Let's start with the bad news: You are saturated with man-made chemicals, some of them toxic. Today's exposure began when compounds in your shampoo and shaving cream seeped into your skin cells, and during your morning coffee, when you drank chemicals that were released into your brew as hot water ran against the plastic walls of your coffeemaker. It continued all day as you touched industrial chemicals in packaging, or walked through pesticide-sprayed lawns, or cooked dinner on nonstick pans. This very minute, your skin is probably touching a piece of clothing or furniture that was doused in protective chemicals to make it resistant to microbes, fungus or water. Tonight, there's a good chance you'll curl up in sheets treated with flame retardants.
I am a paranoid and curious person, and I've been following environmental-exposure studies for years. Over time, I developed a morbid curiosity about how many chemicals were lodged in my body. Would I learn how to detoxify? Would I learn that I'm screwed? Would the information be useful at all? In any case, I decided to undergo the most comprehensive testing available to find out.
Last December, I lay on a clinic bed in Buckley's laboratory at Rutgers. A nurse named Rosalind swabbed my arm in preparation for the Ironman of blood testing. My presence had caused a stir in the lab. They had agreed to take the blood samples I needed for my experiment, but it was far from standard procedure. To get a sense of what I was asking for, think of a lab as a restaurant. I was ordering 150 different dishes—one of everything on the menu—and each would require 10 to 30 complex steps to make. In addition to Rosalind, two other nurses stood by, studying pages of instructions from Quest Diagnostics and Axys Analytical, the labs that would later be analyzing my blood for chemicals including flame retardants, pesticides, plastics and metals.
Rosalind picked up a needle, and the two nurses positioned themselves to grab vials as quickly as my arm could fill them. As I wondered what all that blood would reveal, my mind wandered to memories of a summer childhood ritual: standing in the bathroom in my bathing suit as my mother slathered me with thick layers of sunblock, pausing to let the greasy lotion soak in. Then she'd reach for another canister. "Shut your eyes." This was my signal to clamp my eyes tight, stop breathing, and turn in a circle while my mother hosed me down with bug spray.
Rosalind read aloud: "OK, ladies. Now we are going to 'Remove 14 size-large vials of blood from the patient, or as much as is safe.' "She looked up. "OK?"
It was the beginning of my experiment, designed to mimic research conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the nation's primary source for information on exposure to industrial chemicals in the population. In the late 1970s, the agency began searching for exposure to heavy metals like lead and cadmium. Since then, the CDC has periodically conducted a census of American bodies called the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The agency uses the data for many things, ranging from children's growth charts to obesity statistics—and, since 2001, to produce a study called the National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. The next such report, due out late this year, will include data on the prevalence of 228 of the most common environmental toxins.
That's only a fraction of the few thousand chemicals produced in large quantities, but it's also a major leap from several decades ago, when there was lead in the gas, asbestos in the walls, and no official effort to figure out whether these things were causing harm. To choose the chemicals it will test for, the CDC publishes a notice in the Federal Register soliciting recommendations from scientists. After the suggestions flood in, it gradually narrows the list, choosing chemicals that are widely distributed and suspected of causing harm. Practical concerns rule out searching for more than a few hundred chemicals. "There's a limit if you're getting just a few tubes of blood," says Jim Pirkle, deputy director of science for the CDC.
The NHANES survey begins when the CDC uses a computer algorithm to select 15 counties nationwide. Surveyors appear on the doorsteps of 800 to 1,600 people in each county and interview them, and around a third of the finalists—5,000 or so people nationwide—are ultimately screened. The agency takes measurements on height, weight, body-fat levels, blood pressure and heart rate, among other things. It does an oral-health exam, a bone scan and a vision test. The study participants fill out questionnaires on diet, sexual behavior and drug use. And yes, they also give copious amounts of urine and blood. The results are anonymous, although participants get a copy, along with a toll-free number to call for help understanding them.
Unless the CDC shows up at your house, it's just about impossible to get this kind of testing. Until the past few years, chemical-exposure testing was available only in research labs, where academics focused on specific families of chemicals, using expensive techniques like gas chromatography and mass spectroscopy. "It really wasn't available to the public-health community, or to groups of people who figured they might be exposed to pesticides or other agents, because no one had the hundreds of thousands of dollars to open labs and do the testing," says environmental-exposure researcher Michael McCally, a senior scientist at Physicians for Social Responsibility in Washington, D.C. The technology has slowly moved into specialized commercial labs, but it's still wildly expensive to access it. My testing would cost me more than $4,000, and that was with Quest agreeing to do much of the blood analysis for free.
The CDC's Report on Environmental Exposure doesn't declare any chemicals harmful or safe. "It's not their job," Buckley says. "There are people at the National Institutes of Health who do that stuff, and the ATSDR"—the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, created by Congress with the Superfund act of 1980—"and there are epidemiologists, and all of us academics who spend our whole lives interpreting what the CDC puts out."
Studies on the connection between environmental disease and chemicals have proliferated since the CDC published its first exposure report. Still, the field is young, and such is the state of the art that my makeshift test would give me only raw data about the chemicals in my body; it wouldn't tell me anything about the likelihood that a particular chemical would give me cancer. I'd have to assemble a personal posse of experts—those people who spend their lives interpreting CDC data—to help me understand the results.
As I arranged the follow-up to my bloodwork, the inherent difficulty of biomonitoring research became clear. Researchers have uncovered plenty of associations between toxins and diseases, and they're uncovering more all the time. But it's nearly impossible to quickly and definitively link an individual chemical to a specific disease without knowingly poisoning test subjects. It's staggeringly hard to prove causation in a system as complicated as the body, particularly when a fetus exposed to a chemical might not show any sign of harm until it becomes an adult. In one study, men who lived in an agricultural area of Missouri were 40 percent less fertile than city-dwellers. Knockout punch for pesticides, right? Wrong. The British Medical Journal study cites this research as a classic example of the difficulty of linking chemicals to disease. "Although these new findings are suggestive, for none [of the findings] is the mechanism of the chemical's effect self evident," the researchers wrote. "This leaves doubts as to whether the measured chemicals are the real culprits or are surrogates for other chemical exposures or lifestyle practices."
"There are almost no smoking guns," Buckley says. "True smoking guns usually happen in occupational contamination, where a high percentage of people in a factory come down with, say, lung cancer. Everything else is just estimate or conjecture."
As for product safety testing, it's far rarer than you might think. The Food and Drug Administration requires pharmaceuticals to be rigorously tested before entering the marketplace, but although the cosmetic industry conducts tests on animals for skin rashes and allergic reactions, those tests, overseen by an industry organization called the Cosmetic Ingredient Review, aren't mandatory. Cosmetics and general products are rarely, if ever, tested for long-term health effects, let alone potential effects on a fetus. All those air fresheners and cleaning products and perfumes that are sprayed liberally in the air you breathe? Never tested.
If evidence appears that a chemical might be harmful, it's still tough to get it off the market. Our regulatory system treats chemicals the same way our judicial system treats people, maintaining that they are innocent until proven guilty and trying them one by one. "Chemical-regulation policy deals with individual chemicals, not families of chemicals," McCally says. That makes banning potentially harmful chemicals inefficient, because typically, if a single molecule has health effects, all its very similar cousins, known as congeners, may as well. "Each congener is a different chemical, so you spend 10 years in court for each," he says.
My test results may be the most confusing things I've ever received in the mail. I expected to rip them open and find a variant of the routine bloodwork I get from my doctor, complete with a little thumbs-up icon next to good cholesterol results. Instead, over four months I received six individual spreadsheets that said things like "2,3,7,8-TCDD UN 3373 L12090-1 WG27842 30.8g (wet) pg/g (wet weight basis) <.0065 spiked="" matrix="" wg27842-102="" recov="" gibberish="" to="" me.="">
My interpretation team was made up of three experts: McCally, Buckley, and Leo Trasande, director of the Mt. Sinai Center for Children's Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Research in New York and a lead investigator on the federally funded National Children's Study, which will ultimately set benchmarks for toxic exposures among our most chemical-sensitive population.
I started by calling Trasande. When I read him the first incomprehensible line from my results, he laughed. "I don't know what that means," he said. "Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin is nasty stuff. But I would need to also see the benchmarks." I found the latest NHANES benchmarks and called him back. After going through the rest of the results with my panel, we arrived at a verdict: I am full of chemicals.
My levels of dioxins and furans, older chlorinated chemicals that are usually released into the air by manufacturing and garbage incineration, are above population averages. Industrial releases have decreased 80 percent since the 1980s, yet I'm still full of them because dioxin exposure is the gift that keeps on giving. The body stores dioxin in fat cells and occasionally releases it into the blood, recirculating the same chemicals throughout the body. These have been linked to reproductive disorders, cancer and other maladies.
My levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons—the result of incomplete combustion, these are commonly emitted by stoves and charred meat—are typical for the population. Some of these chemicals are classified by the EPA as probable carcinogens, and they can stay in the body for 25 years, but scientists still don't understand how potency and length of exposure relate to illness.
I'm carrying above-typical levels of residue from nonstick coatings like Teflon, specifically one called PFOA that is associated with cancer. "Preliminary studies suggest that even low-level exposures can be problematic," Trasande says.
I'm loaded with nitrate. "This is principally from processed foods, and there's a cancer risk associated," Buckley says.
I also have typical levels of exposure to plastics and plasticizers like phthalates, which add flexibility to soft plastics and vinyl and stability to creams and washes. "They're ubiquitous," McCally says. Phthalates are linked to reproductive disorders, and it's unclear what exposure level could be considered safe.
Lastly, my levels of the notorious bisphenol-A, or BPA, an estrogenic compound found in plastic and plastered all over the news for the past two years, are typical. BPA has entered my system every time I've ever taken a swig from a water bottle—which I did a lot of as a teenager, training five hours a day as a swimmer.
The overall takeaway is not soothing. "The core message is that we are all exposed to a wide array of chemicals in the environment, as you have been," Trasande says. "And what little we know suggests cause for concern. And equally concerning is what we don't know."
As I spent days decoding spreadsheets, one uplifting fact became clear: I tested notably clear of the majority of pesticides, fungicides and metals that I would most likely ingest outdoors. In fact, with the exception of the dioxins and furans that I and the rest of the country picked up decades ago, I was probably exposed to most of the chemicals in my body indoors—which means more of this is under my control than I thought.
"It doesn't take a lot of something released indoors to cause exposure," says Kirk Smith, a professor of global environmental health at the University of California at Berkeley, who taught me the Rule of 1,000: Anything released indoors is about 1,000 times as likely to be inhaled as something released outdoors.
Over the next decade, as the cost of chemical-exposure testing continues to drop, it will probably become more widely available for consumers. But is it worth it? Not according to Trasande, who suggests lifestyle changes over testing. "I wouldn't advise routine body-burden testing for people," he says. It's expensive and invasive, and so far there's not much that can be done with the knowledge such testing produces. "It's important to understand that right now, what people can do is proactively reduce their exposure." That means changing your lifestyle to avoid as many suspect chemicals as possible.
There is, however, only so much you or I can do. Approximately 1,000 new chemicals are added every year to the 85,000 already on the federal registry. As Jane Houlihan, the senior vice president for research at the nonprofit watchdog organization Environmental Working Group, testified in Congress last year, "Companies are free to use almost any ingredient they choose in personal-care products, with no proof of safety required." Houlihan argues that the FDA should claim the authority to oversee cosmetic safety, by requiring registration and testing of products and ingredients, making public-health-injury reports mandatory, and enforcing safety requirements—which is the way the agency oversees pesticides and food additives.
There are movements afoot to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act to look more like European Union regulations, which allow the banning of families of chemicals. Most notable is the Kids-Safe Chemical Act, which would empower the EPA to require safety testing of baby products before their release.
Still, any attempt at regulation has to reckon with the fact that there's no going back to a chemical-free world—we're far beyond that point. "The presence of these industrial chemicals in your bloodstream or tissues is not normal," McCally says. "Your grandfather didn't have these." He pauses to recalibrate. "It's a consequence of the chemical environment that we live in, and it's a new normal. We're just trying to figure out what that is."
What You Can Do
We actually do have a lot of control over the chemicals we're exposed to in our homes, where they are 1,000 times as likely to be inhaled as outdoors. Here's how to start purifying your environment.
- Vent your gas stove outside to avoid releasing polycyclic hydrocarbons, created by incomplete combustion, into your home, says Shelly Miller, an air-pollution researcher at the University of Colorado.
- Use minimal carpet and drapery. "Carpets can be a reservoir for all sorts of particles," Miller says.
- Use a HEPA filter on your vacuum to keep captured particles from escaping back into the air.
- Look up cosmetic and cleaning products on the Environmental Working Group's "Skin Deep" database (www.ewg.org), which rates more than 50,000 products on a scale of 0 (safe) to 10 (hazardous). A "data gap" rating lets you know whether the conclusion is based on comprehensive safety data or industry research.
I sincerely hope that those people spending their "entire lives interpreting CDC data" lead to a better, cheaper, more accessible and easier to understand way of doing all this. That way their lives are really and truly meaningful on a universal scale, instead of what the majority of us hope for on a personal scale. Spiritual or not.
All in all, I enjoyed this article, despite the longer than average length. More people should read more instead of jumping on the short, but obviously interesting band wagon.
Good article, and maybe as a follow up, the author can try one or more of the more popular detox regimens, and be retested to see if they actually work.
This is just pathetic.
Why should we spend anytime whatsoever trying hunting for possible toxic effects when the benefits are so trivial? The only people interested are those trying to create hysterical fears that they can exploit politically.
The supposed harm of all these chemicals is utterly trivial. Yes, it sounds terrible that childhood leukemia cases have supposedly increased 28% since 1974 but in absolute terms, that means next to nothing. Leukemia is very rare so even a significant increase in cases translates into very few additional cases. There are only 3,500 cases of childhood leukemia every year so an increase of 28% comes to only 980 additional cases (not deaths). That is out of a population of 74 million children. That means a child's risk of death has increased from roughly 1 in 29,000 to 1 in 21,000. That's an utterly trivial increase in risk.
Even if every additional case was caused by chemical exposure, we would actively kill many times more children by wasting resources trying to save a few hundred lives instead of spending those resources on millions of children. That is not to mention the harm done by people not having access to the benefits that the chemicals bring.
It's utterly irresponsible journalism to crank out a hysterical story like this one without putting into perspective the lethal tradeoffs of blanket bans of thousands of chemicals. Just by raising the cost of medication, car seats, sterile surfaces or making fruits and vegetable more expensive, we could easily kill way more children than we save.
Right on Shannonlove. The media engages in so much of this its difficult to find well researched and factual articles on almost any subject. Now days sensationalism and exaggeration are the media's stock and trade.
The article mentions the difference between outside air and inside air, but doesn't recommend doing anything about it. In its section "What Can You Do" I would have added: open your windows, air out the house, install an air exchanger on your heating system, etc. Do whatever you can to bring fresh air into the home.
ewg.org is Environmental Working Group’s website, not ewg.com
Great article, these impacts are not trivial, and I think it is irrisponsible to say so. The work done on Atrazine by Huxley alone shows the clear impacts of chemicals on animals. The toxicological tests on most of the new synthetic chemicals has not been done. I do not know why (well, I suspect of course) - with the 'animal-on-a-chip' technology testing thousands of chemicals is not possible. Testing would be expensive (my suspicion) but worthwhile as autoimmune "disorders" are the **second** leading cause of death for women under 65 in this country (US) now. Something is killing people - and animals, and plants, and fungi, and bacteria.
Two major points missed.
What can you do? Give blood every 8 weeks to lower the levels of such toxins.
Not only is our life expectancy continuing to increase, it is accelerating.
You have to love the comments. Why track these down? Good point, why do anything? Why do any research of any kind?
How does one know of a cause and effect of anything unless one looks. I'm sure the cigarette companies wished people did not look into its effects. Turn a blind eye to it all, become sheep.
It is very true about human nature, its not real if it does not happen to them. The canaries in the coal mine are the people that react to lower doses of any substance than the general population. Screw them, let them die, I'll wait till the effects are high enough to effect ME. ME ME ME.
Or should I say ShannonLoves view.
There are always more important things we could waste money on. Sending vaccines to Wall-street over hospitals is a start. :)
She took an isolated case of 28 percent increase childhood leukemia and converted it to numbers. 28 percent is 28 percent to the lay person that might not mean much but in real science 28 percent is huge. That is if it can be confirmed as a real increase.
Whether she likes it or not research must continue. Not all of it ends up being useful but that is not determined until after its done. At some point in the far future we hope to have a better understanding exactly how diseases are manifested, what genes are responsible for susceptibility etc.
For the paranoid or anyone that suffers asthma or is highly sensitive to environmental chemicals I would advise them to get a indoor Hepa with Activated Carbon (4 Lbs). It will lower antigen, virus and VOCS in the home. The carbon will adsorb any VOC including radon.
Irresponsible? Sorry if you get alarmed to so easily, its just information take it with a grain of salt if you wish.
Eat some fish out of lake Michigan for awhile. Mecury not that long ago was considered safe at certain levels. (not talking about thimerasol) Now they say its not safe at any level. I suppose we should ignore that and just keep eating lake michigan fish.
There may be other effects that are not quite as dramatic as cancer. Effects that cause lost work days due decreased immune function, effects that fly under the radar. So one could make a case that it is costing us money not to look.
Don't worry folks!! I just went out and bought my very own FULL BODY CONDOM! Even has a HEPPA filter Respirator attached!! No more worries!! I am only going to die from latex exposure now!!! YEAY!!! :0)
Good article! it is exactly what i would do if i had to "find something interesting to do an article on" on a late sunday afternoon while sitting, trapped in a 4 walled cubicle!
but seriously, FUN read!!
In order to meet the Thanksgiving holiday, this site hereby release Thanksgiving gift, that is, gift, our web site is
/coolforsale/com/ nike air max jordan shoes, coach,gucci,lv,dg,ed hardy handbags, Polo/Ed Hardy/Lacoste/Ca/A&F ,T-shirt welcome new and old customers come to order.
I remember an article done about this by national geographic like 4, 5 years ago :P
considering NG have more pages available than popsci, id say good article...although it would have benefitted with a pie chart breakdown of the dozen most common chemical exposures
Good Job :)
Obviously no one Shannon loves has been the 1 in 29,000 or it would notbe so trivial to her.
It is additudes like hers that allows these chemical companies to continue to polute everything they give us for profits.
Who cares, let them kill us, this is just sensationalism right? When a 6 year old you know dies from this stuff maybe you will step up and say someone needs to look out for these kids.
You are an adult and can make your own choices, but children eat what we feed them and we do NOT need all these chemicals.
Yet I am sure she will be one of the first ones on the class action lawsuit when she finds out she is dying from these overexagerated levels of chemicals.
How can one death be trivial? Wake up People. They are poisening you and you don't care. Just blame the guy that wrote the article he is blowing it out of proportion. Not like he actually tested the chemicals in his blood. He made all this up to scare you.
We have been telling those that will listen about Toxins for over 4 years. Maybe now they will wake up and do a little homework thanks to this article. While this was a great, there is a lot more information available. Time to wise up. Be proactive and do something to give yourself a fighting chance.We have found that you can now safely remove toxins without all of the dangers and expensive procedures of the past.It's Time to put a new law into place that is updated from 1980. Until then, we fend for ourselves with ncd at healthEmagic.com Their information is free
I believe chemophobics fail to recognize the many benefits we see from chemicals. They react to such things with fear and ignorance. However, it is widely believed the downfall of the Roman empire was in part due to lead poisoning. They crafted plumbing and food receptacles from lead. This is another kind of ignorance that we must avoid. Research is essential, and as seen from this article, it is extremely difficult to prove any kind of causation. Therefore, it is difficult to segregate those chemicals whose effect on our biology is benign from those chemicals that can have a detrimental effect. What I do not support is the mass implementation of any kind of "precautionary principle" that would have us banning any kind of chemical that some "scientist" has performed some "study" on that the "press" says is "bad". If you are concerned about these chemicals shortening your life or degrading your health, then by all means you should take appropriate precautions (whatever you feel that needs to be). I also recommend you stop driving a car since you are highly likely to die in an accident someday.
I'm "one of those" people who are under the radar, because I haven't died from heavy metal toxicity, and no one is tracking the direct results and effects of heavy metal toxicity, YET.
From the age of 25 (I'm now 52) I have had the following:
-Rashes from aluminum in deorderant that never go away
-Increasing incidences of allergies
-Sinus infections (up to 10 months out of the year)
-Fybrocyctic breast tumors
-Benign uterine tumors (1 removed in 1984 size of grapefruit, hysterectomy in 2001 because of 6 rapidly growing tumors.)
-Daily headaches for over 5 years
-Lack of concentration (couldn't work)
-Memory Loss (couldn't read anymore)
-Loss of balance
-Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
-Ovarian cysts that burst, caused scar tissue that attached to colon and obstructed colon, sometimes for up to 5 days
-Depression, (with all this crap, you'd be depressed, too!)
-compromised immune system, I caught everything that came around and it persisted longer than anybody I knew.
-unexplained weight gain
I refused to take medications for all this. I wanted my doctor to find a cause and the only thing he could tell me was to see a psychiatrist! In desparation, I sought an Integrated Medicine Doctor (western and holistic) who tested me for heavy metals. I had lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, tin and nickel all above safe levels for one, and lead I was in the over 90% of people tested!
The good news is, I have in the last year and a half been taking the zeolite and it has completely reversed every thing listed above. I am working with a "brain coach" who helps kids with learning disabilities and adults with brain injuries to get my conentration, memory and balance back. I am losing weight without getting headaches. I do occasionally get acid reflux, but I don't wake up in the middle of night with chest pains any more. I'm reading again, and able to get back to work. My atletic abilities are improving, and my stamina is improved. My husband thinks he is married to a different woman.
So maybe you don't know anybody in the 28% of kids who have died of leukemia, but I guarantee you know people who are being affected by toxicity and have been misdiagnosed because the research has not caught up with the problem yet. So I say, go man go, and do it!
An answer may be available to people suffering from chemical toxicity. A new study published this month reveals clinical evidence supporting the use of an activated clinoptilolite suspension as an agent to increase urinary excretion of toxic heavy metals.
The study proved that this particular suspension:
* Does remove toxic substances from the body.
* Does not remove important electrolytes.
Three groups were tested, one group for 7 days, one group for 30 days and a placebo control group.
Why not use long, long studies and hundreds of participants?
*Results become apparent and measurable within a very few days.
Here is a direct quote from the study:
"Participants in both groups had increased concentrations of heavy metals in the urine with no clinically significant alterations in serum electrolyte levels. Significant increases in the urinary excretion of aluminum, antimony, arsenic, bismuth, cadmium, lead, mercury, nickel and tin were observed in the subjects participating in the two study groups as compared to placebo control group. This study demonstrates that the daily use of an activated clinoptilolite suspension represents a potentially safe and effective way to remove toxic heavy metals from the body without removing clinically detrimental amounts of vital electrolytes."
For the complete study contact us here.
Can you contact me about your Brain Coach,please?
Though I have been using and researching the detoxification effects of NCD Clinoptilolite, reading the long list of imbalances you have endured, leads me to tell you that if you have been monitoring your minerals and metals long ago, you more than likely would have found that you had toxic levels of Copper as well. The symptoms you have listed are all Toxic Copper symptoms. 45 years of clinical research has shown that these are other symptoms could have been avoided through the balancing of that particular mineral, which is thrown completely out of balance by Heavy Metals and Stress, as well as accumulation from exposure, causing undo stress on the entire system especially the brain.
I work in the field of Bionutrition in case you need more information. Free consultations are available to all.
Revised sentence... 45 years of research has shown that these AND other symptoms....... thx
Studies on the connection between environmental disease and chemicals have proliferated since the CDC published its first exposure report. Still, the field is young, and such is the state of the art that my makeshift test would give me only raw data about the chemicals in my body;.
Until last year when my mother got cancer I didn't realize the dimensions of the problem. I had heard before about these chemicals, but I was not affected by the problem. But trying to buy products for her which do not contain chemicals, I realized that 99.99% from the available products contain them. And the link between them and cancer can be indirectly made: 100 years ago less then 1% from the population suffered from cancer. Nowadays, it is estimated that more than 33% from the US citizens had, have or will have cancer during their lives. And I think that these percentages will rise in the future.
Great article.I agree with JM.The article mentions the difference between outside air and inside air, but doesn't recommend doing anything about it. In its section "What Can You Do" I would have added: open your windows, air out the house, install an air exchanger on your heating system, etc. Do whatever you can to bring fresh air into the home.
Two major points missed.
What can you do? Give blood every 8 weeks to lower the levels of such toxins.
Not only is our life expectancy continuing to increase, it is accelerating.
Will we be seeing these in Primark any day soon?!! Haven't seen many startup clothes designer businesses catching on yet..
Drink at least six to eight glasses of water every day to flush the toxins out of your system.
It's utterly irresponsible journalism to crank out a hysterical story like this one without putting into perspective the lethal tradeoffs of blanket bans of thousands of chemicals. Just by raising the cost of medication, car seats, sterile surfaces or making fruits and vegetable more expensive, we could easily kill way more children than we save. www.airarticles.com
Unless the CDC shows up at your house, it’s just about impossible to get this kind of testing.
That way their lives are really and truly meaningful on a universal scale, instead of what the majority of us hope for on a personal scale.
Resource: www.nobledrugstore.com and www.easterndrugs.com
There may be other effects that are nt quite as dramatic as cancer. Effects that cause lost work days due decreased immune function effects that fly under the radar.