Make Drinking Water Dirty Again - Trump's Plan To Propel The Economy While Increasing Cancers

The Trump's administration's revocation of clean water  rules (often  mistakenly cited as "Obama era" by the corporo-media)  has to be one of the most destructive actions in decades.   All in a claimed move to further weaken the "administrative state" but in this case making it easier to foul our water supply. This despite the fact that - from 9 years ago - the EPA established that 20 percent of the nation's 50,000 fresh water lakes surveyed had been affected by phosphorus and nitrogen pollution.  The latter form causing algal blooms and many serious health problems.

So now the reckless Trump cabal wants to make it much worse, and sicken millions more Americans.

One of the most insidious chemical carcinogens permeating our water and air is arsenic - chemical symbol: As.  (Check your periodic table.) Arsenic in food deserves some special concern, and yet there are no regulations limiting it. In addition to arsenic used in industry that finds its way onto farms, there is arsenic used in agriculture that the farmers themselves bring to their farms, a practice almost dating back to the Civil War. So no surprise farmers were jubilant when Trump rolled back Obama's rules on it.

How so? One of Trump's attacks on the regulatory state was to allow power plants to dump more arsenic, lead, as well as mercury, into the water.  We already know the risks of the last two in terms of retarding intellectual development, as the horrific case of lead pollution Flint's water showed.


As for arsenic, once in the environment, it doesn't break down and go away as do some toxins. So much arsenic has already been sprayed on farms over decades that it got into the environment for good, massively infiltrating our food and water. U.S. limits on arsenic in drinking water were set at 50 ppb in 1942, before arsenic was classified as a carcinogen. But a 1999 report by the National Academy of Sciences showed that this level failed to protect Americans from an unacceptably high risk of cancer.  

As long ago as October, 2012,  ABC News and other outlets exposed the fact of the unacceptably high arsenic content in rice. This despite the fact that (according to the Dartmouth Toxic Metals Superfund Research Program): "It is considered the number one environmental chemical of concern for human health effects both in the U.S. and worldwide".   Note, however, that even if one avoided eating all rice or other arsenic content foods, he'd still face unacceptably high risks from drinking water- which Trump and his gang have now made worse.

Chemically, arsenic  can be divided into two categories: organic and inorganic. While organic arsenic is itself a probable human carcinogen, inorganic arsenic is a definite human carcinogen that is linked to liver, lung, kidney, bladder, and skin cancer as well as “increased risk of vascular and heart disease, type 2 diabetes, reproductive and developmental disorders, low birth weights in babies, neurological and cognitive problems, immunodeficiencies, metabolic disorders, and a growing list of other serious outcomes.”

 In terms of H2O, the EPA in 2000 proposed lowering the limit for arsenic from 50 ppb to just 5 ppb. But aw shit, the toxic....errrr, chemical industry complained, and the Clinton-era EPA settled upon a "compromise":  lowering the limit to just 10 ppb instead. Once George W. Bush took office, he initially attempted to block the change, thus keeping the World War II-era limit of 50 ppb. (Hint: Repukes love cancer because if they can increase the death rate of citizens they can have more die off earlier, so the rich won't have to cough up more taxes for new benefits.)

Thanks to Trump and his deregulatory gangsters, we can also expect many more cancers from increased perflourinated chemicals in our water.  Interestingly, at the time cancer (pancreatic, liver, kidney) hot spots began to show up around Fountain, south of the Springs, several years ago, few made connections.

But soon after a Denver Post story appeared, noting:   "These perflourinated chemicals rank among the worst in an expanding multitude of unregulated chemicals that federal scientists are detecting in city water supplies, including hormones, pesticides, antibiotics and anti-depressants."

And as further observed, as in the case of arsenic: "Perflourinated chemicals don't break down"

In Colorado now, as in  many other states and cities, it has reached the critical crisis mark as the water in all 32 wells of the Security, CO water district has been found contaminated by - you guessed it - PFCs.  In every case the contamination levels have exceeded 70 ppt and in one case hit 1,367 ppt - nearly 20 times higher than the putative limit (and hence inimical for the consumption of pregnant women and small children).

While PFC ingestion might not lead to retardation as does lead, it can lead to a whole raft of cancers, including the one I am currently fighting (prostate).  It has also been linked to "kidney and testicular cancer as well as "developmental damage to fetuses, low birth weight, accelerated puberty, distorted bones and liver tissue damage". 

But, of course, it doesn't stop with PFCs since as I've noted in previous posts.  The fact is our watersheds are literally awash with other toxins too, virtually none of which are regulated, including antibiotics, atrazine-laden weedicides and pesticides and other industrial byproducts - all carcinogenic crap for which the cancers generated will likely need painful, invasive biopsies as well as treatments later.   And we won't even get into the health care costs which are bound to run into the hundreds of millions.

Is the estimate of a million more cancer diagnoses in the coming year scare mongering or exaggeration?  Not really.  The reason is too many Americans aren't even aware of the cancers they're already harboring because they haven't been screened for them - for whatever reason.

Consider that back in 2011 - according to a TIME essay on  medical costs-   an estimated 16 million "accidentoplasms" had been found each year for nearly a decade.  These are cancers (neoplasms) found only accidentally - say as part of  a totally unrelated test - say a CT scan to check for something else (like my cholesteotoma).

 If the medical establishment had been forced to treat all of them the health system would go broke  just treating cancers.   Maybe it's just as well we go through our lives, most of us, not knowing what we don't know!    The problem is that the array of cancers likely to be unleashed by Trump's revoking clean water rules will be much more aggressive, and hence not ignorable.

But the fact is, water borne carcinogens - as well as pathogens - are among the worst at making us sick. Despite that, Trump and his cabal have now opened the door to them all and in the process,  undermining Americans' health.  Incredibly this ruthless move is touted as an "economic win" just like the earlier attacks on the regulatory state, e.g.

The Bannon Deregulatory "Juggernaut" Wreaks Havoc ...

 Indeed, the implication of this misplaced change - basically a plan to create dirty water- will be to add millions more cancer diagnoses to the American populace. This despite the fact we already have nearly 28  million uninsured, who'd go bankrupt if they had to get treatments for an aggressive cancer.

In the words of Bart Johnson-Harris of Environment America, quoted in The Denver Post ('Clean Water Rules Revoked', p. 1 A, Sept. 15):

"By repealing the clean water rules, this administration is opening our iconic waterways to a flood of pollution. The EPA is abdicating its mission to protect our environment and our health."

How did the Trumpies manage to accomplish (and justify)  this outrage? They used a cost - benefit analysis and applied it to what are called "the waters of the United States".  These include streams and wetlands that feed larger waterways, including those used for drinking water.  And what, pray tell, did the Trumpies' cost-benefit analysis find? Well, that the existing Clean Water Act rules did not provide any net economic benefits.  One imagines these crass boneheads never factored in the billions of added health care costs - from biopsies, cancer treatments.

Anyway, the basis for the finding of  "no net economic benefit" actually was traced to the ancillary finding that the clean water rules "could not be quantified."  Hence, these geniuses assigned a value of zero, so therefore the clean water rule had to go. It was holding back economic progress.

Hmmm....maybe these myopic birdbrains ought to have gone to Flint, Michigan or other cities affected by lead in their water supplies.  They'd have seen first hand the economic burdens imposed by lax water supply rules and conditions, e.g.

Mark Ruffalo & Bill Maher Expose Degraded State Of...

As the  example of Flint has shown, it is generally much less costly to refrain from polluting a water system in the first place than to try to clean it up once it's contaminated.  But this ought to be a basic economic proposition grasped by even an average IQ person.

Again, let's recall that as economist George Lakoff has pointed out, e.g.

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/george-lakoff/71462/the-public-s-viewpoint-regulations-are-protections

Regulations are protections. Protections of the public health provided by a government that puts citizens' interests above corporate profits, or any imagined economic benefits.  Deregulation then, means the abolition or elimination of those same protections. 

What Trump's revocation of clean water rules has done is to attack our basic protections, which include the right to drink clean water - as opposed to fouled water. In so doing he's mounted an attack on our health and collective well being, as well as national security.  A sick nation cannot be a secure or functional nation, after all.

See also:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/12/climate/trump-administration-rolls-back-clean-water-protections.html

PFC Contamination Also Theatens U.S. Water Supply

EPA map showing cities where PFC levels exceeded 70 parts per trillion

While we have already seen, as in the case of Flint, MI and other cities, the extent to which lead contamination threatens the water supply, e.g

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/02/mark-ruffalo-bill-maher-expose-degraded.html

 that is not the only contaminant to worry about. More than 55 % of the U.S. watersheds and millions of citizens are also at risk from PFC (perflourinated chemical) contamination.

As noted from a Denver Post story (June 16, p. 16 A) "these perflourinated chemicals rank among the worst in an expanding multitude of unregulated chemicals that federal scientists are detecting in city water supplies, including hormones, pesticides, antibiotics and anti-depressants."

And as further observed: "Perflourinated chemicals don't break down"

In Colorado now, as in  many other states and cities, it has reached the critical crisis mark as the water in all 32 wells of the Security, CO water district has been found contaminated by - you guessed it - PFCs. (DPost, p. 1A) In every case the contamination levels have exceeded 70 ppt and in one case hit 1,367 ppt - nearly 20 times higher than the putative limit (and hence inimical for the consumption of pregnant women and small children).

And while PFC ingestion might not lead to retardation as does lead, it can lead to a whole raft of cancers, including the one I am currently fighting (prostate).  It has also been linked to "kidney and testicular cancer (p. 16A) as well as "developmental damage to fetuses, low birth weight, accelerated puberty, distorted bones and liver tissue damage".

Incredibly, despite the fact these horrendous chemicals are persistent in the environment (don't break down) "they aren't regulated under any national water standard although Vermont and New Hampshire have launched state-level action."

So it appears the country as well as most states, have made a deal with the corporate 'devil' to allow as much contamination of water as it likes to further prospective business (and employment) - devil take the hindmost (or the most cancer sensitive). No wonder so many insurance companies are running up huge, outstanding losses under the ACA  - they probably can't keep up with all the poor health as a result of our contaminated water supply.

The situation doesn't get better nationally. Hence (ibid.):

"The EPA has measured PFCs exceeding the limit in one percent of 4,464 public water systems nationwide. That means more than 5 million Americans in 33 states may regularly be drinking contaminated water with perflourinated chemicals".

Would you willingly and knowingly give your loved one a glass of poison? Well, that's pretty much what you are doing if you inhabit one of those PFC contaminated areas. And then triggering one cancer or another, or one of the other damaging medical horrors.

But, of course, it doesn't stop with PFCs since as I noted our water is literally awash with other toxins too, virtually none of which are regulated, including antibiotics, atrazine-laden weedicides and pesticides and other industrial byproducts - all carcinogenic crap for which the cancers generated will likely need painful, invasive biopsies as well as treatments later.

The situation just south of us in Security (ironic name, eh?) is now so bad that summer school students at four elementary schools began to use bottled water. Meanwhile, the residents themselves- worried over the terrible effects - have begun to stock their shelves with bottled water only.  (They hope that showering in the stuff won't prove too deleterious, but who knows?)

Again, more evidence that the neoliberal state and agenda doesn't really care about its citizens other then to make money off them, and use them as temporary cogs in its machine before tossing them away. Or ditching them entirely if they get too sick to work -or too expensive for continued medical benefits.

The New W.H.O. Meat & Cancer Study - Another Pile of Medical Malarkey

The new cancer warnings on Monday from the World Health Organization (W.H.O.)  about eating red meats and processed meats make me laugh. The latest medical pinheads want us to believe that eating a hot dog a day has the same risk as smoking a pack of cigarettes a day or being exposed to asbestos. They claim eating one hot dog a day can "increase the colon cancer risk". '

Know what the extent of increased  risk is? It goes from 5% over a lifetime (for non meat eater, e,g, Vegan) to 6 percent. BIG DEAL!  By the same token, the smokers increase their cancer risk by 17. 2 percent compared to 1.3 percent for non-smokers. So WHO is fooling WHO? DO these medical misfits really believe people will give up their hot dogs on that account? They must be smoking much more powerful stuff than available here in Colorado.

What exactly is the reasoning?

Well, processed meats like hot dogs and bologna have been salted, cured (with sodium nitrite) or smoked to enhance flavor and improve preservation. Medical health gurus have long worried that this processing leads to the formation of potentially carcinogenic chemicals like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in these products. (Funny how they worry so much less about the abundance of toxic chemicals in our air, soil and water from fracking, such as benzene, xylene, toluene etc. as well as atrazine from weedicides.)

The concern with red meats — beef, pork and lamb — has more to do with the cooking, not the processing. Grilling, barbecuing and pan-frying meat creates potential carcinogens, including heterocyclic aromatic amines. But again, these pale beside the toxic chemicals already inundating our environment, such as perchlorate, glyphosate, atrazine and bisphenol-A and about which there is little concern shown at all

The report finds a link between consumption of processed meats and colorectal cancer (and perhaps other cancers). But here's the zinger:  it also acknowledged that the link between red meat and cancer has not been proved. According to the ancillary body, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, in a handout accompanying its report.:

“Eating red meat has not yet been established as a cause of cancer,”

In other words, it's just another medical alarm story like so many before, and which people had already become accustomed to tuning out.

Let's get into the numbers again, for perspective: W.H.O. estimated that 50 grams daily of processed meat or 100 grams daily of red meat might increase the risk of colorectal cancer by 18 percent and 17 percent, in that order, over the absolute risk — if indeed red meat were related to cancer at all, which the report also acknowledged is not known.

What does that mean? It means that as noted above, the lifetime risk goes from 5% to 6% so that the increased risk "over the absolute risk" is computed:

(6% - 5%)/ 6  = 1/6  - 16.667 %  ~  17%

Again, negligible! I prefer to think of it more realistically as the risk going from 5 in 100 for those who don't eat red or processed meats, to 6 in 100 to those who do. The use of the "17 percent" increase is merely a stat intended to alarm ordinary folk and throw them off. It reminds me of the old statin research done by PhrMA which purported to show the benefit of taking statins which allegedly reduced risk of heart attacks by 33 percent.

This  was first reported by FORBES in 2008 wherein outcomes from a control and statin-taking group were compared per capita for heart attacks. In the control (placebo) group there occurred 2 heart attacks per capita, and in the statin-takers there occurred 1 heart attack per 100. The results were then touted as "Statins reduce risk of heart attacks by 33%".

Thus:

(2 - 1)/3 x 100% = 1/3 x 100% = 33%

But anyone can play games with numbers like that, and misdirect people's attention. Indeed, in the case of the data reviewed by the W.H.O. we now know it was drawn from population studies, and many experts question whether these risk estimates can be applied to individuals who may have other risks for colorectal cancer. (Especially from toxic chemicals which can also find their way into the foods we consume).

My primary complaint, which is shared by author Devra Davis in her excellent monograph,  'Secret History of the War on Cancer' - is the medical industrial complex is trying to scare us off common foods that most people eat while turning a blind eye to the truly malignant carcinogenic risks of pesticides, weedicides etc. But as she notes there is a method to the madness; It foists the major responsibility for cancer to the ordinary person and away from the mammoth chemical industry. It protects their profits while holding US accountable for our cancers, say if we eat a hot dog or bologna sandwich or two each day instead of lentils and arugula.

In her book,  Davis accurately documents that people get told over and over (by the likes of the American Cancer Society and their physician enablers, apologists) that "too much fat" is causing their cancers - whether of lungs, bladders, prostate gland or breasts - and hence they bear greatest responsibility. ( Never mind the evidence from more than 80 years of cumulative data which discloses it's chemicals in the environment that contribute more than fifty times as much.)

But this sort of dishonest PR show is now common in the US of A.

The trouble is that most of us no longer buy into it. We have the evidence that there are far more pervasive risks to our health than eating a hot dog or bratwurst a day!

If the powers that be - whatever their source -  want to really protect citizens from carcinogens, they will first attend to the REAL culprits, e.g. everything from PFOA(perflurorooctanoic acid ) -based chemicals and additives, that causes monstrous birth or sexual defects in young kids to phthalates (pronounced THAL-ates), such as bisphenol A (now banned in Canada and most of Europe ) to atrazine and acetochlor in herbicides (for a rogue list of all of the most dastardly chemicals poisoning us, see: 'The Body Toxic', by Nina Baker, 2008)

Until these medical meatheads do that I will go on eating my brats, hot dogs and salami - knowing that their increased risk of cancer,  relative to what's already in the environment via toxic chemicals,  is roughly analogous to the risk of getting more drunk by adding a thimble full of beer to a keg already downed.

Good RIDDANCE to Summer!

Massive fires, and now floods, seem to be more and more in the future of Colorado with each passing summer.

Two weeks ago, a neighbor inquired into my use of a chain saw to cut down a weed.  I pointed out to him that this (now)  4 ft. high invader had already broken my large shears - trying to take it down- and this emerged as the only solution. He then laughed, as he continued walking his dog, and exclaimed:

"I believe the weeds are taking over! They already have my place!"

The good thing is an end to the war may be in sight - along with a merciful end to the summer. Today, at precisely 4.44 p.m. EDT, (2: 44 MDT)  the Sun (in its path along the ecliptic), crosses the celestial equator moving southward and heralds the autumnal equinox. (Equinox meaning equal day and night all over the world). Thus, autumn enters, and a miserable summer departs.

What made the summer miserable?

First, the advent of  summer over here each year is marked by an invasion of tens of millions of moths. The Miller Moth has attained notoriety by being able to somehow miss its ultimate destination - the mountains - heading instead toward Front Range city lights. The critters, thereby disoriented, enter homes by the hundreds, crawling through tiny cracks you'd never believe a flat worm could negotiate - and ending up on carpets, drapes, in dishes, in food, in heat vents and .....'dive bombing' humans forced to use "the throne" late at night. Oh, they also try to squirm into the ears  of sleeping humans....or pets...They aren't choosy!


The invasion usually lasts a full month, sometimes longer. The usual way we deal with it is to fill bowls with water then place them directly under bright lights to allow the little beasties to dive bomb into the water.  After collecting maybe fifty or sixty at a time, the bowl is emptied on the lawn - the moths essentially dead, or near dead. Another way, more my choice - not Janice's  - is to snatch any little bugger I can (say off a wall) then crunch it between my fingers and chuck it into a disposal.  Look, the little bastards are cute, make no mistake, and we hate to butcher their sorry little asses, but they are pests! Ask Krimhilde - my sister-in law-  who visits with us every other year and on one occasion ran screaming from her room as one determined Miller moth tried to wiggle into her ear canal.

By the time the moth invasion ends the summer solstice has usually already begun and then it's time for: weeds, skunks and fires!  The weeds, depending on the temperatures (more if warmer) usually start erupting in late April, and by mid summer have taken over nearly the whole yard. How tough are they/ Tough! Forget standard lawn mowers or even large shears, you often need a chain saw to take down the biggest ones - which I was shocked to see had reached heights of up to 4 feet in my backyard this year.  Neglect to take care of them, and you get "weed trees" - as incredible as it may sound.

Somehow, some way, the weeds in the Rocky Mountain West have been getting "jet fuel". What is it? Well, its higher concentrations of carbon dioxide, thanks to global warming!  This is no joke! The warning was probably first sounded three years ago in 2 articles in The Wall Street Journal (June 4, 2010,  p A16, 'Superweeds Trigger New Arms Race'; and June 21, p. D1, 'Least Welcome Sign of Summer')

According to the first account, by the middle of this decade at least 40% of U.S. corn and soybean crops will "harbor Roundup resistant super weeds". Roundup, and especially Monsanto's Roundup -ready seeds, have been amongst the biggest "success stories" in the domain of weed control, primarily because of its primary constituent:  glyphosate- which is one of the least toxic around. As one farmer cited in the first article put it: If glyphosate isn't the safest herbicide, it's damned close".

The article described nine species of weed that  have developed total immunity to it and spread to millions of acres in more than twenty states. One farmer, quoted,  from Osceola, AR  claimed he spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on herbicide, but couldn't control the pigweed which now runs rampant over his 8,600 acre field.

The variant of pigweed on his property grows to six feet in height on a stalk the width of a baseball bat's wide end. The weed is so tough, it damages mechanical parts of his cotton picking equipment and must be rooted out by hand. The farmer had to hire 20 labor hands to attack the weeds using hoes, even then breaking a number of them. Hmmmm.....sounds familiar!  The second article references a study published in the journal Weed Science, in 2007, which indicates poison ivy is getting bigger and spreading faster, plus producing more urushiol as a result of increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The emergence of these super weeds, especially as threats to farm productivity (not to mention yards) has convinced many farmers they must resort to much more toxic weedicides to get the job done. That includes using such infamous carcinogenic agents as: 2, 4- D, dicamba and paraquat. But critics have warned given the uncontrolled factors afoot, such as ever increasing CO2 concentrations (now tipping at nearly 400 ppm) all that will happen is that even more super weeds will emerge, resistant to even those arch-herbicides.

My neighbors - to battle their yard weeds, have resorted to atrazine but they are fighting a losing battle. Each year the dandelions and other weeds grow larger and take up more area. In the end, even when their yard looks luscious green, they can't enjoy it - and are compelled to erect 'Danger - POISON!' signs to keep kids and pets off.

Then there are the skunks. They've invaded only over the past two years, arriving with the major fires in Waldo Canyon (last year) and Black Forest (this year). Perhaps they were chased out of their natural enclaves, who knows? What we do know, in our neighborhood, is people have to keep dogs in the house at night .....or risk them being skunk sprayed as happened to one forlorn dog two houses down two months ago. Skunks make their presence known by spraying.....maybe just for the hell of it. At least three times this year we've had to shut all windows in the house as the "aromatic" odor from skunk spray wended its way in.   Far worse than the malodorous fumes is the fact that skunks here have now emerged as the primary carriers of rabies.

With the Waldo Canyon fire, meanwhile, we've received a wake up call here in Colorado, that monster blazes may well be recurring part of our summers every year. But this was predicted by NOAA and other sources, i.e. hotter, drier and longer 'tinder box' summers, coupled with trees turned into tinder by pests like the Mountain Pine Beetle.  We had a second demonstration of the dynamic this year with the Black Forest Fire. Understandably, major efforts are now being made across the Front Range for fire mitigation - which includes insurance companies demanding home owners in fire hazard areas to clear cut shrubs and trees from their property up to a certain distance. It's great that so many people love to live essentially in a forested area, but not great the rest of us (who don't) have to subsidize their insurance premiums each time fires hit. This will be another bone of contention that needs to be addressed among different sets of homeowners in the region.

Then there are the floods....what can I say? Who would have thought or believed that such a "Katrina-like" deluge would strike an arid state - located in what is known as the high desert region of the country. But there it is!  What it discloses is that the perturbations induced by climate change can wreak havoc even in areas where one would normally not expect such disasters. All it took was days of high heat, with temperatures 15-17 degrees above normal, followed by a cold front coming in and the delayed start of the yearly "monsoons". Then...WHAMMO! Massive floods sending rivers and creeks in the northern part of the state up to five and six feet over flood stage. Whole towns, like Lyons and Jamestown swept away, as well as forty or more miles of roads, highways and people still cut off.

Let me say, with the arrival of fall, I am happy again...to be done with the pests, the weeds, the fires and hopefully the floods. Sure, there'll be raking of leaves, but that's a minor nuisance compared to the other crap.

Next summer? I will deal with that when it arrives!

Atrazine Crazy! Welcome to Cancer Nation!

One thing about this country is it's nuts about beautifully lush green lawns. Trouble is, you are warned not to recline on them or let kids play on them. Why? Often because atrazine or some other weed killer has been dispersed. People, like me, who have gotten cancer, don't simply believe the rot we brought it on ourselves - say from eating too many of the wrong foods. Often, it's because of all the toxins in our environment.

Most Americans, cocooned as they are from real news and information, would literally shit bricks if they knew the extent to which they were being poionsed by their corporate Overseers. Hey, maybe that's the corporations way to dumb us all down or....maybe thin our numbers! Induce 548,000 cancers a year then make the bozos think it's their foods that are responsible. Don't eat that hot dog! It's got nitrites and you''ll get cancer! (Just move along, never mind that toxic chemical salesman trying to sell atrazine over there).

And atrazine is another horrific carcinogen used in most weedicides. Though people are led to believe the stuff is as innocent as some water lilies...and hey, your kids can still roll around on the lawn after you spray it. Yeah right! Just be sure if you do that you take out special cancer only insurance policies! Nopers, my lawn doesn't look as green and lush as the neighbors'. Weeds, dandelions especially, sprout all over the place. I try to manually keep them under control (carefully removing dandelion "poppers" or seeder -hase balls) but that's about all.

But what I will not do, no matter how much better the lawn would look, is spray some shit with atrazine all over it! At least I can sit down on my lawn or even stretch out, even among the weeds, something two of my neighbors across the street dare not do...if they have a grain of sense!

Atrazine is a synthetic chemical that belongs to the triazine class of herbicides. The technical name is 2-chloro-4-ethylamino-6-isopropyl-1,3,5 triazine. In the U.S. farmers alone apply nearly 65 million pounds of the stuff per year. Yes, most degrades in the environment, but not before it's re-applied and ends up on fruits and veggies at your grocery.

The EPA itself permits up to 3 parts per billion of it, which the toxic industry people will tell you is "low dose and low risk" . What they won't say is that low dose exposure over long times, often leads to high risk. Well, don't take my word. Ask the 14 employees at Sygenta's St. Gabriel, LA plant who developed prostate cancer after ten years' exposure. This was out of 600 total employees, but the rate was still nine times higher than would be expected in the statewide population. (Discover, Feb. 2003, p. 53)

Here's the primary thing to understand about atrazine: It contaminates water even in states that it's not used! Hell, in Switzerland, where it's banned (my Swiss friend Rolf tells me it's listed as a carcinogen) atrazine is present at 1 part per billion even in the Alps. The effect on amphibians is especially pronounced with the ability of the chemical to convert exposed male frogs into females. In terms of human newborns, in the states with the highest use (IL, IN, IA), there is a notable risk of birth defects, including hypospadia in male infants.

What may be remarkable is there aren't more birth defects and cancers pervading the country. But then, who knows? A TIME article barely a year ago did note the appearance of "accidentoplasms" - newly found cancers - uncovered in patients who had MRIs for some other reason. It was estimated by that writer that if all these accidential neoplasms were actually treated the health care budget would explode by nearly a factor of two. Then there is the other fact that most men are harboring prostate cancers, and they don't even know it. How many of these were from exposure to excess levels of atrazine? We don't know, but I guess those guys can be thankful most prostate cancers are slow growing.

The next 'Stand up To Cancer' musical extravaganza and fund raiser is scheduled for September 7th. There will be a huge hue and cry for all of us "to do something" to halt cancer in all its forms. What I will be waiting to see is whether they highlight the toxic chemical industry in any way, shape or form and call for new toxic release inventories. While the current ad banners loudly blare 'Let's END cancer!', that won't be realized until we bring the toxic chemical purveyors to heel.

America the Toxic! (2) Protecting Yourself

Author Nena Baker (Body Toxic, 2008) gives a number of ways people can protect themselves from too enormous a toxic chemical burden. Most are simple, and require small expense, if any. Mainly, it's about making better choices. In each case below, the particular toxic chemical name is given then the method to reduce exposure:

1) Atrazine:

a) Remove shoes (especially farmers in the midwest) before entering the house, lest the contaminant be tracked in.

b) Filter tap water using carbon-based water filters. These are available at most grocery stores in pithcer form, or as faucet mounts.

c) check all product labels in respect to what chemicals you are using, especially for pesticides, herbicides.

2) Phthalates:

This is difficult, and requires seeking susbtitute products wherever one can and minimizing contact with those products which can't be otherwise replaced. The list includes:

- personal care products, lotions, soaps, cosmetics etc.

- detergents

-vinyl flooring

- adhesives

-building materials

- plastic bags

- food packaging

-garden hoses

- inflatable recreational toys (including ALL sex toys!)

As Baker notes(p. 219):

"Researchers have seen a high association between levels of maternal phthalate metabolites - seen in about 25% of U.S. women - and effects on ASD or ano-genital distance in male offspring"

She notes the greater the exposure of moms to be, the smaller the ASD in male newborns, posing later difficulties.

She also observes (ibid.):

"Researchers have associated high levels of phthalates with lower sperm motility in adult men and one study has correlated phthalates with abdominal obesity and insulin resistance in men"

I give these quotes of hers not to scare people off the listed products, but rather to drive the incentive to seek alternatives. Other than that, she indicates looking at lables of all products, especially for diethyl phthalate (though it doesn't have to be listed) and taking care not to microwave plastic containers, which can release phthtalates on food.


3) Polybrominated Diethyl Ethers:

Beginning in the 1970s PBDEs were added to:

- upholstered furniture

- mattresses

- carpet padding

- vehicle upholstery

- electronics

Two types of PBDEs, Octa and Penta, were removed from all markets in 2005 because of carcinogenic concerns, but the version known as 'Deca' remains. (Scientists are concerned that Deca breaks down into the forms already taken off the market, hence its use means that the others are effectively still on the market....albeit indirectly!)

In test animals, PBDEs cause an array of adverse effects, including:

- Permanent learning and memory impairment

- thyroid hormone disruption

-delayed puberty onset

- hearing deficits

- decreased sperm count

- malformation of the fetus

Baker observes (p. 221):

"These chemicals build up in the body and are stored in fatty tissues and body fluids such as blood and breast milk, and can be passed onto newborns in lactation."


Major precautions to take:

- Avoid contact with crumbling old foam from carpet padding, old mattress pads and stuffed furniture

- If you can't replace old furnishing, tightly tape over tears, rips

- Vacuum regularly

-

4) Bisphenol A

This toxin is contained in:

- Canned foods lines with an epoxy resin

- Food and beverage containers made from polycarbonate plastics, including:

a) Baby bottles
b) sippy cups
c) Water cooler jugs
d) reusable polycarbonate drinking bottles

Precautions:

- Limit the amount of canned foods in your diet

- Avoid all plastics with the No.7 stamp for recycling as nearly all are made from polycarbonates

- Don't use heavily worn or used polycarbonate containers

-Consider in any case replacing such containers with aluminum or stainless steel.

These precautions are important since as Baker observes (p. 222):

Recent adverse effects docmented in humans include: "prostate and breast cancer, urogenital abnormalities in baby boys, early onset of puberty in girls, Type 2 diabetes, obesity and neuro-behavioral problems"

At the end of the day, it seems 90% or more of our health problems, cancers are not necessarily our fault, but that of a chemical industry that's found a way to allow millions of tons of toxic chemicals to flood into our bodies daily - even as the government and assorted hack doctors scold us for "not following a healthy diet" to avoid cancers, diabetes etc.

Stay tuned and stay alert!

America the Toxic! (1)

Will the U.S. ever bring down its annual cancer rate? Will the "war on cancer" really ever be won? Arguably no, until and unless we fearlessly recognize the source of the carcinogens in our midst and cease buying the PR that the blame's all on us - based on the foods we eat! In fact, the blame is on the capitalist -driven American Chemical Industry, which seeks to prosper by polluting everything in our midst but waylaying any critics by asserting we need the chemicals in order to survive - or at least make our lives easier.

Thus, the PR push is to extol the benefits of water-repellent jackets and outerwear but not to divulge its effective basis is on account of being laced with perflurorooctanoic (PFOA) acid - used to make the fluoropolymer membranes to impart the waterproof utility. But already preliminary studies have shown PFOA to be one of the most toxic substances around, never mind the PR that says "no real proof" has been obtained.

Meanwhile those yellow child toys your kid plays with in the tub? Those are laced with phthalates (pronounced THAL-ates) and just one nibble of one of them is enough to impart a dose large enough to deform eggs - if a female, and impair sperm, if a male. Parents role the dice every time they buy or use these things, which are most prominently associated with "plasticizers".

And hey, all those DVDs you like to handle and play, as well as the bottle of water you bought at the store- all laced with bisphenol A. Risk benefit analyses- many done in Canada, show that even a billionth of a gram of bisphenol A can engender toxic effects, such as causing human cells to mutate toward a cancerous form (See: 'The Body Toxic', by Nina Baker, 2008, pp. 148-49). As noted by the author (p. 149):

"Bio-monitoring studies of bisphenol A in human blood and tissue suggest that people are already exposed to levels that far surpass the current government reference. Humans quickly metabolize bisphenol A, so in order to account for the levels detected, people must be exposed to ten times more than the current acceptable intake level".

I personally acknowledge this, which is why I also take one boron capsule per day to mitigate the effects - since I know on any given day I'll likely be handling hundreds of items laden with bisphenol A, from copmuter disks, to DVDs, to common yard materials, implements.

What we do know now, is that even from birth, dozens of chemicals in our environment begin to leach into our fat, skin, blood and bones....accumulating remorselessly with each passing day --- until by the time we're adults we are literally walking-talking chemical factories!

The verification is straightforward but not for the squeamish. No one likes to think his body is the domecile for 1.7 trillion microbes, which contribute 1/3 to total weight, any more than he likes to think he's harboring a cancerous chemical stew. But people can get the needed assay for about $2,000. Bill Moyers did for a memorable PBS NOW program in 2000, that I still have on tape.

Nurse Sharyle Patton did it near the age of 60, and was devastated to find out her body was polluted with the traces from 105 chemicals all linked in animal studies to devastating health effects, including cancers of the liver, bone, pancreas, bladder and breast...not to mention disruption of the hormone system, and birth deformities (such as hypospadia in male infants, now occurring more and more in proportion to mothers' use of cosmetics)

Author Nina Baker (p. 17) obtained her own body burden analysis performed by a lab in Manchester, England for $2,000. What she learned 8 weeks later floored her. An attached spread sheet disclosed her body contained at least three dozen highly toxic chemicals, including DDT and PCBs. These two chemicals and their metabolites (the products left after the original substance breaks down) are now routinely detected in the CDC's bio-monitoring program.

The U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 was supposed to limit all this infiltration of chemicals, but it hasn't worked. Why not? Probably before its implementation it conferred a "blanket approval" (op. cit. p. 47) on some sixty two thousand chemicals used in commerce. As Baker observes (ibid.):

"No questions were asked. No hazard data were required. It's not suprising therefore that 99% (by volume) of chemicals used today are older substances that were grandfathered in under the toxics act, according to Inform, a New York based research organization."

Another obstacle to management and control, the permits for chemical manufacturers to deem "confidential" the most carcinogenic or debilitating of their chemicals - as also allowed under the TSCA. Baker notes that (ibid.):

"In 1998, for example, 40 percent of the substantial risk notices filed by manufacturers asserted the identity of the chemical was confidential".

This is serious, because it means that we the citizens don't know really how many serious poisons are being sucked into our bodies every day, or exactly how toxic these substances are! Even a simple lotion being used by a woman could have a devastating chemical in it, say PFOA -based, that causes monstrous birth or sexual defects in offspring or children around her. Another reason one needs to actually look at labels and decipher the contents. If one content is overly long with an unprounceable name or artificial sound....beware!

Meanwhile, dedicated researchers at Tufts University produced groundbreaking work (p. 159) linking bisphenol A to pre-cancerous mammary tissue and breast cancers in mature rats, as well as incepting infantile endocrine system disruptions (DES syndrome) by virtue of the fact that a fetus can absorb bisphenol A via its mother's blood.

Of course, many organs of the government-corporate nexus have seen fit to block these results from seeing the light of day. No surprise, since most Americans cocoooned as they are from real news and information, would literally shit bricks if they knew the extent to which they were being poionsed by their corporate Overseers. Hey, maybe that's the corps. way to dumb us all down or....maybe thin our numbers! Induce 548,000 cancers a year then make the bozos think it's their foods that are responsible. Don't eat that hot dog! It's got nitrites and you''ll get cancer! (Just move along, never mind that toxic chemical salesman trying to sell atrazine over there).

And atrazine is another horrific carcinogen used in most weedicides. Though people are led to believe the stuff is as innocent as some water lilies...and hey, your kids can still roll around on the lawn after you spray it. Yeah right! Just be sure if you do that you take out special cancer only insurance policies!

Nopers, my lawn doesn't look as green and lush as the neighbors'. Weeds, dandelions especially, sprout all over the place. I try to manually keep them under control (carefully removing dandelion "poppers" or seeder -hase balls) but that's about all. But what I will not do, no matter how much better the lawn would look, is spray some shit with atrazine all over it! At least I can sit down on my lawn or even stretch out, even among the weeds, something two of my neighbors across the street dare not do...if they have a grain of sense!

In the next instalment of this toxics issue, we'll look at things people can do to mitigate the harmful effects of this chemical soup we inhabit. One thing I do already, and fuck all the latest "vitamin and supplement findings" of the naysayers is take at least 12 vitamins and minerals each day, including: B-12 (1000 mg), D3 (1000 mg), Mg (500 mg), Niacin (500 mg), B2 (100 mg), lecithin (2400 mg), Selenium (100 mg), zinc (50 mg) and boron (500 mg), Vitamin C (4500 mg).

Those who want to believe the Cleveland Clinic findings that vitamins and supplements are essentially useless or harmful, fine - make your own choice.