Sante

(bon.. pas sure si je pouvais mettre ca dans les news insolites donc.... je fais une rubrique sante )

Meth addiction leads to sexual misery
Doctors: Drug eventually destroys sex drive
Friday, December 3, 2004

CHATTANOOGA, Tennessee (AP) -- At a recent task force meeting on widespread methamphetamine use in Appalachia, Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen winced when a federal prosecutor described the illegal drug as an aphrodisiac.

Doctors and government officials don't like to talk much about it, but there is an obvious reason people get hooked on methamphetamine: sex.

Meth eventually destroys the sex drive, but for a short while it can boost sexual appetite and performance more powerfully than drugs such as cocaine, doctors say.

"Who wouldn't want to use it? You lose weight and you have great sex," Assistant U.S. Attorney Paul Laymon said sarcastically at the meeting of the Tennessee task force.

For obvious reasons, government officials want to focus on the misery meth causes.

Use of the addictive drug can cause brain damage, violent behavior and hallucinations, and exposure to the potentially explosive vapors during the manufacture of meth can cause respiratory problems, headaches and nausea. In many gay clubs in New York City and elsewhere, meth is often injected, putting users and their partners at risk for HIV, hepatitis C and other sexually transmitted diseases.

As for why the drug holds such power on people, Dr. Mary Holley, an obstetrician from Mothers Against Methamphetamine in Albertville, Alabama, said sex is the No. 1 reason people use it.

"The effect of an IV hit of methamphetamine is the equivalent of 10 orgasms all on top of each other lasting for 30 minutes to an hour, with a feeling of arousal that lasts for another day and a half," said Holley, who has interviewed meth-addicted men and women.

The effect doesn't last long.

"After you have been using it about six months or so you can't have sex unless you are high," Holley said. "After you have been using it a little bit longer you can't have sex even when you're high. Nothing happens. It doesn't work."

Dr. John Standridge, an addiction specialist with the Council for Alcohol and Drug Abuse Services in Chattanooga, said meth and other stimulants initially "rev up the dopamine nervous system in the brain. They rev it up and burn it out."

A National Institute on Drug Abuse survey on drug use and health in 2002 found that 12.4 million Americans at least 12 years old -- or about 5 percent of the population -- had tried meth at least once in their lifetimes. In a measure of how serious the problem is in Appalachia, a total of 1,083 clandestine methamphetamine labs were cleaned up in Tennessee in 2003 -- more than in any other state.

A meth task force appointed by Bredesen is recommending tougher penalties and expanded treatment for addicts.

Meth's reputation as a sex drug is not unique.

"All substance abuse is frequently marketed as enhancing sex life or making you more attractive or a better social companion," said John Walters, the national drug control policy director for President Bush. Walters said that buying meth as an aphrodisiac is "buying under false pretenses."

"Hair falls out. Teeth fall out," Walters said. "That's not sexy."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/12/03/methandsex.ap/index.html

Studies: Lost sleep equals gained weight
http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/diet.fitness/12/06/sleep.weight.gain.reut/index.html

ca m'enerve!!!



ENVIRONNEMENT Le débat à l'Assemblée nationale a révélé qu'en France les données sont souvent lacunaires

L'impact de la pollution sur la santé : une question qui fâche
«Près de 30000 décès anticipés sont attribuables à la pollution atmosphérique. 7 à 20% des cancers seraient imputables à des éléments environnementaux dont les produits chimiques», a déclaré le ministre de l'Écologie et du Développement durable, Serge Lepeltier, en ouverture des deuxièmes rencontres parlementaires Santé et Environnement sur les impacts des pollutions chimiques sur la santé. Un thème particulièrement polémique, objet de controverses passionnées, d'autant qu'il persiste encore bien des inconnues. «Mais ce n'est pas parce qu'il n'existe pas de certitudes qu'il ne faut pas en parler, bien au contraire», soutient Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet, jeune et brillante députée de l'Essonne, polytechnicienne de formation. Présidente du groupe Santé et Environnement à l'Assemblée nationale, elle a réussi à mettre en place ces rencontres, le 8 décembre dernier, en dépit de l'hostilité manifeste de certains parlementaires et industriels à ce débat d'actualité.

Catherine Petitnicolas
[21 décembre 2004]

Récemment, quatorze ministres européens de l'Environnement ont accepté de participer à une expérimentation peu banale : la recherche de produits chimiques d'origine industrielle dans leur sang (nos éditions du 19 octobre 2004). Cinquante-cinq substances potentiellement toxiques sur cent trois ont été ainsi détectées. Parmi les trente-sept produits chimiques découverts dans le sang du ministre français, figurait le DDT, alors que cette substance est en principe interdite dans notre pays depuis au moins trente ans.


Au vu de ces résultats, on peut se demander si nous sommes tous pollués, voire si nous naissons tous pollués. A cette question choc, les réponses que l'on a pu entendre à l'Assemblée nationale sont très contrastées. Pour le professeur William Dab, le directeur général de la Santé, «nous passons d'un état d'oubli et de déni à un état d'inquiétude – peut-être excessive. (...) Mais, une chose est sûre, nous sommes face à une incertitude scientifique forte. Cinq sur six substances chimiques mises sur le marché ne sont pas évaluées». Or, il en existe des dizaines de milliers. «Reste à savoir quelle est la probabilité avec laquelle ces dangers se manifesteront dans les populations».


En revanche, pour le cancérologue Dominique Belpomme, président de l'association Artac (Association pour la recherche thérapeutique anticancéreuse) et instigateur en mai dernier de l'«appel de Paris» contre la pollution chimique, la cause est entendue. «25% des cancers sont liés au tabagisme, mais 75% à des facteurs environnementaux qu'il reste néanmoins à déterminer. Mais c'est une quasi-certitude, l'environnement est impliqué, à 10% via les virus, à 10% via les rayonnements et à 55% via les produits chimiques». Une assertion qui fait bondir Catherine Hill, épidémiologiste à l'Institut national du cancer. «On ne peut pas déclarer qu'un quart des cancers sont dus au tabac et les trois quarts à l'environnement. C'est oublier le facteur génétique. C'est oublier aussi le fait que de très nombreux cancers surviennent sans que l'on en connaisse les causes.»


En dehors du cancer, d'autres maladies sont liées à des modifications de l'environnement, tout particulièrement chez l'enfant. A commencer par l'asthme et les allergies qui ont doublé depuis une vingtaine d'années dans les pays industrialisés. «La pollution atmosphérique liée au trafic routier générateur de particules fines issues des moteurs Diesel augmente la réaction inflammatoire des bronches, caractéristique de la maladie asthmatique», précise le Pr André Denjean (hôpital Robert-Debré, Paris), spécialiste en physiologie, tout en ajoutant qu'«il ne faut pas occulter la nocivité du tabagisme passif pour les enfants. C'est même le premier des contaminants aériens».


Le Pr Franck Comhaire, spécialiste en endocrinologie et en andrologie à l'université de Gand, s'intéresse, lui, tout particulièrement à l'infécondité masculine évaluée à partir de l'examen des spermatozoïdes (mobilité et qualité morphologique) des donneurs de sperme. A l'issue de ces analyses, il a montré que le pourcentage des jeunes hommes des Flandres risquant d'avoir des difficultés pour procréer n'a cessé de s'accroître depuis la fin des années 70, passant de 1,6% à 9% en vingt-cinq ans. Il a également mis en évidence une différence de qualité morphologique des spermatozoïdes, selon l'habitat. «A notre grand étonnement, celle des jeunes hommes vivant à la campagne, à Peer, était moins bonne et leur taux de testostérone était également plus faible que celle de jeunes citadins d'Anvers», analyse-t-il. «La concentration de DDT, pesticide illégal, employé dans les jardins potagers à la campagne pourrait expliquer cette situation», commente-t-il.


Pour le Dr Patrick Levy, médecin conseil à l'UIC (Union des industries chimiques), et pour Jean-Charles Bosquet, directeur général de l'UIPP (Union des industries de la protection des plantes), les analyses sont très différentes. «Le secteur chimique subit de nombreuses attaques dont les fondements scientifiques sont tout à fait contestables», martèle le Dr Levy, qui se dit fier de ne pas avoir signé l'appel de Paris. «Aucune preuve scientifique ne permet de conclure que l'exposition prolongée à des substances synthétiques est à l'origine de l'augmentation de l'incidence des cancers.» Analyse assez similaire du côté de Jean-Charles Bosquet. «Non aux campagnes de désinformation qui entretiennent une confusion entre soupçon et risque avéré. Le principe de précaution ne doit pas être appliqué sous la pression des seules présomptions.»


Thierry Michelon, spécialiste de la gestion des risques des milieux à la Direction générale de la santé, est formel. «Les pouvoirs publics ne communiquent pas sur les sujets santé-environnement alors qu'ils disposent pourtant de millions d'informations.» S'interrogeant sur cette difficulté à communiquer sur de «l'incertain», il souligne aussi que «les questions soulevées par la population sont complexes».

Même analyse du côté du directeur de l'Institut de veille sanitaire (INVS), Gilles Brücker. «Nous ne pouvons pas inventer des informations dont nous ne disposons pas. Aujourd'hui, par exemple, nous ne savons pas totalement mesurer l'impact de l'émission de dioxines sur les populations qui vivent près des incinérateurs d'ordures ménagères. Osons le reconnaître, nous ne savons à l'heure actuelle que penser des taux de dioxines.»


Il y a urgence à recueillir plus de données fiables et sur de longues périodes. Comme par exemple l'initiative de l'INVS de mettre en place le suivi de 10 000 à 20 000 enfants, de la préconception à l'âge adulte, afin de déterminer les répercussions à long terme d'éventuelles expositions à différents polluants (étude EFESE). «Mais agir, c'est aussi se poser la question de la nécessaire réorganisation des autorités sanitaires – quatre ministères sont concernés mais ce sont moins de dix personnes», déplore le directeur général de la Santé. «Nous manquons de toxicologues. Nous manquons d'épidémiologistes. Nous manquons de connaissances et nous manquons de recul», réagit André Aschieri, vice-président de l'AFFSSE, l'Agence française de sécurité sanitaire environnementale. «La culture de l'environnement ne doit pas se limiter à de l'information. Elle doit aussi se traduire par des actes.»
http://www.lefigaro.fr/sciences/20041221.FIG0258.html

Mobile Phone Radiation Harms DNA, New Study Finds
Mon Dec 20,11:38 AM ET

MUNICH/AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Radio waves from mobile phones harm body cells and damage DNA in laboratory conditions, according to a new study majority-funded by the European Union (news - web sites), researchers said on Monday.

The so-called Reflex study, conducted by 12 research groups in seven European countries, did not prove that mobile phones are a risk to health but concluded that more research is needed to see if effects can also be found outside a lab.

The $100 billion a year mobile phone industry asserts that there is no conclusive evidence of harmful effects as a result of electromagnetic radiation.

About 650 million mobile phones are expected to be sold to consumers this year, and over 1.5 billion people around the world use one.

The research project, which took four years and which was coordinated by the German research group Verum, studied the effect of radiation on human and animal cells in a laboratory.

After being exposed to electromagnetic fields that are typical for mobile phones, the cells showed a significant increase in single and double-strand DNA breaks. The damage could not always be repaired by the cell. DNA carries the genetic material of an organism and its different cells.

"There was remaining damage for future generation of cells," said project leader Franz Adlkofer.

This means the change had procreated. Mutated cells are seen as a possible cause of cancer.

The radiation used in the study was at levels between a Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) of between 0.3 and 2 watts per kilogram. Most phones emit radio signals at SAR levels of between 0.5 and 1 W/kg.

SAR is a measure of the rate of radio energy absorption in body tissue, and the SAR limit recommended by the International Commission of Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection is 2 W/kg.

The study also measured other harmful effects on cells.

Because of the lab set-up, the researchers said the study did not prove any health risks. But they added that "the genotoxic and phenotypic effects clearly require further studies ... on animals and human volunteers."

Adlkofer advised against the use of a mobile phone when an alternative fixed line phone was available, and recommended the use of a headset connected to a cellphone whenever possible.

"We don't want to create a panic, but it is good to take precautions," he said, adding that additional research could take another four or five years.

Previous independent studies into the health effects of mobile phone radiation have found it may have some effect on the human body, such as heating up body tissue and causing headaches and nausea, but no study that could be independently repeated has proved that radiation had permanent harmful effects.

None of the world's top six mobile phone vendors could immediately respond to the results of the study.

In a separate announcement in Hong Kong, where consumers tend to spend more time talking on a mobile phone than in Europe, a German company called G-Hanz introduced a new type of mobile phone which it claimed had no harmful radiation, as a result of shorter bursts of the radio signal.



(Additional reporting by Doug Young in Hong Kong)
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=571&ncid=751&e=3&u=/nm/20041220/hl_nm/tech_mobilephone_health_dc

j'ai deja commence a changer a inox....
(mais merde.. j'ai toute une collection neuve de casseroles avec du teflon que je n'ai meme pas encore utilise.... pfff )

U.S. Officials Accuse DuPont of Concealing Teflon Ingredient's Health Risk

January 18, 2005 — By Michael Hawthorne, Chicago Tribune

PARKERSBURG, W. Va. — More than 50 years after DuPont started producing Teflon near this Ohio River town, federal officials are accusing the company of hiding information suggesting that a chemical used to make the popular stick- and stain-resistant coating might cause cancer, birth defects and other ailments.

Environmental regulators are particularly alarmed because scientists are finding perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, in the blood of people worldwide and it takes years for the chemical to leave the body. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reported last week that exposure even to low levels of PFOA could be harmful.

With virtually no government oversight, PFOA has been used since the early 1950s in the manufacture of non-stick cookware, rain-repellent clothing and hundreds of other products. The EPA says at this point there is no reason for consumers to stop using those items. But so many unresolved questions remain about PFOA that the agency is asking an outside panel of experts to assess the risks.

"The fact that a chemical with those non-stick properties nonetheless accumulates in people was not expected," said Charles Auer, director of the EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

Critics say the lack of knowledge about PFOA and related chemicals--called perfluorinated compounds--exposes a system where environmental regulators largely rely on companies that profit from industrial chemicals to sound alarms about their safety. Questions about potential effects on human health and the environment often aren't raised until years after a chemical is introduced to the marketplace.

The long and mostly secret history of PFOA began to unravel down the road from DuPont's Teflon plant in a West Virginia courtroom, where a Parkersburg family began asking questions in the late 1990s about a mysterious wasting disease killing their cattle.

Jim and Della Tennant suspected the culprit might lurk in a froth-covered creek that meandered past a DuPont landfill near the Teflon plant before spilling into their pasture. Their lawsuit ended with a monetary settlement that avoided assigning blame for the dead cows, but the legal battle uncovered a trove of industry documents about PFOA.

One document detailed how DuPont scientists started warning company executives to avoid human contact with PFOA as early as 1961. Industry tests later determined the chemical accumulates in the body, doesn't break down in the environment and causes ailments in animals, including cancer, liver damage and birth defects.

Recent studies have found that PFOA levels in some children are in the range of those that caused developmental problems in rats.

"We're not very popular with some of the folks over at the plant," said Della Tennant, who lives in a subdivision known as DuPont Manor, a sign of the firm's importance in this corner of Appalachia. "But I don't know how you could sleep at night not telling people about this contamination."

If found guilty of illegally withholding information by an administrative law judge, DuPont could face more than $300 million in fines--about $100 million more than the company is estimated to make each year from products manufactured with PFOA.

DuPont already has agreed to pay up to $345 million to settle another lawsuit filed on behalf of 60,000 West Virginians and Ohioans whose drinking water is contaminated with PFOA. Much of what the public is starting to learn about the chemical comes from industry documents submitted during court proceedings.

Those documents also prompted the EPA's ongoing review of health risks, which could lead to rules that limit or phase out the use of PFOA.

Company officials say they share the government's concerns about the presence of PFOA in human blood but contend they did nothing wrong and that the chemical affects animals differently than people.

"DuPont remains confident that based on over 50 years of use and experience with PFOA there is no evidence to indicate that it harms human health or the environment," said company spokesman R. Clifton Webb.

The company's Teflon plant--a sprawling complex of towers, smokestacks and metal buildings--rises above the flood plain in a sharp bend of the Ohio River. The area has become something of a makeshift laboratory as scientists scramble to learn more about the chemical behind world-famous brand names such as Teflon, Stainmaster and Gore-Tex.

Since 1976, federal law has required companies to disclose what they know about any risks posed by toxic chemicals. The EPA says independent efforts to figure out how people are exposed to PFOA and what it might do to them should have started by the early 1980s, when DuPont discovered an employee had passed the chemical to her fetus.

Among other things, the EPA accuses DuPont of failing to notify the agency when two of five babies born to plant employees in 1981 had eye and face defects similar to those found in newborn rats exposed to PFOA.

DuPont also has known since at least 1984 that water wells in West Virginia and Ohio were contaminated with PFOA, according to company records. But people who rely on the wells for drinking water didn't find out until 2002, when internal DuPont documents started pouring into court.

"Someone made a conscious decision to expose us to this without telling us," said Robert Griffin, general manager of the Little Hocking Water Association, which supplies drinking water to 12,000 Ohio customers from wells across the river from the Teflon plant.

"If you wanted people to be lab rats for such a long period," Griffin said, "nobody would ever allow it."

Company lawyers contend DuPont wasn't obligated to share the information because PFOA doesn't meet the legal definition of a toxic chemical that poses a "substantial risk."

DuPont documents, though, show company officials were worried the public would learn that PFOA had contaminated local water supplies. One benefit of settling the lawsuit over the Tennant family's dead cattle, company attorneys advised in an internal e-mail, would be preventing the release of information about PFOA in the water.

"Biggest potential downside: plant contamination issues surface, case becomes class action," DuPont attorney Bernard J. Reilly concluded in a March 2000 email outlining tradeoffs if the company chose to fight the Tennants in court.

DuPont says it has reduced air and water emissions of PFOA by 90 percent at the Teflon plant. Yet levels of the chemical in water wells on the Ohio side of the river are the highest recorded to date, according to tests last fall.

"Drinking water data in possession of DuPont 'reasonably supports the conclusion' that PFOA 'presents a substantial risk of injury to health,'" the EPA wrote in an October filing.

Scientists are just now starting to learn how much of the chemical is in people's blood and how far it has traveled from the handful of sites where PFOA is manufactured or used--information that highlights new challenges for scientists and regulators.

Substances added to food are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration and must undergo rigorous testing before their use. But critics say that with industrial chemicals the EPA is limited by laws that make it difficult to order testing.

The agency reported in 1998 that it had no toxicity data or "safe level" for 43 percent of the 2,800 chemicals produced in volumes of 1 million pounds a year or more.

"It borders on the ridiculous," said Tim Kropp, a senior scientist with the nonprofit Environmental Working Group, which has helped draw the EPA's attention to PFOA and other compounds. "There is no way consumers can be knowledgeable about all of these chemicals. That's why we need the government to ensure they are safe."

The EPA's case against DuPont has gradually evolved over four years as industry concerns about PFOA came to light.

Agency officials initially were worried about a related perfluorinated chemical in Scotchgard, the stain-resistant coating pioneered by 3M. Regulators started focusing on PFOA after the EPA pressured 3M in 2000 to stop making the compounds, prompted by research that found the chemicals in human blood and in foods such as apples, bread, green beans and ground beef.

3M had been the chief supplier of PFOA to DuPont, which now makes the chemical at a plant in North Carolina.

DuPont announced last week that a new study of more than 1,000 workers at the Teflon plant found virtually no health effects from exposure to PFOA. Some workers were found to have higher-than-expected cholesterol levels.

Tests on lab animals have found links to illnesses including liver and testicular cancer, reduced weight of newborns and immune-system suppression. The findings concern EPA officials because rats flush the chemical out of their bodies within days, while PFOA stays in human blood for at least four years.

As a result, the EPA says, the potential for human health effects cannot be ruled out.

"Low-level exposure to people over time produces blood concentrations that may be of concern," Auer said. "As time goes on and the opportunity for exposure continues, those blood concentrations could move to even higher levels."

Scientists still aren't sure how PFOA is spreading around the planet. While DuPont says the manufacturing process leaves only trace amounts of the chemical in non-stick cookware and other goods, some researchers think that as Teflon products age they release chemicals that then break down into PFOA.

The compound also is released into air and water during manufacturing. Studies that have found PFOA in salmon in the Great Lakes, polar bears in the Arctic and dolphins in the Mediterranean Sea suggest the chemical travels easily through the atmosphere.

Another theory the EPA and academic researchers are testing is that other perfluorinated chemicals, known as telomers, break down to PFOA. Made by DuPont and other companies, telomers are used in stain- and grease-repellent coatings for carpets, clothing and fast-food packaging.

Researchers studying PFOA levels in the Great Lakes think that when carpets and clothing treated with telomers are cleaned, some of the chemicals wash into sewage treatment plants that are not equipped to remove them before wastewater is dumped into lakes and rivers. Landfill runoff could be another source.

Last spring, former DuPont chemist Glenn R. Evers told a lawyer for people living near the DuPont plant that the chemicals can be absorbed from french fry boxes, microwave popcorn bags and hamburger wrappers, among other items, according to a partial transcript filed by the EPA. The company responded by describing Evers as a disgruntled former employee with little direct knowledge of PFOA.

In Parkersburg, some are reluctant to question one of the community's leading benefactors, even after the PFOA contamination became public. With more than 2,000 employees, the Teflon plant is the largest manufacturer in a valley lined with plastics factories and refineries, a hub of economic strength in a region plagued by chronic unemployment.

"We're not ignoring it, but you've got to look at all the good things they do," said George Kellenberger, president of the Mid-Ohio Valley Chamber of Commerce.

But others drawn to the area by the promise of a good job and the rolling, pine-covered hills aren't so sure.

By the time Matt and Melinda McDowell built their dream home a few miles north of the Teflon plant, DuPont had known for more than a decade that the local water supply was contaminated with PFOA.

Like thousands of others in the valley, the McDowells recently received a letter informing them that DuPont promises to install treatment equipment for six area water systems under terms of the recent legal settlement. But they worry about their two sons, ages 8 and 12, who have drunk and breathed PFOA for most of their lives.

"We are subjecting our children and ourselves to a giant science experiment," Matt McDowell said. "We don't know what it's doing to us. But the bottom line is it doesn't belong in drinking water and it definitely doesn't belong in our bodies."

Source: Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News
http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=6949

Ole a écrit:

j'ai deja commence a changer a inox....
(mais merde.. j'ai toute une collection neuve de casseroles avec du teflon que je n'ai meme pas encore utilise.... pfff )

et qui dit que l'inox c'est pas pire ?
...pfff je sais pas c'est comme l'amiante, on la remplace par un truc tout aussi dangereux

et qui dit qu'on se fait pas manipuler par les commerçants, les fournisseurs de matière première, les gouvernements ?

c'était juste mon coup de gueule contre l'avalanche de nouvelles alarmistes

bien... l'inox c'est comme le fer, un truc qui a ete utilise depuis des generations et qui existe de maniere plutot naturelle dans l'environment. Par contre le teflon c'est un polymere (produit totallement artificiel, cree par l'homme). Voila la difference....
C'est comme comparer "le miel" et "l'aspartame" ..... tu vois? l'une est naturel et l'autre est fabrique...

Attention avec les boissons "sans sucre" .. .les trucs comme le diet coke ou diet pepsi etc... elles contiennent de l'aspartame et des etudes independants dissent que l'aspartame cause de problemes de sante:

http://allergies.about.com/cs/aspartame/a/bluc_mgold.htm


Et vala.. Michael J Fox a le Parkinsons (et oui.. si jeune et deja malade) ... et vala, lui il bois que le diet Pepsi depuis des annees!!! :

http://www.rense.com/general24/sugarfreemichael.htm


Bon... alors... il y a rien de mieux que l'eau pure :s190:
(ouff.. peut etre que c'est pour ca que les Americains ont vote pour Bush? avec tous les trucs qu'ils mangent qui attaquent le cerveau...... )

euh.... on n'ajoute du fluor dans l'eau en Europe hein?

Potentially Harmful Fluoride Levels In Some Instant Teas
Washington University School Of Medicine
1-26-5


ST. LOUIS, Mo -- Instant tea, one of the most popular drinks in the United States, may be a source of harmful levels of fluoride, researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis report. The researchers found that some regular strength preparations contain as much as 6.5 parts per million (ppm) of fluoride, well over the 4 ppm maximum allowed in drinking water by the Environmental Protection Agency and 2.4 ppm permitted in bottled water and beverages by the Food and Drug Administration.

The discovery stemmed from the diagnostic investigation of a middle-aged woman suffering from spine pain attributed to hyper-dense bones. Testing for the cause of her symptoms revealed the patient had high levels of fluoride in her urine. She then disclosed a high consumption of iced tea--claiming to drink one to two gallons of double-strength instant tea throughout the day--which led the researchers to test for fluoride content in several brands of instant tea available on grocery store shelves.

Each of the teas was tested as a regular-strength preparation in fluoride-free water, and each contained fluoride, with amounts ranging from 1.0 to 6.5 parts per million. The study is reported in the January issue of The American Journal of Medicine.

"The tea plant is known to accumulate fluoride from the soil and water. Our study points to the need for further investigation of the fluoride content of teas," says Michael Whyte, M.D., professor of medicine, pediatrics and genetics. "We don't know how much variation there is from brand to brand and year to year."

In many communities in the United States, fluoride is added to drinking water to help prevent tooth decay. However, the Public Health Service indicates that the fluoride concentration should not exceed 1.2 ppm.

Physicians have been aware that ingestion of high levels of fluoride cause bone-forming cells to lay down extra skeletal tissue, increasing bone density but also bone brittleness. The resulting disease, called skeletal fluorosis, can manifest in bone pain, calcification of ligaments, bone spurs, fused vertebrae and difficulty in moving joints.

"When fluoride gets into your bones, it stays there for years, and there is no established treatment for skeletal fluorosis," Whyte says. "No one knows if you can fully recover from it."

Americans are exposed to fluoride not only through fluoridated water but increasingly through fluoridated toothpastes and other dental preparations. Pesticides, Teflon®-coated cookware, chewing tobacco, some wines and certain sparkling mineral waters are more unusual sources of excess exposure. Until now, instant tea had not been recognized as a significant source of fluoride.

According to Whyte, the findings could aid in the diagnosis and treatment of patients who have achiness in their bones. In the future, doctors should ask such patients about their tea consumption.

Contact Gwen Ericson
ericsong@wustl.eduericsong@wustl.edu

Washington University School of Medicine
http://medinfo.wustl.edu/

mmmh pas dans celle en Suisse, suffisament pure, et de toutes façons y'a du fluor dans notre dentifrice...

un peu trop costaud comme anglais pour que je comprenne bien :t1528:

suffering from spine pain attributed to hyper-dense bones

elles sont mal aux os ?

Moi c'est ça qui me fout en rogne ce matin

Restrictions apportées à un brevet sur un gène du cancer du sein

BERNE - Les restrictions au brevet de la société américaine Myriad sur un gène du cancer du sein imposées au niveau européen sont un "succès partiel" pour le PS. Le parti en a profité pour rappeler son opposition au brevetage du vivant.

Le Parti socialiste faisait partie, aux côtés notamment de Greenpeace, de l'Institut Curie et du gouvernement néerlandais, des parties qui ont contesté devant l'Office européen des brevets l'octroi à Myriad d'un brevet pour l'ensemble du gène BRCA 1. Il était représenté à Munich par la biologiste Florianne Koechlin et le juriste Fritz Dolder.

Dans sa décision rendue jeudi, l'office a fortement réduit la portée de la requête de Myriad. Des 30 demandes de brevetage, seules trois ont été accordées.

Pour le PS, il s'agit d'un succès partiel. L'octroi d'un brevet pour l'ensemble du gène aurait soumis ses porteurs à une large dépendance face aux velleités commerciales de Myriad. La société réclamait des droits sur les différentes mutations génétiques typiques des cas héréditaires de cancer du sein mais aussi sur le gène dans sa forme non modifiée.

Or, selon des scientifiques, le gène BRCA 1 serait aussi lié au cancer du gros intestin et de la prostate, et à d'autres fonctions métaboliques des cellules humaines. Accorder un brevet sur un gène revient à donner à une société le contrôle de son utilisation, note le PS. Et de critiquer la volonté de Myriad d'empêcher les autres laboratoires de mener des tests sur le gène en question.

Ce monopole provoquerait une hausse des prix. En Suisse, le coût d'un dépistage du cancer du sein passerait de quelque 1400 francs à plus de 6000 francs. Le brevetage du gène pourrait aussi réduire la qualité du traitement et limiter le développement de tests améliorés.

21.01.2005 15:12 ATS

ils voulaient brevetter le gène du cancer ?!?

Mina a écrit:

mmmh pas dans celle en Suisse, suffisament pure, et de toutes façons y'a du fluor dans notre dentifrice...

un peu trop costaud comme anglais pour que je comprenne bien :t1528:

suffering from spine pain attributed to hyper-dense bones

elles sont mal aux os ?

euh... plus que ca... c'est la douleur qui te vient a partir de la colonne vertebrale (spine = colonne vertebrale) donc tu vois.. c'est un peu comme les maux du nerve sciatique... peut etre tu as ecoute parler de cela? Donc ce qu'il dit la c'est qu'ils sont mal a la colonne vertebrale a cause des os hyper denses....

Citation :

Moi c'est ça qui me fout en rogne ce matin

Restrictions apportées à un brevet sur un gène du cancer du sein


ils voulaient brevetter le gène du cancer ?!?

Ah les salos! oui oui!! ils ont essaie de breveter le gene du "cancer du sein" mais voila que... on sait que ce meme gene cause d'autres cancers. On connait si peu a ce moment en genetique que c'est fort possible que ce gene qu'ils voulaient breveter c'etait le gene de cancer partout.. et pas seulement du sein..

Ah mais les brevets c'est la grande mode aux usa a ce moment !!
t'as pas ecoute toutes les histoires ridicules ??? tu peux breveter tout et n'importe quoi qui n'a pas encore ete brevete...
Il me semble que Mr Gates a brevete "cliquer sur un bouton" de la souris
tu te rends compte?
moi je me dis que si personne a encore brevete "respirer" je vais le faire!!! je vais devenir millionaire car tout le monde "qui respire" va devoir me paier des royalties :s190:

Scientists baffled as autism cases soar in state, with no relief in sight
Treatment centers, schools inundated by kids needing help
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/02/04/MNGH2B60I41.DTL

(Je vais informer la Seza de ca... :s190: )

Des dents mal brossées et l'arrêt cardiaque guette
Des bactéries buccales pourraient causer l'inflammation des artères.

Par Julie LASTERADE
mardi 08 février 2005 (Liberation - 06:00)

après le cholestérol, le diabète, la nicotine et certains facteurs génétiques, les cardiologues ont un nouvel ennemi : la plaque dentaire. Des chercheurs de la Columbia University (New York, Etats-Unis) viennent de montrer qu'un bon brossage de dents peut réduire le risque de maladies cardio-vasculaires et publient leurs résultats dans la dernière édition de la revue Circulation.

Germes. «Pour la première fois, ils montrent que des germes de la flore buccale constituent un facteur de risque associé à une épaisseur plus importante de la paroi artérielle», explique Pierre-Marie Girard, chef du service des maladies infectieuses de l'hôpital Saint-Antoine (Paris). Les artères qui se bouchent pourraient donc aussi être le résultat d'un phénomène inflammatoire, et pas seulement mécanique comme le dépôt de produits toxiques qui rigidifient.

Les chercheurs américains ont prélevé et mesuré le taux de bactéries présentes dans la bouche de plus de 600 personnes sans antécédents cardiaques. Ils ont ensuite mesuré l'épaisseur de leurs artères et démontré que les patients avec le plus fort taux de certains microbes étaient également ceux avec les parois artérielles les plus épaisses. Parmi les germes retrouvés, Porphyromonas gingivalis et Treponema denticola. «Ce sont des germes environnementaux», continue Pierre-Marie Girard. Pas méchants, «à l'origine d'aucune maladie» mais de quelques infections de gencives. Et qui se nichent entre les dents et les gencives, avec une préférence pour les racines qui se déchaussent. Un mauvais brossage de dents et ils pullulent. C'est à ce moment-là qu'ils peuvent devenir dangereux.

«Au prochain brossage, ils peuvent passer dans la circulation sanguine», explique Girard. Le système immunitaire les reconnaît comme étrangers et déclenche une réaction inflammatoire localement, au niveau des artères. Elles gonflent et s'épaississent. Dans ce cas-là, «la plaque artérielle n'est pas inerte, traduit Pierre-Marie Girard, ce n'est pas un dépôt de graisse toxique, c'est l'objet d'un processus inflammatoire. Peut-il à lui seul être le facteur déclenchant d'un phénomène aigu », de type infarctus? Les chercheurs n'ont pas encore répondu à la question. Mais ils ont découvert un nouveau facteur de risque des maladies cardio-vasculaires et de l'athérosclérose, indépendant, «qui ne remet pas en cause les autres», insiste Girard.

Surveillance. Seulement, pour l'instant, les cardiologues surveillent le tabagisme, l'hypertension, le diabète ou le cholestérol de leurs patients, «mais en routine, personne ne prend en compte la dimension infectieuse» de l'athérosclérose. Si leurs résultats étaient confirmés, les chercheurs de Columbia considèrent que «les problèmes d'athérosclérose pourraient être réduits grâce à des contrôles des maladies gingivales et à des antibiotiques».
http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=273982

Obese Moms Risk Having Babies With Birth Defects
By Andre Picard
The Globe and Mail
2-9-5


The more overweight a woman is before getting pregnant, the greater her risk of having a baby with a severe birth defect, according to new Canadian research. The study, published in the medical journal Obstetrics and Gynecology, also found that fortification of refined flour with folic acid, a public-health measure that has sharply reduced neural-tube defects such as spina bifida, has had a far lesser impact on the babies of obese women."All weight groups benefit from folic-acid fortification, but women in the highest-weight groups benefit the least," Dr. Joel Ray, a clinician-scientist at St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto, said in an interview. He said there are many possible explanations for this phenomenon.

First, women who are overweight or obese can be prediabetic, and diabetes is a risk factor for birth defects. Second, it is possible that the heavier a woman is, the more folic acid she needs. And third, women who are obese are more likely to be poor, have less education and, as a result, less likely to take multivitamins containing folic acid.

(It is recommended that all women of childbearing age -- whether they are trying to get pregnant or not -- get at least 0.4 milligrams of folic acid daily. Folic acid is a synthetic version of folate, which is found in leafy greens, legumes such as lentils and kidney beans, and orange juice. It is added to products made with refined flour, such as white bread and white pasta, and to cornmeal. Most multivitamins contain 0.4 mg of folic acid, as well.)

Since fortification began in 1998, the incidence of neural-tube defects in Canada has fallen by half, with some conditions, such as spina bifida, falling 75 per cent; the incidence of the common childhood cancer neuroblastoma has dropped by 60 per cent.

Because people who are obese often eat a diet rich in starchy foods, such as white bread, pasta and baked goods, researchers initially believed that fortification would greatly benefit obese women who became pregnant.

But the new study suggests that the damage wrought on the fetus by fat outweighs the benefits of folic acid.

Still, despite the clear link between being overweight and neural-tube defects, Dr. Ray said pregnant women should not diet or lose weight because that risks doing more harm than good. The neural tube, which later becomes the baby's spinal cord, spine and brain, forms in the first 28 days after conception, a time when most women don't yet know they are pregnant.

"Weight loss during pregnancy will not make a positive difference," he said. There is also no evidence that weight gain during pregnancy increases risk. Rather, Dr. Ray said, the research should serve as a reminder that maintaining a healthy weight and healthy diet has many health benefits, to both a woman and her baby.

The study showed that a woman weighing 85 kilograms (187 pounds) has more than three times the risk of a having a baby with a neural-tube defect as a woman weighing 52 kilos (115 pounds). Or, put another way, for every 10 kilos of extra weight she is carrying, a woman's risk increases 20 per cent.

The study was conducted using records from all Ontario women who underwent maternal screening during their pregnancies between 1994 and 2000.

There are three principal neural-tube defects: spina bifida, when the spinal cord and backbone don't develop properly; anencephaly, when the brain doesn't fully develop; and encephalocele, when a portion of the brain protrudes from the skull.

© Copyright 2005 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/ealth/

Enquête épidémiologique : plus de la moitié de la population adulte française souffre d'une maladie parodontale

PARIS, 11 février (APM Santé) - Plus de la moitié (51,7%) de la population adulte française souffre d'une maladie parodontale, selon une étude épidémiologique présentée jeudi à Paris lors d'une conférence de presse organisée par l'UFSBD (Union Française pour la Santé Bucco-Dentaire).

La maladie parodontale est liée à la présence de bactéries au niveau de la plaque dentaire, qui touche tout d'abord la gencive puis le tissu osseux en l'absence de traitement. En dehors des facteurs environnementaux (comme le stress et le tabac) et des facteurs génétiques, les affections cardiovasculaires et le diabète sont souvent incriminés.

Le diabète de type 2, non insulino-dépendant, touche en effet une population sédentaire souvent obèse, aux mauvaises habitudes alimentaires. Comme l'espérance de vie augmente, le nombre de personnes atteintes est en nette progression. Cette pathologie expose à de nombreuses complications, en particulier micro-vasculaires, pouvant toucher le parodonte.

Afin de mieux connaître la situation européenne dans ce domaine, une étude épidémiologique a été lancée par l'UFSBD, avec l'appui méthodologique du Centre technique d'appui et de formation des centres des examens de santé (Cetaf). Cette étude a porté sur 2.114 adultes âgés de 35 à 65 ans, ayant bénéficié d'un examen médical dans l'un des centres d'examens de santé (29 sur la centaine répartie sur l'ensemble du territoire national), entre septembre 2002 et juin 2003.

Les objectifs d'une telle initiative sont triples :

1. mesurer l'impact de la santé parodontale dans la population adulte ;
2. mieux cerner les relations entre la maladie parodontale et les maladies non transmissibles (cardiovasculaires, diabète...) ;
3. justifier la promotion de la médecine parodontale et intégrer la santé dentaire dans la santé en général.

Selon les résultats, 51,7% des participants ont présenté une inflammation modérée étendue à 12,5% des sites parodontaux et 17,4% des saignements spontanés, sur un nombre de sites cependant très faible (1,7%). Les symptômes les plus sévères concernent les hommes de 60-64 ans (21,1%).

Par ailleurs, 87,2% des adultes présentent de la plaque dentaire sur 30,3% des sites parodontaux et 20% des quantités suffisantes pour être visibles à l'oeil nu lors de l'examen clinique, sur un nombre de sites limités (2%). Il existe également une corrélation entre la présence de bactéries et le symptôme gingival précurseur éventuel d'une lésion irréversible du parodonte.

Tabac et diabète : deux facteurs prédominants

Il existe 5 facteurs de risque associés à la maladie parodontale : l'âge, le sexe (les hommes étant plus touchés que les femmes), le diabète, le tabac et les maladies cardiovasculaires.

La consommation de tabac représente un facteur prioritaire de l'aggravation de la perte d'attache, même si les anciens fumeurs présentent un risque moins élevé, bien que restant significatif.

En outre, les personnes diabétiques souffrent d'une inflammation gingivale et d'une perte d'attache gingivale plus importantes et ce, à niveau d'hygiène buccale équivalent à celui de la population non diabétique. Le diabète potentialiserait également les lésions du parodonte.

Un risque de décès cardiovasculaire multiplié par 4

Dans cette étude épidémiologique, le risque cardiovasculaire a fait l'objet d'une analyse spécifique en collaboration avec l'hôpital européen George Pompidou. De fait, il a été mis en évidence que le risque de décès lié à une maladie cardiovasculaire augmentait au fur et à mesure de la gravité de la parodontite.

Les personnes les plus atteintes par cette affection (19,7% des cas) présentent ainsi un risque de décès par maladie cardiovasculaire à 10 ans multiplié par 4 par rapport à celles indemnes de toute affection du parodonte.

La physiopathologie de cette association (indépendante de l'âge) implique la présence d'une inflammation chronique liée à la parodontite, ainsi qu'une corrélation positive entre la numération des globules blancs et la présence de cette anomalie.

Il apparaît désormais primordial pour l'UFSBD de faire connaître ces résultats aux professionnels de santé et au grand public, d'élaborer des recommandations, de sensibiliser la population dans la mesure où près de 40% ne consultent pas de dentiste, de former les professionnels concernés et de réfléchir à une nomenclature relative à la prise en charge des soins parodontaux.
http://www.i-dietetique.com/?action=articles&page=enquete-epidemiologique-plus-de-la-moitie-de-la-population-adulte-francaise-souffre-d-une-maladie-parodontale&id=2232

Des substances chimiques dans certains parfums
Agence France-Presse

Bruxelles

Plusieurs parfums et eaux de toilette connus sur le marché contiennent des substances chimiques qui pourraient se révéler «néfastes pour la santé», affirme une étude publiée jeudi par l'organisation écologiste Greenpeace.

Selon cette étude, plusieurs parfums contiennent en effet «des substances chimiques qui risquent de pénétrer dans l'organisme, se dégradent difficilement et peuvent avoir des effets néfastes sur la santé».

Le rapport s'appuie sur l'analyse par un laboratoire néerlandais «de deux groupes de substances chimiques artificielles potentiellement dangereuses - les esters de phtalates et les muscs de synthèse - dans 36 parfums connus».

«Les résultats montrent que les phtalates et les muscs synthétiques sont présents dans pratiquement toutes les marques testées», note le rapport (www.vigitox.org).

Le diéthyl phtalate (DEP), très utilisé en cosmétique comme solvant notamment, a été identifié dans 34 parfums sur 36.

Les niveaux les plus élevés sont relevés dans Eternity pour femmes (Calvin Klein) à 22.299 mg/kg soit 2,2% du poids, Iris Blue (Melvita) à 11.189 mg/kg soit 1,1% du poids et Le Mâle de Jean-Paul Gaultier à 9.884 mg/kg soit presque 1%.

Selon Greenpeace, «des études ont montré que le DEP pénètre rapidement dans la peau et se répand dans tout l'organisme après chaque contact». Il s'y transforme rapidement en monoéthyle de phtalate (MEP), «susceptible de modifier l'ADN des spermatozoïdes et de limiter la fonction pulmonaire chez l'homme», indique l'étude, reconnaissant toutefois que «les effets à long terme d'une telle exposition (...) ne sont pas encore bien compris».

Les quantités les plus élevées de muscs de synthèse (composés aromatiques utilisés à la place de muscs naturels), ont été trouvées dans Le Baiser du Dragon de Cartier (45.048 mg soit 4,5% du poids), Le Mâle de Gaultier (64.428 mg/kg soit 6,4%) et White Musc de The Body Shop à 94.069 mg/kg (9,4%).

Les muscs de synthèse peuvent s'accumuler dans les tissus vivants. Certains d'entre eux interfèrent avec le système hormonal chez les poissons, les amphibiens et les mammifères. Ils peuvent aussi exacerber l'exposition à d'autres substances toxiques, relève Greenpeace.

Le producteur du parfum Le Mâle, Beauté Prestige International, a indiqué à l'AFP qu'il «souhaitait étudier l'étude avant de réagir». Interrogée à Paris par l'AFP, la Fédération des industries de la parfumerie n'avait pas fait de commentaires jeudi soir.

L'exposition à un cocktail de substances chimiques dans la vie quotidienne est soupçonnée d'être responsable de l'augmentation du taux de cancer constatée dans les pays occidentaux, hors influence du tabac et de l'âge.

Greenpeace voit dans cette étude une nouvelle arme dans sa campagne pour durcir le projet de nouvelle législation européenne sur les produits chimiques, actuellement débattue au Parlement européen et au Conseil des ministres de l'UE. Le projet (REACH) est l'objet d'un intense lobbying des écologistes et des industriels.

Greenpeace réclame une «évaluation obligatoire des propriétés intrinsèques de toute substance chimique dangereuse et son remplacement, quand c'est possible, par une alternative plus sûre».



http://www.cyberpresse.ca/technosciences/article/article_complet.php?path=/technosciences/article/10/1,5296,0,022005,917251.php

Ole a écrit:

Les quantités les plus élevées de muscs de synthèse (composés aromatiques utilisés à la place de muscs naturels), ont été trouvées dans Le Baiser du Dragon de Cartier (45.048 mg soit 4,5% du poids), Le Mâle de Gaultier (64.428 mg/kg soit 6,4%) et White Musc de The Body Shop à 94.069 mg/kg (9,4%).

ah merde alors

en même temps le musc est tiré des glandes sexuelles de bouquetin de montagne (sauf erreur), j'imagine mal des cohortes d'employés de parfumeurs aller branler ces pauvres bestioles :s190:

:s190:

et oui.. ben, tout est synthetique... il faut se mefier quand meme (mieux vaut prevenir que guerir)..
t'as lu sur les allergies provoques pour les parfums de synthese qu'on utilise pour la maison aussi?? (apres lire tout ca je me demande ... quand meme, pourquoi avons nous besoins d'acheter ces trucs?! :s190: il y a des manieres naturelles de tuer les mauvaises odeurs .... )

et voila... il faut rechercher sur ce process qu'on utilise aujourd'hui pour faire des faux steaks a partir des morceaux de viande (des restes).
On prend tous les morceaux et on les colle ensemble avac un "meat binder" .... apres on decoupe le gross truc en tranches et le resultat ressemble a des steaks qu'on peut meme pas s'appercevoir qu'ils ne sont pas des vraies steaks mais des trucs reconstitues.....

Voila une petite liste de ce qu'ils utilissent pour coller la viande:

Citation :

0.5% trans-glutaminase, 2.5% sodium polyphosphate, 2.5% anhydrous sodium pyrophosphate, 2.0% sillicon dioxide, and 92.5% casein. Another example of a binding agent contains 75.0% protein (from milk and/or egg) and 25.0% calcium chloride and/or sodium chloride.
http://www.freshpatents.com/Method-of-producing-a-frozen-marinated-reconstituted-meat-product-dt20040826ptan20040166212.php

je ne sais pas.. mais je n'aime pas l'idee de manger ces trucs (surtout qu'il n'y a pas d'etudes sur ce qu'il font a notre corps... ces trucs ont ete fabriques pour "faire du fric", pas pour nous garder la sante!!

regarde les noms: glutaminase (euh.. les glutamates provoquent des problemes motores qui ressemblent a la maladie de parkinsons )... sillicon dioxide? euh... le nom ne me donne aucune confiance.... les chlorides (euh... j'ai souvent ecoute parler des chlorides comme cancerigenes...). Bref, mieux vaut rester sur le bio.... ou les appelations controles pour pouvoir savoir et controler nous memes ce qu'on mange!

je me demandais ce qui etait "casein" ... j'ai fait une petite recherche et je tombe sur des trucs foux!!

Citation :

80% of the protein in milk is casein. Casein is a powerful binder... a
polymer used to make plastics... and a glue that is better used to make
sturdy furniture or hold beer bottle labels in place. It is in
thousands of processed foods as a binder... as "something" caseinate.

Casein is a powerful allergen... a histamine that creates lots of
mucus. The only medicine in Olympic athlete Flo-Jo's body was Benedryl,
a power antihistamine she took to combat her last meal... pizza.

pour l'histoire de Flo Jo:
http://www.notmilk.com/deb/111598.html

Common Foods Laced With Chemical
By Andre Picard and Avis Favaro
The Globe and Mail
2-14-5


Everyday foods consumed by Canadians - such as salmon, ground beef, cheese and butter - are laced with chemical flame retardants, according to research commissioned by The Globe and Mail and CTV News.

In fact, the research found that Canadian foods are among the most contaminated with polybrominated diphenyl ethers in the world, with levels up to 1,000 times higher than those found in tests in European countries.

PBDEs are a class of about 25 chemicals that are used as flame retardants in foams, textiles and plastics. They are ubiquitous in modern homes, with the chemicals leeching out of furniture, rugs and electronic products, such as televisions and computers. It is not known exactly how PBDEs migrate from such products into human tissue, but they have been found in industrial sewage sludge, in wildlife and in fatty foods such as meat and fish.

It is unclear what impact the regular absorption of PBDEs has on human health. Nor have scientists established safe levels for the chemicals in humans.

But scientists do say that research conducted on animals - which suggests these chemicals can impair memory, cause learning disabilities and alter thyroid hormone levels - is disquieting and should raise red flags.

"These are persistent toxic chemicals... and certainly it is undesirable to have these toxic chemicals in our food supply," said Arnold Schecter, a professor of environmental sciences and public health at the University of Texas, who has done pioneering work on PBDEs.

Research done last year on a group of B.C. women found high levels of PBDEs in their breast milk, but the source was unclear.

"All of a sudden you find out you have something awful in your body and you wonder: 'Where is it coming from?'" said Erin McAllister, a Vancouver mother who took part in the study. "We all suspected it was coming from the food."

To find out, The Globe and Mail and CTV News commissioned an independent laboratory, Axys Analytical Services Ltd. of Sidney, B.C., to test 13 foods commonly consumed by Canadians.

Flame retardants were found in virtually all the foods, sometimes at relatively high levels. Farmed rainbow trout had levels of PBDEs of 3,638 parts per trillion and farmed Atlantic salmon 1,942 ppt. Sausage had 242 ppt and butter 384 ppt, while cheese had PBDEs levels of 23 ppt and milk 10 ppt. Only chicken had virtually undetectable levels. Environmental chemicals tend to accumulate in fat, so not surprisingly fattier foods had higher levels.

"Even though we don't know exactly the meaning of these levels for the health of children or adults... we think the smaller the amount, the safer it would be for people eating the food," Dr. Schecter said.

But Samuel Ben Rejeb, associate director of the bureau of chemical safety in the health products and food branch of Health Canada, said the level of PBDEs in the country's food supply has been closely monitored for years and there is no cause for alarm.

"The levels found in food are very low. They vary in parts per trillion and very low parts per billion - levels that in general were found to not pose a health risk for Canadians."

Dr. Ben Rejeb noted that while food is one of the ways people are exposed to PBDEs, it is not the only one and likely not the biggest source of exposure.

Dr. Schecter said that while it is easy to dismiss levels in food as insignificant, the chemicals do accumulate in the body. He said it's also likely PBDEs pose similar risks to human health as their chemical cousins, polychlorinated biphenyls. The use of PCBs was curtailed in the 1970s after they were found to cause birth defects, impair brain and memory functions, and increase the risk of some forms of cancers.

Many European countries have clamped down on the use of PBDEs in the past decade on the assumption that the chemicals are not good for humans.

Peter O'Toole, program director for the Bromine Science and Environmental Forum, the group that represents manufacturers of flame retardants, said PBDEs "have never been demonstrated to have any human or environmental effects. We're far below any level of potential risk to humans."

The benefits of adding these chemicals to household products and mitigating the impact of fires is well established, Mr. O'Toole said. (Fires claim about 400 lives a year in Canada; these rates have fallen since fire retardants became widespread, especially in furniture, although many officials attribute the change to falling smoking rates.)

Beverly Thorpe of Clean Production Action, a Montreal-based consumer group, said the new data on levels of PBDEs in common foods reaffirm her belief that these chemicals should be banned.

"I think it's scandalous that we are still allowing chemical producers to manufacture these chemicals... It's scandalous that we are allowing industry to use them as flame retardants."

Ms. Thorpe said her biggest concern is the impact on children who are exposed to these chemicals over a long period of time, and could develop physical and developmental problems. (One popular but unproved assumption is that the rise in rate of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder is due to PBDEs.)

"Any synthetic chemical we are finding in breast milk and food has got to be a major alarm signal that we have to stop production of these chemicals," she argued.

Ms. McAllister shares those concerns and is worried about her daughter Jessica, now 18 months old. "Children are inhaling these poisons every day... breathing it and eating it every day."!

- Andre Picard is the public health reporter at The Globe and Mail.

- Avis Favaro is the medical reporter at CTV News.

Copyright 2005 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/s

Attention!! un cancerigene a ete importe par erreur et utilise dans plusieurs produits a manger!!!!

Cancer warning for food products

Friday, February 18, 2005

LONDON, England (AP) -- Britain's Food Standards Agency triggered an international food safety alert Friday on a batch of sauce that was contaminated with a dye linked to cancer.

The sauce containing the dye Sudan I was used in hundreds of British foods and exported to several European and Caribbean countries and to North America.

The agency was informed of the contamination when Italian authorities inspected a batch exported there by British company Premier Foods.

The agency said the sauce had been sent to the United States, Canada, France, Greece, Switzerland, Ireland, France, Denmark, Holland, Austria, Cyprus, Belgium, Bermuda, Granada, the Bahamas and Antigua.

The agency used the rapid alert system for food and feed, or RASFF, to send out an alert across Europe, and then to the United States and other countries.

"Sudan I could contribute to an increased risk of cancer," said Jon Bell, chief executive of the agency. "At the levels present the risk is likely to be very small, but it is sensible to avoid eating any more."

Sudan I is a red dye generally used for coloring oils, waxes, petrol and shoe polish. It is banned from food in Britain and across the European Union.

The Food Standards Agency said Sudan I can contribute to an increased risk of cancer, and it is not possible to identify a safe level or to quantify the risk.

It added that the risk from the levels present in the contaminated foods was likely to be small, but stressed that consumers should not be exposed to it unnecessarily.

Since July 2003 all chili powder imported into Britain must be certified to be free of Sudan I -- authorities randomly sample more than 1,000 consignments a year.

However, the batch that has caused the widespread contamination predates that sampling program and was only uncovered after sampling of the Worcestershire sauce that was produced by Premier Foods and exported to Italy.

The agency, which provided a full list of the contaminated products on its Web site, said that people who may have already purchased the products should return them for a full refund.

In Britain, the agency warned consumers against eating more than 350 frozen and fresh food products, including pies, sandwiches, sausages, soups and sauces.

Bell said the watchdog was working with British industry to swiftly remove the foods from the shelves of stores, including supermarket Sainsbury's PLC and sandwich chain Pret-A-Manger.

Given the widespread use of Worcestershire sauce to flavor other foods, Bell said that the agency might still find more affected products.

"We will continue to take action to remove these and minimize the risks to consumers," he said.
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/02/18/uk.food.warning.ap/

Array Of Toxic Chemicals In Humans 'Alarming'
I Am Polluted
By Mark Stevenson
The Globe and Mail
3-8-5


BOSTON -- My nose is clamped and I'm trying not to choke on a tube a scientist at Harvard University has stuffed in my mouth. I am blowing into a clear plastic bag, which is sealed and later studied for what it contains.

Sure, everyone suffers occasionally from a little bad breath. But what they found in mine was enough to keep my wife away for a week.

Besides my breath, researchers at Harvard's School of Public Health examined my blood, hair, urine, toenails and bones. It's all in the name of the emerging science of body burden, a concept referring to the amount of chemicals that accumulate in the human body.

As it turns out, I am polluted. Everyone is to some degree. But as the list of toxic chemicals identified in people continues to grow, scientists are trying to figure out what the implications are for human health.

"It is alarming," Professor John Spengler says. "This is not meant to be settling information. I think if more people wake up to this fact, the better we are going to be . . . and the more demanding we're going to be of our governments and our industries."

An estimated 35,000 chemicals are in commercial use in Canada and more than twice as many in the United States. The national American government registers an average of 2,000 newly synthesized chemicals each year.

Cosmetics have at least 5,000 chemicals; more than 3,200 are added to food. As many as 1,010 chemicals are used in the production of 11,700 consumer products, and about 500 chemicals are used as active ingredients in pesticides, according to Environmental Protection Agency data cited by the Environmental Working Group, based in Washington, D.C.

Many chemicals end up in the environment, even thousands of kilometres from industry.

Despite being banned years ago, PCBs are still found in Arctic wildlife. Biologists are also finding rising levels of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), flame retardants used in foam, textiles and plastics, as well as chlorinated paraffins, chemicals used in paints, sealants and rubber-processing.

Scotchgard, which is part of a family of chemicals used to make clothes, carpets and furniture stain-resistant, has been found in polar bears in Alaska and bald eagles around the Great Lakes.

If chemicals are showing up in wildlife and the environment, it's no surprise that many are being discovered in people.

"Pretty much from the minute you wake up to the moment you go to bed, you're exposed to hundreds and hundreds of chemicals," says Jane Houlihan, vice-president of research for the Environmental Working Group. "...In most cases, they're in minuscule quantities. But that fact is it's hundreds [of chemicals] and they're adding up."

What's disturbing, Prof. Spengler says, is how the majority of the chemicals have been approved for use without any research being done on their potential impact on human health, except mainly for those that end up in drugs or food.

What's more, little is known about what our chemical body burden truly is. "So measurements like we're doing on you, and myself, and our research subjects are really part of a new frontier because it's really trying to understand ... what effects these might have on disruption of human function," Prof. Spengler says.

No extensive study has considered the chemical body burden of Canadians, although separate studies have reported the presence of individual compounds -- for example, research documenting a dramatic rise of PBDEs in breast milk.

More wide-ranging studies have been done in the United States.

In one, researchers found at an average of 91 "industrial compounds, pollutants and chemicals" in the blood and urine of nine volunteers and a total of 167 chemicals in the group. According to the research, conducted by Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York with the Environmental Working Group, "76 cause cancer in humans or animals, 94 are toxic to the brain or nervous system, and 79 cause birth defects or abnormal development." None of the people tested worked with chemicals or lived near an industrial facility.

"I expected to find many different chemicals," Ms. Houlihan says. "But to actually see the numbers roll out that show that one person has 100 chemicals in their blood at one time. It's pretty powerful."

The most comprehensive research on body burden to date was conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and released in 2003. As part of the $6.5-million (U.S.) report, the agency tested the blood and urine of 2,500 volunteers for 116 compounds, including PCBs, pesticides, dioxins, furans and metals.

It found many of the contaminants in at least half of the people they tested. As well, researchers discovered elevated levels of lead in the blood of children and the ubiquitous presence of phthalates, chemicals widely used in plastics that are linked to cancer and reproductive problems in studies on rats.

Meanwhile, they also discovered that chemicals such as DDT and PCBs, which are banned or restricted, appear to be going down.

"Just because they can [detect it] doesn't mean it's at a dangerous level or a level that causes health effects. It mostly reflects the fact that we've improved our ability to measure," says Jim Pirkle, deputy director of science for the CDC, referring to new technology that allows scientists to identify compounds in amounts that would have gone unnoticed a decade earlier.

Dr. Pirkle notes that most of the chemicals being found are in infinitesimally small amounts of parts per million and parts per billion, equivalent to a grain of rice in an Olympic-sized swimming pool.

"There are going to be small levels of many things in people. That's because they're dispersed in low levels all over the environment. What you really have to do is stop and look at them one by one and go through them and say, 'Is that a level that's likely to cause disease? Is that a level that's so trivially small, we have good instruments that can measure it, but it's so small it's not of any concern?' You have to do that one chemical at a time."

All this brings us back to Harvard and my own results.

After bombarding my knee for half an hour with a small amount of radiation, the technician in the bone lab gives me the news: My skeleton is contaminated with lead.

Lead is an acute toxin. It's poisonous at higher levels. But even at low concentrations, research has linked it to an increased risk of hypertension, kidney disease, impaired neurological development in children, even cataracts.

The good news is my lead levels place me well within the average range for someone my age with no appreciable health risk, says Howard Hu, a professor of occupational and health medicine at Harvard's School of Public Health.

Others are less fortunate. Dr. Hu has measured lead amounts five to 10 times higher in many women, posing potential harm to their unborn babies.

"There's so many different exposure routes that just living and breathing can provide exposures today," he says. "Lead is in many different consumer products. It was in gasoline. ... It was in food cans, pipes and solder. ... It was in toys and plastics."

In another lab across the street, scientists have clipped a lock of my hair and are analyzing it. It will tell them how much mercury my body contains.

Although it occurs naturally in the environment, mercury is also a byproduct of coal-fired power plants and waste incinerators. When it enters the water and reacts with bacteria, it is transformed into methyl mercury and it accumulates in fish, and people when they eat it.

It's a neurotoxin and the human fetus is particularly vulnerable. At low doses, it can cause subtle changes to the developing brain; at larger doses, it can cause blindness and other birth defects. At high levels, it can kill nerve cells, causing blurred vision, lack of co-ordination and slurred speech.

Fortunately, my mercury level is .411 parts per million, about half the EPA guideline of 1 ppm.

Next came my blood results. As it turns out, my blood contains PCBs and pesticides, including DDT, an insecticide banned in North America decades ago. But for many people my age, my results are considered well within the low-to-average range.


Unfortunately, as Russ Hauser of Harvard's School of Public Health points out, his research is finding that men exposed to similar doses have problems with semen quality, which is associated with infertility.

"PCBs and DDT were banned decades ago, but they're still present in the environment," Dr. Hauser says. "You're exposed primarily through intake of food because they accumulate as we move up the food chain. ... So consuming fish, dairy products, meats, that's primarily how you're exposed."

Although the Harvard scientists were looking for arsenic, a highly poisonous metal, in my toenails, they found virtually none. Prof. Spengler wasn't surprised, saying it's something they typically find in people who drink water from a well and mine comes from a lake.

But he was amazed by something in my breath, the content of which is an indicator of relatively recent exposure to chemicals in the air. It wasn't the list of solvents, such as benzene, that are often associated with vehicle exhaust. It was MTBE, a fuel additive that is not supposed to be widely used in Canada (less than 2 per cent of gas in this country contains it, according to Environment Canada). Prof. Spengler speculates I breathed in MTBE on the way to Harvard in a taxi.


In total, the scientists found 76 chemicals in my body, including PCBs, pesticides, solvents and metals. Even though my body contains extremely small amounts of them, I can't help but ask Prof. Spengler whether I should be worried.

"I would say you're not very toxic compared to people we've measured all over the world, even compared to me," he says.

He points out that his own DDT levels place him in the top fifth of Americans. I'm in the bottom fifth.

"On the one hand, you might say, 'Well, I'm normal. I might be a little high on one thing and low on another.' But that's not the way we should look at it."

Prof. Spengler says the issue is not whether one has an average amount of chemicals in his body. Rather, it's why the average person is carrying around so many chemicals in the first place.

There has been little scientific inquiry into the net effect of being exposed to many chemicals at the same time, the so-called "toxic soup effect."

Complicating the toxicology is the counterintuitive concept of hormesis, a phenomenon in which a small dose of an otherwise toxic substance can be helpful. Studies on plants and animals have documented it in alcohol, antibiotics, hydrocarbons and pesticides.

Nevertheless, Prof. Spengler and many other scientists believe that exposure to a range of chemicals in the environment may be behind a host of emerging health problems in addition to those already well documented. "We're concerned about the growing rates of cancer in our society, the growing rates of autism," he says. "In most developed countries, asthma has grown substantially over the past 20 years, particularly in children"

As for myself, Prof. Spengler says there's very little I can do to reduce the contamination that is already in my body. Aside from eating different types of fish to lower my mercury level, the PCBs and pesticides are there for the long haul while the solvents will continue to show up in my breath as long as I'm exposed to cars and trucks, which are kind of difficult to avoid.

Prof. Spengler says the solution is targeting chemicals we don't want in our bodies in the first place. He points to PBDEs, which has been referred to as the "PCBs of the 21st century."

Research commissioned by The Globe and Mail and CTV News found that many everyday foods consumed by Canadians -- such as salmon, ground beef, cheese and butter -- are laced with PBDEs.

In Sweden, the flame retardants were banned after rising levels were noticed in the breast milk of women. "They said to the industry, 'We don't want them in our plastics. We don't what them in our materials' -- and they started to see the levels come down," Prof. Spengler says.

"Now, you see the similar data out of North American women. . . . The levels are already 50 times higher in our populations and nobody is saying, 'Ban that product.' ... So I think this really has to do with how we've come to judge what is beneficial to the population," he says. "[But] at what point do we invoke some precaution?"

- Mark Stevenson is an independent producer and a regular contributor to the Discovery Channel's Daily Planet. A version of this feature has aired on the show.

MARK'S BODY

Test results show low levels of 76 chemicals.


Metals in blood*
metal Normal levels (ppb): Mark's levels (ppb):
Lead <100 19.13
Manganese 4.2-16.5 969
Cadmium <5 0.06

Mercury in hair
EPA reference level: 1.0 ppm
Mark's level: 0.411 ppm

Arsenic in toenails
Normal level: below 0.2 ppm
Mark's level: 0.032 ppm

Solvents in breath (nanogram/litre)
solvent Mark
MTBE 6.22**
Hexane 2.71
Benzene 4.23
Toluene 4.05
Xylene 1.38
Pinene 4.30
Limonene 108.42***


Pesticides in blood
Mark has 0.879 ppb of DDT (low to average)

PCBs in blood
Mark has 0.82 ppb (low to average)

Lead content in bone
Mark has 4.67 ppm (average)

*Lead, cadmium and mercury are not considered "natural" elements in the body. Manganese, on the other hand, is an essential element at very trace amounts.

**MTBE, a fuel additive to improve emissions, could have been inhaled in the United States where it is much more common than in Canada.

***The high limonene level could be attributed to orange juice or air freshener.

Copyright 2005 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/ser

Parfums d'ambiance

Des poisons dans l'air
Mario Girard

collaboration spéciale, La Presse

Les parfums d'ambiance sont dangereux. Une étude publiée par le Bureau européen des associations de consommateurs regroupant des organismes d'Italie, de France, d'Espagne, du Portugal et de la Belgique est venue brouiller l'arôme des parfums d'ambiance en présentant une étude qui tend à démontrer que l'emploi de ces produits peut entraîner des «risques majeurs pour la santé».

En mesurant la qualité de l'air ambiant lors de l'utilisation des désodorisants et autres produits parfumés censés rafraîchir la maison, on a démontré que ces produits dégagent des composés organiques volatils appelés COV. Parmi eux, le toluène, qui constitue jusqu'à 10 % des composantes de certains désodorisants. Ou alors le dichlorobenzène, qui forme jusqu'à 42 % des composantes des blocs de désodorisants pour toilettes. À fortes doses, la plupart de ces composés organiques volatils irritent les yeux et les poumons.

Les produits désodorisants en aérosol contiennent des traces de dioxine, du paradichlorobenzène, du formol, toutes substances nocives pour la santé auxquelles il faut encore rajouter l'acétaldéhyde qui, lui, attaque particulièrement le foie.

« Il faut savoir que ces produits dégagent des molécules qui restent dans l'air, explique Danny Bolduc, technicien de laboratoire au département de Biochimie de l'UQAM. Ce sont ces molécules que l'on respire. Selon la concentration du produit et la grandeur de la pièce, ces molécules peuvent voyager longtemps dans la même pièce tant et aussi longtemps qu'on ne l'aère pas. »

Les bougies et l'encens, autres produits fort populaires, représentent aussi un certain danger. Les bougies dégagent de l'acroléine, du formaldéhyde et de l'acétaldéhyde. « Ces produits, tout comme les vaporisateurs, dégagent eux aussi des molécules », dit Danny Bolduc qui n'avait pas encore pris connaissance de cette étude susceptible d'intéresser plusieurs chercheurs.

Selon l'enquête européenne, l'exposition aux fumées d'encens qui contiennent des benzènes et diverses particules provoquerait des troubles de la santé comme la toux, l'asthme, des dermatoses, voire le cancer.
http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actuel/article/article_complet.php?path=/actuel/article/1,4230,4909,112004,848694.php

oh la la.. on suppconne qu'une femme Francaise avait deja la maladie de la vache folle en 1971........

French Woman May Have
Had Mad Cow In 1971
By Steve Mitchell
Medical Correspondent
United Press International
3-28-5


WASHINGTON, March 24 (UPI) -- The brain of a French woman who died in 1971 shows evidence consistent with human mad cow disease, United Press International has learned, a finding that if confirmed would indicate the deadly disease began infecting people more than 20 years earlier than previously thought.

A former National Institutes of Health scientist said he tested the woman's brain in 2000 and it showed a pattern that looked like variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease -- a fatal, brain-wasting illness humans can contract from eating beef products infected with the pathogen that causes mad cow disease, also known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE.

VCJD was unheard of in 1971. The first recognized case was detected in the United Kingdom in 1995, so if the French woman did indeed suffer from vCJD, the case would shift the origins of the disease back more than two decades and possibly to a different country. The woman's brain is held at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md.

"Variant CJD could've been around for donkey's years, who knows?" said Bruce Johnson, a former researcher at the NIH's Laboratory for Central Nervous System Studies, who examined the woman's brain. The CNSS lab received brains from CJD patients from all over the world and has samples dating back to 1963. The woman's identity could not be revealed for confidentiality reasons, but it is known she was French and approximately 40 to 50 years old when she died in 1971, Johnson said.

Johnson told UPI he tested the woman's brain using a technique called Western blot, which detects prions -- infectious agents thought to play a role in causing vCJD and similar diseases.

At the time of her death, the woman was thought to be suffering from sporadic CJD, a condition with no known cause that appears to arise spontaneously. However, Johnson said, the prions he detected looked different from those associated with CJD and instead were consistent with the prion strain associated with vCJD.

The pattern on the test "was more like BSE than CJD," Johnson said, noting he never saw a pattern like that in the hundreds of other brains from CJD patients he had tested.

A sample of the woman's brain had been injected into a chimpanzee sometime around 1977, and when Johnson examined the chimpanzee's brain, it, too, showed a pattern consistent with vCJD -- not sporadic CJD.

"So she may have been an early case of BSE in France before it ever got to England," he said.

Johnson said he never published his finding because he wanted to confirm it, but he never had an opportunity to do so before he retired in 2003. The CNSS lab was officially closed in April 2004.

He said he hopes to conduct further examinations of the woman's brain when he starts a new position with the Food and Drug Administration.

"If we've still got her brain, we can look and see if it's BSE," he said. One possible way is to inject some of the woman's brain into mice.

Mad cow first showed up in humans in the United Kingdom beginning around 1995. In all, 154 people in that country have been infected with the human equivalent of mad cow disease.

France runs a distant second in vCJD cases with nine. A recent report published in the journal Veterinary Research estimated that from 1980 to 2000 more than 300,000 cattle were infected with BSE in France, yet went undetected.

Stephen Dealler, a microbiologist at Lancaster Royal infirmary, recently proposed a hypothesis that some of the people who developed vCJD in the United Kingdom may have been exposed to BSE in baby food beginning as early as 1970.

Johnson subscribes to the hypothesis put out by his NIH colleague Joe Gibbs, who thought it was possible that all mammals, including cows, spontaneously develop a mad cow-like disease at the rate of one per million. If that is true, Johnson said, the French woman may have developed her condition from being unfortunate enough to have eaten infected meat from that one in a million animal.

Dr. Paul Brown, former medical director of the CNSS lab and an expert on CJD and BSE, worked with Johnson. He told UPI he remembered Johnson mentioning the French woman's brain, but the information did not sound conclusive.

He said more research would need to be done to determine if the woman's disease was variant CJD, including injecting it into laboratory animals and having CJD experts examine the brain tissue.

Patient advocacy representatives had mixed reactions.

"I would be looking to get the opinion of more than one CJD neurologist before making any further comment," Graham Steel, vice-chair of the patient advocacy group Human BSE Foundation in the United Kingdom, told UPI.

"It doesn't surprise me at all that you can find a vCJD case in the NIH's brain collection," said Terry Singeltary, who is associated with several CJD patient groups and closely monitors developments about these diseases.

"It wouldn't surprise me for it to go back that far," Singeltary, whose mother died of a type of CJD called Heidenhain variant in 1997, told UPI. "A lot of scientists believe this BSE epidemic started way before 1984."

Johnson said it was possible there could be other vCJD cases in the NIH's collection, which consists of brain samples from hundreds of patients thought to have CJD.

That may never be known, however. The brains have never been screened for vCJD and the NIH may destroy part or all of the collection.

Copyright 2001-2005 United Press International

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20050323-061733-6847r