Baby products contain toxic flame retardant chemicals

(NaturalNews) Potentially toxic flame retardants, many of them containing compounds known as penta brominated diphenyl ethers, are a common component of many household products containing polyurethane foam. Originally intended to increase product safety by decreasing fire risk, these compounds have come under increasing scrutiny since the early 1990s due to growing evidence of their damaging health effects. But even though these chemicals have been banned in 172 countries and 12 U.S. states, they continue to make their way into a wide variety of products found in U.S. households, including toys and upholstered furniture. In an especially disconcerting study conducted by researchers at Duke University earlier this year, potentially toxic flame retardants were found in 80 percent of samples of polyurethane foam collected from baby products commonly and legally sold in the U.S.. Samples were taken from car seats, high chairs, strollers, nursing pillows and bassinet mattresses. The results of the study were published in 2011 by the American Chemical Society journal Environmental Science and Technology, and suggest that additional research is warranted “to specifically measure infants exposure to these flame retardants from intimate contact with these products, and to determine if there are any associated health concerns.” Penta brominated diphenyl ethers, also known PBDEs, are known to bio-accumulate in fatty tissue, breast milk and blood after being inhaled or ingested with food. The highest and most dangerous concentrations of ingestible and inhalable PBDEs occur in plants that repair and recycle products containing these chemicals, and also in domestic environments, since they persistently show up in household products containing polyurethane foam. Recent studies show that in the U.S., blood concentrations of PBDEs are much higher in children than in adults. These chemicals are known to have damaging effects on nervous system development and can also disrupt the function of estrogen and thyroid hormones. When children are exposed to these chemicals early in life, either through inhalation or ingestion with breast milk, their damaging effects have been known to persist into adulthood and may include reduced performance on intelligence tests and behavioral changes like hyperactivity. The Duke University study suggests that even though the manufacture and distribution of PBDEs is subject to increasing restrictions in the U.S. and Europe, these dangerous flame retardants are still finding their way into our homes and the body tissues of developing infants. It may be wise to check labels carefully and investigate PBDE levels before exposing infants to polyurethane foam products.

Mushrooms made into green packing material

(NaturalNews) It sounds like a futuristic sci fi idea: a non-toxic, earth friendly packing material that grows itself and, after it’s used, makes a great garden compost. But this isn’t fiction — it’s mushrooms. With support from the National Science Foundation (NSF), two former Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute undergraduates, Gavin McIntyre and Eben Bayer, came up with the idea to make a composite of mushroom roots that could be used as a packing foam substitute. Their product, which they dubbed Mycobond, is now hitting the market and, according to a NSF press statement, has several advantages for the environment. First of all, the manufacture of Mycobond requires just one eighth the energy and one tenth the carbon dioxide of traditional foam packing material. In fact, most of the manufacturing process is virtually energy-free with the mycelia (the vegetative parts of the mushrooms which consist of masses of branching, thread-like hyphae) simply growing by digesting agricultural starter material (mostly cotton seed or wood fiber) in a dark, room temperature environment. The growth take place within a molded plastic structure which can be customized for whatever needs to be packed with the mushroom material. That means no energy at all is required for shaping the products. “We don’t manufacture materials, we grow them,” McIntyre explained in a statement to the media. “We’re converting agricultural byproducts into a higher-value product.” The material has another economic benefit as well, he added, because the cost of mushroom packing material isn’t tied to the price fluctuations of synthetic materials that are derived from sources like petroleum. “All of our raw materials are inherently renewable and they are literally waste streams,” McIntyre said. “It’s an open system based on biological materials.” Once fully formed, each Mycobond piece is heat-treated to stop the growth process and then delivered to the customer. Bayer and McIntyre, whose business is called Ecovative, are working to turn the entire process into a packaged kit that will eventually allow shipping facilities, and even homeowners, to grow their own Mycobond materials. With support from NSF, McIntyre and Bayer are also developing an even less energy-intensive method to sterilize the agricultural waste starter material they use. Sterilization is a necessary step for enabling the mycelia to grow because it kills any spores that would compete with the growing-for-packing-material mushrooms. McIntyre and Bayer have been using a steam-heat sterilization process but they’ve now come up with a treatment made from cinnamon-bark oil, thyme oil, oregano oil and lemongrass oil that will allow the Mycobond mushroom product to grow in the open air, instead of their current clean-room environment. “The biological disinfection process simply emulates nature in that it uses compounds that plants have evolved over centuries to inhibit microbial growth,” McIntyre said in a press statement. “The unintended result is that our production floor smells like a pizza shop.” For more information: http://ecovativedesign.com/ http://www.research.gov/

U.S. govt. poisoned its own citizens during Prohibition

(NaturalNews) In a dark but little-known chapter of U.S. history, the federal government ordered the poisoning of alcohol supplies to deter and punish those who sought to flout Prohibition-era bans. Starting in 1906, the United States began requiring manufacturers of industrial ethanol to put the chemical through a process to distinguish it from the identical substance found in alcoholic beverages. After the manufacture, sale and transportation of alcohol was banned by the 18th Amendment and the government cracked down on smuggling operations, bootleggers turned to chemistry to keep their customers supplied. A simple process was used to extract toxic chemicals from the industrial alcohol used in paints, solvents, fuels and medicine, and this relatively clean alcohol was then used to make beverages. By the mid-1920s, an estimated 60 million gallons of industrial alcohol were being stolen per year. In response, the administration of President Calvin Coolidge ordered industry to add higher levels of more difficult-to-remove poisons to their alcohol, including acetone, benzene, cadmium, camphor, carbolic acid, chloroform, ether, formaldehyde, gasoline, iodine, kerosene, methyl alcohol, mercury salts, nicotine, quinine and zinc. Shortly after the institution of this campaign, 31 people were poisoned to death over the course of the Christmas holiday in New York City alone. Historians estimate that a total of 10,000 people were killed by the program before Prohibition ended in 1933. The poisoning program was no secret, as the government hoped that knowledge of it would deter people from drinking — although consumption of alcohol was not itself illegal. “The government knows it is not stopping drinking by putting poison in alcohol,” said New York City medical examiner Charles Norris. “[Y]et it continues its poisoning processes, heedless of the fact that people determined to drink are daily absorbing that poison. Knowing this to be true, the United States government must be charged with the moral responsibility for the deaths that poisoned liquor causes.” Sources for this story include: http://www.slate.com/id/2245188/pagenum/all/.

Stunning Research Shows High Potential for DNA Damage from Nanoparticles

(NaturalNews) Nanoparticles may be able to damage the DNA of cells without ever coming into contact with it, according to a study conducted by researchers from the Bristol Implant Research Center and published in the journal Nature Nanotechnology . Nanoparticles are particles so small that they have fundamentally different physical and chemical properties than the same substances do at more familiar scales. Industry is increasingly adopting nanotechnology for a variety of applications, from consumer products to medicine, but the technology remains unregulated. Researchers created particles of chromium and cobalt that were either four millionths (micro scale) or 30 billionths (nano scale) of a meter across, then placed them on a thin, artificial membrane composed of human cells. On the other side of the membrane, researchers placed human fibroblast cells, which are important components of connective tissue. They found that although no particles crossed the cellular membrane, fibroblast cells placed across from the metal particles suffered DNA damage in 10 times as many locations and cells placed next to a membrane with nothing on the other side. Researchers are unsure how the particles damaged the cells without crossing the membrane, but they believe they may cause changes in the membrane cells, which in turn signal the fibroblast cells and cause DNA damage. “We used a variety of chemicals to block … cell-to-cell signaling and found that in the presence of these blockers, the damage we were seeing was completely prevented,” lead author Gevdeep Bhabra said. The experiment was conducted with cobalt and chromium because both of those metals are currently used in medical implants. The researchers noted, however, that it would be unlikely for wear and tear to produce enough nano- or micro-sized particles to reach the concentrations used in the study. The implications of the study center more around the risks of actual nanotechnology. Nanoparticles are already used in the manufacture of sunscreens, cosmetics, sporting goods and other consumer products. Researchers are also investigating their use as drug-delivery mechanisms. Sources for this story include: news.bbc.co.uk.

NFL and NBL Move to Limit Your Access to Supplements (Opinion)

(NaturalNews) Last month, a You Tube video titled “The Superbowl Is Canceled” went viral on the ‘net. Actually, it was a hoax with a catchy headline; the video urged viewers to boycott the Superbowl and get connected with what’s going on in the world around them. Recent events, however, offer new reason to boycott the sporting events of the National Football and Baseball Leagues. These two U.S. sporting clubs are endorsing John McCain’s bill to repeal parts of DSHEA and effectively limit the public’s access to nutritional supplements. If you’re not familiar with DSHEA, it’s a law on the books that was hard fought for by the American public in the 1990′s. DSHEA grants unrestricted access to supplements – and drug companies have fought against the bill since the day it was passed. Now, somehow, the NFL and NBL have gotten nutritional supplements confused with the illegal steroid-based performance drugs their athletes often engage in. And to shift the responsibly from the athletes, these clubs believe that some supplements their athletes were taking must have been tainted with steroids. To curb their problem, the NFL and NBL think the FDA should regulate supplement companies – and they are supporting McCain’s bill which has the power to dramatically limit access to nutritional supplements for the American public. With ballparks being bought and sold by corporations like trading cards and Big Pharma’s infamous reputation for buying influence, it’d be interesting to know if any monies were transferred by drug companies to gain this high profile endorsement and push. If you’d like to tell those leagues what you think about their actions, you can do so here . Another powerful vote is to simply stop supporting the NFL and NBL until they get the message – and possibly long after. It’d be nice if those leagues felt a financial pinch even greater than what they may have been paid by drug companies. If you’d like to tell your representatives what you think, you can do that here . In ways consistent with a considerable amount of government marketing and propaganda, McCain’s bill is touted to protect consumers from supplements by having the FDA regulate supplements. But, it’s common knowledge that the FDA is funded by drug companies and that the agency is hostile to supplement manufacturers and any natural option in competition with drugs or drug companies. Brown, Columbia, and Cornell graduate and cancer researcher, Nicholas J. Gonzalez, M.D., posted a response to McCain in the Health Sentinel. He stated that the bill, “appears to give the FDA near-dictatorial control over the manufacture and availability of supplements, [allowing] it at its own discretion to remove legitimate nutritional supplements from the marketplace, file arbitrary complaints against legitimate supplements and impose drug-testing standards on each supplement.” Gonzalez outlined another part of the problem: the testing of a single product to meet FDA drug-standards can cost hundreds of millions of dollars. And since supplement companies don’t have the financial resources to meet that kind of financial and regulatory impediment, many supplement companies could easily be forced to close their doors. There would be too high of an entrance fee – and the American public would be left without what DSHEA promised: access to supplements. It’s always interesting to hear the government claim to be protecting the public while they’re actively stripping liberties and freedoms. Because if the government was really concerned about the harmful substances that people keep putting in their mouths, they’d be seeking to put an end to drug companies and processed food manufacturers – not herbal and nutritional supplement providers. More: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hTbRqZcnjQ http://www.anh-usa.org/new_site/?p=2372 https://secure3.convio.net/aahf/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=510 https://secure3.convio.net/aahf/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=513 About the author