FYI: “Safest Travel?”

 

“Asbestos of the Sky” – The Aviation Industry’s Darkest Coverup

Image result for asbestos on a plane

 

Posted on: Tuesday, January 3rd 2017
at 5:00 am Written By: Sayer Ji, Founder
copyrighted by GreenMedInfo LLC, 2017

 
The aviation industry hangs its hat on air travel being “the safest way to travel.” The truth, however, is that it has harbored a dark secret since its inception: it’s poisoning its passengers and crew due to deeply flawed aircraft design, de-prioritizing safety in favor of profit.

In flight, every crew member and passenger relies on an air supply. The assumption, of course, is that this air is filtered if not fresh. Perhaps you have sensed (and promptly dismissed) that there may be quality control issues around cabin air. The problem goes further than that, however, and astoundingly, this is not by accident but by design.

What’s more concerning is the fact that the industry has known about this completely preventable health hazard for at least 40 years, but no attempts have been made to filter this cocktail of hundreds of chemicals (including organophosphates in the same category as toxic nerve agents like Sarin) out of the cabin air before travelers are forced to breath them in. Nor has the root cause of the problem — unsafe aircraft design and the deprioritization of human safety — been effectively addressed.

A history of cabin air supply
Essentially, the problem comes from the need to supply the jet airliners with warm compressed air while flying at high altitudes. In order to do so, all planes used by commercial airlines since 1963 inject the cabin with air directly from the compressors of their jet engines in what is known as ‘bleed air.’ In the 50’s, engineers designed airplanes which pulled fresh air into the cabin, but this “modification” was deemed too costly by decision-makers at the time. As a result of poor design, every breath that the crew and passengers take today, consists of a 50/50 mix of recirculated cabin air and bleed air, the latter of which can contains a wide range of synthetic chemicals, such as tricresyl phosphate (TCP or TOCP), an organophosphate which is highly neurotoxic to humans. In fact, the World Health Organisation stated in 1990 that “Because of considerable variation among individuals in sensitivity to TOCP, it is not possible to establish a safe level of exposure” and “TOCP are therefore considered major hazards to human health.”1
And so, with the exception of single aircraft — the new Boeing 787, where cabin air is taken directly from the atmosphere with electrically powered compressors — all flights today involve a high risk of exposure to these neurotoxic chemicals. When you consider there are about 100,000 flights a day (only 5% of which occur on “safe” Boeing 787’s, with at least 1 in 100 flights experiencing a major ‘fume event,’ this amounts to the health endangerment of millions of daily passengers. Entire advocacy organizations exist which are dedicated to exposing the truth about the dangers of toxic airplane air, and pressuring the industry to initiate reform.

READ FULL ARTICLE: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/asbestos-sky-aviation-industry-s-darkest-coverup

 

Advertisements

‘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

FYI: About Fluoride

fluoridealert.org
FAN’s Grocery Store Guide: 7 Ways to Avoid Fluoride in Beverages and Food
fluoridealert.org/content/grocery_guide/

health_fluoride2

Over the past 100 years, the levels of fluoride in foods purchased at the grocery store have increased. The reason for this increase is multi-fold, and includes the mass fluoridation of water supplies in some countries, the introduction of fluoride-based pesticides, and the use of mechanical deboning processes in the meat industry.

So, how do you know which beverages and foods at the grocery store are most likely to contain elevated fluoride, and which of these products are most important to avoid? To answer these questions, FAN has produced the following seven “general rules.” The more you remember these rules when you shop, the more you will reduce your fluoride intake.

General Rule #1: The Naturally Occurring Level of Fluoride In Food & Water Is Very Low

The naturally occurring levels of fluoride in fruits, vegetables, meat, grain, eggs, milk, and fresh water supplies are generally very low (less than 0.1 ppm). There are only three exceptions to this rule that you need to know: seafood, tea, and water from deep wells all have elevated fluoride levels in the absence of human activity. Thus, besides tea, seafood, and deep well water, you don’t have to worry about mother nature adding to your fluoride intake.

General Rule #2: The More Processed a Food Is, the More Fluoride It Will Have

The fluoride level in food generally increases during industrial food-making processes. This is particularly true in countries with mass water fluoridation programs (e.g., United States), since it is common for food processors to use the public water supply to make their products. When you buy a beverage or food, therefore, think of how much industrial processing would have been required to get the product in the shape it’s in. The more processing, the more fluoride. Juice that is not made from concentrate will have less fluoride than reconstituted juice, a roast chicken breast will have less fluoride than a chicken nugget, etc, etc.

General Rule #3: We Get More Fluoride from Liquids than Solid Foods

If you have to choose between limiting your fluoride intake from beverages or limiting it from foods, you should definitely focus on limiting it from beverages. This is because we get far more fluoride from liquid, than food. If you have to choose between buying grape juice and raisins that are both contaminated with fluoride pesticide, buy the raisins and skip the juice. (READ FULL ARTICLE @:  fluoridealert.org/content/grocery_guide/ )

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)

2014 Monarch Butterfly Campaign – Donate!: NRDC’s Save BioGems

ENVIRONS_B'TTERFLIE-AGNST2014 Monarch Butterfly Campaign – Donate!: NRDC’s Save BioGems.

Why Honeybees Matter?

06 December 2013, 8:43 AM
Raviya Ismail

Why Honeybees Matter

ENVIRONS_BEES4Collapsed colonies spell disaster for our food system, and toxic pesticide is to blame
Honeybee visits a mountain mint blossom. (Photo courtesy of Penn State)

Want to know what else disappears if honeybee colonies continue their alarming rate of collapse? Our food.

According to Time Magazine, honeybees, which pollinate crops like apples, blueberries and cucumbers, are responsible for one-third of the food we eat.

Which is why a lawsuit brought by Earthjustice is so important. We’re representing the Pollinator Stewardship Council, American Honey Producers Association, National Honey Bee Advisory Board, the American Beekeeping Federation, and beekeepers Bret Adee, Jeff Anderson and Thomas R. Smith. In the opening brief just filed, groups argue that the EPA failed to measure exactly what risk a toxic pesticide, sulfoxaflor, poses to bees.

At issue is the fact that this potent pesticide—so poisonous that EPA classifies it as “very highly toxic” to honeybees and other insect pollinators—was approved by the EPA despite evidence linking it and similar “neonicotinoid” pesticides to the widespread and massive bee colony collapse. And now, an entire industry is being wiped out, and beekeepers are rightfully angry. As a result, beekeepers enlisted Earthjustice in July as their final recourse to save their struggling industry.

Here is what beekeeper, farmer and Earthjustice client Rick Smith said about this case:

Native and managed pollinators are a national resource providing an irreplaceable service in the production of high quality fruits and vegetables for our families.

Pesticide application is a stewardship responsibility farmers take seriously. The EPA neglected to provide mandatory label instructions which would protect pollinators and allow farmers to proudly live up to that stewardship responsibility.

And if you missed it, listen to an August 2013 interview about the lawsuit with Earthjustice attorney Greg Loarie, who discusses what’s at stake, alternatives to sulfoxaflor and what consumers can do to help bees: Honeybees-Matter

 

Save Bees, Save Food!

How We Could Prevent Massive Bee Deaths and Save Our Food | Alternet

March 22, 2013

AlterNet / By Jill Richardson

Despite scientific evidence indicting certain common pesticides, the EPA continues to allow their use.

Photo Credit: StudioSmart/ Shutterstock.com

March 18, 2013  |  This article was published in partnership with  GlobalPossibilities.org.

If you like almonds, then 2013 brought some bad news. Each year, honeybees from across the country make the trek to California, which grows 80 percent of the world’s almonds, to pollinate the almond crop. But bees have been dying in unusually large numbers for several years now, and this year appears worse than most.

The problems we face if we don’t have healthy populations of pollinators, particularly honeybees, extend beyond almonds. Three fourths of the top crops grown in the world require animals – mostly insects – for pollination. Odds are that most of your favorite fruits, nuts and melons are pollinated by honeybees.

Across the pond, the European Union has made major strides in shedding light on the role of certain pesticides in honeybee deaths. In fact, the European Commission has proposed a two-year ban on these pesticides. Meanwhile, at home, beekeepers remain frustrated that the U.S. government is not as forward-thinking. And, for another year, the saga of bee deaths continues.

The pesticides in question are called neonicotinoids. It’s a mouthful, but the root word is “nicotine,” because they are chemically similar to the addicting tobacco compound. The most common of these is a pesticide called imidacloprid. Two others are clothianidin and thiamethoxam.

New York beekeeper Jim Doan ended last year with about 700 hives. He began the year with 900. But those numbers hide larger losses. A beekeeper can increase his or her number of hives by splitting them. Doan did so, building up to 2,300 hives by mid-June.

For a beekeeper, splitting your hives means a certain amount of sacrifice, because two smaller hives replace each larger one, and you must let each hive build up its numbers and its honey before you harvest any yourself. “Now this will be the seventh year of extraordinarily high losses. Every year we’re making up bees but at the sacrifice of not making honey. So both ways you’ve taken a beating and a loss,” says Doan.

From mid-June onward, Doan watched his bees die. By October 15, he had only 1,100 hives. More than half of the colonies that were alive only four months before were now dead. What happened?

One can piece together part of the story based on the bees’ locations and their food sources. Although Doan is a New Yorker, his bees take a Florida vacation each winter. They only reside in New York from April to September. While there, they first pollinate apricots, then cherries, pears, apples, and finally, squash, cucumbers, and pumpkins.

In Florida, the bees spend some time in oranges, but Doan also puts his bees in a non-agricultural area for part of the year “to help build them up and to watch them die again,” as he cynically puts it. “We’re in [parts of ] Florida where there’s no agriculture. And that’s the only time our bees really look good. They look like bees… But it’s frustrating.”

Doan, for his part, is certain he knows what killed his bees. “The problem is corn dust. And I say that without any hesitation in my voice.” He’s referring to the dust expelled as exhaust from the machinery used to plant corn. His state, New York, bans a pesticide called clothianidin, which many blame for bee deaths, but it comes into the state anyway on pre-treated corn seeds. A whopping 94 percent of all corn seeds in the U.S. are treated with neonicotinoids.

“We had 148 hives killed by clothianidin,” says Doan. “We were sitting in apples and they planted field corn nearby and we lost those hives.” He moved his bees away from those apple orchards, but the bees continued dying – this time from a different but related pesticide.

Natural Disinfectants!

 

Huge, Illegal Geoengineering Experiment

By Evan Ackerman

2:09PM on Oct 16, 2012

NASA image of an algae bloom in the Barents Sea.

The Guardian is reporting evidence of a geoengineering experiment that took place off the coast of Canada. Apparently, some American businessman lied to an indigenous Canadian community to get permission to dump 100 tons of iron sulphate into the Pacific in a scheme to make money from carbon credits. WTF.

We’ve talked about ocean fertilization with iron sulphate on DVICE before: the idea is that, by dumping iron into the ocean, you can cause large blooms of algae. The aglae absorb carbon out of the atmosphere, die and sink, effectively trapping that carbon at the bottom of the ocean. Studies have shown that it does work as advertised, and that it may be one way of cheaply and effectively mitigating the buildup of carbon in our atmosphere. However, there are still lots of questions about it, especially when it comes to long-term effects like deep-water oxygen depletion and screwing up food chains. In any case, it’s not ready to be tried on an industrial scale without a lot more study.

The fact that ocean fertilization might irreparably harm local ecosystems has not stopped Russ George, an American businessman and (it seems) total jerkface, from convincing the local council of an indigenous village on the west coast of Canada to spend $1 million helping him dump 100 tons of iron sulphate into their waters in a move that he said would help enhance the salmon population. Really, George was just hoping to create an algae bloom that would then generate carbon credits that could be sold for a profit.

For the record, this is a hugely illegal thing to do, in violation of two United Nations moratoria. And George has tried (and failed) to do it before, near the Galapagos and Canary Islands, after which both the Ecuadorean and Spanish governments banned his ships from their ports. In addition to being illegal, it’s just a terrible idea for someone to go out and to do try and make money. I mean, if it proves (after much more research) that it’s a safe and viable way of reducing global atmospheric carbon, then great, it should be done in moderation in carefully monitored and controlled ways. It should not be done for profit, since that’s a surefire way to get to some serious environment disaster.

It’s already too late for the Canadian coast. George dumped his iron sulphate from a fishing boat about 200 miles off the coast back in July, and satellite images from August show an algae bloom as large as 10,000 square kilometers. George is supposedly out there with some unspecified scientists monitoring everything and insisting that it’s all great, but the UN, world governments, environmental groups, and the indigenous Canadians that he conned are all demanding legal action. We hope they get it.

Guardian, via io9

« Older entries