i already knew this….didn’t you? plus think about the leaching of the plastic from the bottle into the water (there was a bit of a snafu with nalgene bottles not too long ago…), and the price, and the extreme amount of waste from all those plastic bottles. Some people buy all their drinking water in these tiny little bottles, come on! a little ridiculous don’t you think?

i have some 1 gallon glass jars (i don’t like to keep things in plastic…) that i fill with (cheaply purchased) water processed through a whole slew of things but always with reverse osmosis in this mix. and then a lot of the time i send it through a carbon filter again at home…unless i can get my hands on some fresh spring/well water (that i KNOW is good). i have to have the fluoride (and chlorine for that matter) out, which is why reverse osmosis or distillation would be my only water purchasing choices. don’t need any illnesses or brain deterioration from those poisons. (and on a side note, who said that ANY amount of pollutants, poisons, chemicals can be considered safe? what if you (have to) drink more water than the average person? what if you’re an infant or an animal or an invalid or the elderly? why is somebody else deciding what i should be taking into my body….isn’t that my right, my choice? i am not an idiot…i know when something is bad. and poisonous waste chemicals/other people’s pharmaceuticals/etc are not healthy choices in any amount….)

there was a time i got all my water from a little tiny spring that came out of this wall of rocks a few miles from me. sometimes i’d filter that through one of those kanadyne portablbe/camping/survival filtration devices, and sometimes i didn’t. it was good tasting water.

i don’t mind a taste to water as long as it’s a good taste. tap water is gross. bottled water is gross. bleck. don’t offer me any, i’d rather be thirsty.

here’s some snippets from the AP article:

Bottled water has contaminants too, study finds

By JEFF DONN, AP National Writer

Wed Oct 15, 12:17 AM ET

…

The study’s lab tests on 10 brands of bottled water detected 38 chemicals including bacteria, caffeine, the pain reliever acetaminophen, fertilizer, solvents, plastic-making chemicals and the radioactive element strontium. Though some probably came from tap water that some companies use for their bottled water, other contaminants probably leached from plastic bottles, the researchers said.

“In some cases, it appears bottled water is no less polluted than tap water and, at 1,900 times the cost, consumers should expect better,” said Jane Houlihan, an environmental engineer who co-authored the study. …

…

In the Wal-Mart and Giant Food bottled water, the highest concentration of chlorine byproducts, known as trihalomethanes, was over 35 parts per billion. California’s limit is 10 parts per billion or less, and the industry’s International Bottled Water Association makes 10 its voluntary guideline. The federal limit is 80. …

…

The researchers also said the Wal-Mart brand was five times California’s limit for one particular chlorine byproduct, bromodichloromethane. The environmental group wants Wal-Mart to label its bottles in California with a warning because the chlorine-based contaminants have been linked with cancer. It has filed a notice of intent to sue. …

…

i’m copying the article below in full. the more it’s in view the better. of course poison raining from the skies is not so new a thing–they’ve been doing it “discretely” for years (discrete only because most people don’t bother to look up anymore). have you ever seen supposed “contrails” make swastika shapes, upside-down peace signs, and other bizarreness? or, maybe you see this “contrail” ever-lengthening behind the plane (and not disappearing), then suddenly there’s a break. after which, the lengthy “contrail” remaining begins to spread out to meet other “contrails” and within minutes what was a gorgeous cloud-free day, suddenly turns overcast and remains that way. BUT remember that break? well, what happens after that break is a REAL contrail, that follows behind the plane for a distance and disappears, so that it is always the same short length behind the plane. that means, the contrail does not REMAIN in the sky and SPREAD OUT to create weird HAZE. so don’t tell me those planes aren’t dumping something…cause i’ve seen them do it.

back to the point, however. this particular case in crazy california is just another step towards utter destruction. what the hell are people thinking? rather, WHY AREN’T PEOPLE THINKING?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

and society today is supposed to be better somehow? haha. i’m quite amused.

***UPDATE 9.7.08 – I’ve fixed the links that had stopped working***

***********************************

Consumer Alert: Toxic Chemicals to be Sprayed Over San Francisco

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_10711.cfm

* $74.5 Million Set for the Spraying of Toxic Chemicals Over San Francisco
By Rami Nagel
NaturalNews.com, March 3, 2008
Straight to the Source

I am angry! On January 24th, 2008, United States Department of (USDA) Agriculture Secretary Chuck Conner announced the availability of $74.5 million in emergency funding to combat the light brown apple moth (LBAM) infestation in California (1). This announcement comes in conjunction with the release of the California Department of Agriculture’s (CDFA) expanded aerial spray zone, which includes the entire cities of San Francisco, Oakland, Berkley and many others.

Following is a link to a recently published proposal of spray boundaries, the yellow lines indicating the proposed spray zones (www.hopefortruth.com/lbam_2008.jpg) . More than two million people who live in these and other targeted cities are scheduled to be exposed this spring or summer to chemicals that that have never been tested on humans or animals before.

When I learned that Santa Cruz, my previous hometown was to be aerially sprayed, I was in a state of shock. This was followed by a long period of disbelief. Larry Hawkins, a spokesman for USDA, which is working with CDFA on the moth eradication, said the East Bay Area will be included in future treatments. So we have a federal agency, the USDA, telling millions of people that they will be sprayed. This announcement comes without any democratic process.

Apparently the CDFA or the USDA, or both, decided that the previous chemical formula’s used, Checkmate LBAM-F and Checkmate OLR-F were not good enough, which really points to the fact that the past two aerial sprays in Monterey, and the one in Santa Cruz County, were a waste of time and money, in addition to the severe health reactions experienced by thousands of people from chemical exposure.

These chemicals have not undergone thorough safety evaluations, and do not just simply evaporate, but are designed to hang in the air 30-90 days or more. Such chemical applications are of most concern to pregnant women, in which even a minute dosage of a disrupting chemical can cause grave harm to the fetus. This is over and above the real concern for people who are trying to live a chemical-free lifestyle and who won’t be able to escape the hundreds of square miles of densely populated areas to be sprayed, or for those who are sensitive to chemicals, or who are in poor health.

The chemicals sprayed are a plastic encapsulated microtechnology; the microscopic plastic dust, once sprayed, deeply enters the mouth, eyes, skin and lungs. Even after 90 days and several rains, some people in Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties are still experiencing symptoms of spray poisoning. When they leave the counties, their symptoms many times abate. This aerial program is a real sword through the heart of democracy and decency. The government has really gone too far and it must be stopped now.

I must inform you that through a freedom of information request, a local newspaper has learned that the CDFA has hired media spin doctor extraordinaire Porter Novelli at the tune of almost $500,000 tax payer dollars to convince the public that it is okay for the state to dump chemicals all over them, their gardens, their pets, and their neighbors. The state of California is in a budget crisis, and this is one example that explains why. Here the state is using tax payer dollars to lie to and mislead the public, to try to convince the public that the state should be spending millions of dollars of resources on polluting the air, sea, and land with chemicals that the public in general does not want. Since a majority of spray funding is coming from the federal arm, know your tax paying dollars are going to a government sponsored large scale crime.

If you are not familiar with this heinous program, let me bring you up to date. In the beginning of last year, a taxonomist identified the presence of a non native moth species (LBAM) in the San Francisco Bay Area, California. The moth may have been present in California for a long time, nobody knows for sure as detailed studies were never attempted. The entrance of the moth was likely due to lax boundaries from plant goods imported from New Zealand or Australia; in other words, it is the USDA’s fault and responsibility for having allowed the moth in. In Hawaii, the moth has existed for the past hundred years without doing any harm to the local ecosystem, and without the need for the government to try to stop the moth. In fact it is considered harmless or benign to the environment, the moth does not transmit diseases or harm humans or animals in any way.

Originally, the USDA announced that the moth might cause $100 million in crop damage if allowed to multiply. This estimate of 100 million was based on a single worst year of estimated LBAM damage from over a decade ago in Australia. Australian crop damage figures have little meaning in California, as the climate is different and the moth damage in Australia varies from year to year; it is relatively minor in any case. Even if this $100 million crop loss did come true, one has to consider that $90 million has now been ear marked to contain the moth, primarily the funds are for aerial spraying chemicals on cities which contain people, and not crops like apples, oranges and grapes.

It is unanimous from pest control experts (except the ones employed by the government) that the apple moth cannot be eradicated, but can only be controlled. Thus this makes the entire aerial experiment an expression of a collective evil. Many of the targeted cities are not reasonably close to any type of apple, orange or grape vineyards. To this day, there has been zero dollars of reported crop damage as a direct result from the LBAM presence in California. Clearly something fishy is going. Federal and state governments are adamant with their efforts to douse everybody with chemicals for a relatively minute amount of moths.

Additional funds have gone to the CDFA’s public relations campaign, which among other things, involves travel money and putting up the CDFA’s senior officials, like the outlaw leader Secretary A.G. Kawamura in nice hotels, and paying for their meals at restaurants and their travel expenses as they go around the state and lie to people about the need for and safety of this moth spray program. No money has been earmarked to pay for medical costs or even research to determine if people are getting sick. This is because the CDFA simply assumes that this product is safe. They base their safety assumption on a bogus “consensus document” that was created by the Department of Pesticide Review only after several aerial sprays. The document contains little evidence, and a lot of opinions. What is of grave concern is the decision to spray never-before tested pesticides on people, and in cities, funded and supported by the USDA and EPA, which CDFA is carrying out.

Let me repeat this because just this fact is so shocking it is hard to comprehend. People in California are being subjected to biochemical, microscopic moth warfare. The reported microcapsule size of the aerial mating disrupter is as small as 10 microns and averages 25-35 microns in size for an undeployed moth spray. This size is coming dangerously close to micro-sized particles that are used to evade the body’s defensive systems for biological weapons, those are reported to be 3-4 microns in size. Even with horrible tracking methodologies, and blatant lies to the public to fool people about the danger of the aerial spray, 643 illnesses were documented (www.1hope.org/SPRAYCOMPLES.PDF) from Monterey and Santa Cruz counties in the 2007 aerial spray campaigns. It makes sense that people would get sick because these minute particles can easily get absorbed deep within the body. So the effect of a small amount of chemical can be magnified many times. But you know, that assertion is hypothetical, because nobody has ever done any legitimate testing to see whether the chemicals in the microcapsules could affect human health.

These 643 reports represent a fraction of the real injuries, the actual spray has caused thousands to be poisoned from this biochemical formulation. See my related article (www.NaturalNews.com/022434.html) . Despite these reports which include 330 official illness claims filed with the CDFA, the CDFA states the following lies on their website, “Pheromones are extremely safe,” and “Public safety is the primary concern.” The statement that pheromones are safe is a lie. Sure, pheromones can be safe when used responsibly, for example a benign moth trap in an apple orchard that contains pheromones to attract the moths. But when you create a microscopic biodegradable ball of volatile chemicals, and then place within it a synthetic moth pheromone, which itself is described as an explosive chemical, you have more of a drug which can interact and create changes within the human body, than a pesticide. Furthermore, no thorough investigation has been done of these 330 official illness complaints, and some of these people have not yet recovered.

One must realize that any documentation regarding the safety of pheromones reported is from non-aerial applications, such as a moth sticky trap that is scented with pheromones and stuck on a tree, or a pheromone laced twist tie applied to apple orchards or vineyards. The last aerial application was reported to contain 10-20% of the “safe” pheromone, and 80-90% “other ingredients”. These safety assertions also do not relate to the method of application. A sticky trap laced with pheromone is a different entity than a microscopic ball that is designed to biodegrade with pheromone encapsulated within it. Several of the Checkmate ingredients have yet to be disclosed to the public under trade secret laws.

The newly tested chemicals, which are scheduled for either the spring or summer time to be sprayed on millions, similarly will not be disclosed to the public. We do not even know what this stuff is? How can the government say the chemicals are safe, and then hide the ingredients from scrutiny? If these chemicals are so safe why not tell us honestly what it is? Clearly the intention of the CDFA, USDA, and EPA, is to cover up the real nature of this biochemical assault. They are trying to hide what they do from the public’s eye. They do not want you to know the truth. The truth is people get sick. Not everybody gets sick from the moth spray, but many people do. Its effects can be strong and violent.

The deepest concern is regarding the distribution method of the pheromone. The pheromone is encapsulated in a miniature and highly volatile plastic ball. According to a recent UC Davis study paid for by the CDFA, the microcapsules from an unsprayed batch of Checkmate LBAM-F ranged in size from 10 to 190 microns. Over time, these particles can average 25-35 microns in size, shrink and degrade into more dangerous sizes, which fall under the category of particle pollution. Miniature particles between 2.5-10 microns in size, especially from pesticides, are known to cause both short term and long term health effects, including decreased overall life span. Again, nobody as yet knows how small the degraded microcapsules are, or how this will effect people in the short and long term, because no such testing exists. In essence, people have been subjected to a biological and chemical experiment. This is insane!

The CDFA reports that they want their newest moth weapon deployed this spring and summer, to be even longer lasting, which to me means that the microcapsules will be even more dangerous, possibly indefinitely sticking in the environment, and irritating people’s sensitive ducts and glands; like the eye’s and the nose, much like allergies from pollen. In each aerial application, billions of these volatile balls are launched into the environment, sprayed by planes contracted through Dynamic Aviation (http://www.dynamicaviation.com/) , which has other specialties beyond aerial application of pesticides. They also do “Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance.” The spraying is conducted at a height of between 500-800 feet and residents in the sprayed area report feeling like they are in a war zone. Once in contact with residential neighborhoods, parks, and playgrounds, the balls slowly disintegrate over time releasing pheromones designed to confuse the moth’s mating patterns.

Typically a drug takes many years for the Food and Drug Administration to approve for safety for humans. Under an emergency declaration, the EPA can exclude new chemicals from rigorous testing. These laws were designed for agricultural emergencies and are being violently misused because they are planning on spraying large urban populations and not apple orchards. The EPA and USDA have flagrantly crossed legal and ethical boundaries by applying laws designed for agricultural fields to densely inhabited city centers.

Further, consider that the testing of these chemicals is not done to make sure that it is safe for humans, as the safety is merely an untested assumption. As an example, it took several months after the first aerial spray of Monterey County for the CDFA to pay the University of California Davis to see if the Checkmate formula was toxic to certain very small ocean insects. It took several months for this first test of the Checkmate formula, already sprayed on well over two hundred thousand people, to be conducted. The testing being conducted in New Zealand is not to ensure safety for humans, but to see if the mating habits of the moths are disrupted. This spraying is approved by the EPA despite the fact that there are specific laws to prohibit chemical testing on pregnant women and children (http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/guidance/human-test.htm) . “EPA’s rules make it clear that all pregnant women, all nursing women, and all children are excluded from all studies involving intentional exposure that are intended for submission under the pesticide laws.” If the EPA cannot test pesticides on pregnant women, nursing women, and children, then under what jurisdiction and authority can they simply expose pregnant women, nursing women and children with untested pesticides?

How many more children do we need to see poisoned by these indefensible government actions until we wake up and say, ENOUGH! How many more of our friends, relatives and neighbors do we need to see develop chronic health conditions due to exposure to aerially sprayed chemicals until we take effective action to stop this insanity? How much longer are we going to allow the government that is created for the people, to represent the people, to break its own laws and poison its own people and then disregard any reported health concerns?

To see this insanity clearly let’s examine the moth population. In San Francisco County, 3,501 moths total have been trapped and killed. The entire city of San Francisco, whose population is 744,041, is in the proposed spray boundaries. About 744,000 people are to be exposed to unsafe microencapsulated pheromones, for several years, to try to control the mating habits in a city which had a total of 3,501 moths found over the past 8 months. This is really a needle in the haystack approach to pest control. Keep in mind, each moth found, is a moth that has been trapped and exterminated (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/lba_moth/index.shtml) the moth population in Alameda County is thus sparse at best. Just look out your window. Imagine how many insects are in the tree, the yard, or the local park. I have seen more than 431 ants crawl into my kitchen on a rainy day. So in a giant area of 141 square miles, and the tens or hundreds of millions of insects in that zone, to try to eradicate such a minuscule pest by just spraying chemicals everywhere is ridiculous and unsafe.

The proposed spray map for Alameda County includes densely populated cities of the east bay area: cities such as Richmond, Albany, Berkley, Emeryville, Piedmont, and Oakland. In this area, well over one million people reside. The plan is to expose more than one million people in these cities, over a multi-year period to chemicals meant to hang in the air, in order to try to stop the mating habits of any remaining moths, which if there are any at all, could not be more than a few hundred. The 431 moths that were found there in the past eight months are now dead. These 431 months are the government’s excuse, for a multi-million dollar civil rights incursion.

Here’s how I suggest you take action:

* Share this information with your friends and neighbors.

* Don’t be fooled when the CDFA says that the “pheromone” is safe. I have been poisoned myself by these microcapsules, and so has my family, it is a terrible feeling. Ask for test results to show it is safe for humans, you’ll see they have none.

* Demand accountability. Ask your local California representative why they are continuing to allow the state to spray chemicals on people, even though the state has laws, like the state constitution right to personal safety, and legislative laws such as the California Environmental Quality Act, meant to stop this. Your state representative can amend or modify the LBAM law that went into affect that gave the CDFA the unanimous green light to eradicate the apple moth. Surely your representative does not support aerial spraying? Each county has to have their local agricultural commissioner or someone to that effect sign a permit to allow the state to spray. Stop these people from signing the permit!

*State and Federal representatives can also design an independent committee to come up with non-biased recommendations. The CDFA created such a working group, but they strangely seem to believe that aerial spraying people to stop moths from mating is a good idea.

*Gather your local city council members’ support. Use local resources to conduct research, and file lawsuits against the state.

* Ideally the city attorneys and mayors should file legal suits against CDFA and the EPA and the USDA for polluting the air and water, for violating state and federal laws, and for poisoning children.

* Contact your US Senate and House Representatives, and ask them to stop funding for the aerial spray program, and to declassify this tiny moth from class A pest. Ask them to strengthen protections so that populations cannot be aerially sprayed unless there is grave and immediate danger to public health.

* Additional Note: If the aerial spray does occur, take samples. Put a turkey baster-sized aluminum tray in your back yard. Put the tray out on the night prior to the aerial spray, and another on the night of the aerial spray. Seal each tray well. Each city should organize its own tests of the chemicals, including tests for biological agents, contaminants, radioactive substances, and a microscope analysis to see how big the microcapsules are, and to see if the microcapsules contain miniature microcapsules. Analysis ideally should also include a detailed chemical profile of the substance sprayed, since the government won’t tell us.

Finally, the way I see it, it is a crime to poison children and our fellow people who live in California. Just because the people who are polluting and poisoning the air with chemicals work for the government, should not make them immune to criminal liability and prosecution. Unfortunately, no city officials, yet, have the decency and standards to attack this matter as it is, a crime. Crimes require criminal investigations, and criminal charges.

People can be alarmed, and if cities take equitable action, we do not need to be afraid. For example, we pay taxes so we can have a fire and police department to protect ourselves from crime. Why not use the police force to protect residents from government sponsored crimes?

The media creates a false fear about some hypothetical terrorist releasing chemical weapons in the United States. Meanwhile, the US government is doing something very similar, releasing potentially deadly chemicals on its population, for no good reason.

This is a cover-up.

The LBAM infestation is a monumental hoax (Yes there are LBAMs, the hoax is that the only solution is to spray chemicals on cities).

I pray for grace for everyone, so that people in the proposed spray zones remain safe from harm, and that those who are inspired to take action to stop this be inspired to act effectively, with humility, strength and compassion.

Take Action

In Santa Cruz and Monterey, local residents have started the California Alliance to Stop the Spray. (CASS) (http://cassonline.org/) This alliance is developing evidence and documentation to stop the aerial spraying for the Light Brown Apple Moth. Just because this alliance is formed, does not mean the moth spray will be stopped. Each area needs to form their own groups, and work together to defeat the real pest, the state and federal governments who are performing illegal operations.

Important websites were you can learn more and take action include:

(www.lbamspray.com) ­ On the right hand column of this website is a portal to CASS. You can find many ways to participate and help the cause. Also contains the most relevant information.

(www.hopefortruth.com) ­ My LBAM site.

(www.1hope.org/chkmate.htm) ­ Lots of documentation and recent news postings.

(www.stopthespray.org) ­ Sign the petition to stop the spray!

For those who are taking community action, two generous people have volunteered to provide further resources.

Roy Upton <herbal@got.net> , California Alliance to Stop the Spray (CASS) Tel. 831-461-6317

Bonnie Keet <bonnie619@yahoo.com>, California Alliance to Stop the Spray (CASS)

When Governor Schwarzenegger says he supports the health and welfare of children, he is lying to you. Governor Schwarzenegger supports biochemical spraying which has been documented to cause life-threatening harm to some children.

Call Governor Schwarzenegger and tell him what you think of his policies. :
Voice: (916) 445-2841 2841 (press #1, #5, #0)
Fax: (916) 445-4633

Senator Diane Feinstein San Fransisco Office – (415) 393-0707

Senator Barbara Boxer San Fransisco Office – (415) 403-0100

Democracy Now! They want to hear our stories, (http://www.democracynow.org/contact?to=1)

As a final addendum, many people have written to me about mosquito fogging, about chemtrails, and about large scale chemical sprayings which occur in the United States unmonitored in more rural areas. While my article does not address these concerns, this article shows that people are sick and tired of being exposed needlessly to chemicals. Your concern about chemical exposure is vital. Listen to it!

Rami Nagel

---

References:

1. (http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?con…)

About the author
Rami Nagel is the author of “Cure Tooth Decay: Heal And Prevent Cavities With Nutrition,” which teaches readers how to reclaim their dental health. Learn the real cause and cure for cavities and root canals at: www.curetoothdecay.com
Rami is a father who cares about the way we affect each other, our children, and our planet through our lifestyle choices. His health background is in hands-on energy healing, Hatha & Bhakti yoga and the Pathwork. Rami is author of several health resources: www.healingourchildren.net – Learn the Cause and Prevention of the Diseases of Pregnancy and Childhood
www.preconceptionhealth.org – A Program for Preconception Health based on Indigenous Wisdom
www.curetoothdecay.com – Heal and Prevent Cavities with Nutrition!
www.yourreturn.org – The cause of disease and the end of suffering of humanity.

Why do I want to know more about Neem? It just seems to be one of those plants that is useful for a wide variety of purposes—gardening, pet care, personal care, health supplement, and yes, birth control for men and women!

The difficulty right now is finding enough information on it’s use as a birth control. There have been studies performed in India (where the Neem tree is native to) that suggested strongly it’s pregnancy prevention, particularly as a spermacide for women and as oral contraception for men. However, orally, it needs time to become fully effective, and the effects can be reversed by no longer taking it.

==Sister Zeus mentions in her Neem page that an oral dose would be 2 Neem leaf capsules 3 times daily before meals, allowing a month for full effectiveness.==

One frustration I’ve run into while trying to find Neem products available in the US, is the vast difference in prices for bottles of neem leaf capsules—which has me wondering about quality control. Will these products be truly worth the expenditure? Because remember, the guy needs to take these multiple times every single day. A month’s supply (or less!) for $10 might be doable, but is that product going to be the type of quality I would risk an unwanted pregnancy on? And $30-$40 for a single bottle….maybe the quality is excellent, but can I really afford that?

As far as neem oil goes, most of the products available in the US specify strictly external use—often pesticidal purposes or for skin conditions. These may have other ingredients that would be dangerous inside a vagina! A FOOD GRADE NEEM OIL would be something to look for—though it is probably available in India, I have not had any luck finding any in the US. At least, not a product that I am 100% certain is food grade.

You can order and grow your own neem tree, but I’m sure it would take multiple specimens and much time before you could harvest anything. Try Neem Tree Farms or Bhatia Nurseries.

So until I move to India or otherwise get my hands on more info & products, my desire for Neem goes unfulfilled…

I’ve already discussed a few recipes for ensuring an uninterrupted menstrual cycle. But there are some other methods available out there, which are listed below. Remember to read my Intro to Herbal Birth Control and Disclaimer if you came across this post first.

[These herbs/etc are discussed in more detail at Sister Zeus’ site and in Susan Weed’s book, Wise Woman Herbal for the Childbearing Years. Since these and other ladies have done a significant amount of work on this subject, I cannot feasibly or morally quote everything they have written. Therefore, my own discussion will be limited, but I have littered this post with links to Sister Zeus' site which contains plenty of further information to aid your research. I see this post as a springboard...helping to steer other seekers in the best direction.]

***Please keep in mind that many of these herbs/etc do have various side effects and though most may be mild, some can be quite harmful, toxic, or even deadly in high doses. Make certain you have fully researched an herb/etc and are aware of proper dosage, contraindications, and pre-existing conditions that are more susceptible to ill effects. Just because something is natural does not mean it is completely harmless! With that said, if you educate yourself fully, respect yourself, the plant, and the method, and maintain awareness you can avoid negative complications.***

***TIMING IS KEY!!! Many of these herbs require use at very specific times, which means you need to be completely familiar with your menstrual cycle. So much so, that you can not only tell when you are ovulating, but when it is a week before your period is due. These are the two most common times for use of these herbs.***

=HERBS FOR DELAYED MENSTRUATION (not pregnant)=

• Parsley
• Ginger
  
• Yarrow
• Sage
• Rosemary
• Feverfew
  

=DAILY CONTRACEPTIVES & STERILITY PROMOTERS=

• Wild Yam
  
• Neem Oil
  
• Neem Leaf
  
• Pomegranate (punica granatum)
  
• Stoneseed root
  
• Jack-in-the-Pulpit root
  
• Thistles

=IMPLANTATION INHIBITORS=

• Queen Anne’s Lace seeds (Daucus carota) –also known as Wild Carrot
• Rutin (Vitamin P)
• Smartweed leaves (Polygonum hdropiper)
• Neem Oil
• Apricot kernels
• Cotton Root bark
• Rue
• Vitamin C (Ascorbic acid)

=EMMENAGOGUES=

(*menstrual inducers, though not all are abortifacient*)

• Mild Strength = Parsley, Ginger, Yarrow, Feverfew, Rosemary, Sage
  
• Medium Strength = Parsley, Queen Anne’s Lace Seeds, Black Cohosh, Mugwort, Juniper
  
• Strongest = Pennyroyal, Angelica, Savin, Rue, Tansy, Asafetida, Blue Cohosh, Vitamin C, celery seed, birthwort
• Abortifacients = Angelica, Black Cohosh, Blue Cohosh, Cotton Root Bark, Evening Primrose, Parsley, Pennyroyal, unripe Pineapple, Tansy, Vitamin C
  

Here is a list of emmenagogues with dosages from Susan Weed’s book, Wise Woman Herbal for the Childbearing Years:

° Angelica root: infusion, tincture (10 drops three times daily for four days)
° Fresh Lemon Balm leaves: tincture, bath
° Bethroot: infusion, tincture (a dropperful every four hours for five days)
° ° Birthwort root or whole plant in flower: infusion
° Black Cohosh root: infusion, tincture (20 drops every six hours for four days)
° ° Blue Cohosh root: infusion, tincture (20 drops every four hours for five days)
° ° Cotton root bark: infusion
° European Vervain plant: tincture (15 drops every six hours for five days)
° ° Ergot fungus: commercial extracts
° Feverfew plants in flower: tincture (40 drops every three hours for four days)
° Ginger root: infusion, tincture
° Hyssop leaves: infusion, tincture
° Liferoot plant in flower: tincture (20 drops twice daily for five days)
° Lovage root: infusion
° ° Marijuana female flowers: infusion, tincture, smoke
° ° Mistletoe leaves: infusion
° Mugwort plant: decoction
° Osha root: infusion, tincture (10 drops every four hours for five days)
° Fresh Parsley leaves: juice, vaginal insert (several sprigs, changed twice daily for three days)
° Pennyroyal plant: infusion, tincture, oil (Avoid completely before and throughout pregnancy. Oil rubbed on skin may cause miscarriage.)
° ° Peruvian bark: infusion, tincture (15 drops twice daily for four days)
° Rosemary plant in flower: infusion, tincture (20 drops twice daily for five days)
° Rue leaves: infusion, tincture (10 drops every six hours for four days)
° Saffron stigmas: one half gram daily for four days (ten grams is a fatal dose)
° Sumac berries: infusion (source of vitamin C and possibly rutin)
° Sweet Flag root: infusion, bath, tincture (10 drops every ix hours for six days)
° Tansy plant in flower: infusion, tincture
° Fresh Wood Sorrel plant: infusion, tincture (10 drops every six hours for four days)

=UTERINE CONTRACTORS & STIMULATORS=

• *Oxytocic = Blue Cohosh, Cotton seed/root, Angelica, Marijuana
  
• ^†Thujone = Tansy, Mugwort, Juniper berries, Chamomile
  
• Other/Unique = Angelica, Blue Cohosh, Ginger, Parsley, Pennyroyal, Rosemary

*Oxytocic means the herbs promote the production of prostaglandins, which in turn promote uterine contractions

^†Thujone is a volatile oil that promotes uterine contractions

From Susan Weed’s book, Wise Woman Herbal for the Childbearing Years:

Cotton root bark Gossypium is reported to be the safest and most certain herbal abortifacient. I have tried to obtain some organic Cotton root bark for six years now, without success. My information on its effectiveness comes from a study done by a women’s health collective in New Mexico. They used an infusion taken by sips throughout the day until the abortion was well under way. This is apparently a traditional method of birth control among Native Americans who grow cotton. Specific information on dosage and possible side effects should be available to women who live in the South and seek out a traditional healer or curandera.

Blue Cohosh root Caulophyllum thalictroides is usually combined with Pennyroyal when used as an abortifacient. There are any number of ways to prepare and ingest this combination. Both Pennyroyal and Blue Cohosh are toxic in excess and can easily overtax the liver and kidneys. Headache and extreme nausea have been reported by many women using these herbs. This is a common remark: “I knew that if I could just drink one more cup of that infusion, I would abort, but I threw up every time I tried!” CAUTION: Do not use Blue Cohosh if you have low blood pressure.

=MENSTRUAL EXTRACTION=

Menstrual extraction is a method of removing material from the uterus, pretty nice when your period comes at the worst possible time, which it always will. Conveniently, it can also remove a fertilized egg when performed early enough. It is similar to a surgical abortion; however, the cervix does not need to be dilated and most doctors don’t use it. You’ll need to find someone who can safely perform this technique if you wish to go this route.

*********************
All right. Please visit the links throughout the post for more information and conduct your own research so you can make an educated decision! Oh, and consult a doctor too because only they are licensed medical practitioners, etc, etc.

Just to start off with!

Please see my intro post on the subject of alternative/herbal birth control methods. This post is a continuation of that one, focusing on some of the herbal birth control & period-inducing recipes I have come across. If you want some lists & links with short discussions of more birth control and abortive herbs, please see the following post.

==WARNING:

NEVER EVER USE PENNYROYAL IN ANY OTHER FORM BESIDES TEA MADE FROM STEMS/LEAVES UNLESS YOU WANT TO DIE. I’m serious. TEA FROM STEMS/LEAVES ONLY. Some women have mistakenly used oil of pennyroyal and subsequently ended the life of more than just their unwanted fetus==

RECIPE #1

Emily in the D.I.Y. GUIDE II <a free publication> describes this recipe:

1. Infuse ½ ounce of motherwort and ½ ounce of pennyroyal in 2-3 cups boiling water;
2. Steep the mixture by covering it on low heat for 20 minutes, then strain
3. Infuse 1 ounce of blue cohosh root in 2 cups cold water for 20 minutes (covered), then strain
4. Mix the 2 teas together
5. Drink ¼ cup of the mixture hot 4 to 5 times a day OR drink 1 ½ cups a day, a little at a time every hour
6. Do not drink this tea for more than a week!

*(recipe is paraphrased & edited for continuity. Other recipes specify decoction for the blue cohosh root–see below)

She also suggests the following in addition to her main teas:

• Taking 2 goldenseal root capsules 3 times a day
• Chewing fresh
• Drinking ginger tea constantly

RECIPE #2

From Rina Nissim’s book, Natural Healing in Gynaecology: A Manual for Women:

“Practically speaking
We always prescribe two associated herbs:

cotton root bark or pennyroyal or mugwort

to be used with

parsley or blue cohosh [root] or black cohosh [root]

Using one teaspoonful of each plant, separately, per cup liquid — in infusion for the leaves (mugwort and pennyroyal), and in decotion for the roots (the others) — drink one cup of each of the 2 herbs three times a day. This means 6 cups to drink each day for a maximum of 6 days. (more information below)
BE CAREFUL: do not overdose. Do not continue treatment more than six days. Do not begin after the 10th overdue day. The better informed women are, the earlier they will begin. It is not necessary to continue taking the herbs once the period has truly begun.”

*(You can find this with a larger excerpt at this site. Just so you know, the teas made from the roots are absolutely revolting….tinctures of these are somewhat less disgusting in my opinion. I normally use Pennyroyal with Blue Cohosh root teas, or Pennyroyal tea with a dose of Blue and/or Black cohosh tinctures added. Once I used Mugwort instead of Pennyroyal—that made sleep very fitful and gave me bizarre dreams. Not too surprising, as it’s a dreamer’s herb. I have experienced slight nausea and light-headedness while taking the teas, common side-effects. When I first started using these teas, my period always started on the 3rd day after beginning the regimen!)

That site adds further:

“Group A (choose one):

Cotton Root Bark (Gossypium herbacetum), only the outer layer or bark of the root, cut and broken up like tea.
Boil 1 teaspoon of bark per cup of liquid for 10 minutes. Then drink 3 cups per day for a maximum of 6 days.
Suggested to use only organically-grown cotton root bark, as cotton plants grown for fabric production are heavily sprayed with pesticides.

Pennyroyal (Mentha pulegium), entire plant is used, broken up like tea.
Tea Infusion of 1 teaspoon of plant per cup of water, 3 cups a day for a maximum of 6 days.
CAUTION: Do Not Use Pennyroyal oil, which is toxic and potentially lethal!

Mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris), entire plant is used, broken up like tea.
Tea infusion of 1 teaspoon of plant per cup of water, 3 cups a day for a maximum of 6 days.
CAUTION: Do Not Overdose – more than 40g per litre can cause hepato-renal disorders and convulsions!
Contra-indications: uterine inflammation, recent pelvic inflamation.

Group B (choose one):

Parsley (Petroselium sativum), use entire plant, broken up like tea. Do Not Use the seeds.
Boil 1 teaspoon per cup liquid for 10 minutes. Take 3 cups per day. Or use 50g per litre, drinking 2-3 cups per day.
CAUTION: Overdoses are toxic. The seeds are even stronger than the entire plant and should not be used.

Black Cohosh (Cimifuga raremosa), root is used, cut and broken up like tea.
Boil 1 teaspoon per cup of water. Take three cups a day for a maximum of 6 days.

Blue Cohosh (Caulophyllum thalictroides) root is used, cut and broken up like tea.
Tea infusion of 1 teaspoon per cup of water, 3 cups per day.

In different dosages, many of these same herbs have a history of use for easing painful menstruation, or for stimulating childbirth. Other herbs used as emmenagogues are mentioned, but without dosages or preparation being discussed. Consult the Nissim book for details.

Remember! If you wait until you are pregnant to try and obtain these herbs, it might take you days or weeks to get them, and you will have missed the window of opportunity for their effectiveness. It is suggested to take the initiative before you are pregnant, and have all the ingredients on hand. From the cautionary notes given above, it should also be obvious that taking these herbs will usually produce some discomfort in the form of temporary cramping, and possibly slight nausea or dizziness. One should plan accordingly.”

RECIPE #3

Susan Weed in her book, Wise Woman Herbal for the Childbearing Years, mentions:

“Vitamin C – Ascorbic acid is the safest and reportedly most effective
emmenagogue that can be used after the menstrual flow has failed to appear.
Women report success even when three weeks “late.” Six grams of vitamin C
(6000 mg) is the daily dosage needed to abort. Take 500 mg every hour for 12
hours a day for up to six days. CAUTION: This dosage may produce loose stools.”

*(I have also read about vitamin C being used during ovulation, please see my next post or Sister Zeus’ Vitamin C page for more info)

These recipes are just a few examples. There are more options out there, but I have found these to use items fairly easy to obtain, especially if you have access to the internet. Many of the herbs and ascorbic acid are available at health food stores as well. The next couple posts will discuss other herbal alternatives for birth control and coaxing that missing period into a visit!

Also remember, that if you use any of these methods, and that period is still in hiding, a certain appointment is rather important to have, because many of these items normally or in these dosages are not very helpful to the develpment of healthy fetuses….

I’ve been meaning to work on this post for quite some time.

The “ladies only” link in the sidebar doesn’t bar men from clicking, of course, it just seems to concern a woman’s body more than a man’s. the options are also more limited for men. anyhow, that link sends you to Sister Zeus’

Living with Our Fertility
A Women’s Guide to Synergistic Fertility Management

which is packed full of information on women’s reproductive health, and alternative methods of birth control and options when menstruation is late or absent. We don’t have to be controlled by our bodies if we’re knowledgeable.

For any one wanting something easy, there is always the option of polyurethane condoms, without spermacides. They are significantly thinner than latex condoms, and of course you don’t have to worry about adverse reactions to latex. I’m a super-sensitive (MCS) and the worst trouble I’ve experienced with these is the need of some extra lubrication after a while. I recommend these for the masses only because of wide-spread availability, social/cultural acceptance, and simplicity. When you get into herbal contraceptives and other alternative methods, you’ve got to understand what you’re doing. Unfortunately not every person out there may be willing to take the time to learn. So go for this condom at least. (Sheepskin condoms would probably be fine as well, I personally am a bit repulsed by the idea. I’m vegetarian. I can’t get past the dead sheep part. Not exactly what I want to be thinking about during sex.)

Spermacides, particularly those containing nonexynol-9 (N-9) which is the most common, cause irritation, and can even break the mucus and/or skin layer in the genital track. Not very pleasant, especially since it increases the risk of contracting HIV and other STDs. Even better, eh? Not really the kind of chemicals I want to be inserting into my body on a common basis. Remember too that though many spermacides have been around for decades, the standards for FDA approval were even less than today’s….and personally, I wouldn’t trust any FDA approval as far as I could throw it, and I suck at pitching!

I myself have used a few methods of herbal birth control. My best success had been with a combination of pennyroyal and blue cohosh root teas. I have successfully turned positive pregnancy tests with very early pregnancy symptoms into periods on two occasions. I was unsuccessful one time before those, simply because I mistook pregnancy pangs and other signs as pre-menstrual. Don’t be fooled yourself, the signs can be deceptively similar. Of course, that was the first time I was pregnant enough to be noticed (you never know when something aborts itself almost immediately!), and had I begun the teas on time instead of 5 days late, I wouldn’t have had to go the surgical route. But, you live and learn.

The most important thing to remember (besides researching before you try anything) when deciding to go the alternative/herbal birth control route is:

=TIMING IS EVERYTHING=

In order to avoid a horrendously long post, which happens on occasion when I am trying to aid in the dissemination (haha) of information, I will be dividing this topic into multiple posts, linked below:

• Some easy (but maybe not so tasty) HERBAL BIRTH CONTROL RECIPES
• Other types of HERBAL & ALTERNATIVE BIRTH CONTROL METHODS
• And WHY I’D LIKE SOME MORE INFO ON NEEM

I also don’t have a completely negative view of the Plan B/Morning After/etc pill. Basically this is just a higher dosage of the commonly used Pill and is highly effective when used within 12-24 hours after a condom breaks or you miscalculated your cycle or you want extra assurance or whatever reason….I don’t recommend long-term use of any sort of drug/chemical (this includes cleaners, perFUMES, etc), but if absolutely necessary, Plan B is a lot cheaper than having to go the surgical route—and a lot less painful. The PILL however, is a long-term steady alteration of your body’s natural cycles and hormonal levels, which I feel will have far-reaching negative consequences on your health. I would liken the Pill to a chronic illness, while Plan B would be an acute and soon to be recovered from illness.

Please refer to my disclaimer and remember that nothing here is intended as any sort of health advice—please see your doctor for any health concerns or decisions, etc blah-blah-blah.

to carry on in the vein of microscopic brain infesters, here’s some clips from a little story about Naegleria (i feel like this should be an x-files or something….):

Killer Amoeba Blamed for Six Deaths

By CHRIS KAHN, AP

Posted: 2007-10-01 12:35:58

PHOENIX (Sept. 29) — It sounds like science fiction but it’s true: A killer amoeba living in lakes enters the body through the nose and attacks the brain where it feeds until you die.

 

Even though encounters with the microscopic bug are extraordinarily rare, it’s killed six boys and young men this year. The spike in cases has health officials concerned, and they are predicting more cases in the future.

“This is definitely something we need to track,” said Michael Beach, a specialist in recreational waterborne illnesses for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“This is a heat-loving amoeba. As water temperatures go up, it does better,” Beach said. “In future decades, as temperatures rise, we’d expect to see more cases.”

According to the CDC, the amoeba called Naegleria fowleri killed 23 people in the United States, from 1995 to 2004. This year health officials noticed a spike with six cases — three in Florida, two in Texas and one in Arizona. The CDC knows of only several hundred cases worldwide since its discovery in Australia in the 1960s.

. . . . .

Though infections tend to be found in southern states, Naegleria lives almost everywhere in lakes, hot springs, even dirty swimming pools, grazing off algae and bacteria in the sediment.

Beach said people become infected when they wade through shallow water and stir up the bottom. If someone allows water to shoot up the nose — say, by doing a somersault in chest-deep water — the amoeba can latch onto the olfactory nerve.

The amoeba destroys tissue as it makes its way up into the brain, where it continues the damage, “basically feeding on the brain cells,” Beach said.

People who are infected tend to complain of a stiff neck, headaches and fevers. In the later stages, they’ll show signs of brain damage such as hallucinations and behavioral changes, he said.

Once infected, most people have little chance of survival. Some drugs have stopped the amoeba in lab experiments, but people who have been attacked rarely survive, Beach said.

“Usually, from initial exposure it’s fatal within two weeks,” he said.

. . . . .

Beach cautioned that people shouldn’t panic about the dangers of the brain-eating bug. Cases are still extremely rare considering the number of people swimming in lakes. The easiest way to prevent infection, Beach said, is to use nose clips when swimming or diving in fresh water.

read up about Naegleria in the CDC factsheet. here’s a sample:

 

How does infection with Naegleria occur?

Infection with Naegleria occurs when the amoeba enters the body through the nose. Generally this occurs when people are participating in water-related activities such as swimming underwater, diving, or other water sports that result in water going up the nose. The ameba then travels to the brain and spinal cord where it destroys the brain tissue.

What are the signs and symptoms of Naegleria infection?

Infection with Naegleria causes the disease primary amebic meningoencephalitis (PAM), a brain inflammation, which leads to the destruction of brain tissue.

Initial signs and symptoms of PAM start 1 to 14 days after infection. These symptoms include headache, fever, nausea, vomiting, and stiff neck. As the amebae cause more extensive destruction of brain tissue this leads to confusion, lack of attention to people and surroundings, loss of balance, seizures, and hallucinations. After the onset of symptoms, the disease progresses rapidly and usually results in death within 3 to 7 days.

and check out these photos from Thomas Buckelew’s Parisitology Images:

 brain section revealing destruction by Naegleria trophozoites.The tiny pale blue cells in the evacuolated areas are the amoebae. 100x

trophozoites of Naegleria fowleri in brain section with large centric endosome. This amoeba is a facultative parasite, free-living in the bottom ooze of ponds and lakes, particularly cooling pools of power plants. Aspiration of the amoebae into the nose, turns them parasitic. They migrate through the cribiform plate into the brain where they almost always result in a fatal infection. 1000x

 

i am both fascinated and repulsed. bugs in my brain, ewww!

well, let’s see….is that so tough a choice? really, how many calories are you saving? just walk the stairs or something if it’s such a big deal.

here’s the thing. aspartame and neotame/sucralose invade MANY PRODUCTS. you have to be careful, because they don’t always tell you on the box (unless you read the ingredients list). kind of sneaky. they do this with meat and meat by-products too.

for example, gelatin in a box of mini-wheat cereal (a store brand version).

also: aspartame in a box of maple & brown sugar oatmeal. seriously! didn’t mention anything about being “sugar-free.”

i am an avid label checker. first, see how long the list is (if it’s ridiculous, put it back!), then look for keywords of things i avoid. but sometimes i slip and miss something (and pay for it later).

ok, so i tried that 5-hour energy drink for the hell of it. mostly because i hate drinking coffee too often, and subsequently having to piss a lot, which i really can’t do in my line of work. so on some days i need a pick-me-up that doesn’t require a lot of drinking (no caffeine pills either, please). i don’t know how i missed it, but the last ingredient in the 5-hour thing is sucralose. (i thought it tasted a little off…)
i only took about 2/3 of the small bottle, over the course of last thursday. in the evening, i suddenly got very warm and very weak. i was visibly shaking and had to lie down–for hours…. my evening was completely shot. it felt like my brain itself was starting to shut down, it just wasn’t useful anymore. breathing was difficult, and any movement was out of the question (i would have collapsed).

the next day is when i discovered the sucralose. come one, real sugar please!

my beau’s mother used to use splenda. she used it every day. eventually she began getting massive and frequent migraines. she became depressed without knowing why. she felt tired and exhausted consistently. at some point we gave her info on neotame and aspartame. she stopped using splenda for a few weeks. all her symptoms went away, after a few days of what were basically withdrawal symptoms. then she told us about her experience.

when i worked in a coffee shop, i heard quite a few persons describe their aspartame addictions (via diet sodas mostly), and the ordeal of detoxing. one lady had even developed numerous neroses….luckily she found out about aspartame and broke her habit. not an easy task, but well worth the better health!!!

so, raw sugar only, PLEASE!!!

HERE ARE SOME LINKS, MORE OR LESS SELECTED AT RANDOM, CAN’T VOUCH FOR EVERYTHING OF COURSE, BUT DEFINITELY SOMEWHERE TO START…(if you really, truly are still in need of a reason not to use toxins)

ASPARTAME TOXICITY INFO CENTER

NEOTAME TOXICITY INFO CENTER

ARTIFICIAL SWEETENERS SICKNESS

SPLENDA EXPOSED

ARTIFICIAL SWEETENERS ARTICLES

LA LEVA’S FOOD INFO PAGE

not something new, really, but i haven’t ever mentioned it.

compost your crap. yes, humanure. don’t be afraid! it’s just poop!

i mean, they take barely composted (if at all) cow crap, chicken crap, etc, and even other really nasty & harmful bio-wastes and put it on crops, so why not properly compost your own waste, and not just the kitchen scraps?

if you compost it properly and for long enough, it won’t smell and it won’t be nasty. that’s one way you know it’s ready. same goes for cow shit. and when the farms use it, it makes the air reek for miles. they didn’t compost that! and i’m supposed to eat the food grown in it?

and why do we insist on polluting our limited supply of drinking water? you do know that the “recycled” water from your toilet ends up coming out of your kitchen sink, right?

so read all about it. The Humanure Handbook. available as a pdf for free, or you can buy it too. (i’ve since added it to my BOX –see sidebar– as well) make a composting toilet. use it. and if you live somewhere that you can compost outside, then do it.

nice banner from Jenkins Publishing (the author’s publishing company):

when i switched to middle school, i started getting headaches everyday at school. this lasted for most of the first year, and continued off and on ever since. it doesn’t happen as much now, mostly because i keep away from the source of those headaches. it was pretty easy to guess, since my eyes hurt too. the middle school had fluorescent lighting, whereas my elementary school was too old and did not have them!

so i’ve always held a grudge against fluorescents. they make things look so stark anyhow–everybody looks simply horrible under a fluorescent light.

but the best thing is that they use mercury vapor. if you break a bulb, you release a fine powder of mercury. now some people may say this is so minute that “a fluorescent bulb is not a significant health risk because the amount of mercury vapor released is so small that it dissipates into the air with a minimal chance of inhalation” but then they will go on to tell you that you must dispose of spent bulbs “as you would batteries, motor oil or oil-based paint” at the “Household Hazardous Waste Collection Site. [emphasis mine].” that just seems a little contradictory to me. a little bit deceptive. i mean, if it wasn’t so dangerous for me to break in my home, why can’t i just pitch the bulb in my regular garbage? answer: because it is dangerous.

apparently, dangerous enough that this man dropped a bulb in his house with expensive & rather serious consequences:

How much money does it take to screw in a compact fluorescent lightbulb? About $4.28 for the bulb and labor — unless you break the bulb. Then you, like Brandy Bridges of Ellsworth, Maine, could be looking at a cost of about $2,004.28, which doesn’t include the costs of frayed nerves and risks to health.

…The DEP sent a specialist to Bridges’ house to test for mercury contamination. The specialist found mercury levels in the bedroom in excess of six times the state’s “safe” level for mercury contamination of 300 billionths of a gram per cubic meter. …

…The potentially hazardous CFL is being pushed by companies such as Wal-Mart, which wants to sell 100 million CFLs at five times the cost of incandescent bulbs during 2007, and, surprisingly, environmentalists.

It’s quite odd that environmentalists have embraced the CFL, which cannot now and will not in the foreseeable future be made without mercury. Given that there are about 4 billion lightbulb sockets in American households, we’re looking at the possibility of creating billions of hazardous waste sites such as the Bridges’ bedroom. …

…As each CFL contains 5 milligrams of mercury, at the Maine “safety” standard of 300 nanograms per cubic meter, it would take 16,667 cubic meters of soil to “safely” contain all the mercury in a single CFL. While CFL vendors and environmentalists tout the energy cost savings of CFLs, they conveniently omit the personal and societal costs of CFL disposal. … (from Junk Science: Light Bulb Lunacy by Steven Malloy)

notice that WAL-MART is one of the big proponents. i say anything that monster is involved with has to have ulterior/sinister/etc motives. and al gore too (re: man-bear-pig).

and here you can even buy filters for your fluorescents to “provide UV-safe, full spectrum, glare-free fluorescent lights” that will eliminate “the glare that causes headaches and eyestrain.”

Here’s another article about the negative side of fluorescent lighting.

it just seems rather wicked to go around touting the environmental safety & overall goodness of a product that is inherently not safe and not good. and gives me and plenty of others a headache. and makes everything look weird and ugly.

i once spent 6 months reading by candlelight. could you?

…i say “sweetly” with sarcasm because really it smells more like paint thinner than roses to me…

here is some info i will be quoting about those noxious & toxic perFUMES and other chemicals commonly used in cleaners, as fragrances, etc. i have personally dealt with the health problems associated with “second-hand” perFUME/cologne or cleaner FUMES. i almost lost my mother because of these poisons.

and soon, when i have another few moments to spare, i will provide some recipes for fragrance-free cleaning, and for cleaners/perfumes with high-quality natural scented oils

check out this carbon-filter mask:  icanbreathe.com

***********************

Manilla times Tuesday Feb. 15 2005

36 perfumes carry ‘scent
of death,’ says Greenpeace

By Ronnie Calumpita, Reporter

The next time your boyfriend or girlfriend gives you perfume as a Valentine gift, think twice—he or she might be giving you a scent of “death.”

The environmental group Greenpeace said Monday that at least 36 well-known perfume brands contain chemicals that are hazardous to health and the environment.

At a press briefing at the Chicken Bacolod Restaurant in Quezon City, Francis de la Cruz, Greenpeace Southeast Asia toxics campaigner, said that phthalate esters and synthetic musks—two toxic man-made chemicals—are contained in several perfumes.

“These chemicals are known to be persistent and they intensify once they enter the body by inhaling or through the skin,” he said.

“It’s not acute poisoning but it’s chronic, it stays in our system and accumulates in the fatty tissues of living organisms,” he added.

De la Cruz said phthalate has been found to have bad effects on the DNA, male sperm and restricts lung function in men. Synthetic musks can attack living tissues, he said.

The perfumes containing these toxic agents, he said, are CK One, Eternity for Men and Eternity for Women of Calvin Klein, Boss in Motion of Hugo Boss; Envy Me of Gucci, Blue Polo of Ralph Lauren, True Star of Tommy Hilfiger, She of Armani, Chnace and No. 5 of Chanel, Floral Dream of Adidas, Cinema of Yves Saint Laurent and Sunset of Naomi Campbell.

Greenpeace randomly selected 36 brands of perfume for a quantitative analysis for phthalates and synthetic musks at the Netherlands laboratory, TNO Environment and Geosciences, which conducted the study from 2003 to 2004.

De la Cruz said Greenpeace has started meeting the manufacturers of these perfumes to discuss how these hazardous chemicals can be phased out of their products.

“Other ingredients that are not harmful can serve as substitutes,” he said.

Greenpeace will coordinate with the Bureau of Food and Drugs to regulate the entry of the “toxic” perfumes.

“The bureau should make the adjustments on perfumes with hazardous chemicals once the regulation is passed in Europe,” de la Cruz said.

Note: the complete list includes:

Floral Dream by Adidas, In Leather by Aigner, Aqua Naturale, Emporio Armani by Armani, White Musk, Eau de Parfum by The Body Shop and High Speed by Bogner, BLV Notte by Bulgari, CK One for Men, Eternity for Men and Eternity for Women by Calvin Klein, Le Baiser Du Dragon by Cartier, Chance No. 5 by Chanel, Poison and Pure Poison by Christian Dior, Him by FCUK, Fiorucci Loves You, Envy Me by Gucci, Boss by Hugo Boss, My Manifesto by Isabella Rosellini, Classique and Le Male by Jean Paul Gaultier, Nightlife by Joop!, Iris Blue by Melvita, Waterlove by Mexx, Sunset by Naomi Campbell, XS Pour Homme by Paco Rabanne, and Jamaica Man and Jamaica Woman by Puma.

(List published on page A4 of the Feb. 28, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer)

*********************************

from the CANCER PREVENTION COALITION:

Fragrances and Perfumes Can Be Toxic

Beware of Calvin Klein’s “Eternity eau de parfume”

jump to links

As emphasized in the Safe Shopper’s Bible, fragrances and perfumes in cosmetics, personal and household products are leading causes of allergy, sensitization, and irritation. Animal toxicity studies have found many to be hazardous. Fragrances are called “indoor air-pollutants” by chemically sensitive individuals.

The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health has reported that the fragrance industry uses up to 3000 ingredients, predominantly synthetic, some 900 of which were identified as toxic. However, the industry is not required to disclose ingredients of fragrances and perfumes on their labels due to trade secrecy considerations. The FDA supports this non-disclosure on the grounds that “consumers are not adversely affected — and should not be deprived of the enjoyment” of these products.

An analysis of six different mainstream perfumes by Scientific Instrument Services, released in November 1998, identified over 800 ingredients with distinctive patterns for each perfume. These ingredients include a wide range of volatile and semi-volatile organic chemicals which are thus a significant contributors to indoor air pollution.

On May 11, 1999, the California Environmental Health Network filed a Citizen Petition with the FDA requiring warning labels on all fragrances which are marketed without prior adequate safety testing. Additionally, the petition requested the FDA to take administrative action and declare Calvin Klein’ Cosmetic Company “Eternity eau de parfume” as “misbranded.” This petition has been supported and endorsed by the CPC. While Eternity perfume has been known since 1995 as toxic to the respiratory tract and nervous system, the petition was based on recent analysis of the perfume by two independent laboratories, Scientific Instruments Services and the cosmetic industry’s Research Institute of Fragrance Materials Laboratory. Of all 41 ingredients identified, no toxicity data are available on some, data on most are inadequate, and others are known to be toxic to the skin, mucous membranes, respiratory tract, and reproductive and nervous systems by routes including skin absorption and inhalation. Additionally, two ingredients (phenylmethyl acetic acid ester and 2,6–bis (1,1–dimethylethyl) –4–methyl–phenol) were identified as carcinogens. The FDA has 180 days to respond to this petition. However, any positive response is most unlikely.

Neways International, a leading alternative safe consumer products company, has taken a precedential initiative in the area of fragrance safety. The few fragrances used in Neways personal care products contain less than 10 ingredients, most of which are natural. As importantly, none of the few synthetics used are known to be toxic or carcinogenic. In the near future, these products will be labeled accordingly.

Press Release on Calvin Klein Perfume Toxicity

—this link follows below—

Perfume: Cupid’s Arrow or Poison Dart

Chicago, Feb. 8/PR Newswire — The following was released today by Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., Professor Environmental Medicine, University of Illinois School of Public Health, Chicago, and Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, and Amy Marsh, President of the Environmental Health Network, Larkspur, California:

Lovers looking for the perfect Valentine’s gift should think twice before giving a bottle of toxic chemicals to their sweethearts. Recent analysis of Calvin Klein’s “Eternity Eau de Parfum” (Eternity) by an industry laboratory specializing in fragrance chemistry revealed 41 ingredients. These include some known to be toxic to the skin, respiratory tract, nervous, and reproductive systems, and others known to be carcinogens; no toxicity data are available on several ingredients, while data on most are inadequate. Additionally, some ingredients are volatile and a source of indoor air pollution. Since 1995, several consumers have complained to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of neurological and respiratory problems due to Eternity.

The analysis was recently commissioned by the Environmental Health Network (EHN) as many members had complained of asthma, migraine, sensitization, or multiple chemical sensitivity when exposed to Eternity. Based on this analysis, EHN filed a Citizen Petition with the FDA on May 11, 1999, which was subsequently endorsed by the Cancer Prevention Coalition. The petition requests that the FDA take administrative action and declare Eternity “misbranded” or “adulterated” since it does not carry a warning label as required by the terms of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. Grounds for requesting the warning label include FDA regulation 21CFR Sec. 740/10: “Each ingredient used in a cosmetic product and each finished cosmetic product shall be adequately substantiated for safety prior to marketing. Any such ingredient or product whose safety is not adequately substantiated prior to marketing is misbranded unless it contains the following conspicuous statement on the principal display panel: Warning: the safety of this product has not been determined.”

Since May, over 700 consumers with health problems from exposure to various mainstream fragrances have written to the FDA supporting EHN’s petition. The FDA responded on November 30 to the effect that they had been unable to reach a decision on the grounds of “other priorities and the limited availability of resources.” The petition is thus still open for further public complaints and endorsements.

A wide range of mainstream fragrances and perfumes, predominantly based on synthetic ingredients, are used in numerous cosmetics and toiletries, and also soaps and other household products. Currently, the fragrance industry is virtually unregulated. Its recklessness is abetted and compounded by FDA’s complicity. The FDA has refused to require the industry to disclose ingredients due to trade secrecy considerations, and still takes the position that “consumers are not adversely affected — and should not be deprived of the enjoyment” of these products. The Cancer Prevention Coalition and EHN take the unequivocal position that the FDA should implement its own regulations and act belatedly to protect consumer health and safety.

Valentine sweethearts should switch to organically grown (pesticide-free) roses or other flowers as safe alternatives to mainstream perfumes.

Sources: Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. and Amy Marsh

Contact: Feb. 8: Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., Professor of Environmental Medicine, University of Illinois, School of Public Health, Chicago, Illinois, and Chairman, the Cancer Prevention Coalition, 312-996-2297

Contact: Feb. 8: Barbara Wilkie, Environmental Health Network, P.O. Box 115, Larkspur, California 94977, 510-527-3567

Web site: http://users.lanminds.com/~wilworks/ehnindex.html

************************************

• Multiple-Chemical Sensitivity Global Recognition Campaign

• Barbara’s story as an example of repeated contact with some harsh chemicals

–NOW I DISAGREE WITH THE TERM “MULTIPLE-CHEMICAL SENSITIVITY”…BECAUSE THESE CHEMICALS ARE NOT MEANT TO BE CONSTANTLY IN AND AROUND OUR BODIES WE SHOULD ALL BE SENSITIVE TO THEM…SOME OF US ARE LUCKIER TO HAVE A BETTER WARNING SYSTEM THAN OTHERS. JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE CAN APPLY TOXINS TO THEIR SKIN OR CLEAN WITH THEM WITHOUT COUGHING OR GETTING A HEADACHE OR HAVING THEIR AIRWAYS CLOSE OR ANY OTHER REACTION, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THESE CHEMICALS ARE NOT HARMING THEM. THEIR BODIES HAVE SIMPLY LOST THE ABILITY TO EFFECTIVELY REACT AND WARN THEIR BRAINS TO GET FAR FAR AWAY BEFORE SERIOUS DAMAGE IS DONE. SO IN EFFECT, THIS CAMPAIGN FOR RECOGNITION SHOULD NOT BE JUST FOR US LUCKY “SENSITIVES” BUT FOR THE HEALTH & WELL-BEING OF ALL PEOPLE BECAUSE TOXIC CHEMICALS IN ANY FORM ARE A SERIOUS THREAT TO THE HEALTH AND LIFE OF ALL LIVING BEINGS–

*****************************

HIGHLY TOXIC CHEMICALS ARE FOUND IN . . . HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS

“As part of National Poison Prevention Week, health officials are warning parents to keep their children away from household poisons. That’s good advice, of course, but sadly very little attention is paid to slow-acting poisons and toxic chemicals found in personal care products that slowly (but surely) kill both parents and children by the millions. I’m talking about the toxic chemicals found in everyday household products that, when absorbed through the skin (as practically all chemicals are), lead directly to liver toxicity, nervous system disorders, and cancer. …”

—for a list of threats in various rooms in your home, click on the title above—

******************************************

—THIS NICE PERSON HAS COMPILED MANY LINKS SO CHECK THEM OUT—

The Health

Risks of

Perfume

(and Other Scented Products)

by JACKIE @ www.ourlittleplace.org

Did you know that perfume is made of toxic chemicals that can injure your health? Many of the chemicals in perfume are the same chemicals in cigarette smoke, and yet there is no regulation of the fragrance industry. Many people are “bothered” by perfumes – developing headaches, sinus problems, and even asthma from exposures. Many have gotten sick or even disabled from wearing (or being exposed to) fragrances and using other scented products (me included). And fragrances are now used in almost every cleaning, laundry, and personal-care product on the market! These chemicals go directly into the bloodstream when applied to our skin and are also absorbed into the skin from our clothing. We also inhale the chemical fumes, which then go straight to our brains where they can do major harm. Many even have a “narcotic” effect, which is why some people seem “addicted” to their perfumes. Please take the time to read the following articles and educate yourself about the health risks to you and your family:

No Perfume Means Healthier Air! (compiled by “Breath of Fresh Air”)

Fragrance-Free Encounters and No-Fragrance Spaces – Not Just a Personal Preference, but a Vital Matter of Health(written by Roberta Rigsby)
- to help the lay person understand the effects of scented products

Twenty Most Common Chemicals in Thirty-one Fragrance Products
[based on a] 1991 EPA Study (compiled by Julia Kendall)

Making Sense of Scents (compiled by Julia Kendall)

Identification of Polar Volatile Organic Compounds in Consumer Products and Common Microenvironments(full text of EPA Report used in perfume studies by Julia Kendall)

SPECT Scans of MCS Patient’s Brain- before and after exposure to perfume

“No Perfume” Buttons- print out and make buttons or signs to help make others aware of the health problems caused by their fragranced products!!

(For more information about the toxicity of perfumes, please see the “Links to Related Sites” page.)

NEED MORE PROOF??!!

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)- listing of “Common Indoor Air Pollutants” (PROOF from our Government that Fragrances are pollutants!!)

Smelling Good But Feeling Bad - Synthetic Perfumes, Colognes and Scents Are Turning Up Noses – article by Damon Franz and Holly Prall (Green Living E-magazine).

Colognes – Perfumes – Pesticides – Are They Slowly Killing You? - October 7th, 1999 – by columnist David Lawrence Dewey – “Reading provides knowledge…knowledge leads to answers.”

Smells Can Make You Sick – by Rebecca Ephraim, RD, CCN, Conscious Choice, April 2002.

Good Scents Sense – Perfumes, fragrances can affect respiratory patients.

What the nose knows – Think twice before buying a loved one perfume, cologne! – (article) “The way to the heart is through the nose,” asserts Haarmann & Reimer, a leading fragrance manufacturer. But lovers may want to think twice about giving a bottle of cologne or perfume for Valentines Day, say some health advocates. Certain fragrances and their chemical constituents might trigger an allergic — rather than aphrodisiac — response. And some perfumes contain hidden ingredients that may pose longer-term hazards.’

noFragrance.org – SO WHAT’S WRONG WITH TRYING TO SMELL NICE? Nothing in itself. But the chemicals that are used to propagate fragrance can be quite toxic to some people. This isn’t a matter of taste or unpleasantness; people who suffer from Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) become physically sick, often to the point of being incapacitated, when exposed to artificial fragrances. A minimal amount of exposure is enough to hurt. For instance, a trace of scented laundry detergent in a room can force an MCS sufferer in the room to flee—or get very sick.

** * SPECIAL NOTICE * * *

The Environmental Health Network of California has filed a petition with the FDA to have the fragrance “Eternity” by Calvin Klein declared misbranded. The basis of this petition is the lack of a warning label on the product informing consumers that all the materials in the product and the product has not been adequately tested for safety. After an independently-funded analysis of this product, it was found to contain chemicals known to be on the hazardous waste list and that cause neurological and other problems. For more information about this petition and how YOU can tell the FDA that you’re in favor of the petition, please see: “The Environmental Health Network of California files Petition with the FDA”.

all right. i have a bone to pick and it’s a serious bone because it involves murder. i suppose technically, you might call it manslaughter because most people are completely oblivious to the fact that they are injuring & lending to (or straight out causing) someone else’s death.

now, many states are banning cigarettes in public places. why? because the people that don’t smoke (to avoid associated health risks) don’t like the associated health risks of being around smokers and their second-hand smoke. it all seems reasonable, right?

SO WHY DOESN’T ANYONE THINK ABOUT perFUMES AND COLOGNES???? DO YOU KNOW THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO ARE “SENSITIVE” AND EVEN DEATHLY “ALLERGIC” TO THE CHEMICALS IN THOSE NOXIOUS AND TOXIC BATHS PEOPLE DUMP ON THEMSELVES? HAVE THE CHEMICALS COMPLETELY DESTROYED ALL THEIR BRAIN CELLS THAT THEY BELIEVE IT MAKES THEM SMELL GOOD TO OTHER PEOPLE? CHRIST! (i’ll get to why i used quotations around “sensitive” and “allergic” in a minute)

my mother is a teacher. she is sensitive to chemicals. she has almost died quite a few times because of the cleaners used by the janitors (they accidently brought some near her classroom…..schools use the harshest and most toxic chemicals for cleaning) and because of someone’s perFUME. ONE WHIFF OF THIS STUFF AND SHE WILL BEGIN COUGHING, 2-3 WHIFFS AND HER AIRWAYS BEGIN TO CLOSE. she was just lucky to get to her emergency inhaler in time for most of this instances. but the first time she didn’t have an emergency inhaler at that point, and well….it was a close call.

but let me move on to myself. i am also sensitive to toxic chemicals (that is, in cleaners, perFUMES, colognes, any sort of artificial fragrance, or even some poorly-made “natural” fragrances). luckily, i won’t die if i smell these (YET!!!), but here’s what will happen:

• if i get one whiff of any chemical or artificial fragrance, then i immediately begin coughing uncontrollably. within a minute, if i haven’t escaped the dreadful fume, a massive headache begins setting in. both of these symptoms will stay with me until i or the offending party leaves the area.
• this headache i get is just like the headache from sniffing paint thinner, or when you have to paint with oil paint (god, how awful!!!), etc. IN FACT, THIS IS WHAT perFUMES & COLOGNES DO. I CANNOT SMELL ANY FRAGRANCE BECAUSE IT JUST SMELLS LIKE PAINT THINNER OR ANY OTHER TOXIC CHEMICAL…..BECAUSE IT IS A TOXIC CHEMICAL (rather it is a toxic chemical bath!!!)
• if for some reason i cannot escape the FUMES and i breathe them (coughing still, remember) for any longer than a few minutes, I WILL BECOME ILL. my body acts as if it has been poisoned (BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN POISONED), my mind cannot work properly because of the migraine, and in general, i feel like SHIT. it’s worse than having a cold or the flu. it’s the illness and pain that only TOXIC CHEMICALS can give you.

SO MY BONE IS THIS: WHY DO WE ONLY RECOGNIZE CIGARETTE SMOKE AS BEING A HEALTH-RISK TO NON-SMOKERS? THESE TOXIC CHEMICALS FOUND IN CLEANERS, perFUMES, COLOGNES, DETERGENTS, ETC THAT ARE ALL WIDELY USED OR FOUND IN PUBLIC PLACES ARE JUST AS MUCH AS A HEALTH-RISK both to those using/wearing them and to others…SO WHY NOT BAN THEM IN PUBLIC PLACES???????

i work in a public place. if i cannot do my job because people are drenching themselves in these deadly chemicals, I BELIEVE WE HAVE A PROBLEM. WHAT YOU MAY THINK IS HARMLESS IS FAR FROM IT–NOT JUST FOR ME, MY MOTHER, BUT FOR YOU AS WELL. just because i don’t surround myself with toxicity does not make me weak or sensitive or the exception. THINK OF THIS: MY BODY CAN VERY QUICKLY & EASILY LET ME KNOW THERE IS SOMETHING HARMFUL AND POTENTIALLY LIFE-THREATENING NEARBY while all those inundating themselves so that there body can no longer respond effectively are more likely to and do in fact help themselves to their graves with toxic levels of toxic chemicals.

AT THIS POINT I AM WORKING ON ACQUIRING A SMALL GAS MASK ALONG WITH A DOCTOR’S NOTE SO THAT I CAN WEAR THIS AT WORK WHENEVER SOME IDIOT COMES AROUND SMELLING LIKE A CHEMICAL BATH. because i can’t work when someone like that is around.

HAVE YOU EVER BEEN IN A RESTAURANT WHEN FOR SOME BIZARRE REASON THEY BRING OUT THEIR CLEANING CHEMICALS AND BEGIN CLEANING WHILE YOU’RE EATING????? i think i could sue for that.

JUST LIKE THE NON-SMOKERS, I AM TRYING TO PROTECT MYSELF FROM SOMETHING HARMFUL AND DEADLY. there is just as much money involved with the perFUME business (and cleaning product business, etc), but they’ve accomplished quite a lot against the rich rich rich tobacco companies. (and in all truth, it’s the toxic chemicals used in the processing of the tobacco and the manufacturing of the cigarettes that is causing the health problems, and not the tobacco itself…at least, the tobacco when it was grown hundreds of years ago…)

as a side note, if i spend a few minutes in chlorinated water (now that’s most water for most people) then my eyes become irritated (even if they didn’t touch the water) and i start getting cold symptoms which will last for a few days. how’s that for a warning & detox system?!!!

i will be posting some links and info after this post (and later some recipes for naturally- or un-scented products!), so you can get all that without my rants. but really–you would be as angry as i am if you almost lost your mother because someone wore some cheap perFUME, or if you couldn’t do your job for the same reason.

high-quality, non-chemicalized, natural scents i can stand in the appropriate doses (that is: a dab here, a dab there NOT the whole damn bottle!!!) and of course i use non-scented, biodegradable, natural, etc cleaners. a lot of times, i just mix some vinegar with water. quick, cheap, easy, and non-deadly cleaning.

yes, this is the same stuff they like to put in water (for your “good”) and in toothpaste (again, for the “good” of your own self and your teeth) or at least some derivative of….i mean, it’s not like there’s any evidence that it’s unhealthy, right? (too bad you can’t put sarcasm as easily in writing as you can speech)….

taken from THE NEW LEXICON WEBSTER’S DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, 1989 EDITION (p. 942, halfway down the 3rd column):

“sodium flouride   the poisonous crystalline salt NaF produced by the reaction of hydrofluoric acid with soda ash and used in the fluoridation of water and in rat and insect poisons etc.”

OK then! notice the first main word? POISONOUS? notice how they use it in “RAT AND INSECT POISONS ETC.”?

wait, how is a poison good for me?

let’s go a little further: what is hydrofluoric acid? quick turn to page 473 of the same dictionary, 1st column, near the bottom:

“hydrofluoric acid   a highly corrosive and poisonous weak acid, HF, formed by dissolving hydrogen fluoride in water, used in etching glass”

so does mixing “a highly corrosive and poisonous weak acid” with soda ash render it good for you, your body, your teeth, your bones? you’re going to have a difficult time convincing me of that one.

but your dentist thinks it’s fine and good, the “authorities” think it’s fine and good, your parents dutifully bought you fluoridated toothpaste that discolored your teeth so that now you have to whiten them to achieve that “perfect beautiful” smile…..just try to not swallow that toothpaste.

somewhere in all this everyone seemed to forget that the NAZIS in WW2 Germany liked to use SODIUM FLUORIDE in the water supplies of their concentration camps….and we know what wonderful places of health and good feeling those were! (sarcasm again) in fact, it was not long after the war ended that suddenly it became necessary to start putting sodium fluoride in the water supplies of the United States. well, that’s a little odd. why would we want to emulate the Nazis that we sacrificed so many lives to destroy?

it’s all just a little disconcerting to me.

plus the fact that it’s been shown to not prevent cavaties, is the only thing added to water for medicative purposes, actually causes a lot of harm both physically and mentally, and can actually weaken bones (IN FACT, HYDROFLUORIC ACID IF SPILLED ON YOUR SKIN AND ABSORBED, WILL THEN SEEK OUT THE CALCIUM IN YOUR BONES AND WILL ESSENTIALLY EAT AWAY AT YOUR BONES….so explain to me again how a thing made from something so dangerous and poisonous can be good for me?)

there are 2 ways i know of to get rid of fluoride (& chloride, another nasty chemical) out of your tap water: distillation and reverse osmosis filtration. and that’s the only kind of water i’ll drink, besides fresh spring water that i know the source of and filter myself.

i used to have a nice amount of links about fluoride, but these are mostly on my old and very slow computer. next time it is on i will be posting those here. until then, please entertain yourself with these, which should lead you to some more sites & info as well. maybe you’ll even learn where they get the fluoride for their fluoridation from! (i know, of course, but people need to do their own sleuthing and exercising of their brains, which i am of the opinion is fast becoming a lost art)

go here for some interesting things fluoridation really does to you with lots of links:

Toxic Chemicals In Your Water

and here’s an article from FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK a site dedicated to informing the public about the true reality of a small part of the hell we deem society:

**************************

10 FACTS ABOUT FLUORIDE

10 Facts about Fluoride
Fluoride Action Network | December 2006

2) Fluoride is the only chemical added to drinking water for the purpose of medication (to prevent tooth decay). All other treatment chemicals are added to treat the water (to improve the water’s quality and safety – which fluoride does not do). This is one of the reasons why most of Europe has rejected fluoridation. For instance:

In Germany, “The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compulsion medication.”

In Belgium, it is “the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services.”

In Luxembourg, “In our views, drinking water isn’t the suitable way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way.”

3) Contrary to previous belief, fluoride has minimal benefit when swallowed. When water fluoridation began in the 1940s and ’50s, dentists believed that fluoride needed to be swallowed in order to be most effective. This belief, however, has now been discredited by an extensive body of modern research (1).

According to the Centers for Disease Control, fluoride’s “predominant effect is posteruptive and topical” (2). In other words, any benefits that accrue from the use of fluoride, come from the direct application of fluoride to the outside of teeth (after they have erupted into the mouth) and not from ingestion. There is no need, therefore, to expose all other tissues to fluoride by swallowing it.

4) Fluoridated water is no longer recommended for babies. In November of 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) advised that parents should avoid giving babies fluoridated water (3). Other dental researchers have made similar recommendations over the past decade (4).

Babies exposed to fluoride are at high risk of developing dental fluorosis – a permanent tooth defect caused by fluoride damaging the cells which form the teeth (5). Other tissues in the body may also be affected by early-life exposures to fluoride. According to a recent review published in the medical journal The Lancet, fluoride may damage the developing brain, causing learning deficits and other problems (6).

5)There are better ways of delivering fluoride than adding it to water. By adding fluoride to everyone’s tap water, many infants and other at-risk populations will be put in harm’s way. This is not only wrong, it is unnecessary. As western Europe has demonstrated, there are many equally effective and less-intrusive ways of delivering fluoride to people who actually want it. For example:

A) Topical fluoride products such as toothpaste and mouthrinses (which come with explicit instructions not to swallow) are readily available at all grocery stores and pharmacies. Thus, for those individuals who wish to use fluoride, it is very easy to find and very inexpensive to buy.

B) If there is concern that some people in the community cannot afford to purchase fluoride toothpaste (a family-size tube of toothpaste costs as little as $2 to $3), the money saved by not fluoridating the water can be spent subsidizing topical fluoride products (or non-fluoride alternatives) for those families in need.

C) The vast majority of fluoride added to water supplies is wasted, since over 99% of tap water is not actually consumed by a human being. It is used instead to wash cars, water the lawn, wash dishes, flush toilets, etc.

6) Ingestion of fluoride has little benefit, but many risks. Whereas fluoride’s benefits come from topical contact with teeth, its risks to health (which involve many more tissues than the teeth) result from being swallowed.

Adverse effects from fluoride ingestion have been associated with doses atttainable by people living in fluoridated areas. For example:

a) Risk to the brain. According to the National Research Council (NRC), fluoride can damage the brain. Animal studies conducted in the 1990s by EPA scientists found dementia-like effects at the same concentration (1 ppm) used to fluoridate water, while human studies have found adverse effects on IQ at levels as low as 0.9 ppm among children with nutrient deficiencies, and 1.8 ppm among children with adequate nutrient intake. (7-10)

b) Risk to the thyroid gland. According to the NRC, fluoride is an “endocrine disrupter.” Most notably, the NRC has warned that doses of fluoride (0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day) achievable by drinking fluoridated water, may reduce the function of the thyroid among individuals with low-iodine intake. Reduction of thyroid activity can lead to loss of mental acuity, depression and weight gain (11)

c) Risk to bones. According to the NRC, fluoride can diminish bone strength and increase the risk for bone fracture. While the NRC was unable to determine what level of fluoride is safe for bones, it noted that the best available information suggests that fracture risk may be increased at levels as low 1.5 ppm, which is only slightly higher than the concentration (0.7-1.2 ppm) added to water for fluoridation. (12)

d) Risk for bone cancer. Animal and human studies – including a recent study from a team of Harvard scientists – have found a connection between fluoride and a serious form of bone cancer (osteosarcoma) in males under the age of 20. The connection between fluoride and osteosarcoma has been described by the National Toxicology Program as “biologically plausible.” Up to half of adolescents who develop osteosarcoma die within a few years of diagnosis. (13-16)

e) Risk to kidney patients. People with kidney disease have a heightened susceptibility to fluoride toxicity. The heightened risk stems from an impaired ability to excrete fluoride from the body. As a result, toxic levels of fluoride can accumulate in the bones, intensify the toxicity of aluminum build-up, and cause or exacerbate a painful bone disease known as renal osteodystrophy. (17-19)

7) The industrial chemicals used to fluoridate water may present unique health risks not found with naturally-occurring fluoride complexes . The chemicals – fluorosilicic acid, sodium silicofluoride, and sodium fluoride – used to fluoridate drinking water are industrial waste products from the phosphate fertilizer industry. Of these chemicals, fluorosilicic acid (FSA) is the most widely used. FSA is a corrosive acid which has been linked to higher blood lead levels in children. A recent study from the University of North Carolina found that FSA can – in combination with chlorinated compounds – leach lead from brass joints in water pipes, while a recent study from the University of Maryland suggests that the effect of fluoridation chemicals on blood lead levels may be greatest in houses built prior to 1946. Lead is a neurotoxin that can cause learning disabilities and behavioral problems in children. (20-23)

Water fluoridation’s benefits to teeth have been exaggerated. Even proponents of water fluoridation admit that it is not as effective as it was once claimed to be. While proponents still believe in its effectiveness, a growing number of studies strongly question this assessment. (24-46) According to a systematic review published by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, “The magnitude of [fluoridation's] effect is not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and may not be of clinical significance.” (36)

a) No difference exists in tooth decay between fluoridated & unfluoridated countries. While water fluoridation is often credited with causing the reduction in tooth decay that has occurred in the US over the past 50 years, the same reductions in tooth decay have occurred in all western countries, most of which have never added fluoride to their water. The vast majority of western Europe has rejected water fluoridation. Yet, according to comprehensive data from the World Health Organization, their tooth decay rates are just as low, and, in fact, often lower than the tooth decay rates in the US. (25, 35, 44)

b) Cavities do not increase when fluoridation stops. In contrast to earlier findings, five studies published since 2000 have reported no increase in tooth decay in communities which have ended fluoridation. (37-41)

c) Fluoridation does not prevent oral health crises in low-income areas. While some allege that fluoridation is especially effective for low-income communities, there is very little evidence to support this claim. According to a recent systematic review from the British government, “The evidence about [fluoridation] reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable.” (45) In the United States, severe dental crises are occurring in low-income areas irrespective of whether the community has fluoride added to its water supply. (46) In addition, several studies have confirmed that the incidence of severe tooth decay in children (“baby bottle tooth decay”) is not significantly different in fluoridated vs unfluoridated areas. (27,32,42) Thus, despite some emotionally-based claims to the contrary, water fluoridation does not prevent the oral health problems related to poverty and lack of dental-care access.

9) Fluoridation poses added burden and risk to low-income communities. Rather than being particularly beneficial to low-income communities, fluoridation is particularly burdensome and harmful. For example:

a) Low-income families are least able to avoid fluoridated water. Due to the high costs of buying bottled water or expensive water filters, low-income households will be least able to avoid fluoride once it’s added to the water. As a result, low-income families will be least capable of following ADA’s recommendation that infants should not receive fluoridated water. This may explain why African American children have been found to suffer the highest rates of disfiguring dental fluorosis in the US. (47)

b) Low-income families at greater risk of fluoride toxicity. In addition, it is now well established that individuals with inadequate nutrient intake have a significantly increased susceptibility to fluoride’s toxic effects. (48-51) Since nutrient deficiencies are most common in income communities, and since diseases known to increase susceptibility to fluoride are most prevalent in low-income areas (e.g. end-stage renal failure), it is likely that low-income communities will be at greatest risk from suffering adverse effects associated with fluoride exposure. According to Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, a member of the National Research Council’s review of fluoride toxicity: “I would expect low-income communities to be more vulnerable to at least some of the effects of drinking fluoridated water.” (51)

10) Due to other sources, many people are being over-exposed to fluoride . Unlike when water fluoridation first began, Americans are now receiving fluoride from many other sources* besides the water supply. As a result many people are now exceeding the recommended daily intake, putting them at elevated risk of suffering toxic effects. For example, many children ingest more fluoride from toothpaste alone than is considered “optimal” for a full day’s worth of ingestion. According to the Journal of Public Health Dentistry:

“Virtually all authors have noted that some children could ingest more fluoride from [toothpaste] alone than is recommended as a total daily fluoride ingestion.” (52)

Because of the increase in fluoride exposure from all sources combined, the rate of dental fluorosis (a visible indicator of over-exposure to fluoride during childhood) has increased significantly over the past 50 years. Whereas dental fluorosis used to impact less than 10% of children in the 1940s, the latest national survey found that it now affects over 30% of children. (47, 53)

* Sources of fluoride include: fluoride dental products, fluoride pesticides, fluorinated pharmaceuticals, processed foods made with fluoridated water, and tea.

References

To access the references, click here

Return to: Fluoride Action Network’s Media Page

Return to: Fluoride Action Network’s Home Page

]]> http://earthasylum.wordpress.com/2007/04/22/what-websters-thinks-about-sodium-floride-and-then-some/feed/ 4 faeriechild http://earthasylum.wordpress.com/2007/03/17/why-i-prefer-real-sugar-high-fructose-corn-syrup/ http://earthasylum.wordpress.com/2007/03/17/why-i-prefer-real-sugar-high-fructose-corn-syrup/#comments Sat, 17 Mar 2007 17:30:43 +0000 faeriechild http://earthasylum.wordpress.com/2007/03/17/why-i-prefer-real-sugar-high-fructose-corn-syrup/ ]]>

if i want to sweeten something, guess what i use? sugar! raw organic cane sugar, actually. none of that bleached crap. the alternatives are rather dangerous. except for stevia (“the sweet leaf”), but that is really an acquired taste. i’ll post about it some other time.

let’s see, alternatives to sugar: aspartame, neotame, high fructose corn syrup (HFCS)……now don’t let that word fructose confuse you into thinking that it’s a healthy sugar. in fruits it is, but not when it’s been genetically modified into HFCS.

if i make pancakes, i only use maple syrup. nothing that has HFCS in it. if i did eat syrup sweetened with HFCS, even just a few bites worth, i get a massive headache. it’s bad stuff! and it’s used in a plethora of food & drinks. that makes me a little sad, and a little angry. just like how they hide meat in everything (watch out for mono- & diglycerides….they can be either synthetic or meat-based if the word “vegetable” does not come before them! and so many breads have them!).

so here are some articles and links to articles (click on the titles) for your reading pleasure. giant manufacturers are only concerned about profits, not you & your health. remember this!

******************************

The Murky World of High-Fructose Corn Syrup

By Linda Joyce Forristal, CCP, MTA

Think of sugar and you think of sugar cane or beets. Extraction of sugar from sugar cane spurred the colonization of the New World. Extraction of sugar from beets was developed during the time of Napoleon so that the French could have sugar in spite of the English trading blockade.

Nobody thinks of sugar when they see a field of corn. Most of us would be surprised to learn that the larger percentage of sweeteners used in processed food comes from corn, not sugar cane or beets.

The process for making the sweetener high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) out of corn was developed in the 1970s. Use of HFCS grew rapidly, from less than three million short tons in 1980 to almost 8 million short tons in 1995. During the late 1990s, use of sugar actually declined as it was eclipsed by HFCS. Today Americans consume more HFCS than sugar.

High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is produced by processing corn starch to yield glucose, and then processing the glucose to produce a high percentage of fructose. It all sounds rather simple–white cornstarch is turned into crystal clear syrup. However, the process is actually very complicated. Three different enzymes are needed to break down cornstarch, which is composed of chains of glucose molecules of almost infinite length, into the simple sugars glucose and fructose.

First, cornstarch is treated with alpha-amylase to produce shorter chains of sugars called polysaccharides. Alpha-amylase is industrially produced by a bacterium, usually Bacillus sp. It is purified and then shipped to HFCS manufacturers.

Next, an enzyme called glucoamylase breaks the sugar chains down even further to yield the simple sugar glucose. Unlike alpha-amylase, glucoamylase is produced by Aspergillus, a fungus, in a fermentation vat where one would likely see little balls of Aspergillus floating on the top.

The third enzyme, glucose-isomerase, is very expensive. It converts glucose to a mixture of about 42 percent fructose and 50-52 percent glucose with some other sugars mixed in. While alpha-amylase and glucoamylase are added directly to the slurry, pricey glucose-isomerase is packed into columns and the sugar mixture is then passed over it. Inexpensive alpha-amylase and glucoamylase are used only once, glucose-isomerase is reused until it loses most of its activity.

There are two more steps involved. First is a liquid chromatography step that takes the mixture to 90 percent fructose. Finally, this is back-blended with the original mixture to yield a final concentration of about 55 percent fructose–what the industry calls high fructose corn syrup.

HFCS has the exact same sweetness and taste as an equal amount of sucrose from cane or beet sugar but it is obviously much more complicated to make, involving vats of murky fermenting liquid, fungus and chemical tweaking, all of which take place in one of 16 chemical plants located in the Corn Belt. Yet in spite of all the special enzymes required, HFCS is actually cheaper than sugar. It is also very easy to transport–it’s just piped into tanker trucks. This translates into lower costs and higher profits for food producers.

The development of the HFCS process came at an opportune time for corn growers. Refinements of the partial hydrogenation process had made it possible to get better shortenings and margarines out of soybeans than corn. HFCS took up the slack as demand for corn oil margarine declined. Lysine, an amino acid, can be produced from the corn residue after the glucose is removed. This is the modus operandi of the food conglomerates–break down commodities into their basic components and then put them back together again as processed food.

Today HFCS is used to sweeten jams, condiments like ketchup, and soft drinks. It is also a favorite ingredient in many so-called health foods. Four companies control 85 percent of the $2.6 billion business–Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill, Staley Manufacturing Co. and CPC International. In the mid-1990s, ADM was the object of an FBI probe into price fixing of three products–HFCS, citric acid and lysine–and consumers got a glimpse of the murky world of corporate manipulation.

There’s a couple of other murky things that consumers should know about HFCS. According to a food technology expert, two of the enzymes used, alpha-amylase and glucose-isomerase, are genetically modified to make them more stable. Enzymes are actually very large proteins and through genetic modification specific amino acids in the enzymes are changed or replaced so the enzyme’s “backbone” won’t break down or unfold. This allows the industry to get the enzymes to higher temperatures before they become unstable.

Consumers trying to avoid genetically modified foods should avoid HFCS. It is almost certainly made from genetically modified corn and then it is processed with genetically modified enzymes. I’ve seen some estimates claiming that virtually everything–almost 80 percent–of what we eat today has been genetically modified at some point. Since the use of HFCS is so prevalent in processed foods, those figures may be right.

But there’s another reason to avoid HFCS. Consumers may think that because it contains fructose–which they associate with fruit, which is a natural food–that it is healthier than sugar. A team of investigators at the USDA, led by Dr. Meira Field, has discovered that this just ain’t so.

Sucrose is composed of glucose and fructose. When sugar is given to rats in high amounts, the rats develop multiple health problems, especially when the rats were deficient in certain nutrients, such as copper. The researchers wanted to know whether it was the fructose or the glucose moiety that was causing the problems. So they repeated their studies with two groups of rats, one given high amounts of glucose and one given high amounts of fructose. The glucose group was unaffected but the fructose group had disastrous results. The male rats did not reach adulthood. They had anemia, high cholesterol and heart hypertrophy–that means that their hearts enlarged until they exploded. They also had delayed testicular development. Dr. Field explains that fructose in combination with copper deficiency in the growing animal interferes with collagen production (Copper deficiency, by the way, is widespread in America.) In a nutshell, the little bodies of the rats just fell apart. The females were not so affected, but they were unable to produce live young.

“The medical profession thinks fructose is better for diabetics than sugar,” says Dr. Field, “but every cell in the body can metabolize glucose. However, all fructose must be metabolized in the liver. The livers of the rats on the high fructose diet looked like the livers of alcoholics, plugged with fat and cirrhotic.”

HFCS contains more fructose than sugar and this fructose is more immediately available because it is not bound up in sucrose. Since the effects of fructose are most severe in the growing organism, we need to think carefully about what kind of sweeteners we give to our children. Fruit juices should be strictly avoided–they are very high in fructose–but so should anything with HFCS.

Interestingly, although HFCS is used in many products aimed at children, it is not used in baby formula, even though it would probably save the manufactueres a few pennies for each can. Do the formula makers know something they aren’t telling us? Pretty murky!

About the author

Linda Forristal, CCP, MTA is the author of Ode to Sucanat (1993) and Bulgarian Rhapsody (1998). Visit her website at www.motherlindas.com.

---

This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts,
the quarterly magazine of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Fall 2001

*********************************

Sweet but Not So Innocent?

High-Fructose Corn Syrup May Act More Like Fat Than Sugar in the Body

By Sally Squires

Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 11, 2003; Page HE01

From fruit-flavored drinks to energy bars, a huge array of sweetened foods and beverages crowds grocery shelves, vending machines, restaurant menus, school lunches and kitchens. According to the latest figures from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), consumption of various sweeteners, often in calorie-dense foods and drinks, has risen in the United States from an estimated 113 pounds per person in 1966 to 147 pounds in 2001.

Last week, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended limiting intake of added sugars found in food and drink to no more than 10 percent of daily calories, a step the WHO said could help stop the worldwide rise in obesity that is fueling the growth of such chronic diseases as type 2 diabetes. The WHO recommendation is far stricter than any that U.S. groups have produced.

But increasingly, it’s not just the growing consumption of foods with added sugars that concerns some nutrition experts. What has also changed during the past four decades, the USDA figures show, is the type of sweeteners consumed — a trend that some studies suggest may help to undermine appetite control and possibly play a role in weight gain.

In 1966, refined sugar, also known as sucrose, held the No. 1 slot, accounting for 86 percent of sweeteners used, according to the USDA. Today, sweeteners made from corn are the leader, racking up $4.5 billion in annual sales and accounting for 55 percent of the sweetener market. That switch largely reflects the steady growth of high-fructose corn syrup, which climbed from zero consumption in 1966 to 62.6 pounds per person in 2001.

While soft drinks and fruit beverages such as lemonade are the leading products containing high-fructose corn syrup, plenty of other items — including cookies, gum, jams, jellies and baked goods — also contain this syrup. [For more information about which foods contain these and other added sweeteners, see the Lean Plate Club column on Page F2.]

Made from corn starch, high-fructose corn syrup is a thick liquid that contains two basic sugar building blocks, fructose and glucose, in roughly equal amounts. Sucrose, most familiar to consumers as table sugar, is a larger sugar molecule that breaks down into glucose and fructose in the intestine during metabolism.

An advantage of high-fructose corn syrup is that it “tastes sweeter than refined sugar,” making it a popular ingredient for food manufacturers because it enables them to use less, says George A. Bray, former director of Louisiana State University’s Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge. As a liquid, the syrup is easier to blend into beverages than refined sugar, according to the National Soft Drink Association (NSDA). Industry taste tests suggested that consumers liked food and drink with high-fructose corn syrup as much as refined beet or cane sugar.

In the 1980s, manufacturing methods improved, prompting a boost in production of high-fructose corn syrup and a drop in price to just pennies below that of refined sugar. “While that may not sound like much to the average consumer, when you consider how many pounds [the soft drink industry buys], it was millions of dollars if not hundreds of millions of dollars in savings,” says Drew Davis, NSDA’s vice president for federal affairs.

The switch made economic sense and, as Davis notes, “back then, there was no suggestion that high-fructose corn syrup was metabolized differently” than other sugars. More recent research suggests, however, that there may be some unexpected nutritional consequences of using the syrup. “Fructose is absorbed differently” than other sugars, says Bray. “It doesn’t register in the body metabolically the same way that glucose does.”

For example, consumption of glucose kicks off a cascade of biochemical reactions. It increases production of insulin by the pancreas, which enables sugar in the blood to be transported into cells, where it can be used for energy. It increases production of leptin, a hormone that helps regulate appetite and fat storage, and it suppresses production of another hormone made by the stomach, ghrelin, that helps regulate food intake. It has been theorized that when ghrelin levels drop, as they do after eating carbohydrates composed of glucose, hunger declines.

Fructose is a different story. It “appears to behave more like fat with respect to the hormones involved in body weight regulation,” explains Peter Havel, associate professor of nutrition at the University of California, Davis. “Fructose doesn’t stimulate insulin secretion. It doesn’t increase leptin production or suppress production of ghrelin. That suggests that consuming a lot of fructose, like consuming too much fat, could contribute to weight gain.” Whether it actually does do this is not known “because the studies have not been conducted,” said Havel.

Another concern is the action of fructose in the liver, where it is converted into the chemical backbone of trigylcerides more efficiently than glucose. Like low-density lipoprotein — the most damaging form of cholesterol — elevated levels of trigylcerides are linked to an increased risk of heart disease. A University of Minnesota study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2000 found that in men, but not in women, fructose “produced significantly higher [blood] levels” than did glucose. The researchers, led by J.P Bantle, concluded that “diets high in added fructose may be undesirable, particularly for men.”

Other recent research suggests that fructose may alter the magnesium balance in the body. That could, in turn, accelerate bone loss, according to a USDA study published in 2000 in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition.

In November, however, Havel and his colleagues published a review in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that examined evidence from multiple studies. They concluded that large quantities of fructose from a variety of sources, including table sugar and high-fructose corn syrup, induce insulin resistance, impair glucose tolerance, produce high levels of insulin, boost a dangerous type of fat in the blood and cause high blood pressure in animals. “The data in humans are less clear,” the team noted.

Others are skeptical that high-fructose corn syrup acts differently in the body than table sugar. “I don’t see it as a particular evil,” says Michael Jacobson, director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest and a vocal critic of soft drinks, which he dubs “liquid candy.” “It wouldn’t make much difference if soft drinks were sweetened with sucrose [table sugar] or high-fructose corn syrup.”

Until scientists sort out the details, many nutrition experts say it makes sense to not surpass the 10 percent recommendation of the WHO. On a 2,000-calorie intake, that works out to about 200 calories — roughly the amount found in a 16.9-ounce bottle of soda or about eight Chunky Chips Ahoy cookies or about an three ounces of plain M&M’s. (Last year, the National Academy of Sciences suggested that added sugars should not exceed 25 percent of daily calories — about 500 calories on a 2,000-calorie intake.)

“Reducing consumption of added sugars seems reasonable to me,” Havel says, “just as you should not consume too many calories from fat and you should exercise regularly.”

But industry groups urged consumers not to respond by avoiding any one food ingredient. Audrae Erickson, president of the Corn Refiners Association, notes that many of the studies used pure fructose rather than the combination of fructose and glucose found in corn syrup.

“There are many sources for the obesity epidemic,” Erickson says. “There’s no one single source of the obesity epidemic or the onslaught of diabetes in America. But there are many contributing factors and no scientific link to suggest that high-fructose corn syrup is a contributing factor.”

Erickson says that research published in a 1993 supplement to the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition suggests that there is no evidence linking the syrup to the obesity epidemic.

What does play a role, she noted, “is the lack of physical exercise. You can not discontinue the use of any one food or beverage and expect tomorrow — or even in 10 years from now — to be thin without increased physical activity.”

That’s a message being delivered not just by the food and beverage industries, but also by the U.S. Surgeon General, the National Academy of Sciences and the WHO, which also urged more physical activity — an hour a day of moderate-intensity activity, such as walking — in its report last week.•

***************************

High-fructose corn syrup fueling obesity epidemic, doctors say

By Carolyn Poirot

Knight Ridder Newspapers

FORT WORTH, Texas — High-fructose corn syrup isn’t completely responsible for the nation’s 6 million overweight children — but Dr. George Bray says it’s a big part of the problem.

Nurture trumps nature in the current childhood-obesity epidemic, says Bray. It’s the environment we’re creating for our kids that’s the problem, and that environment includes increasing numbers of products high in high-fructose corn syrup, or HFCS.

Bray, who served as founding president of the North American Association for the Study of Obesity and organized the first international congress on obesity in 1973, points out that between 1970 (when HFCS was introduced) and 2000 (when average yearly consumption of the ultra-sweet liquid sugar hit 73.5 pounds per person in this country), the prevalence of obesity more than doubled, from 15 percent to almost one-third of the adult population.

And worse, much worse, obesity among children 12 to 19 — who consume a disproportionate amount of the soft drinks, fruit juice, sports drinks and packaged cookies and other baked goods that are sweetened with HFCS — increased from 4.2 percent in 1970 to 15.3 percent in 2000. … (continued–click on the title for more)

*********************

• High Fructose Corn Syrup
  plus Beekeeping/Honey information
  from Lazslo Pentek
  July 5, 2005
• “FRUCTOSE: Maybe not so natural….maybe not so safe”

by Jack Challem, The Nutrition Reporter


• “Worse Than Sugar”

by Mary Glenda
A Critical Care Nurse and Nutrition Enthusiast

• The Dangers of High Fructose Corn Syrup
  By John Mericle M.D.

that is: REAL IDs, Compulsory Vaccinations, & Subliminals. READ ON.

some good news maybe. maine recently rejected the REAL ID ACT–huzzah! (that’s one of the deadlines i’ve mentioned before by the way. very uncool. very orwellian.)

here’s a blurb about it:

Update Maine overwhelmingly rejected federal requirements for national identification cards on Thursday, marking the first formal state opposition to controversial legislation scheduled to go in effect for Americans next year.

Both chambers of the Maine legislature approved a resolution saying the state flatly “refuses” to force its citizens to use driver’s licenses that comply with digital ID standards, which were established under the 2005 Real ID Act. It asks the U.S. Congress to repeal the law.

The vote represents a political setback for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Republicans in Washington, D.C., which have argued that nationalized ID cards for all Americans would help in the fight against terrorists.

“I have faith that the Democrats in Congress will hear this from many states and will find a way to repeal or amend this in the coming months,” House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat, said in a telephone interview after the vote. “It’s not only a huge federal mandate, but it’s a huge mandate from the federal government asking us to do something we don’t have any interest in doing.”

The Real ID Act says that, starting around May 2008, Americans will need a federally approved ID card–a U.S. passport will also qualify–to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments or take advantage of nearly any government service. States will have to conduct checks of their citizens’ identification papers, and driver’s licenses likely will be reissued to comply with Homeland Security requirements.

In addition, the national ID cards must be “machine-readable,” with details left up to Homeland Security, which hasn’t yet released final regulations. That could end up being a magnetic strip, an enhanced bar code or radio frequency identification (RFID) chips.

The votes in Maine on the resolution were nonpartisan. It was approved by a 34-to-0 vote in the state Senate and by a 137-to-4 vote in the House of Representatives.

Other states are debating similar measures. Bills pending in Georgia, Massachusetts, Montana and Washington state express varying degrees of opposition to the Real ID Act.

Montana’s is one of the strongest. The legislature held a hearing on Wednesday on a bill that says “The state of Montana will not participate in the implementation of the Real ID Act of 2005″ and directs the state motor vehicle department “not to implement the provisions.”

Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU’s Technology and Liberty Project, said he thinks Maine’s vote will “break the logjam, and other states are going to follow.” (The American Civil Liberties Union has set up an anti-Real ID Web site called Real Nightmare).

Pingree, Maine’s House majority leader, said the Real ID Act would have cost the state $185 million over five years and required every state resident to visit the motor vehicle agency so that several forms of identification–including an original copy of the birth certificate and a Social Security card–would be uploaded into a federal database.

Growing opposition to the law in the states could create a political pickle for the Bush administration. The White House has enthusiastically embraced the Real ID Act, saying it (click for PDF) “facilitates the strengthening by the states of the standards for the security and integrity of drivers’ licenses.”

But if a sufficient number of states follow Maine’s lead, pressure would increase on a Democratic Congress to relax the Real ID rules–or even rescind them entirely.

A key Republican supporter of the Real ID Act said Thursday that the law was just as necessary now as when it was enacted as part of an $82 billion military spending and tsunami relief bill. (Its backers say it follows the recommendations that the 9/11 Commission made in 2004.)

“Real ID is needed to protect the American people from terrorists who use drivers licenses to board planes, get jobs and move around the country as the 9/11 terrorists did,” Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said in an e-mailed statement. “It makes sense to have drivers licenses that ensure a person is who they say they are. It makes the country safer and protects the American people from terrorists who would use the most common form of ID as cover.”

See the originating url for reader comments: http://news.com.com/Maine+rejects+Real+ID/2100-7348_3-6153532.html

…………………..

and here are some sites advocating privacy, electronic & otherwise:

privacy.org

EPIC ~ Electronic Privacy Information Center

…………………..

unfortunately, there are more govermental movements towards compulsory vaccination in various states:

• the governor of Texas (and MERCK) thinks it would be a swell idea to force this bloody new cervical cancer vaccine on middle-school girls…..’cause hey, just like the flu vaccine, it only protects against a handful of viral strains that may cause the illness! and of course, won’t protect you from any other causes. and isn’t it always funny how the company that makes the vaccine (or microchip, etc) is always trying to force it upon others, make up reasons why it’s the solution to so many problems….when often testing is limited (and short-term) and almost always it’s the same company testing their own product, with little to no verification from unbiased parties….
• New Jersey wants preschoolers to be vaccinated now too (as if all those vaccines pumped into you as an infant and then again in kindergarden weren’t bad enough) onslaught after onslaught. vaccines just aren’t the miracles they’re cracked up to be.

………………….

finally, something intriguing….subliminals in a national geographic program. i read a book in the public library once about subliminals in magazine & television advertising. most of it has to do with sex….you know, making images look like genitals, etc. & lots of eroticism (one was even for a Betty Crocker product or something equally tame!). i can’t remember the title, but if i do, i’ll be sure to add it later. movies have a lot of things in them too. i remember when there was a big ado about disney’s (WICKED COMPANY) The Lion King–you know, the flower petals/seeds/whatever blowing in the wind and coincidently spelling “SEX”…..and more such things in other disney movies….then movies designed to create ill effects upon sensitive viewers (such as the massive headaches attributed to Star Wars: Episode 1) and on and on ad nauseum. i think sometimes it’s definitely done to help sell products more (subtly signalling baser drives)…but other times i feel the intent is a little more malificent.

what a sad sad world.

and why is it that all of a sudden, four years late, the senate is trying to debate about the whole “war in iraq” thing…oh, right. they didn’t do it four years ago because of those “foreign terrorists” destroyed some really tall buildings that were full of asbestos and had just had huge insurance policies taken out on them that included double the payout if they were destroyed during a “terrorist” attack. hmm.

hell is other people? well, more to the point, Satre, hell is this world because hellish people make it so.