoping that trend continues.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I was also pleased to see *Rita Arditti's piece in the

> Boston

> > > >

> Globe*<http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articl

> > > > es/2008/10/27/why_cancers_gaining_on_us/> discussing

> > > > > > the relationship between chemicals and breast cancer.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > She points out that,

> > > > > > " Since World War II, the proliferation of synthetic

> chemicals has

> > > > gone

> > > > > > hand-in-hand with the increased incidence of breast cancer.

> About

> > > > 80,000

> > > > > > synthetic chemicals are used today in the United States, and

> > > > their number

> > > > > > increases by about 1,000 each year. Only about 7 percent of

> them

> > > > have been

> > > > > > screened for their health effects. These chemicals can

> persist in

> > > > the

> > > > > > environment and accumulate in our bodies. According to a

> recent

> > > > review by

> > > > > > the Silent Spring Institute in Newton, 216 chemicals and

> > > > radiation sources

> > > > > > cause breast cancer in animals.

> > > > > > Nearly all of the chemicals cause mutations, and most cause

> > > > tumors in

> > > > > > multiple organs and animal species, findings that are

> generally

> > > > believed to

> > > > > > indicate they likely cause cancer in humans. Yet few have

> been

> > > > closely

> > > > > > studied by regulatory bodies. There is concern about

> benzene,

> > > > which is in

> > > > > > gasoline; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are in air

> > > > pollution from

> > > > > > vehicle exhaust, tobacco smoke, and charred foods; ethylene

> > > > oxide, which is

> > > > > > widely used in medical settings; and methylene chloride, a

> common

> > > > solvent in

> > > > > > paint strippers and glues.

> > > > > > There is also broad agreement that exposure over time to

> natural

> > > > estrogens

> > > > > > in the body increases the risk of breast cancer, so it is

> > > > important to

> > > > > > consider the role of synthetic estrogens in breast cancer

> > > > development. Many

> > > > > > other chemicals, especially endocrine-disrupting compounds -

> > > > chemicals that

> > > > > > affect hormones, such as the ubiquitous bisphenol A, which

> is

> > > > found in

> > > > > > plastic bottles and cans - are also thought to raise breast

> > > > cancer risk.

> > > > > > Endocrine-disrupting compounds are present in many

> pesticides,

> > > > fuels,

> > > > > > plastics, air pollution, detergents, industrial solvents,

> tobacco

> > > > smoke,

> > > > > > prescription drugs, food additives, metals, and personal-

> care

> > > > products

> > > > > > including sunscreens. "

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Bisphenol A or BPA is the chemical that the EPA continues to

> > > > claim is safe

> > > > > > while other countries are moving to ban it. It is also

> important

> > > > to note

> > > > > > that automotive companies are big donors to organizations

> like

> > > > the Komen

> > > > > > Foundation and Ford has created a cause-branding Warriors

> in Pink

> > > > line of

> > > > > > clothing while this year BMW was offering to donate money

> to find

> > > > a cure for

> > > > > > test driving their toxic exhaust spewing vehicles. As I have

> > > > said way too

> > > > > > many times before, as long as the organizations that claim

> to be

> > > > helping

> > > > > > fight this disease take money from those whose products are

> part

> > > > of the

> > > > > > problem, we will not be able to fully address the cause and

> until

> > > > we do

> > > > > > that, the 'cure' will just be a profitable farce that

> bankrupts

> > > > and kills

> > > > > > women.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > =====

> > > > > >

> > > > > > In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this

> material is

> > > > > > distributed without profit to those who have expressed a

> prior

> > > > interest in

> > > > > > receiving the included information for research and

> educational

> > > > purposes.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > > ------------------------------------

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Oh - I'm roaring with laughter at the note from the bottom of your

email. Many many have been the times when someone came to our door,

and someone of the family yelled to the others to get the door while

we ran for appropriate attire!

t

On Nov 2, 2008, at 7:25 PM, healthseeker888 wrote:

> ,

>

> I too have big breasts but, intuitively and from experience I know

> that not wearing a bra is much more healthy than the alternative. On

> the rare occasions that I do wear one, it is always a soft cotton

> sports bra. And I can't wait to get it off, as soon as I set foot in

> the house.

>

> Although there may be (probably are) many other threats of breast

> cancer from other sources, such as heavy metals accumulations, untold

> numbers of toxic substances and vapors we are exposed to on a daily

> basis, I still think we have a much better chance of coping with all

> those other threats if we leave our lymphatic system unfettered and

> flowing freely. It's like in nature: there is a lot of sewage and

> sludge floating around out there in/on the waters, but the places that

> get into real trouble are where this sewage/sludge gets into a pool

> with no motion, where it all stagnates. As long as there is flow,

> there is a possibility of cleansing and healing. Stagnation just

> breeds more sludge and more bacteria and more dis-ease. Think about

> it!

>

> As for our bows to " society " .... Well, the reason most of us are here

> on this newsgroup is because we are resisting " society " and its need

> to conform and ask no questions and follow health-threatening

> practices submissively. " Society " as such, is no more ready to accept

> resisting the government and saying NO to vaccines, than it is ready

> to see you and me without our bras. The only way we stand a chance of

> staying healthy and keeping our children healthy is by questioning and

> resisting the wrongful " norms " of " society " . I don't yearn to blend

> into a " society " that acts like mindless sheep. I could care less if

> they think I am a " kook " . Why would I? I have about as much respect

> for their uninformed opinions as I do for the nearest cow's. I

> certainly don't give a hoot if they are " ready " to see my unfettered,

> natural (saggy) breasts or not. If it bothers them, they can look the

> other way.

>

> Theresa,

>

> Thanks for the tip on the book. Have already ordered it. Looks very

> interesting. As do many of those authors' other books.

>

> Thanks to all for making this OT into a lively, interesting

> discussion. I have to add that I've also noticed that, when I am at

> home in the buff, I don't get cold quite as readily as when I have

> some clothes on already. I tend to want to pile on more clothes when

> it gets colder, as soon as the thermostat wanders below 70 F, if I'm

> wearing clothes already. If I'm not, I see the thermometer going to 65

> F and much lower without the need to compensate with clothing or

> cover. Odd, that....

>

> Nice to work from home. Can't tell you how many times I've wandered

> down to my office in the morning with just a cotton T-shirt on and got

> started working, got enmeshed in it, only to realize that it was

> coming up on 3-4 PM when the UPS man was due, so I had to sprint

> upstairs to make myself a bit more 'presentable'. (Yes, yes, we live

> in the country...)

>

> Healthseeker

>

>

> > >

> > > I would like to add my own observations regarding possible causes

> > of breast

> > > cancer, if I may. I noticed many years ago that the slight pains I

> > would

> > > get almost daily in my breasts and underarms would disappear

> when I

> > removed

> > > my bra for extended periods of time (like over a weekend, when I

> > was just

> > > staying around the house, or when I was in bed with a cold or a

> flu

> > for a

> > > few days). This discovery, along with hearing and reading about

> how

> > people

> > > who discovered lumps in their breasts were immediately sent to get

> > their

> > > lymph nodes from under their arms biopsied, caused me to read up a

> > bit more

> > > about lymph nodes and their actual (known) functions at the time.

> > >

> > > I discovered that one of the main functions of the lymph nodes is

> > to act as

> > > a blood filtering/purifying system. And the lymph nodes under our

> > arm pits,

> > > in particular, act in such a way to keep the blood going to our

> > breasts pure

> > > and clean.

> > >

> > > This set me to thinking about the restrictive qualities of bras,

> > not so much

> > > on the breasts themselves, but the part that goes around the upper

> > abdomen

> > > and attaches in the back. This part is usually quite snug (it

> needs

> > to be,

> > > to provide the proper solid base for the rest of the garment,

> > otherwise it

> > > would slide around and there would be spillage all the time) and,

> > as such,

> > > it must restrict blood flow to some degree. And where would this

> > restriction

> > > occur, but right under the underarm lymph nodes.

> > >

> > > So what are these bras doing to us then? They restrict the flow of

> > blood to

> > > the lymph nodes, which in turn need that blood flowing freely in

> > order to

> > > perform their purifying functions properly. Just think how the

> > impurities

> > > must be clogging things up in there without sufficient blood flow

> > to carry

> > > oxygen, nutrients and all the necessary cleansing agents used by

> > the lymph

> > > nodes to perform their intended functions properly.

> > >

> > > I tested out my theory on myself over and over again. I wore my

> bra

> > for long

> > > stretches and noted the little pains that kept coming and going in

> > my

> > > underarms and breasts and how my underarm lymph nodes seemed

> > somewhat

> > > swollen when these pains occurred. Then I would stop wearing my

> bra

> > for

> > > weeks and months at a time and realize that these pains absolutely

> > ceased to

> > > manifest themselves when I did this. Also, my lymph nodes never

> felt

> > > enlarged either during these times. Just to be sure I was not in

> > the land

> > > of " coincidences " , I repeated this experiment many times, at

> > differing time

> > > intervals over several years, until I finally convinced myself,

> > that what I

> > > was experiencing was not due to any " coincidences " , but purely

> > > physiological, cause and effect reactions.

> > >

> > > Well, after becoming sure of this, beyond the shadow of a doubt, I

> > stopped

> > > wearing my bra almost completely. I only wear it very rarely in

> the

> > > summertime when I need to wear light clothing in public. Then, as

> > soon as I

> > > get back home, I remove the bra immediately and massage my

> underarm

> > lymph

> > > nodes for about 5-10 minutes on each side. This has been going on

> > for well

> > > over 15 years now. I have not had a single recurrence of pains in

> > my breasts

> > > or under my arms in all this time!

> > >

> > > It also occurs to me that the allopathic doctors (as usual), tend

> > to be

> > > throwing out the baby with the bathwater, when they carefully

> > remove all the

> > > lymph nodes from under the armpits when they are treating someone

> > for breast

> > > cancer. Seems to me they are effectively removing the filtration

> > system that

> > > keeps those breasts supplied with clean, life-giving blood. When

> > the trap in

> > > the sink gets clogged, you don't throw out the trap, you clean it

> > and make

> > > sure it can resume performing its given function again. Why can't

> > these

> > > learned men (women) figure this out and stop aggravating the

> > situation by

> > > removing women's defense systems (the lymph nodes), instead of

> > finding ways

> > > to rectify the damage (eliminate the cause of the obstruction) and

> > improve

> > > the situation?

> > >

> > > I guess the reason might be because Big Pharma won't make much

> > money on

> > > discarded undergarments...

> > >

> > > Healthseeker

> > >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

lol I love this discussion.

Thought I'd add that I read a report that says nursing doesn't increase sagginess, but just going through a pregnancy does. So whether you breastfeed or not, your sagginess factor is the same.

If you're worried about sagginess, the best thing to do is do some pectoral and shoulder exercises. Breasts hurting your back? Core exercises, which include your erector spinae, rectus abdominis, lattisimus dorsi (lats), and obliques.

Defninitely toxins, especially aluminum in deodorants and antiperspirants contribute to breast cancer, but to clog up the lymph nodes with those toxins just adds to that.

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 9:32 PM, Theresa <tgeorge1@...> wrote:

It's about time this list had a laugh or two - hope it does everyone alittle bit of good!And just for the record - I don't care what anybody thinks about my

sagging boobs which nursed continuously for 17 years. They did theirjob, and now I'm gonna take good care of them!lolt

On Nov 2, 2008, at 6:37 PM, Laurie wrote:> O.K girls I just gotta add my 2 cents to this!> Why do you think that God put us in the garden of Eden naked.....He> knew what was best. I blame the new designers as the fig leaf wasn't

> much support after the fall.> Now that I'm mid -age I'm afraid of the ol' ball in sock look as the> laws of gravity is working against me here! I wear a sports bra at> home but when I go out I like to keep them up where they belong.

> LOL Laurie>> > > > > >> > > > > > http://snipurl.com/4w9gx [www_feministpeacenetwork_org]> > > > > > *October 30th, 2008*

> > > > > > *National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Wrap-> > > > Up<http://www.feministpeacenetwork.org/2008/10/30/national-

> breast-> > > > cancer-awareness-month-wrap-up/>> > > > > > ***> > > > > >> > > > > > For the last several years, I have been spouting off about

> the> > > > > > hyper-commercialism and crass profiteering that has> pinkified the> > > > month of> > > > > > October for the supposed purpose of finding a cure for

> breast> > > > cancer. No> > > > > > doubt about it, pink products galore are available at any> retail> > > > > > establishment but it seems that things have been a bit less

> > > > absurd this year> > > > > > than in the past. Maybe it's the economy or the election or> just> > > > that even> > > > > > for a a good cause there is so much pepto pink schtuff we

> can be> > > > expected to> > > > > > buy.> > > > > > While I haven't had a chance to write about it, this year's> > > > women's mags

> > > > > > were far more temperate in their coverage, a bit more> realistic> > > > in talking> > > > > > about causes and there was less framing of breast cancer as

> a> > > > young pretty> > > > > > white girl's disease. Here's hoping that trend continues.> > > > > >> > > > > > I was also pleased to see *Rita Arditti's piece in the

> Boston> > > >> Globe*<http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articl> > > > es/2008/10/27/why_cancers_gaining_on_us/> discussing

> > > > > > the relationship between chemicals and breast cancer.> > > > > >> > > > > > She points out that,> > > > > > " Since World War II, the proliferation of synthetic

> chemicals has> > > > gone> > > > > > hand-in-hand with the increased incidence of breast cancer.> About> > > > 80,000> > > > > > synthetic chemicals are used today in the United States, and

> > > > their number> > > > > > increases by about 1,000 each year. Only about 7 percent of> them> > > > have been> > > > > > screened for their health effects. These chemicals can

> persist in> > > > the> > > > > > environment and accumulate in our bodies. According to a> recent> > > > review by> > > > > > the Silent Spring Institute in Newton, 216 chemicals and

> > > > radiation sources> > > > > > cause breast cancer in animals.> > > > > > Nearly all of the chemicals cause mutations, and most cause> > > > tumors in

> > > > > > multiple organs and animal species, findings that are> generally> > > > believed to> > > > > > indicate they likely cause cancer in humans. Yet few have

> been> > > > closely> > > > > > studied by regulatory bodies. There is concern about> benzene,> > > > which is in> > > > > > gasoline; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are in air

> > > > pollution from> > > > > > vehicle exhaust, tobacco smoke, and charred foods; ethylene> > > > oxide, which is> > > > > > widely used in medical settings; and methylene chloride, a

> common> > > > solvent in> > > > > > paint strippers and glues.> > > > > > There is also broad agreement that exposure over time to> natural> > > > estrogens

> > > > > > in the body increases the risk of breast cancer, so it is> > > > important to> > > > > > consider the role of synthetic estrogens in breast cancer> > > > development. Many

> > > > > > other chemicals, especially endocrine-disrupting compounds -> > > > chemicals that> > > > > > affect hormones, such as the ubiquitous bisphenol A, which

> is> > > > found in> > > > > > plastic bottles and cans - are also thought to raise breast> > > > cancer risk.> > > > > > Endocrine-disrupting compounds are present in many

> pesticides,> > > > fuels,> > > > > > plastics, air pollution, detergents, industrial solvents,> tobacco> > > > smoke,> > > > > > prescription drugs, food additives, metals, and personal-

> care> > > > products> > > > > > including sunscreens. " > > > > > >> > > > > > Bisphenol A or BPA is the chemical that the EPA continues to

> > > > claim is safe> > > > > > while other countries are moving to ban it. It is also> important> > > > to note> > > > > > that automotive companies are big donors to organizations

> like> > > > the Komen> > > > > > Foundation and Ford has created a cause-branding Warriors> in Pink> > > > line of> > > > > > clothing while this year BMW was offering to donate money

> to find> > > > a cure for> > > > > > test driving their toxic exhaust spewing vehicles. As I have> > > > said way too> > > > > > many times before, as long as the organizations that claim

> to be> > > > helping> > > > > > fight this disease take money from those whose products are> part> > > > of the> > > > > > problem, we will not be able to fully address the cause and

> until> > > > we do> > > > > > that, the 'cure' will just be a profitable farce that> bankrupts> > > > and kills> > > > > > women.

> > > > > >> > > > > > =====> > > > > >> > > > > > In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this> material is> > > > > > distributed without profit to those who have expressed a

> prior> > > > interest in> > > > > > receiving the included information for research and> educational> > > > purposes.> > > > > >> > > > > >

> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >

> > > >> > >> > >> > > ------------------------------------> > >> > >

[Guest guest]

CLOTHES ARE THE WORST THING FOR OUR SKIN. OUR SKIN IS OUR BIGGEST AND

MOST IMPORTANT ORGAN IN OUR BODIES. IT NEEDS A CONSTANT FLOW OF

OXYGEN TO IT TO BE AT ITS HEALTHIEST. CLOTHES RESTRICT THIS FLOW. SO

YES, WE WERE BORN NAKED AND WE SHOULD REMAIN THAT WAY OR AT LEAST IN

LIKE ROBES OR SOMETHING LIKE BIBLICAL TIMES WE ARE SO DUMBED DOWN

THAT WE DONT EVEN REALIZE WHATS UP. WHETHER ITS PANTIES, BRAS, JEANS,

SHORTS, SOCKS, SHOES, IT RESTRICTS THE FLOW OF OXYGEN TO OUR SKIN

THEREFORE ITS NO GOOD.

> >>> >

> >>> > > http://snipurl.com/4w9gx [www_feministpeacenetwork_org]

> >>> > > *October 30th, 2008*

> >>> > > *National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Wrap-

> >>> Up<http://www.feministpeacenetwork.org/2008/10/30/national-

breast-

> >>> cancer-awareness-month-wrap-up/>

> >>> > > ***

> >>> > >

> >>> > > For the last several years, I have been spouting off about

the

> >>> > > hyper-commercialism and crass profiteering that has

pinkified the

> >>> month of

> >>> > > October for the supposed purpose of finding a cure for

breast

> >>> cancer. No

> >>> > > doubt about it, pink products galore are available at any

retail

> >>> > > establishment but it seems that things have been a bit less

> >>> absurd this year

> >>> > > than in the past. Maybe it's the economy or the election or

just

> >>> that even

> >>> > > for a a good cause there is so much pepto pink schtuff we

can be

> >>> expected to

> >>> > > buy.

> >>> > > While I haven't had a chance to write about it, this year's

> >>> women's mags

> >>> > > were far more temperate in their coverage, a bit more

realistic

> >>> in talking

> >>> > > about causes and there was less framing of breast cancer as

a

> >>> young pretty

> >>> > > white girl's disease. Here's hoping that trend continues.

> >>> > >

> >>> > > I was also pleased to see *Rita Arditti's piece in the

Boston

> >>>

Globe*<http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articl

> >>> es/2008/10/27/why_cancers_gaining_on_us/> discussing

> >>> > > the relationship between chemicals and breast cancer.

> >>> > >

> >>> > > She points out that,

> >>> > > " Since World War II, the proliferation of synthetic

chemicals has

> >>> gone

> >>> > > hand-in-hand with the increased incidence of breast cancer.

About

> >>> 80,000

> >>> > > synthetic chemicals are used today in the United States, and

> >>> their number

> >>> > > increases by about 1,000 each year. Only about 7 percent of

them

> >>> have been

> >>> > > screened for their health effects. These chemicals can

persist in

> >>> the

> >>> > > environment and accumulate in our bodies. According to a

recent

> >>> review by

> >>> > > the Silent Spring Institute in Newton, 216 chemicals and

> >>> radiation sources

> >>> > > cause breast cancer in animals.

> >>> > > Nearly all of the chemicals cause mutations, and most cause

> >>> tumors in

> >>> > > multiple organs and animal species, findings that are

generally

> >>> believed to

> >>> > > indicate they likely cause cancer in humans. Yet few have

been

> >>> closely

> >>> > > studied by regulatory bodies. There is concern about

benzene,

> >>> which is in

> >>> > > gasoline; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are in air

> >>> pollution from

> >>> > > vehicle exhaust, tobacco smoke, and charred foods; ethylene

> >>> oxide, which is

> >>> > > widely used in medical settings; and methylene chloride, a

common

> >>> solvent in

> >>> > > paint strippers and glues.

> >>> > > There is also broad agreement that exposure over time to

natural

> >>> estrogens

> >>> > > in the body increases the risk of breast cancer, so it is

> >>> important to

> >>> > > consider the role of synthetic estrogens in breast cancer

> >>> development. Many

> >>> > > other chemicals, especially endocrine-disrupting compounds -

> >>> chemicals that

> >>> > > affect hormones, such as the ubiquitous bisphenol A, which

is

> >>> found in

> >>> > > plastic bottles and cans - are also thought to raise breast

> >>> cancer risk.

> >>> > > Endocrine-disrupting compounds are present in many

pesticides,

> >>> fuels,

> >>> > > plastics, air pollution, detergents, industrial solvents,

tobacco

> >>> smoke,

> >>> > > prescription drugs, food additives, metals, and personal-

care

> >>> products

> >>> > > including sunscreens. "

> >>> > >

> >>> > > Bisphenol A or BPA is the chemical that the EPA continues to

> >>> claim is safe

> >>> > > while other countries are moving to ban it. It is also

important

> >>> to note

> >>> > > that automotive companies are big donors to organizations

like

> >>> the Komen

> >>> > > Foundation and Ford has created a cause-branding Warriors

in Pink

> >>> line of

> >>> > > clothing while this year BMW was offering to donate money

to find

> >>> a cure for

> >>> > > test driving their toxic exhaust spewing vehicles. As I have

> >>> said way too

> >>> > > many times before, as long as the organizations that claim

to be

> >>> helping

> >>> > > fight this disease take money from those whose products are

part

> >>> of the

> >>> > > problem, we will not be able to fully address the cause and

until

> >>> we do

> >>> > > that, the 'cure' will just be a profitable farce that

bankrupts

> >>> and kills

> >>> > > women.

> >>> > >

> >>> > > =====

> >>> > >

> >>> > > In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this

material is

> >>> > > distributed without profit to those who have expressed a

prior

> >>> interest in

> >>> > > receiving the included information for research and

educational

> >>> purposes.

> >>> > >

> >>> > >

> >>> > >

> >>> >

> >>>

> >>>

> >>

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Clothes also protect our skin from the elements (sun, wind, etc) It's ridiculous to say clothes are the worst thing for our body. It's just a matter of wearing the proper clothing (natural material such as cotton-definitely not synthetics). Most people don't like cotton because it wrinkles and has to be ironed and they are too lazy to take the time. Also proper fitting clothing is a must. No more skin tight jeans and so forth. They are vulgar anyway.

The scriptures tells us how to dress:l 2:9haLikewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godlinesss

So please, gimme a break - it is obvious that we are to wear clothing.

Joyce

Re: OT - National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Wrap-Up

CLOTHES ARE THE WORST THING FOR OUR SKIN. OUR SKIN IS OUR BIGGEST AND MOST IMPORTANT ORGAN IN OUR BODIES. IT NEEDS A CONSTANT FLOW OF OXYGEN TO IT TO BE AT ITS HEALTHIEST. CLOTHES RESTRICT THIS FLOW. SO YES, WE WERE BORN NAKED AND WE SHOULD REMAIN THAT WAY OR AT LEAST IN LIKE ROBES OR SOMETHING LIKE BIBLICAL TIMES WE ARE SO DUMBED DOWN THAT WE DONT EVEN REALIZE WHATS UP. WHETHER ITS PANTIES, BRAS, JEANS, SHORTS, SOCKS, SHOES, IT RESTRICTS THE FLOW OF OXYGEN TO OUR SKIN THEREFORE ITS NO GOOD.> >>> >> >>> > > http://snipurl.com/4w9gx [www_feministpeacenetwork_org]> >>> > > *October 30th, 2008*> >>> > > *National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Wrap-> >>> Up<http://www.feministpeacenetwork.org/2008/10/30/national-breast-> >>> cancer-awareness-month-wrap-up/>> >>> > > ***> >>> > >> >>> > > For the last several years, I have been spouting off about the> >>> > > hyper-commercialism and crass profiteering that has pinkified the> >>> month of> >>> > > October for the supposed purpose of finding a cure for breast> >>> cancer. No> >>> > > doubt about it, pink products galore are available at any retail> >>> > > establishment but it seems that things have been a bit less> >>> absurd this year> >>> > > than in the past. Maybe it's the economy or the election or just> >>> that even> >>> > > for a a good cause there is so much pepto pink schtuff we can be> >>> expected to> >>> > > buy.> >>> > > While I haven't had a chance to write about it, this year's> >>> women's mags> >>> > > were far more temperate in their coverage, a bit more realistic> >>> in talking> >>> > > about causes and there was less framing of breast cancer as a> >>> young pretty> >>> > > white girl's disease. Here's hoping that trend continues.> >>> > >> >>> > > I was also pleased to see *Rita Arditti's piece in the Boston> >>> Globe*<http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articl> >>> es/2008/10/27/why_cancers_gaining_on_us/> discussing> >>> > > the relationship between chemicals and breast cancer.> >>> > >> >>> > > She points out that,> >>> > > "Since World War II, the proliferation of synthetic chemicals has> >>> gone> >>> > > hand-in-hand with the increased incidence of breast cancer. About> >>> 80,000> >>> > > synthetic chemicals are used today in the United States, and> >>> their number> >>> > > increases by about 1,000 each year. Only about 7 percent of them> >>> have been> >>> > > screened for their health effects. These chemicals can persist in> >>> the> >>> > > environment and accumulate in our bodies. According to a recent> >>> review by> >>> > > the Silent Spring Institute in Newton, 216 chemicals and> >>> radiation sources> >>> > > cause breast cancer in animals.> >>> > > Nearly all of the chemicals cause mutations, and most cause> >>> tumors in> >>> > > multiple organs and animal species, findings that are generally> >>> believed to> >>> > > indicate they likely cause cancer in humans. Yet few have been> >>> closely> >>> > > studied by regulatory bodies. There is concern about benzene,> >>> which is in> >>> > > gasoline; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are in air> >>> pollution from> >>> > > vehicle exhaust, tobacco smoke, and charred foods; ethylene> >>> oxide, which is> >>> > > widely used in medical settings; and methylene chloride, a common> >>> solvent in> >>> > > paint strippers and glues.> >>> > > There is also broad agreement that exposure over time to natural> >>> estrogens> >>> > > in the body increases the risk of breast cancer, so it is> >>> important to> >>> > > consider the role of synthetic estrogens in breast cancer> >>> development. Many> >>> > > other chemicals, especially endocrine-disrupting compounds -> >>> chemicals that> >>> > > affect hormones, such as the ubiquitous bisphenol A, which is> >>> found in> >>> > > plastic bottles and cans - are also thought to raise breast> >>> cancer risk.> >>> > > Endocrine-disrupting compounds are present in many pesticides,> >>> fuels,> >>> > > plastics, air pollution, detergents, industrial solvents, tobacco> >>> smoke,> >>> > > prescription drugs, food additives, metals, and personal-care> >>> products> >>> > > including sunscreens."> >>> > >> >>> > > Bisphenol A or BPA is the chemical that the EPA continues to> >>> claim is safe> >>> > > while other countries are moving to ban it. It is also important> >>> to note> >>> > > that automotive companies are big donors to organizations like> >>> the Komen> >>> > > Foundation and Ford has created a cause-branding Warriors in Pink> >>> line of> >>> > > clothing while this year BMW was offering to donate money to find> >>> a cure for> >>> > > test driving their toxic exhaust spewing vehicles. As I have> >>> said way too> >>> > > many times before, as long as the organizations that claim to be> >>> helping> >>> > > fight this disease take money from those whose products are part> >>> of the> >>> > > problem, we will not be able to fully address the cause and until> >>> we do> >>> > > that, the 'cure' will just be a profitable farce that bankrupts> >>> and kills> >>> > > women.> >>> > >> >>> > > =====> >>> > >> >>> > > In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is> >>> > > distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior> >>> interest in> >>> > > receiving the included information for research and educational> >>> purposes.> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>>> >>>> >>> > > >>

[Guest guest]

I know I had agreed that I wanted to drop the subject but.. I still

had some more Kudos to hand out...

A Kudos to you as well Joyce..

I agree...

Maybe we are born naked..and in the beginning people went around

naked.. Well... that is based on individual belief of

course..because nobody here lived in that time to really attest to

it..and not everyone has the same beliefs...

But..

I agree 100% on the fact that times have changed and it is not only

respectful of others but..also hygenic to wear underclothes..

Supposedly..back then..they woudn't have had all these toxins in

their food, environment and clothing (industrialization)...etc..so

they had nothing to protect themselves from..

In this day and age, since we do have all of this industrialization

causing more and more toxins to be brought into our world..we need

external protection from the ever existing toxins that can be taken

in via our exposed body parts...

Its just as important to prevent the toxins coming into the body as

letting them out of the body properly..

But maybe that might just be my perspective..

In any case.. I agree with your post Joyce

R

> > >>> >

> > >>> > > http://snipurl.com/4w9gx [www_feministpeacenetwork_org]

> > >>> > > *October 30th, 2008*

> > >>> > > *National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Wrap-

> > >>> Up<http://www.feministpeacenetwork.org/2008/10/30/national-

> breast-

> > >>> cancer-awareness-month-wrap-up/>

> > >>> > > ***

> > >>> > >

> > >>> > > For the last several years, I have been spouting off

about

> the

> > >>> > > hyper-commercialism and crass profiteering that has

> pinkified the

> > >>> month of

> > >>> > > October for the supposed purpose of finding a cure for

> breast

> > >>> cancer. No

> > >>> > > doubt about it, pink products galore are available at

any

> retail

> > >>> > > establishment but it seems that things have been a bit

less

> > >>> absurd this year

> > >>> > > than in the past. Maybe it's the economy or the

election or

> just

> > >>> that even

> > >>> > > for a a good cause there is so much pepto pink schtuff

we

> can be

> > >>> expected to

> > >>> > > buy.

> > >>> > > While I haven't had a chance to write about it, this

year's

> > >>> women's mags

> > >>> > > were far more temperate in their coverage, a bit more

> realistic

> > >>> in talking

> > >>> > > about causes and there was less framing of breast

cancer as

> a

> > >>> young pretty

> > >>> > > white girl's disease. Here's hoping that trend

continues.

> > >>> > >

> > >>> > > I was also pleased to see *Rita Arditti's piece in the

> Boston

> > >>>

>

Globe*<http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articl

> > >>> es/2008/10/27/why_cancers_gaining_on_us/> discussing

> > >>> > > the relationship between chemicals and breast cancer.

> > >>> > >

> > >>> > > She points out that,

> > >>> > > " Since World War II, the proliferation of synthetic

> chemicals has

> > >>> gone

> > >>> > > hand-in-hand with the increased incidence of breast

cancer.

> About

> > >>> 80,000

> > >>> > > synthetic chemicals are used today in the United

States, and

> > >>> their number

> > >>> > > increases by about 1,000 each year. Only about 7

percent of

> them

> > >>> have been

> > >>> > > screened for their health effects. These chemicals can

> persist in

> > >>> the

> > >>> > > environment and accumulate in our bodies. According to

a

> recent

> > >>> review by

> > >>> > > the Silent Spring Institute in Newton, 216 chemicals and

> > >>> radiation sources

> > >>> > > cause breast cancer in animals.

> > >>> > > Nearly all of the chemicals cause mutations, and most

cause

> > >>> tumors in

> > >>> > > multiple organs and animal species, findings that are

> generally

> > >>> believed to

> > >>> > > indicate they likely cause cancer in humans. Yet few

have

> been

> > >>> closely

> > >>> > > studied by regulatory bodies. There is concern about

> benzene,

> > >>> which is in

> > >>> > > gasoline; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are

in air

> > >>> pollution from

> > >>> > > vehicle exhaust, tobacco smoke, and charred foods;

ethylene

> > >>> oxide, which is

> > >>> > > widely used in medical settings; and methylene

chloride, a

> common

> > >>> solvent in

> > >>> > > paint strippers and glues.

> > >>> > > There is also broad agreement that exposure over time

to

> natural

> > >>> estrogens

> > >>> > > in the body increases the risk of breast cancer, so it

is

> > >>> important to

> > >>> > > consider the role of synthetic estrogens in breast

cancer

> > >>> development. Many

> > >>> > > other chemicals, especially endocrine-disrupting

compounds -

> > >>> chemicals that

> > >>> > > affect hormones, such as the ubiquitous bisphenol A,

which

> is

> > >>> found in

> > >>> > > plastic bottles and cans - are also thought to raise

breast

> > >>> cancer risk.

> > >>> > > Endocrine-disrupting compounds are present in many

> pesticides,

> > >>> fuels,

> > >>> > > plastics, air pollution, detergents, industrial

solvents,

> tobacco

> > >>> smoke,

> > >>> > > prescription drugs, food additives, metals, and

personal-

> care

> > >>> products

> > >>> > > including sunscreens. "

> > >>> > >

> > >>> > > Bisphenol A or BPA is the chemical that the EPA

continues to

> > >>> claim is safe

> > >>> > > while other countries are moving to ban it. It is also

> important

> > >>> to note

> > >>> > > that automotive companies are big donors to

organizations

> like

> > >>> the Komen

> > >>> > > Foundation and Ford has created a cause-branding

Warriors

> in Pink

> > >>> line of

> > >>> > > clothing while this year BMW was offering to donate

money

> to find

> > >>> a cure for

> > >>> > > test driving their toxic exhaust spewing vehicles. As I

have

> > >>> said way too

> > >>> > > many times before, as long as the organizations that

claim

> to be

> > >>> helping

> > >>> > > fight this disease take money from those whose products

are

> part

> > >>> of the

> > >>> > > problem, we will not be able to fully address the cause

and

> until

> > >>> we do

> > >>> > > that, the 'cure' will just be a profitable farce that

> bankrupts

> > >>> and kills

> > >>> > > women.

> > >>> > >

> > >>> > > =====

> > >>> > >

> > >>> > > In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this

> material is

> > >>> > > distributed without profit to those who have expressed

a

> prior

> > >>> interest in

> > >>> > > receiving the included information for research and

> educational

> > >>> purposes.

> > >>> > >

> > >>> > >

> > >>> > >

> > >>> >

> > >>>

> > >>>

> > >>

> > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I know I had agreed that I wanted to drop the subject but.. I still

had some more Kudos to hand out...

A Kudos to you as well Joyce..

I agree...

Maybe we are born naked..and in the beginning people went around

naked.. Well... that is based on individual belief of

course..because nobody here lived in that time to really attest to

it..and not everyone has the same beliefs...

But..

I agree 100% on the fact that times have changed and it is not only

respectful of others but..also hygenic to wear underclothes..

Supposedly..back then..they woudn't have had all these toxins in

their food, environment and clothing (industrialization)...etc..so

they had nothing to protect themselves from..

In this day and age, since we do have all of this industrialization

causing more and more toxins to be brought into our world..we need

external protection from the ever existing toxins that can be taken

in via our exposed body parts...

Its just as important to prevent the toxins coming into the body as

letting them out of the body properly..

But maybe that might just be my perspective..

In any case.. I agree with your post Joyce

R

> > >>> >

> > >>> > > http://snipurl.com/4w9gx [www_feministpeacenetwork_org]

> > >>> > > *October 30th, 2008*

> > >>> > > *National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Wrap-

> > >>> Up<http://www.feministpeacenetwork.org/2008/10/30/national-

> breast-

> > >>> cancer-awareness-month-wrap-up/>

> > >>> > > ***

> > >>> > >

> > >>> > > For the last several years, I have been spouting off

about

> the

> > >>> > > hyper-commercialism and crass profiteering that has

> pinkified the

> > >>> month of

> > >>> > > October for the supposed purpose of finding a cure for

> breast

> > >>> cancer. No

> > >>> > > doubt about it, pink products galore are available at

any

> retail

> > >>> > > establishment but it seems that things have been a bit

less

> > >>> absurd this year

> > >>> > > than in the past. Maybe it's the economy or the

election or

> just

> > >>> that even

> > >>> > > for a a good cause there is so much pepto pink schtuff

we

> can be

> > >>> expected to

> > >>> > > buy.

> > >>> > > While I haven't had a chance to write about it, this

year's

> > >>> women's mags

> > >>> > > were far more temperate in their coverage, a bit more

> realistic

> > >>> in talking

> > >>> > > about causes and there was less framing of breast

cancer as

> a

> > >>> young pretty

> > >>> > > white girl's disease. Here's hoping that trend

continues.

> > >>> > >

> > >>> > > I was also pleased to see *Rita Arditti's piece in the

> Boston

> > >>>

>

Globe*<http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articl

> > >>> es/2008/10/27/why_cancers_gaining_on_us/> discussing

> > >>> > > the relationship between chemicals and breast cancer.

> > >>> > >

> > >>> > > She points out that,

> > >>> > > " Since World War II, the proliferation of synthetic

> chemicals has

> > >>> gone

> > >>> > > hand-in-hand with the increased incidence of breast

cancer.

> About

> > >>> 80,000

> > >>> > > synthetic chemicals are used today in the United

States, and

> > >>> their number

> > >>> > > increases by about 1,000 each year. Only about 7

percent of

> them

> > >>> have been

> > >>> > > screened for their health effects. These chemicals can

> persist in

> > >>> the

> > >>> > > environment and accumulate in our bodies. According to

a

> recent

> > >>> review by

> > >>> > > the Silent Spring Institute in Newton, 216 chemicals and

> > >>> radiation sources

> > >>> > > cause breast cancer in animals.

> > >>> > > Nearly all of the chemicals cause mutations, and most

cause

> > >>> tumors in

> > >>> > > multiple organs and animal species, findings that are

> generally

> > >>> believed to

> > >>> > > indicate they likely cause cancer in humans. Yet few

have

> been

> > >>> closely

> > >>> > > studied by regulatory bodies. There is concern about

> benzene,

> > >>> which is in

> > >>> > > gasoline; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are

in air

> > >>> pollution from

> > >>> > > vehicle exhaust, tobacco smoke, and charred foods;

ethylene

> > >>> oxide, which is

> > >>> > > widely used in medical settings; and methylene

chloride, a

> common

> > >>> solvent in

> > >>> > > paint strippers and glues.

> > >>> > > There is also broad agreement that exposure over time

to

> natural

> > >>> estrogens

> > >>> > > in the body increases the risk of breast cancer, so it

is

> > >>> important to

> > >>> > > consider the role of synthetic estrogens in breast

cancer

> > >>> development. Many

> > >>> > > other chemicals, especially endocrine-disrupting

compounds -

> > >>> chemicals that

> > >>> > > affect hormones, such as the ubiquitous bisphenol A,

which

> is

> > >>> found in

> > >>> > > plastic bottles and cans - are also thought to raise

breast

> > >>> cancer risk.

> > >>> > > Endocrine-disrupting compounds are present in many

> pesticides,

> > >>> fuels,

> > >>> > > plastics, air pollution, detergents, industrial

solvents,

> tobacco

> > >>> smoke,

> > >>> > > prescription drugs, food additives, metals, and

personal-

> care

> > >>> products

> > >>> > > including sunscreens. "

> > >>> > >

> > >>> > > Bisphenol A or BPA is the chemical that the EPA

continues to

> > >>> claim is safe

> > >>> > > while other countries are moving to ban it. It is also

> important

> > >>> to note

> > >>> > > that automotive companies are big donors to

organizations

> like

> > >>> the Komen

> > >>> > > Foundation and Ford has created a cause-branding

Warriors

> in Pink

> > >>> line of

> > >>> > > clothing while this year BMW was offering to donate

money

> to find

> > >>> a cure for

> > >>> > > test driving their toxic exhaust spewing vehicles. As I

have

> > >>> said way too

> > >>> > > many times before, as long as the organizations that

claim

> to be

> > >>> helping

> > >>> > > fight this disease take money from those whose products

are

> part

> > >>> of the

> > >>> > > problem, we will not be able to fully address the cause

and

> until

> > >>> we do

> > >>> > > that, the 'cure' will just be a profitable farce that

> bankrupts

> > >>> and kills

> > >>> > > women.

> > >>> > >

> > >>> > > =====

> > >>> > >

> > >>> > > In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this

> material is

> > >>> > > distributed without profit to those who have expressed

a

> prior

> > >>> interest in

> > >>> > > receiving the included information for research and

> educational

> > >>> purposes.

> > >>> > >

> > >>> > >

> > >>> > >

> > >>> >

> > >>>

> > >>>

> > >>

> > >

> > >

> >

>