Fw: Dr Bate's weekly newsletter digest and editorial - 5-14-2011 - Toxic Stuff ( OFF TOPIC)

[Guest guest]

I believe that this is a very serious on going problem with food and drink

containers.

Doug

Dr Bate's weekly newsletter digest and editorial - 5-14-2011 - Toxic

Stuff

More and more people are sending me articles, and I thank them. I cannot

guarantee that all will be used, but I certainly appreciate the interest in

helping others shown by the members of this list.

---

Say What? A Chemical That Can Damage Your Lungs, Liver, and Kidneys and Still Be

Labeled " Non-Toxic " ?

By Monona Rossol

Bisphenol A, parabens, phthalates, formaldehyde, and on and on. Do they expect

us all to be chemists? I'm a chemist and even I don't want make every trip to

the store a research project. Why not just provide a simple label like

" nontoxic " that we can look for? Surely it is illegal to put a nontoxic label on

products containing known toxic or carcinogenic substances-especially on

children's products. Not so. And we all should know how we got into this mess.

Until the 1980s, even asbestos was a common ingredient in many products

including children's art materials. For example, one product was a powdered

papier-mâché product for children marketed by Milton Bradley. It contained about

50 percent asbestos powder. Called FibroClay, the asbestos-containing product

had a nontoxic approved product (AP) seal on it from the organization known

today as the Arts and Creative Materials Institute (ACMI).

Although the hazards of asbestos were known in the 1970s and the 1980s, the only

required toxicity tests for consumer products at the time were acute animal

tests. These tests involve a brief exposure to the test substance and

observation of the animals two weeks later. Because asbestos didn't immediately

poison the test animals, no law was broken by labeling this product " nontoxic. "

The asbestos problem and other labeling issues were raised by a group of

activists, including myself, when I worked with a nonprofit corporation later

known as the Center for Safety in the Arts. The center presented the problem to

the National Art Materials Trade Association (NAMTA) in 1979. NAMTA refused to

work with us to amend the labeling laws to cover chronic or long-term hazards,

however, so we took the issue to various states. We were joined by many groups,

including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association of School

Administrators, the American Public Health Association, and Artists Equity-a

huge coalition of trade associations, health professionals, and artists. Yet the

U.S. Public Interest Research Group and its many state offices became the

backbone of the lobbying efforts.

Seven state legislatures understood the insanity of labeling products " nontoxic "

when they contain known carcinogens and passed laws that required the chronic

hazard labeling of art materials. These states were California, Connecticut,

Florida, Illinois, Oregon, Tennessee, and Virginia, and others considered

similar legislation. Each state had slightly different requirements, which made

it almost impossible for manufacturers to design a label that met all of the

different rules. At this point, even NAMTA decided that it would be better to

have a federal law to address this issue with a single set of regulations.

Within a few years, a bill was drafted and introduced.

On October 19, 1988, Congress passed the Labeling of Hazardous Art Materials Act

(LHAMA). Some of the provisions of LHAMA included requiring manufacturers to

determine whether their products contained chronic hazards; requiring labeling

on those products with chronic hazards, which included a statement that these

products were inappropriate for children; prohibiting the purchase of such

materials for use by children in grade six and below; and adopting the labeling

procedures developed by the American Society of Testing and Materials for the

labeling of chronic hazards in art materials, ASTM D 4236.

This sounds good so far, but there was a flaw in the ASTM D 4236 standard that

none of us appreciated fully at the time. This standard requires a review of the

list of ingredients by a toxicologist, who will then select the proper warning

phrases and certify that this labeling will provide users with the information

they need to use the product safely. If the toxicologist thinks there are no

significant hazards, no warnings are required. His or her determination should

be reached without any personal conflict of interest. But the flaw in this

procedure is that the certifying toxicologist is paid for this work by the art

material manufacturers-and handsomely.

The art material manufacturer is the toxicologist's client, either directly or

through a certifying organization such as the ACMI. The more clients a

toxicologist or a certifying agency has, the greater the revenues, so pleasing

the client is an important objective. A serious conflict of interest is built

into the regulation.

(We saw the same sort of problem with Enron's accountants and the bond rating

agencies during the banking crisis.) Some certifying agencies such as the ACMI

developed seals of approval that included the word " nontoxic. " This word is not

one of the label terms in ASTM D 4236, but it has been used so often by

certifiers that schools to this day often require their art supplies to be

labeled " nontoxic. " In my opinion, very toxic art materials were and are still

labeled " nontoxic " as a result of this conflict of interest.

Just what does the " nontoxic " label really mean? To understand, we first need to

learn the vocabulary of toxicology and discover the many different ways a

substance can be toxic.

Defining Toxic

Asbestos is an extreme example, which I use here and in my book Pick Your

Poison: How Our Mad Dash to Chemical Utopia is Making Lab Rats of Us All to make

a point, but many other " nontoxic " products could be full of toxic chemicals.

I'm hoping this essay leaves you with a general distrust of the nontoxic label,

both in the past and currently. When you see " nontoxic " on a product, keep the

following facts in mind:

" Nontoxic " can still legally mean that there are no immediate, acute hazardsas

determined by the LD50 and LC50 tests.

" Nontoxic " may mean there are little or no chronic data available on the

substance. If the substance is not acutely toxic, and one can't prove it is

toxic in the long term, many manufacturers feel that they have the right to call

it nontoxic.

Even if there are studies showing that the substance is toxic,

manufacturers in the United States have traditionally waited for absolute,

unequivocal proof, which in most cases is never available because we don't study

our chemicals.

An art material is " nontoxic " if a toxicologist paid by the manufacturer decides

it is safe. The dramatic failure in this labeling procedure was illustrated with

the lead ceramic glazes and asbestos-containing materials such as talc.

Asbestos-containing talcs are still found in some art and craft

materials today. Some art materials that have never been evaluated by a

toxicologist may be

labeled " nontoxic " illegally due to weak enforcement of the art materials

labeling law. For example, in 1995, a cameraman and a reporter from Channel 9 in

New York went with me to a major art materials outlet. That night on the evening

news, we showed viewers about a dozen imported products that did not conform to

the law, some labeled " nontoxic, " which were being sold illegally. This is still

true today, and a little research will lead you to many sources of noncompliant

" nontoxic " products.

Labeling of ordinary consumer products is pretty much up to the manufacturer and

its paid advisers. Because there is no enforcement mechanism in the regulations

for the chronic hazard labeling of ordinary consumer products, there is not much

incentive to provide warnings.

There is no regulatory requirement to warn consumers about damage to most of the

body's organs, such as the lungs, the liver, and the kidneys. Only four types of

chronic hazards are covered by the Federal Hazardous Substances Act

regulations. These are cancer, and developmental, reproductive, and neurological

damage.

Lawsuits are just about the only recourse for the public. Manufacturers often

say that they fear lawsuits and that's why they do a good job of labeling. But

in the case of chronic health effects that don't appear for ten to forty years,

a company's CEO who makes false statements on a product label is not at risk

from lawsuits. He will have his retirement income and his bonuses and be living

in the Bahamas before the first case is filed.

Toxic Intake

Chemical toxicity is dependent on the dose, the amount of the chemical that

enters the body. Each chemical produces harm at a different dose. Highly toxic

chemicals cause serious damage with only tiny doses. Moderately and slightly

toxic substances are toxic at relatively higher doses. Even substances

considered nontoxic can be harmful if the exposure is great enough. This is how

people die even from drinking too much water. Overdosing on water can be called

hydroneutremia, hypoxic encephalopathy, or water

intoxication. It can happen when athletes replace water they lose from sweating

without replacing electrolytes, when psychiatric patients abuse water, or when

the drug Ecstasy impairs people's judgment about the amount of water they've

had. Water can also be used to murder someone. On March 26, 2003, eleven members

of the Psi Epsilon Chi fraternity at the State University of New York College at

Plattsburgh were collectively charged with 150 crimes, including criminally

negligent homicide. A police investigation found that the members hazed a

student, Walter Dean Jennings, by forcing him to drink gallons of water poured

through a funnel.

Compare the toxic dose of water needed to kill a person with the tiny doses of

extraordinarily toxic substances that can kill. A fatal dose of ricin, a

chemical extracted from castor bean plants, can fit on the head of a pin.

Chemical toxicity is also dependent on the length of time over which exposure

occurs. The effects of short and long periods of exposure differ dramatically.

Often the same chemical can produce what appear to be very different diseases,

depending on the length of time over which the dose or doses were delivered.

Most of these two types of diseases can be divided into acute or chronic

illnesses.

Acute illnesses are caused by large doses of toxic substances delivered in a

short period of time. The symptoms from short-term exposures usually occur

during or right after the exposure and last only a brief time. Depending on the

dose, the outcome can vary from complete recovery, to recovery with some level

of disability, to-at worst-death.

Acute illnesses are the easiest to diagnose because their cause and effect are

easily linked. For example, a glue sniffer who huffs solvents such as paint

thinner or gasoline is immediately affected. Depending on the dose, symptoms

begin with lightheadedness and a " high " feeling. If exposure continues, it may

lead to more severe effects, such as headache, nausea, and loss of coordination.

At even higher doses, unconsciousness and death could result. Repeated low-dose

exposures over many months or years can cause chronic effects. They are the most

difficult to diagnose. Usually, the symptoms are hardly noticeable until severe

permanent damage has occurred. Symptoms appear very slowly, may vary from person

to person, and may mimic other illnesses.

If the same solvents that made the glue sniffer high are put in an industrial

paint and if many workers use this paint for decades, significant numbers of

these workers will develop chronic illnesses. The illnesses will not be the same

for all workers. For instance, chronic exposure to solvents during a lifetime of

painting may produce dermatitis in some individuals, chronic liver or kidney

effects in others, and nervous system damage in still others.

The most common disease among industrial painters, however, is a type of brain

and nervous system damage that causes coordination problems, short-term memory

loss, and clinical depression. This is a combination of symptoms recognized by

workers' compensation boards as a consequence of exposure to organic chemical

solvents. Yet these are the same symptoms seen in alcoholics. When you dry out

an alcoholic, you don't suddenly find him transformed into a happy camper. He

usually has subtle coordination deficits, short-term memory loss, and clinical

depression. He may go right from taking antiabuse drugs to antidepressants. It

is now clear that all solvents, including grain alcohol in excess, can cause

narcosis and will damage the brain and the nervous system permanently over time.

Other effects in varying degrees of severity can also occur. They fall in a

range that is partway between acute and chronic, such as " subacute " effects

produced over weeks or months at lower doses than those that cause acute

effects.

Such in-between effects are also difficult to diagnose. Lead is a good example

of a substance that produces these in-between effects. Acute lead poisoning

will bring about severe diarrhea, vomiting, and central nervous system

depression in extremely high doses, even killing you. Low-level chronic exposure

causes IQ deficits that may not even be noticed by the victim. Yet the lead

exposure levels in between acute and low-level chronic doses can produce a

baffling array of symptoms, from alternating diarrhea and constipation to high

blood pressure and kidney problems, nerve conductivity decreases, and a wide

range of mental states, from irritability to outright craziness. Several cases

of lead poisoning of which I am personally aware were first suspected by smart

professionals in the mental health field. Blood tests later confirmed their

suspicions that their patients' mental faculties were actually being affected by

lead.

Every chemical is eliminated from the body at a different rate. Cumulative

toxins, such as lead, are eliminated slowly. Repeated exposure will cause them

to accumulate in the body. The rate at which each chemical is eliminated from

the body is called its " toxic substance half-life. " Alcohol, for example, has a

very short half-life. If you don't test a suspected drunk driver's blood within

hours, the amount of alcohol in the blood will drop greatly. Other chemicals,

such as lead, have a much longer half-life. Once the lead leaves your

bloodstream and deposits in your bones, the lead has a twenty-five-year

half-life in your body. This means that only half of the dose of lead you

absorbed today from your food, air, and water will be excreted over the next

twenty-five

years. Lead is considered a cumulative toxic substance because the lead

deposited in your body leaves so slowly that each successive dose adds to the

amount that is retained.

Every single chemical has its own unique half-life in the body. There is a

complete range of half-lives, from extremely short to almost a lifetime and

everything in between. Chemicals with short half-lives cannot be found on

medical tests unless you are tested shortly after exposure. Yet although the

toxic chemical is not accumulating, the damage it does to your body may be

increasing. For example, a retired industrial painter will not have any solvents

in his or her body, but the damage to the liver, the kidneys, and the central

nervous system caused by the solvents may persist and be permanent. There is no

way to physically prove that the damage was from the solvent exposure, however,

other than through the work records of the individual.

The total body burden is the total amount of a chemical that is present in the

body from all sources. For example, we all have body burdens of lead from air,

water, and food contamination. If we also work with lead-containing materials on

the job, this exposure can add to the body's burden. To determine the body

burden of any single substance, we must know all of the exposures to that

substance. Today, we are carrying body burdens of many chemicals and are often

exposed to more than one chemical at a time. These chemicals may interact in the

body in two primary ways: additively and synergistically. Exposure to two

chemicals is considered additive when one chemical contributes to or adds to the

toxic effects of the other. This can occur when both chemicals affect the body

in similar ways.

Working with paint thinner and drinking alcohol is an example because both the

paint thinner and the alcohol affect the body in similar ways. Synergistic

effects occur when two chemicals produce an effect that is greater than the

total effects of each alone. For example, many deaths were caused when people

consumed what was considered a socially acceptable amount of alcoholic beverages

and then took a prescribed dose of barbiturate sleeping pills. Now that the

synergistic effect of these two substances is understood, there are warnings

about drinking alcohol while taking medications such as barbiturates.

Many chemicals are similar. Old-timers like me remember a solvent called carbon

tetrachloride. It was available in gallon cans in every hardware store and was

used to remove and thin paint, to clean fabrics, to remove tar, and for a host

of other tasks. Most fire extinguishers also contained this chemical. It is not

available now because it was found to be synergistic with alcohol. People who

drank a few beers while using carbon tetrachloride could end up dead. This is

why it is one of the very few chemicals banned by the Federal Hazardous

Substances Act for use in consumer products.

The problem is that synergistic chemicals are usually identified only after

there is evidence in the form of human exposures. When there is a high-enough

pile of dead people, experts can be motivated to study the effects of the two

chemicals and their interactions in the body. Only a tiny fraction of the

chemicals in commerce have been studied for long-term effects-even one at a ime.

Clearly, there is no plan to start studying all of these chemicals two at a

time, to discover their synergistic effects. So, once again, we are the guinea

pigs.

I am personally very concerned about the synergistic effects of chemicals that

were inhaled by people, including myself, who lived in Lower Manhattan around

September 11, 2001. We now know that the dust from the collapse of the World

Trade Center contained hundreds of toxic chemicals from the fallen buildings.

Five buildings, two of them skyscrapers, were essentially ground to a powder. he

hundreds of chemicals came from all of the cement, asbestos insulation,

fiberglass insulation, computers and their monitors, windows, fluorescent

lights, plastics, plywood and paneling, and much more. Then the pile burned for

more than two months. The fire was so hot deep underground that even metal beams

melted. Many of the first responders and the workers who labored there in the

months after 9/11 are now sick, and some have died. In January, 2011, President

Obama signed the 4.2 billion dollar Zadroga 9/11 Health Compensation Act

to address the health problems in these workers. The synergistic effects of that

soup of chemicals to which they were exposed are clearly part of the problem.

Unlike ordinary toxic substances, the effects of carcinogens are not strictly

dependent on the dose. No level of exposure is considered safe. Yet, the lower

the dose, the lower the risk of developing cancer. For this reason, exposure to

carcinogens should be avoided altogether or kept as

low as possible. No dose of a carcinogen is considered safe because,

theoretically, it takes only a single molecule of a carcinogen in the right

person, in the right place in a cell, to change the cell's genetic blueprint

(DNA) and reprogram it as a cancer cell. Obviously, we can't be fanatical about

single molecule exposures, but it does explain why, no matter how low the dose,

if a large-enough population is exposed, someone will get cancer.

There are several mechanisms by which cancer is caused, other than by a toxin

directly affecting a cell's DNA. For example, some substances irritate or damage

organ tissues so they must repeatedly repair and regrow themselves.

When cells in the body have to divide rapidly during regrowth, there is a

greater risk that one of the cells will not divide properly and will create a

cancer cell instead.

Occupational cancers typically occur five to forty years after someone has been

exposed to a toxic substance. This period of time, during which there are no

symptoms, is referred to as a latency period. Latency usually makes the

diagnosis of occupational cancers very difficult. For example, the latency

period for getting lung cancer after exposure to asbestos is ten to twenty

years, while the latency period for developing mesothelioma from asbestos

exposure is twenty to forty years.

Chemicals that affect fetal organ development-that is, chemicals that cause

birth defects-are called teratogens. They are hazardous primarily during the

first trimester. Two proven human teratogens include the drug thalidomide and

grain alcohol. Chemicals that are known to cause birth defects in animals are

considered " suspect teratogens. " Among these are many solvents, lead, and other

metals.

Often the teratogen is capable of causing damage only at a particular stage in

the pregnancy. For example, thalidomide can cause limbs to fail to form only

when the mother is exposed between the twentieth and the thirty-sixth day of

pregnancy, while the fetus's arms and leg buds are forming. Before or after

these dates, thalidomide is harmless to the fetus.

The selectivity of teratogens will complicate any studies that attempt to

determine reasons for the increase in autism, hyperactivity, and learning

difficulties in children. The important factor is not only what the mother was

exposed to; it is also likely to depend on exactly when she was exposed and what

systems in the brain were being formed at that time. If these afflictions are

due to the child being exposed after birth, it will have to be a significant

exposure at exactly the time when certain brain development phases are

occurring. Toxic chemicals can affect the growth and the development of the

fetus at any stage of development. Lead, for example, not only damages the

fetus, it damages children and adults at any stage of life. Toxic effects to the

fetus can result from very small exposures to the mother at any time during

pregnancy.

Now that we've seen how very complex toxicity is, we can look at how inadequate

product label regulations are in providing warnings. The consumer label

regulations are found in the United States Federal Hazardous Substances Act.

These rules primarily require toxic warnings on products that are capable of

causing acute (sudden onset) hazards.

Hazardous products are identified in the regulations by tests that expose

animals to a single dose or period of exposure by skin or eye contact,

inhalation, and ingestion. These tests are called the lethal dose (LD) tests by

ingestion, skin, or eye contact or the lethal concentration (LC) tests by

inhalation. The LD50 test by ingestion, for example, would be the test at a

single dose that kills 50 percent of the test animals within two weeks of

administration. To be " nontoxic, " the dose that kills 50 percent of the rats

must be equal to or greater than 5 grams per kilogram of body weight. In other

words, if 50 percent of the rats manage to survive for two weeks after receiving

a large dose of 5 grams per kilogram of body weight, the toxicologist can call

it " nontoxic. "

Remember that this testing will only find the dose that kills half of the test

group, not the dose that kills one animal. And it's only testing for acute

reactions. For example, the powdered asbestos discussed at the beginning of this

chapter was labeled " nontoxic, " based on all of the LD50 and LC50 tests, because

all of the animals would appear healthy after exposure. Cancer takes much longer

to develop.

A for chronic hazards, the Federal Hazardous Substances Act was amended in the

1990s to include four types of chronic hazard: cancer, and developmental,

reproductive, and neurological damage. If the chemicals damage our livers or any

other organs not covered by the law, tough luck. Add to this the fact that the

Chemical Abstract Service (www.cas.org) has registered over 59,000,000 chemicals

while only about 1000 chemicals have evaluated for cancer effects worldwide.

This means the vast majority of the chemicals we use have never been tested for

cancer or any other chronic effects!

Even the trade secret organic pigments and dyes in children's paints and crayons

are untested. These products are not made with food grade dyes-and some mothers

would need to know if they were because of their child's particular

sensitivities. Instead, these toxicologist-certified art products containing

untested colorants are labeled " nontoxic. " We should ask the toxicologists to

show us how they mathematically calculate the risk assessment required by law

for pigments on which there is no toxicity data! It's impossible.

Many highly toxic substances have been and still are used in art materials. This

will always be the case, because colors that will remain unfaded on paintings

for hundreds of years require the use of substances such as lead, cadmium,

chromium, cobalt, and a host of other toxic metals and some very complex organic

chemical pigments. There is no way to make traditional art materials " green. "

Yet if toxic substances must be used, the labels should provide the information

and the warnings that consumers need to use them safely. When it comes to

children's art materials, toxic pigments should not be used at all. After all,

how long does your child's grade school artwork have to remain unfaded on the

refrigerator door?

Monona Rossol is the author of Pick Your Poison: How Our Mad Dash to Chemical

Utopia is Making Lab Rats of Us All (Wiley, 2011).

---

Alternate Health Digest

---

From Natural News:

TEPCO confirms Fukushima suffered nuclear meltdown

http://www.naturalnews.com/032378_nuclear_meltdown_TEPCO.html

---

Can drinking coffee reduce your risk of cancer?

http://www.naturalnews.com/032371_coffee_breast_cancer.html

---

Documentary on false philosophy of science - the philosophical pretext for

genocide

http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=E3B38227225F9FC62BAEA9CC81BE1D12

---

why isn't democracy working for America?

http://www.naturalnews.com/032346_democracy_America.html

---

Many conventional farmers and ranchers won't even eat their own food

http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=2B8905351E28D05F8B2A7A0FF65BBEF2

---

What is " Meat glue "

http://www.naturalnews.com/032315_meat_industry_secrets.html

---

From Dr Mercola:

---

The Protein Powder You Should Never, Ever Buy

http://fitness.mercola.com/sites/fitness/archive/2011/05/11/whey-protein-shown-s\

uperior-to-other-milk-proteins-for-building-muscle.aspx

---

The 7 Tricks Restaurants Play to Separate You From Your Money

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/05/10/7-ways-restaurant-\

menus-trick-you-to-spend-more.aspx

---

Avoid THESE Medical Treatments Whenever Possible

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/05/09/unnecessary-proced\

ures-hospitalizations-drugs-drive-up-health-care-costs.aspx

---

They Cause 40,000 Deaths a Year - But They're Handed Out Like Candy

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/05/03/tips-to-avoiding-d\

epression.aspx

---

From Dr Bate:

---

I know that some people are tired of my " preaching " about vitamin C, but here's

a host of facts from the Vitamin C Foundation which if known to all, would cost

Big Pharma billions is lost revenue, while making less people die, and more

people with better health. That's why there are so many lies and phony research

that denies the use of vitamin C. Here's some reading that may open some eyes.

I heartily endorse this for all.

http://www.vitamincfoundation.org/

---

From Orthomolecula rMedicine News:

---

Radioactive Fallout: Can Nutritional Supplements Help?

https://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#label/Health+Articles/12fe39ca2fe73748

---

From Kravita of Int Psy:

---

Feds Cover-up 80+ Cases of Vaccine Caused Autism*

http://capwiz.com/a-champ/issues/alert/?alertid=45684501 & queueid=[capwiz:queue_i\

d]

---

I have offered my Neuroliminal Training " Special " at a $50 discount to all

Groups this newsletter goes to, and to this newsletter's subscribers. If

interested, go to www.drbate.com/terms.html, scroll down to the bottom PayPal

icon, Click on it, Type in Special, and $127, and it'll go thru.

---

That's it for this edition. I hope, as usual that you found something in it

that helps you and yours to better health. Please feel free to forward it to

anyone that might be helped.

---

962 Rolling Wood Loop #120

Castleberry FL, 32707

To unsubscribe or change subscriber options visit:

http://www.aweber.com/z/r/?zOyMTCystKxMjOxMnKwctEa0nBxsHCxsDA==