Archive for the ‘Detoxing and Toxins’ Category

Antidepressants Make Shrimp Vulnerable

August 28th, 2010

Shrimp, Prozac, Fluoxetine, Behavior, Suicide

Here’s a new twist on the old Drunken Shrimp recipe. According to a new study just published in the journal Aquatic Toxology, a lot of shrimp may be getting stoned on Prozac. That’s because they swim in waters polluted by pharmaceutical drugs, including antidepressants, which get flushed into the world’s waterways after they go through our bodies. The study, undertaken by researchers at U.K.’s University of Portsmouth, demonstrates that antidepressants now present in seawater may be altering the behavior of shrimp in ways that make them more vulnerable to predators. 

As reported in the National Geographic News, scientists exposed shrimp to fluoxetine, which is the generic name for the active ingredient in Prozac and Sarafem.  The exposure mimicked the average levels of fluoxetine found in water coming from sewage-treatment plants. And the shrimp, which normally hide in dark, safe corners, merrily headed for bright spots like drunken sailors drawn by neon lights. These shrimp were not happy drunks either, at least not according to the rather sensationalistic journalists who reported that the Prozac-intoxicated shrimp were committing "suicide." What they meant, according to study co-author Alex Ford, is that, "This behavior makes them much more likely to be eaten by a predator, such as a fish or bird."

What happens is that fluoxetine makes the animal’s brain more sensitive to seratonin. This alters mood and sleep patterns, which in turn affects the animal’s behavior. The researchers noted that with the rising use of antidepressants — 2005 usage levels were recently calculated at 10 percent of the U.S. population, or 27 million people, and climbing — it is very likely that the drugs are affecting other animals as well.

But antidepressants are just the tip of the pharmaceutical iceberg. Sea animals are regularly exposed to a range of drugs including antidepressants, painkillers, and anti-inflammatory drugs. Dr. Ford points out that the impact of these substances can be reduced through more public education about responsible disposal of prescriptions and the installation of improved technology at sewage treatment plants for breaking down excreted and flushed pharmaceuticals.

And again, if only the problem stopped with pharmaceutical pollution in the waterways, it wouldn’t seem so overwhelming. But the waters teem with plenty of other toxins that affect sea life. For instance, some years back, government researchers studying the Potomac River discovered "smallmouth bass with intersex, a condition where male fish develop premature egg cells."  Interestingly, while large numbers of male fish with intersex were turned up in the study, no cases of female fish with imposex — a corresponding condition in which female fish have malformed ovaries or produce sperm — were found. By studying the composition of the water, the researchers were able to determine that the fish were affected by chemicals that are known to trigger sex changes in animals.  Specifically, they found "chemicals from pesticides and flame retardants as well as fragrances commonly found in products such as soaps, antiperspirants, and deodorants."  All of the fish studied had at least one of these pollutants in their systems. If these chemicals trigger sex changes in animals en masse, we can only shudder to think what direct contact with these things does to us. Early puberty for girls and smaller penises for boys may be just a hint of things to come.

Of course, it’s not exactly hot off the presses that chemical residues are having a profound impact on aquatic life. A 2008 study by Environment Canada determined that about 400 of the 30,000 or so chemicals used commercially in the U.S. and Canada don’t break down in the environment.  One result is that increasing amounts of these substances can accumulate in fish and wildlife. As you might suspect, fewer than 25 percent of these chemicals are regularly analyzed.  Over 75 percent have not been studied at all.

Then there is the earlier work by John Incardona and Nathaniel Scholz at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center and the West Coast Center for Oceans and Human Health on the impact of the Exxon Valdez spill in the Pacific.  They found that the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) left floating through the waters caused heart defects in herring and pink salmon embryos.  And let’s not forget that PAHs flow into coastal waters not only from oils spills, but from urban runoff and other sources. 

Dr. Incardona has studied the impact of PAHs over the last six years.  PAHs come from burning fossil fuels and carbon-based fuels from wood, incense, cigarettes, and so on. Dr. Incardona says they slow the heartbeat in fish embryos to such an extent that they lead to heart deformities and fluid buildup around the heart.  In zebrafish, whose systems are remarkably like humans, the absorption of PAHs through the skin leads to severe heart deformities.

If it‘s not good for the shrimp, herring, salmon, and zebrafish, the odds are it’s not good for us.  Incardona says that when it comes to PAHs, in urban environments, "we are breathing an aerosolized oil spill." PAH’s should be considered "prime suspects for cardiovascular impacts related to air pollution."

You can’t run and you can’t hide. Both the water and the air are being made into toxic stews that can have disastrous impacts on life on the planet.  The ultimate solution is to reduce reliance on toxic chemicals and to increase the filtering and removal of these chemicals from wastewater BEFORE it is discharged into the environment. Right!! In these days of budget deficits and economic woes, that may be unrealistic. On the other hand, if the environment is made continually inhospitable for human, animal and plant life, the economic issues will eventually cease to matter. But by now, you know what to do to protect yourself to the extent possible — clean up your drinking water, grow your own food and sprouts when possible, choose food sources wisely when growing your own is not an option, and detox every three months.

Oh, and grab onto something quickly if you ever find yourself slowly drifting towards a bright light.

:hc

Reduced Radiation CT Scans

July 22nd, 2010

CT Scan, Radiation, X-Ray, Dose, MDCT

Not too long ago, I wrote about the mind-boggling high doses of radiation that CT scans deliver. In the (sort of) good news from the medical establishment department, researchers recently announced that they have developed new software that could cut the dose of radioactivity by half or more. The news is not exactly cause for jubilation, because even at half the normal dose, a single CT scan still exposes patients to more radiation than 200 chest x-rays.

According to Dr. Daniel Johnson of the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Arizona, who authored the study, "This new technique allows us to use far less radiation than even a typical abdominal CT scan without compromising image quality."  The results of the study were published in the American Journal of Roentgenology, the publication of the American Roentgen Ray Society (ARRS), "the first and oldest radiology society in the United States."

CT (computerized tomography) scans provide a cross-sectional view of a portion of the body by weaving together multiple x-ray images taken from different angles. Physicians can look at individual "slices" or use 3D imaging tools to get a full image of the area in question. The medical community loves CT scans because of the detail they provide, and so physicians use them for a variety of purposes — to quickly examine internal injuries resulting from accidents or trauma, for instance, or to get detailed views of the brain and circulatory system. Lately, doctors even have started using CT scans to perform "virtual colonoscopies" to detect cancers of the colon.

The problem, of course, is the radiation. As I’ve written before, a study published in 2009 blamed CT scans for 29,000 new cancers and 14,500 deaths in a single year. That translates to a one in 270 chance of getting cancer from a CAT scan if you’re a woman, and a one in 600 chance for men.  The risk is even higher for young people, in part because they may have more CT scans in their lifetimes. Another study showed that one CT scan could deliver as much radiation as 74 mammograms or 442 chest x-rays. 

Although the news about lower-dose CT scans may make some medical professionals happy, not all admit that there’s a problem in the first place. For instance, the America College of Radiology, an organization dedicated to medical imaging, says that it’s impossible to know whether or not those who had CT scans had some underlying predisposition to cancer, so the statistics may be misleading. (Remember when the tobacco industry made similar claims about the links between smoking and cancer? Probably best not to go there, though!) Also, the director of the organization, Dr. James Thrall, argues in favor of CT scans by claiming there’s no proof that "low" doses of radiation actually increase cancer risk and that it might be more a matter of exposure levels having to reach a certain threshold before cancer risk gets exacerbated. It’s an interesting argument, given that the typical CT scan delivers the equivalent of 442 chest x-rays, which sure makes the "low-doses aren’t dangerous" argument a bit tough to support.

In spite of the assurances of the industry groups, there is plenty of room for concern.  For example, just last month, a New England Journal of Medicine editorial reported a case in which a 59-year-old teacher received an accidental radiation overdose from a brain perfusion test — a CT scan of the brain to detect strokes. Even though the dose could be read on the display by the technologist, the teacher was exposed to ten times the normal dose of radiation. The technologist was not aware of anything wrong. According to radiologist Rebecca Smith-Bindman, who authored the editorial, this was one of hundreds of cases nationwide of accidental over-exposure. In this case, the teacher, who had a non-threatening facial paralysis (Bell’s Palsy) that lasted for only a few weeks, became confused and sick and lost her hair. Smith-Bindman called for Congress to empower the FDA to regulate the use and radiation dosages of CT scans.

In 2009, the New York Times reported two cases of radiation overdoses accidentally delivered during CT scan procedures in California.  In one case, eight times the normal dose of radiation was delivered to about 206 possible stroke victims over an 18-month period at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.  Meanwhile, at the Mad River Community Hospital in Arcata, California, an x-ray technologist had his license revoked for exposing a two-and-a-half-year-old boy to over an hour of CT scans — a procedure that should take no more than two or three minutes.

When the former case was reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), it responded with an alert to medical facilities throughout the nation to check their CT scan procedures.  The statement that the FDA released said, "While this event involved a single kind of diagnostic event at one facility, the magnitude of these overdoses and the impact on the affected patients were significant. This situation may reflect more widespread problems with CT quality assurance programs and may not be isolated to this particular facility or this imaging procedure."

Obviously, cutting down on the amount of radiation exposure that comes with CT scans can only be a good thing, but even a 50 percent reduction still exposes patients to frighteningly high radiation doses. And the thing is, all that radiation is not necessarily necessary. In many cases, replacing the CT scan with an MRI, ultrasound, or even simple x-ray procedure would provide enough information for diagnostic purposes at far reduced radiation levels. Also, scientists recently reported that radiation can be cut by as much as 97% when using multidetector computed tomography (MDCT, a type of CT scan that works more quickly and accurately than traditional CT technology) without negatively affecting image quality.

But keep in mind that sometimes there is just no replacement for the right scan. When it comes to cancer, for example, a PET/CT scan, which combines a CT scan with an injection of radioactive glucose (not quite as bad as it sounds), will literally "light up" any tumors in the body during the scan. No other diagnostic tool works quite as well for identifying all potential trouble spots in the body.

As I’ve said before, do your homework before submitting to any diagnostic tests involving radiation. In the world of x-ray exposure, "less is more."

:hc

Heavy Metals in Supplements?

June 17th, 2010

Heavy Metals In Dietary Supplements

When Desiderius Erasmus said, “In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king,” he might have had the Government Accountability Office (the investigative arm of the U.S. Congress) and would-be congressional regulators of dietary supplements in mind. Of course, Erasmus lived in the 15th century, so maybe not.

Recently, the GAO launched a big flap over contaminants and heavy metals found in herbal dietary supplements. A Congressional investigation, in a report prepared by the Government Accountability Office, showed that nearly all of the herbal supplements tested contained trace amounts of heavy metals like lead, mercury, cadmium, and arsenic as well as other contaminants. None of the heavy metals were found in amounts that exceeded the danger thresholds set by the government. Although pesticide residues that did exceed safe limits were found in 16 out of 40 of the supplements tested.

Clearly, the GAO did have “one” eye open. Pesticide and heavy metal contamination is serious business. As I’ve written before, there’s a connection between pesticides, heavy metals and all sorts of health conditions including cancer and Parkinson’s disease. Plus, as I’ve also discussed, high levels of these types of contaminants are commonly found in the blood of children, even if the children live hundreds miles away from sources of pollution and are raised on organic diets. It’s a good thing to help people know where their exposure to toxins comes from, including if it comes from items found in health food stores.

But when it comes to investigating and regulating herbal supplements, Congress needs to have both eyes open. Heavy metals are commonly found in the ground and in the plants and vegetables that grow from the ground — both in the wild and on farms. Acid rain, use of pesticides, motor vehicle exhaust, and the toxic leavings of a variety of manufacturing and mining processes contribute to the presence of these substances in the soil. The vegetables you grow in your garden or buy from the organic section of your supermarket or health food store will all have trace elements of heavy metals. It’s not a good thing that residues exist in herbal supplements, but to point to them as the bad kids in a class full of hoodlums hardly seems fair. Compare herbals, for instance, to wines from France or Chile and they’ll look virginal in terms of both pesticide and heavy metal content.  Compare pesticide residues in supplements to those in imported sweet peppers that you buy at the store and you may reconsider a carnivorous diet.

The relative dangers of most nutraceuticals are less than minimal when compared to pharmaceuticals and over-the-counter drugs. As I’ve written previously, while prescription drugs kill up to a 140,000 Americans a year, herbs and nutraceuticals kill fewer than 100 (with most of those attributions being highly questionable). Even FDA Principal Deputy Commissioner Joshua Sharfenstein said that he wasn’t worried about the safety of the supplements that the GAO reported on. 

The recent McNeil product recall brings this into perspective. The FDA started an investigation into Johnson and Johnson (McNeil is a division of Johnson and Johnson) after the company recalled nearly 50 over-the-counter drugs for children including Motrin, Tylenol, Benadryl and Zyrtec. Three manufacturing blunders spurred the recall: some of the drugs had higher concentrations of ingredients than they should have; some new ingredients were contaminated with bacteria; and some inactive ingredients either contained “tiny particles” or didn’t meet “internal testing requirements.” This recall was McNeil’s fourth in seven months.

The FDA stepped in to investigate reports of serious side effects. One set consists of more than 750 such reports. Another consists of several hundred such reports plus reports of seven deaths since May 1, 2010. Lots recalled by McNeil between November of 2009 and January of 2010 made consumers sick with vomiting and diahrrea. However, McNeil claimed that the latest recall of children’s remedies was a precaution and did not result from reports of adverse effects.

And here’s where we need to have both eyes open. Aside from the concerns about manufacturing errors or impurities, Acetaminophen, (sold as Tylenol, by McNeil), is commonly considered a safe over-the-counter pain reliever. Yet, according to WebMd, “because of acetaminophen’s widespread availability and the underestimation of its potential toxicity, acetaminophen poisoning is the most common cause of acute liver failure and overdose deaths.” An article in the hcspfactsheet, amplifies this concern when it says that acetaminophen”is one of the leading causes of liver failure in the United States, accounting for more than 56,000 emergency room visits, 2,600 hospitalizations, and an estimated 450 deaths per year.” 

This does not mean that it’s okay for supplements to be rich in toxic residues — heavy metals, pesticides, or “other contaminants.” Although, keep in mind, that unlike produce at grocery stores, the better supplement manufacturers test the ingredients they use for contamination, according to Steve Mister, president of the trade organization that represents the supplement industry. But Mr. Mister (that is Steve, not the eponymous ‘80s pop group) still felt that Congress should provide more funding so that the FDA can conduct inspections in both foreign and domestic supplement manufacturing plants.

In any event, perhaps Congress should make sure they’re seeing better than the “one-eyed man.” It’s hard to justify the alarm over unavoidable trace elements of heavy metals in herbals, in light of the serious toll on human health from accepted pharmaceuticals and over-the-counter drugs.

And by the way, if you can find a banana without aluminum in it, more power to you! In fact, here is just a small list of some of the heavy metals commonly found in foods we regularly eat.

  • Almonds: Aluminum, barium, nickel, rubidium, silicon, strontium, sulfur, and titanium.
  • Apples: Aluminum, arsenic, barium, lead, nickel, silicon, and titanium.
  • Broccoli: Aluminum, nickel, silicon, strontium, sulfur, and titanium.
  • Carrots: Aluminum, barium, lithium, nickel, rubidium, silicon, strontium, sulfur, and titanium.
  • Grapes: Aluminum, barium, lithium, nickel, rubidium, silicon, strontium, sulfur, and titanium.
  • Tomatoes: Aluminum, barium, bromine, lithium, nickel, silicon, strontium, sulfur, and titanium.

So make sure you detox regularly.

:hc

Third Hand Smoke…Again: Health Blog

March 30th, 2010

Third Hand Cigraette Smoke

One of the pernicious things about bad habits is the way they adversely affect people who aren’t involved in them.  It’s old news that smoking cigarettes does terrible things to both smokers and the people around them. We also know that secondhand smoke, inhaled by hanging around smokers is also dangerous. Well, a new study ups the ante yet again.  Led by researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National lab, the study revealed that long after a cigarette is put out, the tobacco smoke residue that clings to surfaces reacts with the common indoor air pollutant nitrous acid to produce dangerous carcinogens.

I recently wrote about the lingering effects of third-hand smoke.  In that article, I focused on the 250 poisonous gases, chemicals, and heavy metals contained in cigarette smoke and how these toxins which desposit on household surfaces pose significant dangers to infants, toddlers, children and adults alike. As I said, the dangerous components of cigarette smoke include a hair-raising array of poisons, including hydrogen cyanide, used to create chemical weapons; carbon monoxide; butane, which is a component of lighter fluid; ammonia; toluene (found in paint thinners); arsenic; lead; cadmium (a component of batteries); and the highly radioactive polonium-210. In fact, cigarette smoke contains eleven carcinogens categorized as Class 1, the most dangerous kind. And these carcinogens settle on every exposed surface when the butt goes out, so when kids crawl, roll, lounge, and play on the carpet or floor on which these compounds reside, there is real danger for them.

The new study adds an alarming wrinkle. Previously, nicotine itself was thought to be relatively nontoxic, even if addictive.  Wrong, wrong, wrong, according to Hugo Destaillats, a chemist with the Indoor Environment Department of Berkeley Lab’s Environmental Energy Technologies Division.  Says Destaillats, “…residual nicotine reacts with ambient nitrous acid [and] forms carcinogenic tobacco-specific nitrosamines — known as TSNAs. TSNAs are among the most broadly acting and potent carcinogens present in unburned tobacco and tobacco smoke.”  In other words, in addition to all its other toxins, cigarette smoke leaves a residue of nicotine on your household surfaces, and nitrous acid, which is everywhere in most households (it comes from un-vented gas appliances, for instance), converts it into very nasty stuff.

And lest you think that we’re talking about paltry amounts of TSNA carcinogens hanging around your house as a result of nicotine residues, think about this. Samples exposed to “high but reasonable” concentrations of nitrous acid were found to contain 10 times higher levels of newly formed TSNAs than what was present in the samples prior to exposure, plus the conversion rate is very fast.  In other words, a little nicotine goes a very long way and acts very quickly in creating carcinogens. The study showed an up to .4 percent conversion of nicotine to TSNAs in the first hour alone.  Lead study author Mohamad Sleiman said, “Given the rapid sorption and persistence of high levels of nicotine on indoor surfaces, including clothing and human skin, our findings indicate that third-hand smoke represents an unappreciated health hazard through dermal exposure, dust inhalation and ingestion.”

Even on metal surfaces the danger is quite significant. The surfaces of the stainless steel glove compartment in the truck of a heavy smoker revealed substantial levels of the TSNAs known as NNN and NNK. Both are potent carcinogens.  A 1980 study published in Cancer Research showed that, “NNN induces lung adenomas in mice, esophageal and nasal cavity tumors in rats, and tracheal tumors in hamsters.” NNK was found to be even more carcinogenic.

And TSNAs don’t only cause lung and esophageal cancer. They’ve also been linked to oral cancer and cervical cancer. In fact, studies have shown you don’t need to smoke nicotine to reap the punishment. NNN and NNK have been strongly linked with the excess of oral cancers found among snuff users.   That ought to give you chills when you think about your toddler putting a toy in his mouth that he dragged across a carpet that smells of tobacco smoke.

Even if you go outside to smoke, the nicotine residue that you bring back into the house (or car) on your clothes and skin rubs off on household surfaces and poses a threat.  Children and toddlers are most at risk because their young skin is so vulnerable to dermal uptake of TSNAs.

As I’ve said previously, you’re not being overly fussy when you try to avoid being in the presence of tobacco smoke or its residue.  Previous research on third-hand smoke supported regulations banning smoking in public buildings and places. Based on this new research, maybe we should require smokers to wash their clothes, shower, and clean the carpet (not to mention the inside of their car or truck) after each cigarette.

I know this might sound a bit mean or vindictive when it comes to smokers. But, really, what’s meaner? Warning smokers about the dangers they present to others one more time, or allowing a toddler to get cancer because they’re crawling on a carpet that stinks of cigarette smoke.

:hc

Botox Blunts the Blues (a little): Health Blog

March 20th, 2010

Dangers of Botox

In the Star Trek: Next Generation series, the Borg were a frightening species of cyborgs who roamed the universe in search of other species to bring into the “hive.” As cyborgs, they were a blend of biological and machine parts — most notably in their faces. As a side note, this made the facial expression of human emotion impossible.

A new study indicates that the Borg could have saved a ton on machine parts and made assimilation much simpler if they merely shot their victims up with Botox.  Like Borg implants, Botox diminishes the range of expression patients can display, and also like Borg implants, Botox affects the mind.

The study, led by Dr. David Havas, psychologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, evaluated 40 first-time Botox patients both before and after treatment.  In both evaluations, the patients were asked to read statements designed to make them happy, sad, or angry (things like: “someone just cut you off on the freeway,” “you just got an unexpected check in the mail”). When the subjects understood the statements, they pushed a button. Interestingly, after having Botox injections, the patients took longer to respond to the angry and the sad statements. They responded to the happy statements in the same amount of time.

Scientists theorize that this has something to do with how Botox works.  Botox (Botulinum Toxin A) injections paralyze the muscles that control frowning, and this soften the wrinkles associated with them.  They also prevent recipients from frowning. People who can’t frown tend to smile more, and research shows that mood actually follows expression. There’s a term for this observation — the “facial feedback hypothesis“– which says that facial expressions like smiling and frowning signal the brain to produce corresponding emotional responses. In other words, put on a happy face and you’ll find yourself feeling happier. 

The researchers believe that because Botox makes recipients “frown-impaired,” it decreases their ability to perceive negative statements. In a separate study, Murad Alam, associate professor of dermatology at Northwestern University, also looked at the connection between facial feedback and mood in Botox patients. According to Alam, “When we are sad, angry or frustrated, but we have Botox on board, our muscles do not contract to create furrows between our brows and deep creases on our foreheads. This lack of frowning and wrinkling works backward to adjust our emotions and make us happier.” 

According to Dr. Havas, “Botox induces a kind of mild, temporary cognitive blindness to information in the world, social information about the emotions of other people.” But while Havas cautioned that blocking negative emotions with Botox could have the undesirable consequence of diminishing our ability to tell when things are not going well, Dr. Alam argued that the increased incidence of happiness with Botox outweighed any negative consequences of the delayed ability to perceive the negative. (Sounds to me like someone pitching assimilation into the Borg hive.)

In fact, while some, like Dr. Havas, might be horrified at the prospect at losing the ability to react normally to normal provocations, the Botox people take the news as a marketing miracle. They cite an earlier study in 2006 by the Society of Dermatologic Surgery that found that Botox can curb depression, making it seem like the paramount boon. Not only does it deliver the fountain of youth, but it also delivers the fountain of joy. With this latest study, it’s being touted as a possible tool for anger management. Here’s an excerpt from the website of Epione, a cosmetic surgery center in Beverly Hills: “So the next time you see those frown lines appearing, feel free to get BOTOX®. You may find yourself in a better mood–and not just because you look fantastic.”

Unfortunately, in spite of the happy advertising ditties, there are some real risks associated with the use of Botox. When used for cosmetic purposes, the most common side effects include droopy eyelids, nausea, muscle weakness, facial pain, indigestion or heartburn, dental problems, and high blood pressure (hypertension). Other common side effects are cough, flu-like symptoms, back pain, runny or stuffy nose, dizziness, soreness at the injection site, weakness, dry mouth, drowsiness, bleeding at the injection site, infection, sore throat, and anxiety. Ironically, one of the most common side effects is increased anxiety accompanied by insomnia, which affects up to 10% of people treated with Botox, somewhat diminishing the promise of feeling bubbly after treatment. You might say that Botox can make you feel anxiously happy!

Worse still, in 2008 the FDA issued two warnings about Botox after 16 people, including four children under 18 years of age, died from Botox injections.  Most of these people were being treated for cerebral palsy. In 2009, the FDA mandated a blackbox warning for Botox, citing the risk that the toxin could spread beyond the injection site and interfere with swallowing, breathing, and heart function. A definite bummer for anyone, let alone those thinking they might increase their happiness by injecting the stuff.

There is also the danger of severe reactions to the toxin in patients with diseases that affect neurotransmission (Lou Gerhigs disease, myashthenia gravis, Lamber-Eaton syndrome, etc.) Botulinum toxin can also affect the heart if enough of it is absorbed into the bloodstream, a possible contraindication for those with a history of heart disease. Since treatment with Botox consists of multiple skin injections, extra caution is recommended for patients with uncontrolled diabetes or disorders that affect blood clotting or wound healing.

Given the risks, you might want to take the natural approach to looking younger. As for getting happy, you could skip the injection of Botox and just force yourself to smile anyway. At least your reaction-time won’t be impaired should the Borg show up at your door.

:hc

Fire Retardant Retards Pregnancy: Health Blog

March 9th, 2010

Fire Retardant Chemicals, PBDEs

If your home is your sanctuary, you might want to reconsider what you decorate it with, especially if you plan to get pregnant. A recent study out of the School of Public Health at the University of California in Berkeley has found that chemicals commonly used to fire-proof furniture, textiles, plastics and electronics manage to get into the bloodstream and apparently, exert a powerful influence on fertility.

The study involved 223 women who were trying to get pregnant. Those subjects who had high levels of certain fire-retardant chemicals in their blood took about twice as long to get pregnant as the women who had low levels. The chemicals, known as polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or PBDEs, became common in the 1970s. According to study author Dr. Km Harley, “For every tenfold increase in PBDEs in the blood, we saw a 30% to 50% decrease in the odds of becoming pregnant in any given month,” said study author Dr. Kim Harley.

You’ll find PBDEs in polyester clothing, mattresses and wallpaper, couches and carpeting, chairs and computers — even in your food supply. If you live in California, you probably have more BPDE in your bloodstream than your neighbors in other states because California has uniquely strict fire control regulations, and so until recently, products on the market there had an extra coating of PBDEs. According to the Silent Spring Institute, tests on California homes found the average level of PBDEs in dust to be 10 times greater than in other states and 200 times the amount in European homes. (And the amazing thing is that people in California pay extra for that privilege.)

Having high levels of PBDEs in your system is not a good thing even if you have no intention of spawning kids. Earlier studies have linked PBDEs to a wide range of health problems. A 2005 study found that even a single low-dose exposure caused hyperactivity and low sperm count in male rats. PBDE also acts as a neurotoxin and has been linked to abnormalities in brain development that affect learning, memory, and behavior. (I wonder if that explains the behavior of the California legislature.) These abnormalities seem to worsen with age, even without subsequent exposure. Numerous studies have implicated the chemical as a cause of thyroid abnormalities and liver problems, and at least one form of PBDE has been linked to cancer.

PBDEs have actually been banned in Europe for many years, and a few states in the US have banned a few varieties of the chemical. Plus, most US manufacturers have stopped using two forms of PBDE — Penta and Octa — altogether. But the Deca form of PBDE still gets used in US production, and Deca has been implicated as a carcinogen as well as a neurotoxin and thyroid disrupter.

The problem is that avoiding PBDE is a bit like trying to avoid asphalt. It’s everywhere — literally. As products age, they release PBDE into the atmosphere. When you sit on a treated couch, PDBE particles get released. When your computer heats or your television  warms up, more particles escape. Numerous studies have found PBDE in household dust and in food, particularly meat and dairy products. Research also has found that 97 percent of Americans have the chemical in their blood. And even though newer products may not contain it, the older residues remain for many years, both in the atmosphere and in the body, building up over time. According to an article in The Economist, it could take up to three lifetimes to rid the population of the PBDE currently in circulation. So unless you believe in reincarnation, that probably doesn’t offer much consolation.

As for the most recent study, the levels of fire retardant found in the blood of the study subjects was lower than the national average, probably because most of the subjects were recent immigrants from Mexico, where PBDE isn’t as omnipresent as it is in the US. Still, 15 percent of the subjects took from a year to ten years to conceive, with the delay directly proportional to the amount of PBDE in their blood. Interestingly, that amount tends to vary not only according to exposure levels, but also by the percentage of body fat in an individual because PBDE remains persistent in fatty tissue. While most people have between 30 to 70 parts per billion, research has shown that liposuction patients may have 4,500 to 9,500 ppb — yet another reason to avoid the tiramisu.

Naturally, there’s some argument between industry representatives and health experts on just how damaging environmental PBDEs are. For instance, John Kyte, who represents an industry group called the Bromine Science and Environmental Forum, says that since the study only measured the Penta and Octa forms of PBDE, and since they’ve been phased out, there’s no problem (well after three generations, maybe). ”The study is not applicable to all PBDEs or to PBDEs generally,” he says, implying that the commonly used Deca form is just fine. But Dr. Harley points out that Penta and Octa persist in older household products and can still leach out. She says the lab didn’t have the capability to measure Deca, but its health effects are questionable, at best, and Deca is still in common use.

In spite of safety assurances from people like Mr. Kyte, some states are working hard to get Deca banned, and some manufacturers have halted its use. Companies including Canon, Dell, Ericsson, HP, Panasonic, NEC, Sony, Xerox and Ikea Furniture claim to have found less toxic fire-retardant substances that work just fine. According to Panasonic representative Dale Swanson, “We found out we didn’t lose the bank and all the horror stories that were floating that the world was going to end [if we stopped using Deca] didn’t occur. The product is as good today as it was with PBDEs.” Let’s hope that other manufacturers and regulatory bodies soon see the light.

In the meantime, to keep your own levels of exposure low, try to buy furniture and carpeting made of natural and untreated fabrics, purchase electronics from the above-named companies, reduce meat and dairy consumption, avoid ripping up old carpet pads without removing children and pets from the premises and wearing a mask yourself, and if your old furniture rips and exposes foam, get rid of it. Oh, and you might want to take up a belief in reincarnation.

:hc

BPA-Heart Disease Link Fails to Ruffle FDA: Health Blog

March 6th, 2010

Bisphenol-A, BPA

If there was a hit list of the nasty chemicals cited most often, bisphenol-A (BPA), might top the charts. It seems that barely a month goes by without the appearance of some new study that points to the deadly consequences of exposure to the stuff (and we’ve all been exposed, but more on that later).

The latest research to hit the news concerns the fact that BPA appears strongly linked to coronary heart disease. Scientists at the University of Exeter in Great Britain reviewed data revealing BPA concentrations in the urine samples of 1,493 adult subjects. They found that those with the highest concentrations of BPA were twice as likely to have coronary heart disease compared to those with the lowest levels. And the thing that makes the data doubly damning is that this is the second study to find just those results.

In both studies, the researchers reviewed data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, one of the largest studies ever done examining health and nutrition. The first study, completed in 2008, analyzed 1493 urine samples, drawn in 2003 and 2004, for BPA content. The recent study looked at 1455 samples taken from a different group of subjects between 2005 and 2006. Both studies revealed a strong association between higher rates of BPA and the heightened risk of heart disease. In fact, the first study found three times the risk of heart disease plus a two-and-a-half times risk of diabetes associated with high BPA levels. Subjects with high BPA levels also had elevated liver enzymes. The diabetes and liver enzyme link was replicated in the second study, although the risk was far reduced.

The reason for the lowered diabetes and liver results may be that the levels of BPA detected in the 2004-2005 subjects were 30 percent lower, on average, than the levels found in subjects a few years earlier. This is the good news aspect of the study — BPA levels actually appear to be dropping. The researchers believe this may be a result of growing public awareness of the dangers of BPA. More people now know, for instance, that plastics contain BPA and that heating it releases the BPA content. And so, fewer people now nuke plastic containers in the microwave or leave water bottles out in the sun. Also, it may be that canned good consumption has declined, say the researchers, noting that cans often have a BPA-enhanced lining.

But even in the second sample, 25 percent of the subjects had notably high levels of BPA — notable enough, as mentioned above, to double their heart-disease risk. As study co-director Tamara Galloway points out, “If you see it once, that’s interesting. If you see it twice in a separate population, it’s a strong indication that what you’re seeing is not just some chance finding.” In any event, if that 25 percent factor holds for the population at large, that puts a huge number of people at risk given that BPA is pervasive worldwide. As Dr. Frederick vom Saal, a BPA expert at the University of Missouri, says, “Expand that [25 percent figure] to six billion people — roughly the world’s current population — and you’ve got a billion people in harm’s way [due to BPA].” This threat is compounded by the fact that the researchers believe their study drastically underestimates the number of people adversely affected by BPA because of the relatively small sample size, meaning that far more than a billion people might be at risk from BPA exposure.

I’ve written before that the risk, unfortunately, extends far beyond heart disease and diabetes. Over 150 peer-reviewed studies have linked BPA exposure to issues including cancer, Alzheimer’s, Down syndrome, obesity, and developmental and reproductive abnormalities. Even with the growing awareness, BPA remains pervasive in products and the environment at large. As of last year, 95-percent of all baby bottles on the market contained the chemical. It is still found universally in food wrappers, canned foods, and plastic containers. BPA has been found in the urine of 90% of the population, and in spite of all the bad press the chemical gets, Business Wire just posted a report projecting that BPA sales would actually increase by up to three percent from 2010 to 2015.

It seems, though, that no amount of evidence, no avalanche of studies, nothing at all will move the FDA from its refusal to impose limitations on BPA. Although the agency recently (at last) admitted there “may” be some problem with the stuff, that admission is clouded by language that borders on a retraction. The official statement reads:

“At this interim stage, FDA shares the perspective of the National Toxicology Program that recent studies provide reason for some concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children. FDA also recognizes substantial uncertainties with respect to the overall interpretation of these studies and their potential implications for human health effects of BPA exposure.” In other words, the 152 studies now on the books can’t possibly be right, but we’ll look into it when we get around to it. In the meantime, we need to get back to our real work of keeping alternative health products off the market.

Meanwhile, FDA commissioner Margaret Hamburg has issued a separate statement saying, “At this time, we share the perspective of the NTP [National Toxicology Program] of some concern of health effects of BPA. This means we need to know more.” The agency does suggest that people take reasonable steps to limit exposure, but still holds that BPA is probably safe, even for infants.  In fact, their statement issued on January 10, 2010, says, “FDA is not recommending that families change the use of infant formula or foods, as the benefit of a stable source of good nutrition outweighs the potential risk from BPA exposure.”

The facts are clear. At this point in time, you can’t depend on the FDA to protect you from BPA. Do your best to avoid the stuff. Use glass instead of plastic whenever you can, if you must use plastic do not heat it, and avoid canned goods unless they explicitly state that the container has no BPA.

:hc

New Treatment Helps Autistic Kids: Health Blog

January 30th, 2010

Autistic Children

For parents of autistic children, non-responsiveness is part of the package. And because autistic kids often don’t respond to parental overtures, many parents stop trying to engage their children. But experts in the field say that in fact, interaction may be just what the doctor ordered. In fact, a new but limited study has found that intensive, controlled play with very young autistic toddlers can have a significant impact on their development.

The study, out of the University of Washington, followed 48 children aged 18 to 36 months. The children were divided into two groups. The first group received the currently endorsed community-based approach where parents received instructions about delivering standard interventions as well as referrals to community providers. The other group followed the Early Start Denver Model (ESDM), a more relationship-based approach. ESDM involves intensive intervention provided by both parents and trained therapists in the child’s home, focused around play, communication, social interaction, and family involvement.  The children in both groups received about 20 hours a week of intervention.

All the children improved after two years of treatment. That alone is significant, indicating that intervention started very early can make a difference. But the kids in the ESDM group made more progress than those in the standard group, increasing their IQs by an average of 18 points compared to a seven-point improvement in the standard-treatment group. In fact, seven children (30 percent) from the ESDM group improved enough to move from a diagnosis of autism to a less severe diagnosis. In the standard-treatment group, only one child moved to a lesser diagnosis. And the ESDM kids also improved in communication, motor skills, and daily living skills. Dr. Geraldine Dawson, one of the study authors, made clear that all of the subjects still had at least mild autistic symptoms, but commented, “Many of the children had virtually caught up to the typical kids their age.”

What then made the difference? According to Dr. Sally Rogers, originator of ESDM and study lead, the standard interventions rely on adults attempting to teach skills and behaviors to autistic children. When the child performs well, he or she gets a reward. The reward system has limited effectiveness with these kids. The ESDM approach, in contrast, follows the child, watching to see what interests him or her — what makes him smile. Then, the parents and practitioners sit with the kids and engage them in structured play around that interest, persisting even when the response from the kid isn’t huge. “It’s a very pleasing kind of therapy, kids are happy. It is play, and it can happen everywhere,” says Dr. Rogers.

Dr. Rogers explains, “It’s not simple. Parents require a lot of coaching into how to position themselves so they’ve got children’s attention; how to get children to watch them; how to pull gestures out of the children so the child is communicating; how to choose activities so they have maximal pleasure so the child is motivated. We teach multiple different kinds of skills. Inside one particular play activity, you can get a lot of learning in.

Given the rising numbers of autistic children, finding effective interventions certainly is key. According to the organization Autism Speaks, one out of every 110 children has autism, and one out of every 70 boys. Those are startling figures, but even more startling is the fact that its prevalence is increasing by 10-17 percent annually. The lifetime cost of caring for autistic individuals runs between $3.5 million to $5 million, costing the United States about $90 billion annually.

Again, while interventions such as ESDM may offer hope for those families afflicted with autism, better yet would be to do something about the factors causing it. While the medical community points to heredity, genetics and medical problems as the factors causing autism, certainly heredity and genetics and even medical challenges existed in decades past when autism was extremely rare. And certainly nothing in the medical community’s list of factors would account for the astounding annual increase in prevalence. To account for that, it’s almost mandatory that you look to some environmental change as causing the spike.

I wrote before about a study that linked paternal age with autism in offspring — the older the father, the greater the chance he’ll father an autistic kid — and noted that toxic buildup over time in a father’s body might be responsible for compromised sperm. At that time, I urged adults (and particularly men) who wanted to have children to detox to reduce the chances of having autistic children. Studies have found links between autism and heavy metals (particularly mercury), as well as to numerous chemicals and pollutants. In fact, triclosan and triclocarban, common ingredients in those antibacterial soaps so popular as swine-flu preventives, recently have been implicated. And a study last year found a strong link between autism and a chemical commonly found in pet shampoos and insect sprays.

Once again, the message is clear: live as chemical-free as possible, protect your kids from exposure, and regularly detox to protect yourself and your future children. But if you already do have or know an autistic child, you might want to check out this ESDM link. But keep in mind it was a limited study, and it was conducted under the auspices of the originator of ESDM herself, which may have had an effect on the study’s objectivity…or not.

:hc

What’s Really is in Your Tap Water? Health Blog

December 29th, 2009

Tap Water Contamination

Ask any municipal water department if the tap water in the area is safe and you’ll get an “of course” in response. You’ll be told that the water meets all regulations for safety, meaning that contaminant levels fall under the maximum amount allowed. But here’s what you won’t hear: the Safe Water Drinking Act, which governs tap water safety, is 35 years old, and in the last 35 years, many thousands of new chemicals have been developed and released into the environment. The Safe Water Drinking Act regulates 91 chemicals, but at this point, the US uses over 60,000 chemicals, and trace amounts of at least some of those end up in the water supply, without any law in place to regulate them. And of course, not all those 60,000 unregulated chemicals are benign. In fact, according to a recent article in the New York Times, hundreds of those chemicals are known to cause cancer or other diseases. But that estimate ignores the fact that thousands more have nott yet been investigated for health consequences. To date, government scientists have evaluated only 830 of the contaminants most often found in water supplies.

But let’s pretend for a moment that only the 91 chemicals now included in the Water Act existed (not the 60,000 that in fact are there); would your water be safe? Not at all. The regulations don’t ensure safety even for the 91 because research in the past few decades has found some of the compounds cause disease at far lower levels than the law sets forth. This means that water deemed legal and safe may not be safe at all. For instance, the Times notes that the current levels allowed for arsenic are so high that one in every 600 people who regularly drinks water containing the allowable arsenic content will eventually develop bladder cancer from it. Actually, this is nothing new. As I wrote 10 years ago in the first edition of Lessons from the Miracle Doctors, water authorities accept a 93% increase in the risk of cancer from the use of chlorine in water (as estimated by the US Council of Environmental Quality) in return for a reduction in cholera and other infectious diseases. Then again, maybe that’s not a trade off that you personally want to make.

As if these factors don’t give you enough to worry about, the Water Act isn’t necessarily enforced, at least in some areas. An analysis by the Times found that 20 percent of the nation’s water systems violated established standards within the past five years, allowing excessive levels of pollutants like raw sewage and chemicals such as rocket fuel additive and uranium to remain in the water. It’s not likely that compliance will improve any time soon unless something radical changes, because to date, only six percent of the locales found in violation of the Safe Water Drinking Act received fines or citations by the EPA or other regulators. The end result, according to the Times, is that 62 million Americans have been drinking water that may contain carcinogens or other disease causing agents. But again, that ignores chlorine, fluoride, and chloramines — all used as water additives, and all known carcinogens. Factor those puppies in and you’re looking at virtually all Americans consuming carcinogens in their drinking water.

The former administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, William K. Reilly, comments, “For years, people said that America has the cleanest drinking water in the world. That was true 20 years ago. But people don’t realize how many new chemicals have emerged and how much more pollution has occurred. If they did, we would see very different attitudes.” In fact, studies published in numerous medical and environmental journals as well as reports published by the National Academy of Sciences contend that millions of people in the US get sick annually from drinking contaminated tap water.

Drinking a glass of water filled with chemical residue isn’t going to give you cancer overnight. Rather, the chemicals build up on body tissue over years, and so by the time you get sick, you haven’t a clue what caused the problem. And remember, it isn’t necessarily a single chemical causing problems in your water. Many water systems have excess levels of multiple chemicals, and research hasn’t been done on how the chemicals interact in the body over time. Even if your water system has multiple chemicals at safe levels, it’s possible that the interactive effect won’t be so safe.

It doesn’t help that lobbying groups have pressured regulators into stepping back efforts to set limits on chemical releases or on costly clean-up efforts. For instance, after perchlorate, a rocket fuel additive known to affect the central nervous system, was found toxic at low levels in EPA assessments, the US military complained that clean-up would cost billions of dollars. Subsequently, a military spokesman called the assessments “biased, unrealistic and scientifically imbalanced,” and military officials called EPA scientists unpatriotic. The dry-cleaning industry launched an equally vicious campaign to halt limits on the dry-cleaning solvent perchloroethylene, known to cause tumors.

In fact, the head of the EPA’s Environmental Risk Analysis division, Dr. Peter Preuss, describes the treatment he got from lobbying groups trying to prevent regulation: “It’s hard for me to describe the level of anger and animosity directed at us for trying to publish sound, scientific research that met the highest standards. It went way beyond what would be considered professional behavior.”

And so, perchlorate and perchloroethylene remain unregulated. The end result is that public water supplies in California, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon and eight other states have been found to contain these chemicals. Traces of perchlorate were recently found in every individual examined by CDC researchers. (It doesn’t help that the CDC also found perchlorate in all infant formulas tested.) And then, there are the other 59,999 or so chemicals to worry about.

Of course, there’s the rapidly growing problem of pharmaceutical drugs in your drinking water. They enter the water supply through virtually every toilet in the country, and practically no municipal water treatment plant has the capacity to remove them when treating water. The one piece of good news here is that some of those pharmaceuticals are highly toxic chemotherapy drugs. So yes, they may be killing you, but probably not from cancer. And with luck, maybe they’re even counteracting some of the carcinogenic chemicals in your water…or not.

In the end, the biggest offenders tend to be water systems serving fewer than 20,000 residents, because these systems lack resources and the expertise necessary to avoid problems. To find out how your tap water measured up in recent independent analyses, check here. Unless your public water supply turned up clean and problem-free (and none of the ones we checked did), don’t take chances, and don’t rely on bottled water, which often consists of repackaged tap water or spring water that’s as polluted as what comes out of your tap. Bottled water also has the plastic leaching effect, and does nothing about the water you absorb when showering. Your best bet is to protect yourself by installing high quality filters or steam distillation systems at the tap. And don’t forget your shower and bath, or better yet, get a whole-house filter if you can afford it.

:hc

Why Men Should Avoid BPA: Health Blog

November 21st, 2009

BPA, Erectile Dysfunction

BPA, otherwise known as bisphenol A, has a rap sheet as long as the Gambino family (despite the FDA’s blessing), and the list of charges keeps growing.  Used in making plastics–most notably water bottles and food containers, BPA mimics the effects of estrogen and has, in the past, been linked to breast and prostate cancers, diabetes, birth defects and heart disease, among other things. Although numerous experts and agencies — including the National Toxicology Program, the Environmental Working Group, and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences — have determined that current safety standards for BPA are inadequate, the FDA consistently has turned a deaf ear. The agency cites several studies funded by the plastics industry to back up its position, ignoring the hundreds of other studies that point to the dangers of BPA.

And so, the stuff still resides in an astonishing array of commercial products, including plastic bottles, baby bottles, the lining of aluminum cans, food wraps, and so on. But now, a new study has come out that may finally get the guys at the FDA to stop filibustering. Though they’ve proven willing to ignore research that links BPA to brain damage in fetuses, the latest research hits closer to where it hurts. According to a study just published in the journal Human Reproduction, BPA, at least at high doses, causes erectile dysfunction and significant sexual problems in men.

The study, funded by the US National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, followed 634 men who worked in factories in China. Several of the factories manufactured BPA-based products, and the 230 subjects employed at these factories had very high levels of BPA exposure. In fact, their exposure averaged 50 times that of the average American man. The other 404 workers had no exposure to BPA on the job. Sure enough, the exposed workers had a four-hundred percent increase in erection difficulty, a four hundred percent decrease in sexual desire and sexual satisfaction, and a seven-hundred percent increase in ejaculation trouble. Plus, the higher the level of exposure, the more sexual problems the subjects suffered.

Admittedly, exposure at 50 times the normal level doesn’t equate to the lower-level exposure most of us endure, although certainly the profound effects can’t be ignored. On the other hand, this is the first study looking directly at the effects of BPA in humans. “We also need to study lower levels of exposure closer to those consumers get,” says study director Dr. De-Kun Li of Kaiser Permanente. “But up until this point, the critics have dismissed the idea that BPA has health effects at any level because most of the research has been in animals. They can no longer do this.”

Critics consistently have said that just because BPA causes damage to monkeys or mice in lab tests doesn’t mean it will do the same thing to humans. In fact, so many previous animal studies have found frightening health effects from BPA even at very low levels that ignoring those results seems unthinkable, but that’s exactly what the critics have done. Naturally, many of those critics, including those within the FDA, work for the plastics industry or have ties to it. Meanwhile, testing humans has been out of the question, because of the potential for harm (sweet irony, given the claims that BPA is harmless). So Dr. Li found subjects who already had high levels of BPA exposure, and sure enough, he found significant health consequences from that exposure. Unfortunately, his conviction that critics won’t be able to dismiss “the idea that BPA has health effects at any level,” though, already has proven wrong.

The FDA, for instance, still holds to its bottom-line statement that BPA is safe at average levels of exposure, and so the chemical persists. In fact, recent testing by Consumers Reports found traces of BPA in virtually every can of food they examined. According to Consumers Reports, “consumers eating just one serving of the canned vegetable soup we tested would get about double what the FDA now considers typical average dietary daily exposure.”

And then there’s the spokesman for the American Chemical Council, Dr. Steve Hentges, who apparently was unmoved by the possibility of erectile dysfunction as a BPA byproduct. Dr. Hentges says, “[This study provides] interesting information, but is of little relevance to the average consumer using products with trace levels of BPA. Based on the findings of the many government agencies that have examined the science, there is a consensus that BPA poses little risk to human health at these levels.”

Consensus? Dr. Hentges must define that word in a unique way, given the outcry calling for stricter BPA guidelines coming from so many quarters. Even the FDA’s own Science Board issued a statement last year admitting that the FDA’s stance might be a tad cavalier and that BPA safety should be reconsidered. If there is “consensus,” it lies on the anti side of the BPA question. In fact, Minnesota, Chicago, and numerous other states and cities are moving toward banning the chemical. Six manufacturers have stopped using BPA in baby bottles in the past year alone. And retailers as profit-hungry as WalMart have made a decision to pull BPA-laden products from their shelves. Now, that’s a consensus!

At this point, the pro BPA “consensus” Dr. Hentges refers to exists only among those with something to gain from continuing to produce BPA — and that includes the chemical manufacturers, the plastics industry, the FDA, and perhaps now Pfizer, Inc., home of the erectile-dysfunction drug Viagra.

:hc

« Older Health Blogs