Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Social Issues’ Category

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

For the last few years whenever I heard someone talk about chicken nuggets from McDonalds I would say something like “Did you know they use poison in their packaging?” I remember seeing it in a movie about food awhile back and it really stuck with me. Well, now it looks like there is proof that poison enters the nuggets. Not only that, but they use this poison in packaging for all sorts of fast foods. The chemicals are perfluorinated carboxylic acids or PFCA’s. This stuff is known to cause all sorts of immune problems, infertility and even cancer. I’ve pasted the text of the article here for you to read as well as a link to the original article. This is scary stuff. What makes it even more scary is a bill recently passed called the Food Safety Modernization Act (S 510). I am willing to bet there is NOTHING in there that prevents giant food companies from continuing to use this stuff. There is so much more deeper topics linked to this. For example: if your a low-income urban dweller with little money, no access to a good grocery, and little time, your diet might consist of mostly fast food wrapped in poison that will eventually render you infertile! I try not to be a conspiracy theorist, but it is tough in this country. Enjoy your lunch.

What Is in Fast Food? A Newly Discovered Reason to Avoid Fast Food by Doctor Joseph Mercola

A new study shows that toxicperfluoroalkyls, which are used in surface protection treatments and coatings to keep grease from leaking through fast food wrappers, are being ingested by people through their food and showing up as contaminants in blood.

Perfluoroalkyls are a hazardous class of stable, synthetic chemicals that repel oil, grease and water.

As reported by University of Toronto researchers, the chemicals studied in human blood, urine and feces were polyfluoroalkyl phosphate esters (PAPs), which are the breakdown products of the perfluorinated carboxylic acids (PFCAs) used in coating the food wrappers. Scientists said the exposure to humans through this means “should be considered as a significant indirect source of PFCA.”

That means you now have a new reason to avoid fast foods.

You may not realize it, but you and your family are continually exposed to perfluoroalkyls, which include perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS). And these chemicals can be detected in nearly everyone in the U.S.!

Besides food packaging and fast food wrappers, everyday sources of this exposure include: drinking water, dust, air, carpet and fabric protectors, flame retardants, non-stick pots and pans, stain-proof clothing, and even cord blood and breast milk.

But it’s not just PFOA and PFOS that show up. The CDC’s Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals 2009 (considered the most comprehensive assessment of the exposure of the U.S. population to chemicals in our environment), detected a total of 12 different types of perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) in Americans tested.

I’ve written many articles about non-stick cookware, highlighting the fact that they are one of the most common sources of PFCs. But this study shows fast food wrappers are yet another pervasive source!

Three years ago, environmental chemists Scott Mabury and Jessica D’eon established that perfluorinated chemicals, specifically polyfluoroalkyl phosphate esters, known as PAPs, can and do transfer from the wrappers into food. PAPS are byproducts of PFCAs and PFOA.

According to Madbury, regulators who approved these chemicals for use with food and other products made three assumptions, which have now been proven wrong:

1. The chemicals won’t migrate from paper into food.
2. The chemicals won’t become available to your body.
3. Your body won’t process these chemicals.

Contrary to the regulators’ findings, we now know PFCs have many health dangers, including being part of a group of chemicals referred to as”gender-bending,” because they can disrupt your endocrine system and sex hormones.

In animal studies, PFOA has also been associated with other health dangers such as:

  • “Significant increases in treatment related deaths” in rat offspring at doses that did not affect the mothers.
  • Serious changes in the weight of various organs, including brain, prostate, liver, thymus and kidneys.
  • Deaths of a significant number of rat pups of mothers exposed to PFOA.
  • Damage to the pituitary at all doses in female rat offspring (The pituitary secretes hormones that regulate growth, reproduction, and many metabolic processes. Change in pituitary size is associated with toxicity.)
  • Tumor development after prolonged exposure.

Other studies have linked PFC’s to:

  • Thyroid disease:study published in Environmental Health Perspectives found thatPFOA can damage your thyroid function. Individuals with the highest PFOA concentrations were more than twice as likely to report current thyroid disease. Your thyroid contains thyroglobulin protein, which binds to iodine to form hormones, which in turn influence essentially every organ, tissue and cell in your body. Thyroid hormones are also required for growth and development in children. Left untreated, thyroid disease can lead to heart disease, infertility, muscle weakness, and osteoporosis.
  • Cancer: PFOA has been associated with tumors in at least four different organs in animal tests (liver, pancreas, testicles and mammary glands in rats), and has been associated with increases in prostate cancer in PFOA plant workers. The EPA has ruled PFCs as “likely carcinogens,” and has stated that PFOA “poses developmental and reproductive risks to humans.”

Immune system problems: Several studies indicate that PFCs have an adverse effect on your immune system. As described in a report on PFCs by the Environmental Working Group (EWG),PFOA was found to decrease all immune cell sub-populations studied in the thymus and spleen, and caused immuno-suppression.

  • Increased LDL cholesterol levels:study in the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine showed that children and teens with higher PFOA levels had higher levels of total cholesterol and LDL or “bad” cholesterol, while PFOs was associated with increased total cholesterol, including both LDL cholesterol and HDL or “good” cholesterol.

For more information on these studies, please review the Environmental Working Groups extensive report.

So what can you do to protect your health? I strongly recommend avoiding any product that contains these toxic compounds, particularly foods sold in grease-proof packaging, such as fast food and popcorn. Besides the toxic burden of the wrappers, I think it’s also important to realize that you are not getting proper nutrition from the food that comes in them.

Most important, however, is ditching your non-stick cookware, because most brands are a MAJOR source of PFC’s, particularly PFOA. The moment you heat them, they start to liberate fluoride vapors that are so toxic they will kill small birds!

Every time you cook with them, you inhale these chemicals, and the food in the pan absorbs them too, turning every home-cooked meal toxic.

To identify other products to avoid, the EWG has compiled a list of common products containing PFC’s for you here.

Keep in mind that avoiding these products is especially crucial for pregnant women or couples who want to have children, since PFC’s can have a serious impact on fertility, and on a baby’s delicate hormonal system.

Dr. Joseph Mercola is the founder and director of Mercola.com. Become a fan of Dr. Mercola on Facebook, follow him on Twitter, and check out Dr. Mercola’s report on sun exposure!

Follow Dr. Joseph Mercola on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mercola


Read Full Post »

A man now on the run.  A hero? A criminal? This is a fantastic interview of the front page man. Enjoy.

Read Full Post »

While driving cross country I like to tune into the local radio stations and see what folks are talking about. Sometimes its fishing, sometimes its cattle, sometimes its politics. This time it was Catholic radio. I don’t remember the station or exactly where I was, but I do know it was AM and I was in Indiana. There was a Doctor as a special guest, a host who is some kind of brother or priest and a call in audience scattered among the range of the transmitter. The show never revealed what type of doctor, or whether this individual is an academic doctor or a medical doctor. It doesn’t really matter. What he had to say was neither scholarly nor medical. The topic of conversation was the morality of homosexuality and the reasons why the Roman Catholic church takes a stance against legalization of homosexual marriage. It was a lengthy, one sided discussion with talking points I’m sure you’ve heard before. You know, things along the line of “homosexual sex is a sin, it says so in the bible.” and “God has reserved marriage for one man and one woman.” and “the law must not allow actions against moral law.” etc. and on and on. If this topic interests you you’ve probably heard it all before so I’ll go right to the first caller. At this point the “doctor” was off the phone and the host was taking calls. This is what the call was like. Bear in mind I’ve summarized, but this is just about how it went:

Caller: “I know the Roman Catholic Church is a big advocate for separation of church and state and also against legalizing gay marriage. Isn’t this a contradiction? Aren’t two gay people getting married a freedom of their own religious beliefs, therefore the church should let it be?”

Host: “Great question. Really. You see, gay marriage is against moral law and the church can’t allow legalizing something that is against moral law. For example, murder is against moral law so the church can’t stand by and allow a government to legalize murder. How do we know its against moral law? well, homosexual relations go against the very nature of human beings. Homosexuality goes against human nature. It says so in the bible, and it says so in our common sense. Its obvious that two men having relations is unnatural and immoral.”

Caller: “Oh OK, that makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up.”

That makes sense!? What a thoughtless response after asking an excellent question! The caller might be a dummy but the answer from the host is where I really have a couple bones to pick. The first bone is a big one. The host compared gay marriage to murder in order to make a point! I can’t let this slide. The second bone is that he is completely wrong. Hopefully some devout Catholics who blindly follow the Vatican are reading. I’ll take a shot at proving that homosexuality is not only well within the realm of human nature but is moral as well.

Let’s look at the statement: “homosexual relations go against the very nature of human beings.” This is pretty easy to disprove. It is a well known fact that some humans take part in homosexual sex, thus it is a natural thing for humans, as a species, to take part in. If some alien zoologist visited earth from another planet to study humans an entry in his notebook surely would read “partakes in homosexual sex.” This of course does not need to be all inclusive, it only needs to be consistent over time. Which it is. The fact that it is even discussed in the bible shows that we humans have been getting their sex on with the someone of the same sex for at least many thousands of years. I’m sure its been much longer than that. To take it a step further, a significant portion of humans are actually homosexual, thus it is a part of human nature to be homosexual. This is pretty simple, but true. No matter how much they’d like to believe it, homosexuality is not some disease, or parasite, or possession by a demon. It is natural thing for humans to be. My results are clear. Homosexuality is part of human nature. This doesn’t really help the argument of morality since murder also falls under the umbrella of human nature, and I think most people agree murder is immoral.

Now let’s tackle the question of whether it is moral or immoral. We all have different ideas of what actions are considered immoral so it’s difficult to define an ultimate moral law. Most religions have their own moral law including Roman Catholic, but as each decade rolls by many of these Roman Catholic moral laws enter the realm of absolutely ridiculous. Take masturbation, or divorce, or using condoms, etc, etc. The list of Catholic “Moral Laws” that have passed into the realm of “Absolutely Ridiculous” is long and boring so I’ll just move on. Roman Catholic moral law is out of date and needs a complete revision based on science and the known fact hell is not actually a location below the earth’s crust. Another test of morality is needed for this exercise. How about I just make one up to use for this discussion?

Making up a complete, ultimate moral law right here and now is too daunting so lets just focus on a couple key things. A couple universal axioms if you will. I think we can all agree doing harm to others is bad. I also think that we can all agree that partaking in something that will lead to the end of humanity is bad. From this starting point lets look at the action itself. We can analyze it based on whether or not it is harmful to others and whether or not it will lead to the end of humanity if everyone partakes. Whether it is harmful to others isn’t good enough for me. Why? Well, what if everyone on earth got wasted every single day, would humanity survive? I think not. Humanity would be in peril. While the act of getting wasted does not necessarily directly hurt another humans, it may not be “moral” based on my simple moral law defined here in this paragraph. This is why we’ll ask both of these questions to determine if an action is moral. Let me summarize before continuing. We will ask the following questions and if the answer is yes to either one we will deem the action immoral.

1.) Does the action have an adverse affect to another human being?

2.) If everybody partakes in the action will humanity come to an end?

Lets do this with murder first to get warmed up. Does it have an adverse affect to another human being? Obviously yes. Immoral! Next, lets do stealing. Adverse affect to others? Yes. Immoral. Ok, now what about two men having sex with each other? Does it have an adverse affect to another human? Nope. Does it mean the end of humanity as we know it? Nope. Will it poison your marriage? Nope. Does it do any harm to anything at all? Nope. What if everyone on earth was homosexual? Would humanity come to an end? Nope. It would just be a different humanity. Procreation would take a different form. Homosexual couples want children too, didn’t you know? I imagine agreements being made between the males of the world and the females of the world. I digress. Bottom line is that humanity would not come to an end. Well then, my verdict is MORAL!!

It is surprising to me that a relationship between two humans based on love and understanding is considered immoral in the eyes of the Catholic church. Jesus wanted all of us to love each other. Catholics are supposed to be striving to be like Jesus. I absolutely believe that if the big J were around today he would be on the side of gay marriage, equality, treating humans as humans, and embracing love in all its forms. I want to pass some advice on to the caller. THINK FOR YOURSELF.

Read Full Post »