‘Erin Brockovich’ Carcinogen in Tap Water of More than 200 Million Americans | EWG

‘Erin Brockovich’ Carcinogen in Tap Water of More than 200 Million Americans | @ewg | #ChemicalSafety

health_flouride-h2o

In the film “Erin Brockovich,” the environmental crusader confronts the lawyer of a power company that polluted the tap water of Hinkley, Calif., with a carcinogenic chemical called chromium-6. When the lawyer picks up a glass of water, Brockovich says: “We had that water brought in ‘specially for you folks. Came from a well in Hinkley.”

The lawyer sets down the glass and says, “I think this meeting’s over.”

But almost 25 years after that real-life confrontation,[1] the conflict over chromium-6 is not over. A new EWG analysis of federal data from nationwide drinking water tests shows that the compound contaminates water supplies for more than 200 million Americans in all 50 states. Yet federal regulations are stalled by a chemical industry challenge that could mean no national regulation of a chemical state scientists in California and elsewhere say causes cancer when ingested at even extraordinarily low levels.

The standoff is the latest round in a tug-of-war between scientists and advocates who want regulations based strictly on the chemical’s health hazards and industry, political and economic interests who want more relaxed rules based on the cost and feasibility of cleanup. If the industry challenge prevails, it will also extend the Environmental Protection Agency’s record, since the 1996 landmark amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act, of failing to use its authority to set a national tap water safety standard for any previously unregulated chemical.[2]

In 2008, a two-year study by the National Toxicology Program found that drinking water with chromium-6, or hexavalent chromium, caused cancer in laboratory rats and mice.[3] Based on this and other animal studies, in 2010, scientists at the respected and influential California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment concluded that ingestion of tiny amounts of chromium-6 can cause cancer in people, a conclusion affirmed by state scientists in New Jersey and North Carolina.

The California scientists set a so-called public health goal of 0.02 parts per billion in tap water, the level that would pose negligible risk over a lifetime of consumption.[4] (A part per billion is about a drop of water in an Olympic-size swimming pool.) But in 2014, after aggressive lobbying by industry and water utilities, state regulators adopted a legal limit 500 times the public health goal.[5] It is the only enforceable drinking water standard at either the state or federal level.

 

Potentially unsafe concentrations for two-thirds of AmericaSpurred by a groundbreaking 2010 EWG investigation that found chromium-6 in the tap water of 31 cities[6] and a Senate hearing prompted by the findings, the EPA ordered local water utilities to begin the first nationwide tests for the unregulated contaminant. From 2013 to 2015, utilities took more than 60,000 samples of drinking water and found chromium-6 in more than 75 percent of them.[7] EWG’s analysis of the test data estimates that water supplies serving 218 million Americans – more than two-thirds of the population – contain more chromium-6 than the California scientists deemed safe.

(Read Full Article: Click “Source” Link Below)

Source: ‘Erin Brockovich’ Carcinogen in Tap Water of More than 200 Million Americans | EWG

Advertisements

FYI: Foods v. Pesticides

– AARP – http://blog.aarp.org

Strawberries Top ‘Dirty Dozen’ List for Pesticides

FOODS_S-BERRIES

And the winner — or maybe we should say, loser — this year is … strawberries.For the first time in five years, the popular berry has ousted apples from the number one spot on the Environmental Working Group’s annual report of the produce with the most pesticide residue — aka “The Dirty Dozen.” The nonprofit group also included a “Clean 15” list of produce lowest in pesticides.

After strawberries, apples are number two, followed by nectarines, peaches, celery, grapes, cherries, spinach, tomatoes, sweet bell peppers, cherry tomatoes and cucumbers. Leafy greens, including kale and collard greens, and hot peppers also rated a mention for having worrisome insecticide residue levels.

Conventionally grown strawberries had an average of 5.75 different pesticides per sample, compared to 1.74 pesticides per sample of all the other produce the USDA tested, the environmental advocacy group reported. However, only about 7 percent of the strawberries sampled in 2014 had levels of pesticide residues considered illegal.

“Fruits and vegetables are important for your health, but for those on the Dirty Dozen, we recommend buying the organic versions if you want to avoid pesticides on your food,” Sonya Lunder, EWG senior analyst, said in a statement.

Avocados topped the Clean 15 list, with only 1 percent of samples showing any detectable pesticides.  Also on the list: sweet corn, pineapples, cabbage, frozen sweet peas, onions, asparagus, mangoes, papayas, kiwis, eggplant, honeydew melon, grapefruit, cantaloupe and cauliflower.

None of the samples of these fruits tested positive for more than four types of pesticides, and 89 percent of pineapples, 81 percent of papayas, 78 percent of mangoes, 73 percent of kiwi and 62 percent of cantaloupes had no detectable residues.

The EWG’s annual report is based on pesticide residue testing by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). According to EWG, nearly three-fourths of the nearly 7,000 produce samples tested by the USDA in 2014 — the most recent year for which data is available — contained pesticide residues, although the USDA said this year that “overall pesticide chemical residues found on the foods tested are at levels below the tolerances established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and do not pose a safety concern.” The agency noted that residues exceeding EPA tolerances were detected in only 0.36 percent of the samples tested.

“The resulting data in this year’s report gives consumers confidence that the products they buy for their families are safe and wholesome,” said Ruihong Guo, deputy administrator of the USDA’s science and technology program.

The EWG’s Lunder called the EPA’s residue levels allowed on produce “too lax to protect Americans’ health. They should be updated to reflect new research that shows even very small doses of toxic chemicals can be harmful, particularly for young children.”

 
 

 

 

Butterflies & The Bees!

ENVIRONS_B'TTERFLIE-AGNST
naturalnews.com
Originally published March 15 2016

Bee and butterfly populations are dwindling: crops, the economy, and the future of the world are beginning to feel the effects
by L.J. Devon, Staff Writer

(NaturalNews) In the quest for power and control, mankind has lost reverence for the biology and interconnected ecology that supports life on Earth. As mankind seeks dominion, he continues to separate himself from his natural surroundings, entering a state of disharmony that ultimately affects the natural systems in his body.

In agriculture, mankind has found ways to selectively engineer the genome of crops, taking out undesired traits to give crop produce a flawless appearance. How do these manipulations of crop DNA ultimately affect the human body?

Corporations continue to produce herbicides which are sprayed en masse to destroy the natural life science of plant growth. While the rest of the natural world feels the negative effects, corporations like Monsanto then profit from the poisons by genetically engineering their own seeds to withstand the chemical attacks they created (Roundup-Ready crops). Man-made, chemical science is replacing the natural science that has abounded and coexisted with humans since the beginning. What is mankind’s new age synthetic pesticide science doing to the harmony in the human body?

Studies already show that herbicides like glyphosate are destroying the natural microbiology that connects man with his natural surroundings. Glyphosate kills off several species of good bacteria that live in the guts and intestines of humans. These bacteria intelligently communicate with the body, aiding in digestion, protecting the blood, and activating immune system responses.

Pesticides and herbicides are actually threatening the global economy!
Studies show that pesticides and herbicides are also affecting the pollinators of the natural world, inhibiting their ability to fight off infectious mites and disease.

The more that mankind tries to control agriculture with chemicals and manipulations of DNA, the more he inadvertently hurts the pollinators – predominantly the bees and the butterflies. The corporations that are supposedly building the economy are actually destroying both the economy and the natural world. As the ill effects of pesticides take hold, pollinator populations dwindle, ultimately affecting the reproductive ability of important vegetable and herb crops.

A 2016 assessment from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), asserts, “Many wild bees and butterflies have been declining in abundance, occurrence and diversity at local and regional scales in Northwest Europe and North America.” The more than 80 scientists conclude that pesticides are among the many man-made problems causing the mass pollinator die-offs. Mass-produced pesticides are spurring the evolution of invasive species and pathogens. Herbicides also contribute to habitat loss.

Up to 8 percent of world agricultural production is due to natural pollinators
Without pollinators, fruit and vegetable crops suffer. Between 5 and 8 percent of global agricultural production is because of the natural pollinators. Bees and butterflies stabilize the entire agricultural system, contributing an estimated 235 to 577 billion dollars to the economy of world agriculture.

The IPBES report reminds that, “Pollinator-dependent species encompass many fruit, vegetable, seed, nut and oil crops, which supply major proportions of micronutrients, vitamins, and minerals in the human diet.”

Through four years of study, the IPBES found that 16 percent of bat and bird pollinators around the world are being threatened to the point of extinction. In Europe, 37 percent of bee species and 31 percent of butterfly species are declining. In some places there, 40 percent of bee species are threatened.

Ultimately, dwindling numbers of pollinators leads to lower crop yields, which leads to rising prices for some of the healthiest fruit and vegetable crops. The crops most at risk include apples, mangoes and chocolate.

“Pretty much nearly all your fruits and many of your vegetables are pollination-dependent,” said Simon Potts, deputy director of the Centre for Agri-Environmental Research at Britain’s Reading University.

The high yields and natural quality of more than three quarters of the “leading types of global food crops,” rely extensively on natural pollination. Strangely, this natural science of pollination is being threatened by mankind’s chemical science. Is it time to re-evaluate what science really is? How can we educate ourselves going forward to preserve the natural science that connects all living systems?

The IPBES is calling for alternatives to pesticides and the diversification of agriculture to sustain nature’s pollinators and the future survival of the human race.

Sources include:

TheGuardian.com
MDPI.com
Science.NaturalNews.com

All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml

Biohazard: Mercury!

Study reveals frighteningly vast amounts of mercury in U.S. land; high concentrations falling from the sky during rainfall

(NaturalNews) After steadily dropping for many years, mercury levels in some parts of the United States are starting to rise again, according to a study published in Science of the Total Environment.

The long-term national trend is still downward, but levels of mercury in rainwater increased across the Rocky Mountains and the Midwest between 2007 and 2013.

“It’s a surprising result,” said co-author David Gay of the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. “Everybody expected [mercury levels] to continue going down. But our analysis shows that may not necessarily be the case.”

Mercury is a chemical element that functions as a potent neurotoxin. The majority of mercury in the environment is released by human industrial activities, primarily through the burning of coal. Atmospheric mercury, such as from coal combustion, is washed into the water and soil by rainfall.

Mercury not coming from the U.S.

The researchers analyzed data collected by a network of sites in the United States and Canada that measure the mercury content of precipitation. Data collection began in 1997, and initially showed only a downward trend in mercury levels. Beginning in 2007 or 2008, however, some sites started to show increases rather than decreases.

That’s because the vast majority of sites in 1997 were in the eastern United States. Monitoring locations in other states were added about a decade later.

“This [increase] hadn’t been observed before, and the sites with positive trends were primarily concentrated in the Intermountain West and in the central part of the continent, in the Rocky Mountain, Plains, and Midwest regions,” said lead researcher Peter Weiss-Penzias of the University of California – Santa Cruz. “On the Eastern Seaboard, the trend was still largely negative even for the shorter time periods.”

U.S. mercury emissions have been steadily decreasing for several decades, so the sudden uptick caught researchers by surprise.

The same data collection sites also measured the sulfate concentrations of rainfall. Sulfate is typically emitted by the same sources as atmospheric mercury, and is therefore an indicator of local sources of mercury pollution. The researchers found that sulfate levels continued to drop even in areas that saw increases in mercury. This shows that the mercury contamination in the central United States is coming from elsewhere, the researchers said.

Long-term consequences unknown

The researchers point to booming coal combustion in Asia as the likely culprit. The mercury was likely taken up into the upper atmosphere, and began to fall when it hit turbulence above the Rocky Mountains.

Harvard researcher Hannah Horowitz, who has discovered similar data in her own work, agrees that the mercury is likely coming from outside of the U.S. She notes that because of its high elevation, the Rocky Mountain region tends to gather and trap more atmospheric pollution from distant regions.

Newly increasing levels of mercury – particularly increases over which the United States has little direct control – are deeply troubling.

“As a general rule, we are very concerned about mercury because it can be present at very dilute levels in the environment, parts per trillion, but in the food chain—in a food that we eat and that other animals eat—it can reach levels that are toxic,” Weiss-Penzias said.

Because mercury bio-accumulates, it also tends to increase in concentration as it moves up the food chain. That’s why certain predatory fish tend to be so high in mercury levels that pregnant women are advised against eating them.

Researchers do not know if the increase in mercury levels will continue, or what its ultimate effects will be. But they warn that if the current trend of a 2 percent increase per year continues, the end result will be a massive new accumulation of environmental mercury.

“And once an ecosystem is contaminated with mercury, it can take decades for it to become uncontaminated,” Weiss-Penzias warns.

Sources for this article include: ScientificAmerican.com

ScienceDaily.com

Science.NaturalNews.com

Get breaking news alerts on GMOs, fluoride, superfoods, natural cures and more…

Take Action: Support Natural News by linking to this article from your website

Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK, cite NaturalNews.com with clickable link.

Ingesting Estrogen Via Everyday Products

Alternet
Published on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org)

ENVIRONS_HOUSE-CLNRS

Are You Ingesting Estrogen Without Realizing It From These Everyday Products?
By Martha Rosenberg [1] / AlterNet [2]
February 12, 2016

It is no secret that our bodies and our environment are swimming in estrogen. Puberty is occurring in children as young as eight and in 2010 babies in China [3] were reported to be developing breasts. In 2011, the United Kingdom’s Daily Mail [4] observed that women’s bra cup sizes were growing even when the women themselves were not gaining weight and speculated it was estrogen exposure. And frogs and fish [5] are becoming “intersex” and losing their male characteristics from endocrine disrupters in the environment and waterways.

Over 10 years ago, the routine administration of estrogen to women as they approach menopause and afterward (called hormone replacement therapy or HRT) was found to cause a 26 percent increase in the risk of breast cancer, 41 percent increase in the risk of strokes, 29 percent increase in the risk of heart attacks and double the rate of blood clots.

Unfortunately, the public has a short memory. HRT is making a comeback [6] even though it is such a definitive cause of breast cancer that U.S. cancer rates sharply dropped when women quit in 2002. HRT is still billed as a fountain of youth despite its links to the “elderly” conditions of cataracts, urinary incontinence and joint degeneration as well as lung, ovarian, skin and gall bladder cancer.

But a lot of the estrogen we are exposed to is under the radar. Endocrine disrupters (chemicals that mimic estrogen) are found in plastics like BPA, petroleum-based products, agricultural pesticides, herbicides and fungicides, detergents and cosmetics and even everyday items like furniture, carpeting and thermal receipts. Do you have Colgate’s Total [7] toothpaste or Ajax and Palmolive antibacterial dish detergents at home? Triclosan, the endocrine disrupter they contain, is considered so dangerous the state of Minnesota has banned it [8].

The U.S. meat industry is also steeped in estrogen, using hormones like zeranol and melengestrol and the steroid trenbolone to fatten animals and increase profits. Zeranol is especially controversial. A 2009 paper in Anticancer Research [9] says, “Our laboratory has reported that long-term exposure to either Z [zeranol] or E2 [estradiol-17ß] can induce transformation of human breast epithelial MCF-10A cells.” Translation: it can cause breast cancer. Another paper [10] reports that “breast irritation” can occur in people only exposed to the clothes of those working around zeranol! No wonder the European Union bans U.S. beef.

Do you remember the outbreak of precocious puberty and breast development in children in Italy and Puerto Rico [10] in the late 1970s and ’80s? A paper in Science of the Total Environment [10] attributes the symptoms to “deliberate introduction of zeranol into livestock to enhance meat production.” In both the Italy and Puerto Rico outbreaks the symptoms disappeared when the hormone-laced food was removed.

Zeranol is “banned for use in animal husbandry in the European Union and other countries, but is still widely used in the U.S.,” says the paper. “Surprisingly, little is known about the health effects of these mycoestrogens, including their impact on puberty in girls, a period highly sensitive to estrogenic stimulation.” Another scientific paper [11] called, “Detection of Six Zeranol Residues in Animal-derived Food by HPLC-MS/MS” found clear drug traces in the food.

What can we do to avoid dangerous estrogens in the environment? Avoid meat, dairy and seafood products grown with hormones or pesticides, herbicides and fungicides. If in doubt, say no. Avoid plastics, petroleum-based products and household items with endocrine disrupters [12] as well as soaps and personal care products [13] with “germ killing” agents like triclosan, “fragrance” and parabens. In addition to boycotting such products, tell your lawmakers to stop letting Big Chem and Big Meat poison us with estrogen.

Martha Rosenberg is an investigative health reporter and the author of “Born With a Junk Food Deficiency: How Flaks, Quacks and Hacks Pimp the Public Health [14] (Random House).”

Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/personal-health/are-you-ingesting-estrogen-without-realizing-it-these-everyday-products

 

IT’S TIME!

EnvironsAlternet
Published on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org)
For More Than 50 Years, DuPont Concealed the Cancer-Causing Properties of Teflon
By Sharon Kelly [1] / Earth Island Journal [2]
January 4, 2016

Almost two decades ago, Carla Bartlett, a then 41-year -old West Virginia secretary and mother of two, was first diagnosed with cancer – what her surgeon later labeled a “garden variety” type of kidney cancer.

“I was scared to death,” Bartlett, now 59, told an Ohio federal jury this fall during hearings in the first of more than 3,500 personal injury and wrongful death suits by West Virginia and Ohio residents against the chemical giant DuPont. “And all I could think of was not being there, not being able to be there for my family.” Bartlett’s tumor and part of her rib were removed in a surgery in 1997 that, she said, involved cutting her “virtually in half.” Though the cancer hasn’t recurred since, for Bartlett, the harm, both physical and emotional, has lingered. “It’s never out of my mind, because you worry constantly about it,” she said. “And then I have the reminder of the scar, every day, that, you know, this… this is… this was cancer; this could come back.”

(Read Full Article:  http://www.alternet.org/personal-health/dupont-duplicity-chemical-giant-hid-cancer-causing-properties-teflon

FYI: Toxin Methylene Chloride

Common Solvent Keeps Killing Workers, Consumers
www.publicintegrity.org/2015/09/21/17991/common-solvent-keeps-killing-workers-consumers

Regulators have been slow to act on paint strippers, other products containing methylene chloride

Rita Welch’s son, Johnathan, died on the job at 18 while stripping furniture with methylene chloride.*

By Jamie Smith Hopkins
5:00 am, September 21, 2015  Updated: 12:26 pm, September 21, 2015

ENVIRONS_HOUSE-CLNRSKey findings:

Johnathan Welch was 18 and working through lunch when the fumes killed him, stealing oxygen from his brain, stopping his heart.

The chemical linked to his death in 1999 wasn’t a newly discovered hazard, nor was it hard to acquire. Methylene chloride, which triggered similar deaths dating as far back as the 1940s, could be bought barely diluted in products on retail shelves.

It still can. And it’s still killing people.

The solvent is common in paint strippers, widely available products with labels that warn of cancer risks but do not make clear the possibility of rapid death. In areas where the fumes can concentrate, workers and consumers risk asphyxiation or a heart attack while taking care of seemingly routine tasks.

That hazard prompted the European Union to pull methylene chloride paint strippers from general use in 2011. For reasons that aren’t clear, regulatory agencies in the United States have not followed suit — or even required better warnings — despite decades of evidence about the dangers, a Center for Public Integrity investigation found.

A Center analysis identified at least 56 accidental exposure deaths linked to methylene chloride since 1980 in the U.S. Thirty-one occurred before Johnathan Welch died, 24 after. The most recent was in July. Many involved paint strippers; in other cases victims used the chemical for tasks such as cleaning and gluing carpet, according to death investigations and autopsy reports the Center obtained through Freedom of Information Act and state open records requests.

Teenagers on the job, a mother of four, workers nearing retirement, an 80-year-old man — the toxic vapors took them all. A Colorado resident one year older than Welch was killed his first day at a furniture-stripping shop. Three South Carolina workers were felled in a single incident in 1986. Church maintenance employee Steve Duarte, 24, survived the Iraq War only to be killed in 2010 while stripping a baptismal pool in California.
Three decades of death

Methylene chloride, a common ingredient in products such as paint strippers, can kill when its fumes build up in an enclosed area. The Center for Public Integrity, combing through workplace death investigations, coroners’ reports and poison control center reports, found 56 deaths since 1980 that authorities linked to unintentional overexposure to the chemical. The number is likely an undercount because there is no single tally of such deaths. Unless otherwise noted, the key source of information is the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration or state workplace-safety agencies.

——————————————————————-

(TYH Note:  *This sentence has been edited slightly for publication on this blog)

CLEAN AIR PLANTS

Types of Houseplants To Clean Indoor Air

Welcome to Sustainable Baby Steps

Give me 7 days and I’ll have you so crunchy you’ll have to change your name to Moonbeam. (Plus, you’ll get inbox love from me. And everybody wants my inbox love.)

Get the Free Guide

Why invest in expensive electrical air purifiers when you could purchase a few types of houseplants to clean and filter the air naturally and inexpensively?

Much of the research on these beneficial houseplants has been done by NASA scientists researching ways to create suitable space station habitats. All indoors plants (flowering or not) are able to purify indoor air to some degree through their normal photosynthesis processes. But some were found to be more beneficial than others in removing harmful household toxins, even removing 90% of chemicals in the air in only twenty-four hours!

The three main household toxins of concern are:

  • benzene
  • formaldahyde
  • trichloroethylene

These carcinogenic chemicals are used in the manufacturing of synthetic substances and materials and are off-gased from new materials for some time (up to several years, depending on the material of product in question). Benzene can also be emitted from gas ranges during use, making some types of houseplants below great for use in the kitchen.

This means these types of houseplants may just decrease your risk of cancers, asthma, allergies, auto-immune disorders and other diseases.

Tips for Choosing and Caring for Your Plants

Below you’ll find the common name and botanical name of each plant, its benefit to you and your home and a few ideas of the type of care it needs.

Along with a corresponding photo and the following tips, you can decide which plant is best for your home.

  • Choose one 10- to 12-inch potted plant per 100 square foot of your home for the most effective air purification.
  • Cross-reference several care guides to check for the most accurate and up-to-date information.
  • Because common names can very, be sure to cross-reference the botanical name of any plant you get to ensure it will do the job you need it to do.
  • Consider where you might place your plants and the amount of sun they will receive to ensure your plant will thrive in that area.
  • Make note of the water needed and write it on a calendar so that you can keep the watering schedules balanced.
  • Periodically dust the leaves of each plant with a damp cloth to ensure proper absorption of air particles and toxins.
  • Keep their soil replenished with rich compost or compost tea. Avoid non-organic or synthetic fertilizers.
  • Whenever possible, capture rainwater for your plants. All types of houseplants thrive best with natural sources of water.

IMPORTANT: Please note that these houseplants are good for purifying air, but that doesn’t mean they are safe for pets or kids who like to put things in their mouth. Check out this list for more details, read the descriptions of each plant, and do some research on any plant you bring into your home.

Nineteen Houseplants That Clean Indoor Air

The following list of beneficial types of houseplants should get you started in finding the right plants for your home.


Common Name: Aloe Vera
Botanical Name: Aloe barbadensis

Benefits: Not only can it be used for burns on the skin, it is also known to remove formaldahyde from the air.

Notes: Needs well-drained soil with slight drying between waterings, full sun is best with protection from high heats. Although largely known for its healing properties, it is considered to be an irritant to some.


Common Name: Areca Palm
Botanical Name: Chrysalidocarpus lutescens

Benefits: General air purifier, especially as it grows larger. It’s known for being one of the better performers in purifying the air.

Notes: Moderately drought tolerant and prefers partial sun and well-drained soil.


Common Name: Baby Rubber Plant
Botanical Name: Peperomia obtusifolia or Ficus robusta

Benefits: These houseplants clean the air by emitting high oxygen content, and purifies indoor air by removing chemicals, such as formaldahyde or other toxins.

Notes: Likes filtered light, infrequent watering and rich soil. I’ve found conflicting information as to whether or not this plant contains any poisonous parts.


Common Name: Bamboo Palm or Reed Palm
Botanical Name: Chamaedorea seifrizii

Benefits: According to NASA, it removes formaldahyde and is also said to act as a natural humidifier.

Notes: Likes bright, indirect light and prefers to remain moist but not too much and doesn’t like sitting in water.


Common Name: Boston Fern
Botanical Name: Nephrolepis exaltata Bostoniensis

Benefits: Said to act as a natural air humidifier, removes formaldahyde and is a general air purifier. Said to be among the best in air purifying houseplants.

Notes: Likes bright light and damp soil but can be tolerant of drought or partial light.


Common Name: Chinese Evergreen
Botanical Name: Aglaonema sp.

Benefits: Emits high oxygen content, and purifies indoor air by removing chemicals, such as formaldahyde, benzene or other toxins.

Notes: Does well with full shade and good draining; variegated plants need more sunlight. The sap of this plant is considered poisonous and is an irritant.


Common Name: Corn Cane or Mass Cane
Botanical Name: Dracaena massangeana or dracaena fragrans Massangeana

Benefits: Known for removing formaldahyde and known generally as one of the houseplants that clean the air.

Notes: Does great with low light and low water.


Common Name: Dwarf/Pygmy Date Palm
Botanical Name: Phoenix roebelenii

Benefits: Said to remove formaldehyde and xylene (a chemical found in plastics and solvents) from the air.

Notes: Loves lots of sun, moist soil and warm water.


Common Name: English Ivy
Botanical Name: Hedera helix

Benefits: It’s known for removing the chemical benzene, a known carcinogen found in cigarette smoke, detergents, pesticides, and the off-gasing of other synthetic materials, is said to be fantastic for asthma and allergies and also removes formaldehyde.

Notes: Can be invasive, making it great for a potted plant.


Common Name: Ficus alii
Botanical Name: Ficus maeleilandii alii

Benefits: Said to be a great overall air purifier.

Notes: These types of houseplants love indirect sunlight; be careful not to overwater. Those with allergies to latex may react to this plant!


Common Name: Gerbera Daisy
Botanical Name: Gerbera sp. or Gerbera jamesonii

Benefits: NASA says this plant is fantastic at removing benzene, a known cancer-causing chemical. It also absorbs carbon dioxide and gives off oxygen overnight, which is said to improve your sleep!

Notes: Likes bright light


Common Name: Golden Pothos
Botanical Name: Epipremnum aureum syn. Scindapsus aureus

Benefits: NASA places this plant among the top 3 types of houseplants great for removing formaldhyde. Also known for removing carbon monoxide and increasing general indoor air quality.

Notes: Needs less water in colder temps and partial sun.


Common Name: Janet Craig
Botanical Name: Draecana deremensis

Benefits: Lady Palm is said to be a good overall air purifier, removing most air pollutants.

Notes: Prefers indirect sunlight, and watering without fertilizers.


Common Name: Kimberly Queen Fern
Botanical Name: Nephrolepis obliterata

Benefits: These types of houseplants clean formaldehyde, toluene, and xylene out of your home.

Notes: Prefers bright but indirect sunlight, with dry soil between waterings (but not dry for too long).


Common Name: Lady Palm (plus 10+ varieties)
Botanical Name: Rhapis Excelsa

Benefits: These types of houseplants are said to be a good overall air purifier, removing most air pollutants.

Notes: Prefers partial sun all day and shade in the winter, with more frequent water in hotter months, but never allow to sit in water or be overwatered.


Common Name: Marginata or Dragon tree
Botanical Name: Dracaena marginata

Benefits: Known for purifying the air of the carcinogen, benzene, commonly found in the off-gasing of synthetic materials, ciagerette smoke and other household chemicals. Also known for removing formaldahyde, xylene (found in varnishes, paints and paint thinners) and trichloroethylene (found in solvents) from the air.

Notes: It requires little attention, tolerates dry soil and irregular watering and prefers no direct sunlight. It is, however, susceptible to fluoride toxicity (so fluoridated water sources may need to be avoided).


Common Name: Moth Orchid
Botanical Name: Phalaenopsis

Benefits: Said to remove VOCs (volatile organic compounds) and formaldahyde commonly off-gased from paints, solvents and other synthetic materials.

Notes: Thrives in high humidity, lots of light (but not hot, mid-day sun) and thorough waterings with, unlike many types of houseplants, almost complete drying out between.


Common Name: Mums
Botanical Name: Chrysanthemum sp. or Chrysanthemum morifolium

Benefits: Very effective at removing benzene, a carcinogen (cancer-causing substance) associated with most chemicals, plastics, cigarettes and off-gasing. Also removes trichloroethylene (found in solvets and cleaners), formaldehyde and ammonia.

Notes: Likes partial sun, and lots of water. Although they’re among the houseplants that clean the air, they only flower once and are generally annual plants, especially when planted outdoors.


Common Name: Peace Lily
Botanical Name: Spathiphyllum sp.

Benefits: Known for removing benzene, a common household chemical and known carcinogen. It’s also said to remove mold spores in the air, making it great for bathrooms, kitchens and laundry rooms; purifying the air of trichloroethylene, a chemical found in cleaners and solvents; and removing alcohols, acetone, and formaldehyde.

Notes: Easy to care for, it prefers lots of water, less often and bright, indirect light.


Common Name: Philodendron
Botanical Name: P. cordatum, P.scandens or P. selloum

Benefits: Also noted by NASA among the best tyoes of houseplants for removing formaldahyde, especially higher concentrations.

Notes: Philodendrons are considered poisonous, so keep out of the reach of children and pets.


Common Name: Snake Plant
Botanical Name: Sansevieria trifasciata

Benefits: Found by NASA to absorb toxins, such as nitrogen oxides and formaldahyde.

Notes: It tolerates low light levels and irregular watering (and needs only a few waterings throughout winter).


Common Name: Schefflera, or Umbrella Tree
Botanical Name: Brassaia actinophylla

Benefits: Said to remove benzene (a carcinogenic substance) from the air.

Notes: Can be toxic to pets and children. Prfers bright but indirect sun and lots of water and humidity.


Common Name: Spider Plant
Botanical Name: Chlorophytum comosum

Benefits: NASA places this plant among the top 3 types of houseplants that are great at removing formaldahyde. Also removes carbon monoxide and other toxins or impurities.

Notes: Likes bright, indirect light and lots of water while growing.


Common Name: Warneckii or Dracanaena warneckei
Botanical Name: Dracaena deremeusis or Dracanea deremensis warneckei

Benefits: Known for removing trichloroethylene, a chemical found in many solvents, dry cleaning solutions and refrigerants. Also said to remove benzene, a carcinogene.

Notes: Moderate sun and water needs, but, like most types of houseplants, dislikes sitting in water. Avoid fluoridated water sources.


Common Name: Weeping Fig or Ficus Tree
Botanical Name: Ficus benjamina

Benefits: Known to remove common airborn toxins and increase oxygen levels.

Notes: Prefers bright light and sun, but is also shade-tolerant. Moderate water needs for these types of houseplants.

Reader Questions

I live in an apartment on the 2nd floor. The people below me smoke. It comes through the air vents (I think) in the bedroom and bedroom bathroom. The bathroom gets absolutely no light. The bedroom has a large window facing southeast but also gets late afternoon sun. What kind of plants might survive in the dark shower/toilet area? What plants for very indirect lighting in the sink and dressing area? What plants for the bedroom? (For the moment I have open baking soda containers in each area.) Thank you so very much. – Susan S.

Hi Susan! I’m so sorry to hear about this. What a yucky situation. All plants need at least some light, but from my own personal experience the plant that has been the best for us has been Philodendron (a pic of which can be found above). We’ve had it in some really low light situations and it still lived (although didn’t thrive until it gone a little more light). What you might find necessary though is to take your plants and outdoors for a few hours or place it in a full sun window, doing either 1-2x a week.

If that doesn’t work it may well be worth it in this scenario to invest in an air purifier (or even a grow light for hydroponic plants that you can use a coupe hours a day, perhaps on a timer). I’d also highly recommend looking into local laws as I do believe that the apartment management may be liable by law to better seal the vents or air exchange between apartments for this reason. I hope this helps! Good luck!

Looking for more ways to purify the air?

Sometimes we need a little boost in the air. Maybe the flu is going around, or you’ve recently painted and you want to purify the air.

Essential oils have been shown to remove odors from the air, as well as protect against environmental threats. Popular oils for air quality commonly include lemon, lime, pine, citronella, melaleuca, cilantro, and other oils.

Essential oils can be easily diffused to make them airborne. You can also add it to homemade cleaning products, washing machines, or create a room spray with distilled water.

To learn more about purifying essential oils, click here.

Study: Most Plastics Leach Hormone-Like Chemicals : NPR

Study: Most Plastics Leach Hormone-Like Chemicals : NPR.

Study: Most Plastics Leach Hormone-Like Chemicals : NPR
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/02/134196209/study-most-plastics-leach-hormone-like-chemicals

March 02, 2011 4:07 PM ET
Jon Hamilton
FOODS_BPA
Makers of water bottles, including Camelback, now sell products that don’t contain BPA, a chemical that can mimic the sex hormone estrogen. But a new study says that even if they don’t contain BPA, most plastic products release estrogenic chemicals.

Makers of water bottles, including Camelback, now sell products that don’t contain BPA, a chemical that can mimic the sex hormone estrogen. But a new study says that even if they don’t contain BPA, most plastic products release estrogenic chemicals.

Most plastic products, from sippy cups to food wraps, can release chemicals that act like the sex hormone estrogen, according to a study in Environmental Health Perspectives.

The study found these chemicals even in products that didn’t contain BPA, a compound in certain plastics that’s been widely criticized because it mimics estrogen.

Many plastic products are now marketed as BPA-free, and manufacturers have begun substituting other chemicals whose effects aren’t as well known.

But it’s still unclear whether people are being harmed by BPA or any other so-called estrogenic chemicals in plastics. Most studies of health effects have been done in mice and rats.

The new study doesn’t look at health risks. It simply asks whether common plastic products release estrogen-like chemicals other than BPA.

The researchers bought more than 450 plastic items from stores including Walmart and Whole Foods. They chose products designed to come in contact with food — things like baby bottles, deli packaging and flexible bags, says George Bittner, one of the study’s authors and a professor of biology at the University of Texas, Austin.

Then CertiChem, a testing company founded by Bittner, chopped up pieces of each product and soaked them in either saltwater or alcohol to see what came out.

The testing showed that more than 70 percent of the products released chemicals that acted like estrogen. And that was before they exposed the stuff to real-world conditions: simulated sunlight, dishwashing and microwaving, Bittner says.

Exactly how BPA affects humans, and how serious its effects are, are still very much up for debate. The U.S. government generally advocates caution and more research, but agencies have issued a range of hesitant warnings. The National Toxicology Program, a division of the National Institutes of Health, says it has “some concern” about potential BPA exposures to the brains and prostate glands of fetuses, infants and children. Other agencies say they have lingering, unresolved “questions” about the chemical.

Those questions largely circle around how prolonged exposure to the chemical in childhood or adulthood could affect reproduction and growth; how low-dose exposure at sensitive developmental stages could affect children and babies later in life; and how parental exposure could affect the next generation. Studies have shown links between BPA and cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and a host of other illnesses.

One major sticking point for scientists is the challenge of drawing conclusions from hundreds of studies, each using different animals (mice and rats among them), doses, and routes of exposure. As the Environmental Protection Agency has noted, “there is controversy about whether effects seen at lower doses in animals are meaningful and relevant to humans.” And scientists have also wondered whether rodents are more sensitive to the chemical than us because they metabolize it differently.

Last year, the NIH launched a new round of studies, all with the same methodology, designed to answer the some of the niggling questions and help the government provide clearer guidance than it’s been able to so far.

— Eliza Barclay

“Then, you greatly increase the probability that you’re going to get chemicals having estrogenic activity released,” he says, adding that more than 95 percent of the products tested positive after undergoing this sort of stress.

But what about all those products marketed as BPA-free? That’s a claim being made for everything from dog bowls to bento boxes these days.

The team concentrated on BPA-free baby bottles and water bottles, Bittner says, “and all of them released chemicals having estrogenic activity.” Sometimes the BPA-free products had even more activity than products known to contain BPA.

The testing didn’t show which chemicals are to blame, which is likely to be frustrating to manufacturers.

But Bittner says consumers should be encouraged that at least some plastic products had no estrogen-like activity. He says that shows it is possible to make these products.

Early reaction to the study was mixed. Some scientists wondered about the test’s reliability. Others noted that wine and many vegetables also can act like estrogen. And a few observed that Bittner has a financial interest in the testing lab and in a company involved in making plastic products that don’t release estrogenic chemicals.

On the other hand, groups that have warned about the potential dangers of BPA in the past seemed to welcome the new research.

“This is really helpful because they took a look at very common products,” says Sonya Lunder, a senior analyst at the Environmental Working Group.

But the results suggest that concerns about plastics can’t be solved by worried consumers at the checkout counter, Lunder says. It’s a problem for government, she says.

“Regulatory agencies need to study the effect of chemicals leaching out of plastic,” Lunder says, adding that an EPA program formed more than a decade ago to do this sort of research still hasn’t produced many results.

Until scientists come up with more definitive answers, Lunder says, worried consumers can follow the old advice to avoid putting those baby bottles and other plastic products in dishwashers or microwaves.

“We’ve long cautioned consumers to avoid extreme heat and cooling for plastics, to discard scratched and worn plastics and we feel like this [study] validates one of our many concerns,” she says.

Study: Correlation, GMOs & 22 Diseases!

Alternet
Published on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org)
FOODS_MONSANTO2
 Study Shows Dramatic Correlation Between GMOs And 22 Diseases
Popular Resistance [1] / By Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers [2]
November 18, 2014  |

There is a growing movement for labeling of GMO crops, and many would go further and ban GMOs completely. Currently there is a close vote in Oregon on a GMO labeling initiative, with advocates for labeling 0.3% behind and raising money to check ballots (we urge your support) [3]. Those who profit from GMOs spent $20 million to prevent labeling in Oregon. Several states in the Northeast [4] have put in place laws that will require labeling.

Vermont is about to be sued [5] to prevent GMO labeling. GMO profiteers have an unusual marketing strategy. While most companies brag about their product, the GMO industry spends hundreds of millions to hide their product. The US does not requiring labeling of GMOs despite the fact that 64 countries around the world label GMO foods [6].

Millions have marched against Monsanto [7] urging labeling or the banning of GMO products. There is a national consensus in favor of labeling [8] but the government has been unable to respond. Indeed, President Obama’s food czar is a former Monsanto executive [9]. The deep corruption of government is putting the health of the American people at serious risk.

The research highlighted below, “Genetically engineered crops, glyphosate and the deterioration of health in the United States of America,” was published in The Journal of Organic Systems [10] this September and links GMOs to 22 diseases with very high correlation. We reprinted many of the graphs from the study that show an incredible correlation between the rise of GMO crops that use the herbicide glyphosate and a wide range of diseases. (Read Full Article)

« Older entries