Plastic Make Us Fat

Animal studies in recent years raise the possibility that prenatal exposure to minuscule amounts of common chemicals — found in everything from baby bottles to toys — could predispose a body to a life of weight gain. The chemicals, known as endocrine disrupters, mimic natural hormones that help regulate, for example, how many fat cells a body makes and how much fat to store in them.

Thousands of chemicals have come on the market in the past 30 years, and some of them are showing up in people’s bodies in low levels. Scientists studying obesity are focusing on endocrine disrupters — which have already been linked to reproductive problems in animals and humans — because they have become so common in the environment and are known to affect fat cells.

One key researcher in the field, Bruce Blumberg of the University of California, Irvine, has even coined a new word for chemicals that can make you fat: Obesogens.

A recent US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study found that about 93 percent of the US population had bisphenol A, a chemical that can be found in canned goods and in hard, clear plastic items such as baby bottles and hiking containers, in their body. A study at the University of Missouri-Columbia showed that mice fed bisphenol A during early development — at lower amounts than what would have resulted in the levels found in most people in the CDC study — become markedly more obese as adults than those that weren’t fed the chemical. Tufts University scientists observed similar phenomenon in rats.

For those who don’t want to wait until all the evidence is in, there is another question: How to avoid these chemicals now?

“It can be difficult,” said Felix Grun, assistant researcher in the department of developmental and cell biology at the University of California who works with Blumberg. To minimize exposure to bisphenol A, Grun said people can avoid buying plastics with the recycling number 7 marked on the bottom, but similar types of chemicals abound in other products, too. “These compounds are everywhere, the carpet fibers, the PVC piping, etc,” he said.

source

Bookmark and Share

Why Should You Use Stainless Steel Water Bottles?


Here are some quick facts taken from the MSLK Watershed exhibit about the plastic the water bottle epidemic plaguing our planet:

• 80% of the the 50 billion bottles the US consumes each year, end up in a landfill – that’s 40 billion unrecycled water bottles, wonder how many end up in our oceans?

• It takes 17 million barrels of oil to produce these plastic bottles each year.

• The Great Pacific Garbage Patch (the size of Texas) is a circulating pile of plastic that has not biodegraded. The stuff that does biodegrade only results in smaller pieces that are harder to clean up.

• If you drink 2 Liters of tap water a day, it only costs you 50 cents per year to drink. Drinking the same amount, but bottled will cost you nearly 1000 times more.

• Plastic is known to leach toxins into our food and water, which have been linked to health issues such as reproductive problems and cancer.

• New York City tap water surpasses all federal and state health standards.

• Given the current environmental and economic situations at hand, it is important now more than ever to not waste money on such a harmful product, the consumption of which has become a worldwide epidemic.

For the reasons above, it’s highly suggestible that we should be using some sort of non disposable containers for our drinking water. Stainless steel water bottles give us an excellent solution to the non-sustainable habit we have created during recent years.

source

Bookmark and Share

Arsenic poison In Chicken Feed Pose Health Risks To Humans

Nugget : An arsenic in chicken feed may pose health risks to humans who eat meat from chickens that are raised on the feed, according to an article in the April 9 issue of Chemical & Engineering News, the weekly news magazine of the American Chemical Society.

SALISBURY — Since the 1970s, the poultry industry has used certain arsenic-based ingredients as chicken feed additives, but some researchers have started to scrutinize the long-standing practice because of possible health and environmental risks.

A common arsenic used by chicken companies is roxarsone, the most common arsenic-based additive used in chicken feed, is used to promote growth, kill parasites and improve pigmentation of chicken meat. In its original form, roxarsone is relatively benign. But under certain anaerobic conditions, within live chickens and on farm land, the compound is converted into more toxic forms of inorganic arsenic. Arsenic has been linked to bladder, lung, skin, kidney and colon cancer, while low-level exposures can lead to partial paralysis and diabetes, the article notes.

After consuming roxarsone, the arsenic additive approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration, chickens then excrete the compound in a chemical form that is virtually unchanged.

For years, medical experts have warned that chronic human exposure to arsenic could lead to certain forms of cancer.

The National Academies, which advises the federal government on a range of health and science issues, reported to Congress in 2001 “that the data indicate arsenic causes cancer in humans at doses that are close to the drinking water concentrations that occur in the United States.”

According to the researchers with the U.S. Geological Survey, one chicken excretes about 150 milligrams of roxarsone in a 42-day growth period. Litter collected during that period contains between 30 to 50 milligrams per kilogram of total arsenic, according to the report.

source1,2

Bookmark and Share

Sexy C-String



If you guys think that women wearing G-String is sexy wait till you see them wearing the new C-String. It is a strapless thong that is so flexible and versatile that hugs and holds it to the body both securely and comfortably. Your modesty remains safely covered at all times. At the front it looks like sexy underwear, to the rear it has a thong-style strip, and to the sides it has nothing at all!’
The advantages? Testimonials state that the C-String makes women feel elegant, sexy and comfortably carefree. It eliminates all traces of panty-lines, tan lines or extra love-handle/hip fat that might bulge out below or above regular thong straps.
And just when you thought lingerie couldn’t become any more innovative….

Bookmark and Share

It Cost Quater million to raise a child

ST. LOUIS – It’s no secret that raising children can be expensive, but how about nearly a quarter of a million dollars expensive?

A government report released Tuesday says a middle-income family with a child born last year will spend about $221,000 raising that child through age 17.

The report by the USDA’s Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion identified housing as the largest single expense, followed by food and child care/education costs. The $221,000 in expenses rises to about $292,000 when adjusted for inflation.

USDA economist Mark Lino, who co-authored the report with Andrea Carlson, often hears people say children cost a lot when the annual findings are issued.

“I tell them children also have many benefits, so you have to keep that in mind,” he said.

Families with more income spend more money on child-related costs, the report said. A two-parent family that earns less than $57,000 annually will spend about $160,000 on a child from birth through high school. Those with an income between $57,000 and $99,000 spend about $221,000 and those with higher incomes are expected to spend roughly $367,000 through age 17.

Most single-parent households in the U.S. make less than $57,000 and are expected to spend about 7 percent less on child-rearing costs compared to two-parent households in that same income group, according to the report.

Costs of raising a child are highest in the urban northeast and lowest in the urban south and rural areas.

The USDA report helps courts and states determine child-support guidelines and foster care payments. It does not address costs specifically related to childbearing and paying for college.

One of the largest changes over time has been the increase in costs related to care for young children.

The report was first issued in 1960, when such costs were largely negligible, but with more working families turning to outside help with child care, it has grown to be a significant expense for many families. The report does not give total costs related to early child care.

A mother of three, Raben Andrews of St. Louis, said the government figures sounded right to her. “Well, that’s not half of it,” joked the 42-year-old public school teacher. “I still have to put the little buggers through college.”

source
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.

Bookmark and Share

Acupuncture for Impotence


NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – Men may not want to pin their hopes on acupuncture as a treatment for impotence, or erectile dysfunction, a new review of evidence suggests.

Acupuncture is an ancient Chinese method of stimulating specific body points through the insertion of specialized pins that sometimes carry faint electrical charges. Traditionally, acupuncture has been used to maintain and restore body functions.

Several studies had reported “acupuncture increases nitric oxide,” which has been tied to the ability to maintain erections, Dr. Myeong Soo Lee, at Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine in Daejeon, told Reuters Health by email.

Yet to date, published studies that evaluated acupuncture as a treatment for erectile dysfunction provide “no convincing evidence” that acupuncture is beneficial for this condition, Lee and colleagues report in the journal BJU International.

After assessing 80 research studies, Lee’s team found only 2 that were randomized controlled trials – that is, studies that compared a treatment group with group that did not receive treatment or underwent a sham treatment. This trial design is the gold standard for research studies. (The acupuncture treatment was applied all over the body, not on the penis itself.)

One of those two trials reported benefits, while the other did not, the authors note.

Lee’s group also identified 2 trials, in a total of 45 men, that did not include a group of men that did not receive treatment or underwent a sham treatment.

Those trials both suggested some benefit from acupuncture among men with erectile dysfunction, but the investigators caution that the design leaves studies open to bias and often suggest false-positive results.

Taken together, these results fail to show whether acupuncture offers any benefit as a treatment for erectile dysfunction. “More rigorous trials are required,” Lee said.

SOURCE: BJU International, August 2009.

By Joene Hendry Joene Hendry – Tue Aug 4, 2:53 pm ET

Bookmark and Share

Who say Organic food is Nutritious ?

Organic food, which was once only available in small stores or farmers’ markets, is now the fastest growing sector of the American food marketplace, despite its higher costs. In 2008, the value of retail sales of organic food was estimated to be more than $28 billion, up from $1 billion in 1990. And, according to the Food Marketing Institute, more than half of Americans now buy organic food at least one a month. So why this surge in popularity? Why pay more for food because it’s organically grown? Do organic foods offer more nutritional value than their traditionally grown counterparts?

Whether or not organically grown foods are more nutritious has become a hotbed of debate, and the answer would likely depend on who one asked. For instance, The Organic Center (TOC), a pro-organic nonprofit research organization in Foster, Rhode Island recently concluded that organic foods, on average, offer a 25 percent higher nutrient level over conventional ones. And researchers at University of California at Davis claim to have found higher levels of nutrients in organic tomatoes, kiwifruit, corn, and strawberries grown side-by-side with conventional versions.

On the opposite side of the fence are major health organizations like the American Dietetic Association and the Mayo Clinic that hold an organic label is no assurance that a food is nutritionally superior, which is the same conclusion recently reached by a group of British researchers after reviewing 50 years of published data on the topic. The review, commissioned by Britain’s Food Standards Agency (FSA) and conducted by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, found that organic food contained no more nutritional value than food grown traditionally.

Overall, the researchers found no differences of most nutrients, including vitamin C, calcium and iron, in organically or traditionally grown crops. The same was true for meat, dairy and eggs. There were differences in nitrogen and phosphorus levels, but the researchers said this was likely due to the differences in fertilizers and the ripeness at harvest, and likely provided no health benefits. “Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority,” said Dr. Alan Dangour, study author and registered public health nutritionist.

“It is good to see that a systematic review of the literature supports what has long been believed—that the nutritional content of traditionally grown foods and organic foods are comparable,” said Connie Diekman, director of university nutrition at Washington University in St. Louis and past president of the American Dietetic Association. “This report provides confirmation for consumers that if they choose conventionally grown foods or organic foods they will be meeting their nutritional needs.”

However, others were disappointed with the findings, criticizing the study for failing to examine the impact of pesticides and herbicides, the use of antibiotics or the environmental issues. They are calling for better research. “You have to also look at what you’re not getting” with organic foods, said Sheah Rarback, director of nutrition at the Mailman Center for Child Development at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine. “We know that young children are getting the nutrition, whatever choice they make, but we also have to look at the pesticide issue.”

Dr. Dangour admitted that “there is a possibility that organic food has less pesticide residues, but this was not part of the review.” He said that, as a nutritionist, he was not qualified to look at pesticides, but “this may be an area for further research.”

Gill Fine, the FSA’s director of consumer choice and dietary health, said the study was about ensuring people have accurate information in order to make informed choices about the food they eat. “This study does not mean that people should not eat organic food,” she said. “What it shows is that there is little, if any, nutritional difference between organic and conventionally produced food and that there is no evidence of additional health benefits from eating organic food.”

The findings appear in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

source

Bookmark and Share

Inhouse Tanning beds can cause cancer

Spending so much on the courses of Tanning Treatment, to make yourself look healthier but recent experts from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in Lyon, France, now found out that ultraviolet radiation from tanning bed carry a cancer risk that is equivalent to cigarettes. The IARC, a part of the World Health Organization (WHO), has now re-classified UV tanning beds to the highest possible cancer risk category known as “carcinogenic to humans.”

Scientists have long suspected that tanning beds and ultraviolet radiation were probable carcinogens, and the results of the recent analysis performed by IARC offer proof that this is true. The analysis reviewed about 20 studies to reach the conclusion that the risk of skin cancer is increased by 75 percent when individuals use tanning beds prior to reaching the age of 30.

Although it was previously believed that only one type of ultraviolet radiation was lethal, the experts also discovered that all types of ultraviolet radiation caused disturbing mutations in mice, offering more proof that the radiation is carcinogenic. The research was published online in the medical journal Lancet Oncology.

The new classification puts tanning beds and other sources of ultraviolet radiation in the same top cancer risk category as tobacco, the hepatitis B virus and chimney sweeping, which are all known to be definite causes of cancer. The IARC says that most lights that are used in tanning beds produce ultraviolet radiation that causes skin and eye cancer.

According to Vincent Cogliano, a member of the research team, “People need to be reminded of the risks of sunbeds.” He then added, “We hope the prevailing culture will change so teens don’t think they need to use sunbeds to get a tan.” Cogliano also warned that all ultraviolet radiation is unhealthy, whether it comes from a tanning bed or the sun.

Dan Humiston, president of the Indoor Tanning Association (ITA) expressed doubt about the recent finding. He said, “The fact that the IARC has put tanning bed use in the same category as sunlight is hardly newsworthy.” He went on to explain, “The UV light from a tanning bed is equivalent to UV light from the sun, which has had a group 1 classification since 1992. Some other items in this category are red wine, beer and salted fish. The ITA has always emphasized the importance of moderation when it comes to UV light from either the sun or a tanning bed.”

Kathy Banks, chief executive of The Sunbed Association, a European trade association of tanning bed makers and operators, disputed the new classification. In a statement she said, “The fact that is continuously ignored is that there is no proven link between the responsible use of sunbeds and skin cancer.” She also noted that people who use tanning beds use do so less than 20 times per year.

However, as the use of tanning beds has significantly increased among people under age 30, physicians have observed a rise in the skin cancer. In fact, prior studies have shown that younger people who use tanning beds on a regular basis have an eight time greater likelihood to develop melanoma, the deadliest type of skin cancer, when compared to those who have never used them. One case in point is that melanoma is now the leading type of cancer diagnosed in Britain for Women in their twenties. Until now, the WHO warned only people younger than 18 to avoid using tanning beds.

According to Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer at the American Cancer Society, “This new report confirms and extends the prior recommendation of the American Cancer Society that the use of tanning beds is dangerous to your health, and should be avoided.”

Instead of using a tanning bed, the American Cancer Society advises people to use bronzing or self-tanning creams. The organization has reported that in 2008, approximately 62,000 new cases of melanoma were diagnosed in the United States, with about 8,000 people losing their lives to the deadly cancer.

source

Bookmark and Share