Social websites "toxic" to children's brains....

Sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Bebo are said to shorten attention spans, encourage instant gratification and make young people more self-centred.

 

Experts are concerned children's online social interactions can 'rewire' the brain

'We are seeing children's brain development damaged because they don't engage in the activity they have engaged in for millennia.

Social networking websites are causing alarming changes in the brains of young users, an eminent scientist has warned.

 

'I'm not against technology and computers. But before they start social networking, they need to learn to make real relationships with people.'

 

The claims from neuroscientist Susan Greenfield will make disturbing reading for the millions whose social lives depend on logging on to their favourite websites each day.

Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg. The popular website has made him a very rich man, but at what cost to human relationships?

 

But they will strike a chord with parents and teachers who complain that many youngsters lack the ability to communicate or concentrate away from their screens.

 

More than 150million use Facebook to keep in touch with friends, share photographs and videos and post regular updates of their movements and thoughts.

 

A further six million have signed up to Twitter, the 'micro-blogging' service that lets users circulate text messages about themselves.

 

But while the sites are popular - and extremely profitable - a growing number of psychologists and neuroscientists believe they may be doing more harm than good.

 

Baroness Greenfield, an Oxford University neuroscientist and director of the Royal Institution, believes repeated exposure could effectively 'rewire' the brain.

Read more at the daily mail

 

 

"EPA: Air Tests Near Schools a Priority"

Blake Morrison and Brad Heath report for USA TODAY

"In an unprecedented step aimed at protecting children from toxic chemicals, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is expected to announce plans Monday to determine whether industrial pollution taints the air outside schools across the nation. The EPA plan, promised by new administrator Lisa Jackson during her Senate confirmation hearings in January, calls for regulators to identify 50 to 100 schools where pollution might pose significant health risks. At many of those locations, the agency will work with state and local regulators to monitor the air for a variety of toxic chemicals. The agency could begin taking air samples within five weeks and may release some results within a few months. The cost of the effort is expected to be about $2.5 million and will be funded 'through redirecting resources from the current budget as well as from the next fiscal year,' says EPA spokesman Allyn Brooks-LaSure. 'This is a priority.'"

"Congress Considers Reform of U.S. Chemicals Control Law "

J.R. Pegg reports for Environment News Service  "The U.S. chemical regulatory system is failing to protect public health and the environment and is in dire need of reform, experts told a House panel Thursday. The legal hurdles of existing law make it virtually impossible for the federal government to limit or ban the use of toxic chemicals or to even obtain the information needed to devise effective regulations, several witnesses testified before a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee. The hearing focused on the effectiveness of the Toxic Substances Control Act. Enacted in 1976, the statute gave the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate chemicals. But the agency has only required testing for some 200 of the more than 82,000 chemicals in commerce and has issued regulations to control only five existing chemicals."

Canada Declares Chemicals Used in Cosmetics to Be Toxics

OTTAWA, Ontario, Canada, January 30, 2009 (ENS) - The Canadian government today declared two chemicals used in lipstick and other personal care products to be toxic to the environment, although officials said they are not used in large enough quantities to be of concern for human health. Two other chemicals used in cosmetics were found to be harmful to human health.

 

Canada's declaration is the first environmental or health-based determination concerning these chemicals issued by any country.

 

The two personal care chemicals of concern for the environment are the siloxanes D4 and D5. Used as emollients to soften the skin, siloxanes are found in most personal care products on the market in Canada and the United States.

 

The siloxanes are also used in textiles, paints and coatings, antiperspirants, sealants, lubricants, plastics, non-medical ingredients in pharmaceuticals, silicone polymers, food additives, surface treatments for wounds, and medical devices.

 

While not believed to be harmful to health, because these chemicals enter the environment in large quantities, persist in the environment, bioaccumulate up the food chain and may harm fish and aquatic organisms, Canada is proposing to set concentration limits for them.

 

This will minimize the amount of D4 and D5 in personal care products that is released to municipal wastewater streams when they are washed off. The government also proposes to regulate the amounts of D4 and D5 that are released to the environment manufacturing process wastewater.

 

Two other substances used in cosmetics were found to be of concern for human health - isoprene and epichlorohydrin - both considered to be human carcinogens.

 

They will be added to the Cosmetic Ingredient Hotlist to prevent their future use in cosmetics. For isoprene, Health Canada is proposing that manufacturers use best-available technology to control releases.

 

Environment Minister Jim Prentice and Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq announced the findings of toxicity today as they released final conclusions and initial risk management approaches for Batch 2 substances in Canada's Chemicals Management Plan

 

"The government of Canada is doing its part to protect Canada's environment from the harmful effects of chemical substances,

 

In the United States, environmentalists called on the federal government to undertake similar evaluations.

 

"Today's move by Canada is not only important for the health of its citizens, it helps underscore the need for real reforms within the EPA's failed programs to regulate toxins in the U.S.," said Jane Houlihan, vice president for research with the Environmental Working Group based in Washington, DC.

 

"Congress and President [Barack] Obama need to overhaul broken toxics laws," she said....

Read full from  Environment News Service (ENS)

 

Old but important news about Toxic plastic island

Six times more plastic than plankton in the Pacific Ocean

From greenchange

Mercury in nearly half the samples of high fructose corn syrup

Mercury was found in nearly fifty percent of tested samples of commercial high fructose corn syrup According to an article published in the scientific journal, Environmental Health.

A separate study detected mercury in nearly one third of fifty-five popular brand name foods and beverages where HFCS is the first or second highest labeled ingredient.

According to David Wallinga, M.D., from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy,

"Mercury is toxic in all its forms.  Given how much high fructose corn syrup is consumed by children, it could be a significant additional source of mercury never before considered."

"Toxic Chinese drywall" used in cheap homebuilding industry is causing serious health problems, destroying TVs and computers, corroding metal, pipes, electrical wiring and jewelry.

"Toxic Chinese drywall" used in cheap homebuilding industry is causing serious health problems, destroying TVs and computers, corroding metal, pipes, electrical wiring and jewelry. Read from heraldtribune

 

 

From comments - ...Apparently when you buy your goods from china, you don't care what THEY are doing to our global environment. You just care how to save a buck... would these people still have bought their homes if it cost another 10,000 for American made drywall? I think they would rather buy their home cheaper...then worry about the problem.

We do business with China...but not Cuba??? Give me a break. If you go out to eat, and every time you go to the same place, and the food tastes crappy, would you not go somewhere else?

Government report slams EPA, calls for overhaul of toxic chemical review

By Meg Kissinger of the Journal Sentinel

The Government Accounting Office is out with a scathing indictment of the Bush era's treatment of toxic chemicals. The report takes on the very issues that we have been writing about for more than a year in our series "Chemical Fallout."

The report slams the Environmental Protection Agency, saying it does not have sufficient information to adequately protect the public from chemicals that may pose substantial health risks. The government watchdog identifies chemical safety as one of three areas in need of a major overhaul -- including the nation's financial system and oversight of medical products. Read more about it later today on JSOnline and in Saturday's Journal Sentinel.

10 Cancer-Causers to Remove From Your Home

By Melissa Breyer, Senior Editor, Care2

Given poor government regulation, many of the cleaning products available on the market contain “everyday” carcinogens such as formaldehyde, nitrobenzene, methylene chloride, and napthelene, as well as reproductive toxins and hormone disruptors. Not to mention other ingredients that cause liver, kidney and brain damage, allergies and asthma. I really am a happy person–not your basic Eeyore type, but toxic cleaning products seriously get my goat.

But there are a host of products, other than those used for basic cleaning, that often contain carcinogenics. This list, from Cancer: 101 Solutions to a Preventable Epidemic (New Society Publishers, 2007) by Liz Armstrong et al, cautions against ten household products, in addition to cleaners, that you should avoid having in your house.

1. Air fresheners: Often contain napthelene and formaldehyde. Try zeolite or natural fragrances from essential oils. For more information, see Easy Greening: Air Fresheners.

2. Art supplies: Epoxy and rubber cement glues, acrylic paints and solvents, and permanent markers often contain carcinogens. For more information, see Arts and Crafts: Make it Safe.

3. Automotive supplies: Most are toxic. Keep them safely away from the house and dispose of at a hazardous waste disposal center.

4. Candles: Avoid artificially scented parafin candles that produce combustion by-products, including soot. Beeswax only, with cotton wicks. For more on beeswax candles, see The Brilliant Beeswax Candle.

5. Carpet and upholstery shampoos: Use only wet-clean, natural ingredients. For DIY carpet cleaning, see How to Remove Stains and Pet Odors from Carpets.

6. Dry-cleaning: Choose clothes that don’t need perchlorethylene to clean them. Ask for the wet-cleaning option at you local cleaners, or seek dry-cleaners that use liquid C)2 or citrus juice cleaners. For more information, see Healthy and Green Dry Cleaning.

7. Flea, tick and lice control: Avoid lindane-based pesticides. FOrm more information, see Natural Flea and Tick Contol.

8. Paints and varnishes: Always chose low- or no-VOC finsihes. For more information, see Is Your Paint Making You Sick?

9. Household pesticides: Go natural. Make a Sugar Ant Hotel.

10. Microwaves: Never microwave or heat food in a plastic container. For more information about the dangers of food and plastic, see Kitchen Plastic: Easy Greening.

Hidden Story Behind Bisphenol A

fastcompany

Consider this: Of the more than 100 independently funded experiments on BPA, about 90% have found evidence of adverse health effects at levels similar to human exposure. On the other hand, every single industry-funded study ever conducted -- 14 in all -- has found no such effects.

 

Surely you've heard about BPA by now. It's everywhere. Some 7 billion pounds of it were produced in 2007. It's in adhesives, dental fillings, and the linings of food and drink cans. It's a building block for polycarbonate, a near-shatterproof plastic used in cell phones, computers, eyeglasses, drinking bottles, medical devices, and CDs and DVDs. It's also in infant-formula cans and many clear plastic baby bottles. Studies have shown that it can leach into food and drink, especially when containers are heated or damaged. More than 90% of Americans have some in their bodies.

 

BPA is dangerous to human health. Or it is not. That's according to two government reports in recent months that came to opposite conclusions. The National Toxicology Program (NTP), which is part of the National Institutes of Health, reported in September 2008 "some concern" that BPA harms the human brain and reproductive system, especially in babies and fetuses. Yet less than a month earlier, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration declared that "at current levels of exposure" BPA is safe. Even after the FDA's own science board questioned the rigor of this analysis in late October, the agency didn't change its position.

 

Let's take a moment to ponder this absurd dichotomy. How could our nation's health watchdogs reach such divergent conclusions? Are we being unnecessarily scared by the NTP? Or could the FDA be sugarcoating things? What exactly is going on?

 

What is in dispute is whether the tiny doses of BPA we're exposed to are enough to trigger such hormonal effects. For decades, the assumption was that they didn't. This was based on traditional toxicology, which holds that "the dose makes the poison." In other words, a threshold exists below which a compound is harmless. This makes intuitive sense. Consider alcohol: The more you drink, the drunker you get; but if you drink just a little -- below the threshold -- you may not feel anything. In the 1970s and 1980s, government scientists used standard toxicology to test BPA. They concluded that, at doses far higher than those found in humans, it may cause organ failure, leukemia, and severe weight loss. Yet as BPA products have made their way into every part of our lives, biologists have discovered evidence that very low doses may have a completely different set of effects -- on the endocrine system, which influences human development, metabolism, and behavior.

 

At first, these discoveries emerged by accident, when test tubes and petri dishes in laboratories were switched from glass to plastic. A group of Stanford researchers in 1993 found that breast-cancer cells it was studying reacted with a mysterious estrogen, which it traced to polycarbonate lab flasks. A few years later, Patricia Hunt, a geneticist at Case Western Reserve University, discovered abnormalities in the chromosomes of her lab mice. She eventually concluded that damaged polycarbonate cages were at fault.

 

In 1995, a developmental biologist named Frederick vom Saal stepped into the picture. A tenured professor at the University of Missouri -- Columbia, with funding from the National Institutes of Health, vom Saal tested BPA to see how it interacted with samples of human blood. He found that, because it bypassed mechanisms that control the dose of hormones in the body, its estrogenic effects were magnified. "We said, 'Wow, that's bad. This stuff should be considered a lot more potent than it is,' " vom Saal recalls. He then fed small amounts of BPA -- 25,000 times lower than the EPA's toxic threshold -- to pregnant mice. He discovered that the compound enlarged the prostates of the male offspring, signaling potentially serious developmental disorders. His study was published in 1997 in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

 

In the years since, more than 100 experiments have shown BPA to cause permanent harm in lab animals at the low exposure levels found in humans.

 

 Read more from source

Using mouthwash could increase risk of cancer by nine times, claim scientists

MOUTHWASHES containing alcohol can cause oral cancer and should be removed from supermarket shelves, a dental health study claims.
Scientists say there is now "sufficient evidence" that such mouthwashes contribute to an increased risk of the disease.

 

'The ethanol in mouthwash is thought to allow cancer-causing substances to permeate the lining of the mouth.' 

 

Michael McCullough, associate professor of oral medicine at the University of Melbourne, Australia, who led the study, said: "We see people with oral cancer who have no other risk factors than the use of (mouthwash containing alcohol], so what we've done is review all the evidence.

 

"Since this article, further evidence has come out, too. We believe there should be warnings. If it was a facial cream that had the effect of reducing acne but had a four to fivefold increased risk of skin cancer, no-one would be recommending it."

 

Professor McCullough, chair of the Australian Dental Association's therapeutics committee, said the alcohol in mouthwashes "increases the permeability" of the mucus membrane to other carcinogens, such as nicotine.

 

A toxic breakdown product of alcohol called acetaldehyde that may accumulate in the oral cavity when swished around the mouth is also a "known human carcinogen," he said.

 

Top-selling mouthwashes contain as much as 26 per cent alcohol.

 

Smoking and alcohol are well-established risk factors in causing cancer, but the use of mouthwash containing alcohol is more controversial.

 

Prof McCullough and co- author Dr Camile Farah, director of research at the University of Queensland's School of Dentistry, recommended mouthwash be restricted to "short-term" medical use or replaced by alcohol-free products.

 

The review reported evidence from an international study of 3,210 people, which found daily mouthwash use was a "significant risk factor" for head and neck cancer – irrespective of whether users also drank alcohol or smoked.

 

But the effects of mouthwash were worst in smokers, who had a ninefold increased risk of cancers of the oral cavity, pharynx and larynx. Those who also drank alcohol had more than five times the risk.

 

"The public should not worry." Last night, a spokeswoman for Johnson & Johnson Ltd UK, the manufacturer of Listerine, said: "There is no scientific evidence to support an association between the use of alcohol- containing mouthwashes, such as Listerine, and an increased risk of oral cancer."

    * Source: The Scotsman

Toxic chemicals found in three-quarters of soft plastic toys in Canada.

Despite a decade-old voluntary ban in North America, Health Canada tests found three-quarters of soft plastic toys and items for young children for sale in Canada contained toxic chemical additives known to cause reproductive harm in children.

Phthalates, used to soften plastic toys, were present at elevated levels in the department's sampling of 54 of 72 products for children ages three and under made of the widely used plastic known as polyvinyl chloride. They included toys that are likely to be mouthed, like bath toys, and items designed for infants to help in feeding and sleeping.

The levels ranged from 0.2 to 39.9 per cent by weight of the polyvinyl chloride in the products.

Read full from canada.com

One in Three Toys on Shelf Found To Be Toxic

Via: Tree Hugger:

According to a recent study released by researchers for the Michigan-based Ecology Center, one in three toys tested was found to contain toxic chemicals such as lead, flame retardants and arsenic.

It turns out that researchers tested more than 1,500 popular toys for lead, cadmium, arsenic, PVC and other harmful chemicals and said they found that one-third of the toys contain "medium" or "high" levels of chemicals of concern, which are not bad for the environment from a manufacturing standpoint, they're also terrible for the health of little ones.

Wondering whether or not that gift you were about to purchase made the list? Click through to find out.

The group said it selected toys and children's products that attempted to represent a cross section of the most popular items used by U.S. children, and researchers bought the toys at chain stores including Target, Kmart, Toys R Us, Babies R Us, TJ Maxx, and Wal-Mart, as well as drug stores, dollar stores, on-line retailers and independent toy stores as well.

And as promised, if you'd like to ascertain whether or not that shiny new toy your child's been asking for made the list there's an easily searchable database located on their website, HealthyToys.org, where you can get the complete low down before you wrap it up and put it under the tree.

HealthyToys Database Cuts Through Confusion for Consumers Everywhere

EPA Launches New Chemical Assessment and Management Efforts

As part of the EPA's Chemical Assessment and Management Program (ChAMP), EPA has announced its intent to update the current Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory of industrial chemicals by "resetting" it to more accurately reflect the chemicals in commerce. EPA also plans to develop a program to challenge the U.S. chemical industry to provide health and safety information on inorganic high-production volume (HPV) chemicals. These efforts will enhance the agency's efforts to assess and manage the chemicals presently in commerce and are based on feedback from a broad group of stakeholders.

 

"Chemicals are used every day in all types of settings—from science labs to our homes," said EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson. "The more we know about the chemicals we use today, the more we can ensure a healthier, safer tomorrow."

 

EPA will seek additional stakeholder and public input on specific plans for resetting the TSCA Inventory and for developing a phased, multi-year approach for challenging the chemical industry to provide EPA with health and safety information on HPV inorganic chemicals. Of the more than 83,000 chemicals on the TSCA Inventory, many are no longer manufactured or imported. EPA has already collected information on 2,200 organic chemical HPV chemicals. (HPV chemicals account for more than 90% of the production volume on the TSCA Inventory.)

 

These new efforts are in addition to EPA's ongoing work to assess and manage 6,750 high and moderate volume chemicals. To date, EPA has posted assessments on more than 100 HPV chemicals, which are manufactured or imported above one million pounds a year. Today the agency posted assessments on an initial set of moderate volume chemicals—those manufactured or imported between 25,000 and one million pounds a year.

 

For additional information on the ChAMP program, including the new assessments generated by EPA, plans for the TSCA Inventory reset, and the Inorganic HPV program, visit www.epa.gov/champ/.

 

FDA backs BPA as study links it to heart disease, diabetes.

For the first time, a large, population-based study links a chemical in plastic baby bottles to heart disease and diabetes in humans.

 

Some scientists say the study — released today to coincide with a Food and Drug Administration meeting— shows that bisphenol A, or BPA, is too dangerous to allow in consumer products, especially those used by babies and pregnant women.

 

...the amount of lead in children's blood has fallen dramatically in the decades since the USA took lead out of paint and gasoline. "Society has dealt with lead, and our body burdens came down tremendously after we got our political act together,"  "It's mind-boggling," ... "We can't ask moms to be chemical engineers when shopping for their kids, and that is what the current system forces them to be."

 

Read full at USA today

"Fresh Scent May Hide Toxic Secret"

"The scented fabric sheet makes your shirts and socks smell flowery fresh and clean. That plug-in air freshener fills your home with inviting fragrances of apple and cinnamon or a country garden. But those common household items are potentially exposing your family and friends to dangerous chemicals, a University of Washington study has found.

 

Trouble is, you have no way of knowing it. Manufacturers of detergents, laundry sheets and air fresheners aren't required to list all of their ingredients on their labels -- or anywhere else. Laws protecting people from indoor air pollution from consumer products are limited. When UW engineering professor Anne Steinemann analyzed of some of these popular items, she found 100 different volatile organic compounds measuring 300 parts per billion or more -- some of which can be cancerous or cause harm to respiratory, reproductive, neurological and other organ systems. Some of the chemicals are categorized as hazardous or toxic by federal regulatory agencies. But the labels tell a different story, naming only innocuous-sounding 'perfume' or 'biodegradable' contents."

 

Read full here

"The Toxic Consequences of the Green Revolution"

The Society of Environmental Journalists -- Four decades after the so-called Green Revolution enabled this vast nation to feed itself, some farmers are turning their backs on modern agricultural methods--the use of modified seeds, fertilizer, and pesticides--in favour of organic farming. This is not a matter of producing gourmet food for environmentally attuned consumers but rather something of a life-and-death choice in villages like this one, where the benefits of the Green Revolution have been coupled with unanticipated harmful consequences from chemical pollution. As driving their actions, the new organic farmers cite the rising costs of seed, fertilizer, and pesticides, and concerns that decades of chemical use is ruining the soil. But many are also revolting against what they see as the environmental degradation that has come with the new farming techniques, particularly the serious pollution of drinking water that village residents blame for causing cancer and other diseases."

 

Read the Daniel Pepper report from US News & World Report

WooHoo - California adopts consumer-product regulations curbing emissions

New regulations curb climate changing, smog forming and toxic emissions

SACRAMENTO: Today the Air Resources Board approved regulations limiting emissions of climate-changing chemicals from air canisters used to blow dust off equipment such as computer keyboards to cameras, the nation's first for consumer products.

In addition to greenhouse gases, the board's decision will reduce smog forming emissions and toxic air contaminants. The regulation establishes specifications for consumer products that will annually reduce:

* greenhouse gases by 200,000 metric tons;

* smog-forming volatile organic compounds by 2,000 tons; and,

* toxic air contaminants by over 70 tons.

The greenhouse gas cuts will come from replacing the use of HFC-134a with HFC-152a in gas-duster canisters. HFC-134a is known to have a massive heat-trapping potentialand is rated 1,300 times more damaging to the climate than carbon dioxide.

"We are getting a lot of bang for our buck on this regulation because these seemingly benign air canisters emit an especially potent greenhouse gas," said ARB Chairman Mary Nichols. "This measure also reduces ozone and other toxic air contaminants with a viable propellant alternative readily available so consumers shouldn't see much change in the effectiveness of these products."

 

For more information on the consumer products regulation go to: www.arb.ca.gov

More premature deaths than previously thought from particles in vehicle exhaust

New research reveals significant new information

 

SACRAMENTO - The California Air Resources Board was presented with research today showing long-term exposures to fine particle pollution pose a greater health threat than previously estimated.

At the request of the board in 2006, ARB researchers carefully reviewed all scientific studies on the subject and consulted with health scientists. While exposures to particulate matter have long been known as a serious health threat, new information suggests that the pollutant is even more toxic than previously thought.

 

Annually, in California 14,000 to 24,000 premature deaths are estimated to be associated with exposures to PM2.5, a mix of microscopic particles less than 2.5 microns in size. A majority of these deaths occur in highly populated areas around the state.
Bay air basins.

 

"Particle pollution is a silent killer," said ARB Chairman Mary D. Nichols. "We must work even harder to cut these life-shortening emissions by further addressing pollution sources head-on."

 

Particulate matter (PM) is a complex blend of substances ranging from dry solid fragments, solid-cores fragments with liquid coatings, and small droplets of liquid. These particles vary in shape, size and chemical composition, and may include metals, soot, soil and dust.

 

Hospitalizations, emergency room visits and doctor visits for respiratory illnesses or heart disease have been associated with PM2.5 exposure. Other studies suggest that PM2.5 exposure may influence asthma symptoms and acute and chronic bronchitis. Children, the elderly and people with pre-existing chronic
disease are most at risk of experiencing adverse health effects from PM2.5 exposure. Even small increases in PM2.5 exposures may increase health risks.

 

Major contributors to PM2.5 include trucks, passenger cars, off-road equipment, electric power generation and industrial processes, residential wood burning, and forest and agricultural burning. All combustion processes generally produce PM2.5.

 

Read full information, at: arb.ca.gov

Hey, didnt I say that? BPA in plastics "pace yourself parents"...

They cut out the details. However, the Boston globes has a nice summary on "precaution" over hysteria about bisphenol A in plastics.

 

Read here boston.com

 

It is important for people to recognized when to "phase" out a chemical and not over react.

 

Removing the build up bisphenol A and other "bio accumulative" (builds up in system) chemicals from our systems should always be practiced when there are safer and practical alternatives.

 

There are 1000's of chemicals on the international harmful chemical list to "phase" out, 100's are in current consumer goods that we use in and on or bodies everyday... so "pace yourself parents".

 

But quite frankly "children's cold medication" kills hundreds of kids a year and I see that is still on the self...

 

Regardless, this is an important awareness issues for parents who use every precaution possible to protect our children.

 

If you could wouldn't you?