February 18, 2017

Endocrine Disruptors in Consumer Products

Water, water, everywhere.  Nor any drop to drink developed an entirely different meaning since
the time Coleridge's Rime of the Ancient Mariner was first published.  There are eight principle 
endocrine disruptors in America's water supplies. Hermaphrodite frogs have been found here.  
Those in charge of America are destroying it.  Meanwhile, the majority is indifferent.
Posted below is the link to the U.S. government's mainstream medical site which
is an absolute must-read that dispels the defamatory writings of all of the Stephen
Barretts of this world who seek to deceive humanity into believing that chemicals,
at ambient levels, are entirely harmless.

Ironically, after all of his damning literature, Stephen Barret spent a total of one
sentence ... toward the end of an article ... stating that there are legitimate cases
where people who have had long-term exposure to low levels of chemicals or
short-term exposure to high levels of chemicals have had their health compro-
mised ... have been injured.

All in all, Barrett did admit to the valid existence of chemical sensitivity.  Such
chemical sensitivity comes in diagnostic names such as Occupational Asthma due
to Low-Weight Molecular Agents and Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome,
as well as other ones.  The problem is that those who are supportive of chemically
sensitive persons bull-headedly use the phrase, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, only.
So, the Stephen Barretts attacked that one phrase and ignored the undebated chemi-
cal sensitivity diagnoses such as Irritant-induced Asthma.

Multiple Chemical Sensitvity, incidentally, refers to chemical sensitivity affecting
multiple body organs.  A person sufferring from a single illness such as Irritant-
induced Asthma might be reactive to four dozen chemicals or three and four dif-
ferent categories of chemicals.  The stubborn bull-headedness of those writing
on behalf of the chemically sensitive have been sabotaging the cause, all along.
They did much more harm than good in obsessing themselves in a semantics
game.  They are too lazy or stubborn to type-out the various mainstream med-
ical diagnoses that spell chemical sensitivity  in specificity.  This includes the
aforementioned diagnosies and Irritant-associated Vocal Cord Dysfunction,
Airborne Irritant Dermatitis, and other ones.

Anyway, the article linked below is a mainstream, peer-reviewed paper posted
on the United States' government site run by the National Institute of Health.
It's technically known as the National Center for Biotechnological Informat-
ion.  That one government entity trumps all of the Stephen Barretts of this world,
combined.  So, go ahead and read what mainstream medical science actually says
about Chemical Sensitivity.

The paper is titled, Endocrine Disruptors and Asthma-Associated Chemicals
in Consumer Products.  It's the work of six authors.  This denotes diligence
in the writing thereof.


A Sample of the paper goes as follows:
Chemicals contained in consumer products are ubiquitous in human tissues, sometimes at high concentrations [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 2009] and in household air and dust ().   Studies of pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) flame retardants, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in homes provide some information about sources, exposure pathways, and exposure reduction options ().   However, for many common commercial chemicals, limited information is available about how specific consumer products contribute to exposure. In particular, little information is available about exposures from personal care and cleaning products.
Many of these products may be sources of chemicals that have a diverse spectrum of health effects, including endocrine disruption and associations with asthma.  Endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs) are chemicals that can alter hormonal signaling and have potential effects on developing reproductive and nervous systems, metabolism, and cancer ().
Some phthalates inhibit testosterone synthesis (), and antimicrobials such as triclosan suppress thyroid hormone () and are estrogenic () in mammalian models. Some parabens, alkylphenols, cyclosiloxanes, ultraviolet (UV) filters, and synthetic musk fragrance compounds are weakly estrogenic in a variety of experimental models (; ; ; ; ; ).   Factors related to home environments are associated with asthma, although there has been limited study of the role of chemical contaminants (). 
Fragrances have been shown to exacerbate asthma ().   The phthalate bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) in dust was associated with asthma and wheezing in children (), and several phthalates show an adjuvant effect in animal studies ().   The sum of propylene glycol and glycol ethers was associated with increased asthma prevalence in preschool-age children ().   The ethanolamines monoethanolamine and diethanolamine are occupational asthmagens ().

For convenience sake, here is the link once again:
Long overdue has been the movement to end the flooding of the human body with harmful
chemicals.  We have to keep the bull-headed out of it, because they come off as bulls in
China shops.  They come-off as laughing stocks.  This is serious matter, and needed are
people who can be taken seriously.

The first thing is to stop limiting chemical exposure concerns to cancer only.  This is be-
cause cancer is seen as a roulette wheel in your probability of developing it.  When you
mention chemicals causing the development of asthma and triggering the asthm which
was already developed, then there is a more proximate sense of urgency.  After all, there
are millions of asthma sufferers in American, alone.