Skip to content

Category: healthy living

Published on Leave a comment on Avoid the New Generation of Flame Retardants

Flame retardants. All around us, and in us. So, so hard to avoid because they're in electronic goods, in upholstered furniture, polyurethane foam, carpet pads, some textiles, the foam in baby items, house dust, building insulation, and on and on. And unfortunately, while a number of toxic flame retardants have been phased out, it appears that the new replacements may be just as bad and are more easily inhaled (the small particles go down the air tract and into the lung tissue).

What to do? Wash hands before eating. Try to use a vacuum cleaner with a HEPA filter. Try to avoid products that say they contain "flame retardants". Only buy upholstered furniture with tags that say they are flame retardant free. From Environmental Health News:

As Washington state decides on stronger toxics law, residents are breathing flame retardants

A new generation of chemicals added to furniture, building insulation and baby products like car seats to slow the spread of flames are escaping into air at higher levels than previously thought, according to a new study out of Washington state. The findings come as Washington lawmakers decide on bolstering flame retardant bans. The state was one of the first to ban an earlier generation of retardants, known as PBDEs.

The new research found flame retardant chemicals used to replace polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) also escape, are ubiquitous in indoor air and suggest inhalation is a major route of exposure for people. The compounds, called chlorinated organophosphate flame retardants, found in the study have been linked to cancer and reproductive problems, and some can alter hormones essential for development. “We’ve been underestimating what total exposure is,” said Erika Schreder, staff scientist at the Washington Toxics Coalition and lead author of the study published this month in the scientific journal Chemosphere.

Researchers gave 10 people from Washington state an air sampler that simulates breathing to wear during a normal day: office work, commuting, hanging out at home. They tested for a suite of the new generation of chlorinated flame retardants and found all 10 were breathing some amount of them throughout the day. Exposure to one of the most prevalent compounds was up to 30 times greater than ingesting the chemicals via dust. The distinction is important: dust exposure occurs largely through the mouth, previously thought to be the major exposure route for banned PBDEs.

Chlorinated flame retardants are used mostly in polyurethane foam, often in building insulation and everyday products such as furniture, children’s car seats and baby strollers. The compounds are substitutes for PBDEs, which were widely used as flame retardants until scientists reported they were building up in people and wildlife and various bans took hold.

While chlorinated flame retardants have been around for decades, Salamova said scientists have recently started to understand them as, at first, it was thought they weren’t harmful or able to accumulate in people and wildlife. However there is evidence the replacement are following the same path as PBDEs: chlorinated flame retardants have been found in household dust, children’s products, drinking water, and mother-toddlers pairs. Two chlorinated flame retardants have been flagged by the state of California as carcinogens, and animal research suggests they may hamper brain development as well. 

From Medical Xpress: Prenatal exposure to flame retardants linked to poorer behavioral function in children

New research from the University of Cincinnati (UC) College of Medicine suggests that prenatal exposure to flame retardants and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) commonly found in the environment may have a lasting effect on a child's cognitive and behavioral development, known as executive function...."We examined the relationship between prenatal exposure to PBDEs and PFASs and executive function in children at 5 and 8 years of age," said Ann Vuong, DrPH, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Cincinnati in the Department of Environmental Health. "The findings suggest that maternal serum concentrations of PBDEs and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), one of the most commonly found PFASs in human blood, may be associated with poorer executive functioning in school-age children."

From Science Daily: Exposure to common flame retardants may contribute to attention problems in children

Prenatal exposure to some flame retardants that have been widely-used in consumer products is associated with attention problems in young children. A new study is the first to show the effects of prenatal exposure to polybrominated diphenyl ethers on children's development at ages 3, 4, and 7 years. Children with the highest exposure to certain PBDEs had approximately twice the number of maternally-reported attention problems compared to the other children in the study. PBDEs are found in textiles, plastics, wiring, and furniture containing polyurethane foam to reduce flammability.

Very nice and thorough report about flame retardants written in 2013 by the highly regarded center EHHI (Environment and Human Health, Inc.): FLAME RETARDANTS THE CASE FOR POLICY CHANGE

Published on Leave a comment on What Are the Herbicide Levels In Your Food?

A very popular herbicide – currently the most widely applied pesticide in the world – is glyphosate, commonly known as Roundup. Global use was 1.65 billion pounds in 2014 , while overall use in the US was 276.4 million pounds in 2014. Glyphosate is a human carcinogen and linked to various health effects, and even though it is so extensively used, the FDA just announced in February 2016 that they will “soon” start testing for its presence and actual levels in food for the first time in the agency’s history.

What, it never occurred to them that the most widely used pesticide in the world would be found in food?  Of course they knew glyphosate residues were occurring in food because in 2013 the EPA raised "tolerance limits" for human exposure to glyphosate for certain foods, stating with "reasonable certainty that no harm will result" from human exposure to the chemical. This increase in tolerance levels came about from a request from Monsanto (the manufacturer of the glyphosate herbicide Roundup), and even though numerous groups protested the increase, the EPA went along with Monsanto's request. Some tolerances doubled.

But remember.... there are very strong industry pressures on the EPA, and so the EPA seems to keep its head firmly in the sand for all sorts of pesticide issues. Maybe their motto is: see no evil...hear no evil....

The reason that glyphosate tolerance limits needed to be increased in the USA is because Roundup Ready crops are now so extensively planted, and this has resulted in skyrocketing use of glyphosate in the last 20 years. Roundup Ready crops are genetically modified to tolerate repeated glyphosate spraying (against weeds)  during the growing season. However, the crops take up and accumulate  glyphosate, and so glyphosate residues are increasing in crops. Another reason for increased residue of glyphosate in crops is the current practice of applying an herbicide such as Roundup right at the time of harvest to non-GMO crops such as wheat, so that the crop dies at once and dries out (pre-harvest crop dessication), and which is called a "preharvest application" by Monsanto. Glyphosate is now off-patent so many other companies are also using glyphosate in their products throughout the world.

Private testing has already found glyphosate residues in breast milk, soybeans, corn, honey, cereal, wheat flour, soy sauce, and infant formula. It is currently unknown what glyphosate residues in food, which we then ingest, mean for human health. Several studies have linked glyphosate to human health ailments, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma and kidney and liver problems. Of special concern is that because glyphosate is so pervasive in the environment, even trace amounts might be harmful due to chronic exposure. Some people (including researchers) are even suggesting that much of "gluten sensitivity" or "gluten intolerance" that people complain of, may actually be sensitivity to glyphosate residues in food.

So where have glyphosate residues been found recently? In Germany's 14 most popular beers. German beer purity in question after environment group finds weed-killer traces And in feminine hygiene products in France. How to lower your daily intake of glyphosate? Eat organic foods as much as possible, including wheat, corn, oats, soybeans.

Some influential scientists and physicians just came out with a Statement of Concern regarding their serious concerns with glyphosate. The article summary (Abstract) from Environmental Health: Concerns over use of glyphosate-based herbicides and risks associated with exposures: a consensus statement

The broad-spectrum herbicide glyphosate (common trade name “Roundup”) was first sold to farmers in 1974. Since the late 1970s, the volume of glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) applied has increased approximately 100-fold. Further increases in the volume applied are likely due to more and higher rates of application in response to the widespread emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds and new, pre-harvest, dessicant use patterns. GBHs were developed to replace or reduce reliance on herbicides causing well-documented problems associated with drift and crop damage, slipping efficacy, and human health risks. Initial industry toxicity testing suggested that GBHs posed relatively low risks to non-target species, including mammals, leading regulatory authorities worldwide to set high acceptable exposure limits. To accommodate changes in GBH use patterns associated with genetically engineered, herbicide-tolerant crops, regulators have dramatically increased tolerance levels in maize, oilseed (soybeans and canola), and alfalfa crops and related livestock feeds.

Animal and epidemiology studies published in the last decade, however, point to the need for a fresh look at glyphosate toxicity. Furthermore, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer recently concluded that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” In response to changing GBH use patterns and advances in scientific understanding of their potential hazards, we have produced a Statement of Concern drawing on emerging science relevant to the safety of GBHs. Our Statement of Concern considers current published literature describing GBH uses, mechanisms of action, toxicity in laboratory animals, and epidemiological studies. It also examines the derivation of current human safety standards.

We conclude that: (1) GBHs are the most heavily applied herbicide in the world and usage continues to rise; (2) Worldwide, GBHs often contaminate drinking water sources, precipitation, and air, especially in agricultural regions; (3) The half-life of glyphosate in water and soil is longer than previously recognized; (4) Glyphosate and its metabolites are widely present in the global soybean supply; (5) Human exposures to GBHs are rising; (6) Glyphosate is now authoritatively classified as a probable human carcinogen; (7) Regulatory estimates of tolerable daily intakes for glyphosate in the United States and European Union are based on outdated science. We offer a series of recommendations related to the need for new investments in epidemiological studies, biomonitoring, and toxicology studies that draw on the principles of endocrinology to determine whether the effects of GBHs are due to endocrine disrupting activities. We suggest that common commercial formulations of GBHs should be prioritized for inclusion in government-led toxicology testing programs such as the U.S. National Toxicology Program, as well as for biomonitoring as conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Published on Leave a comment on Clear Differences Between Organic and Non-Organic Milk and Meat

Two new papers just published in the British Journal of Nutrition are analyses of existing studies that compare conventional vs organic milk, and conventional vs organic red meat. Both studies found clear differences between organic meat and milk compared to conventional milk and meat, with the organic milk and meat best health-wise, especially due to differences in fatty acids. The researchers stated: "organic bovine (cow) milk has a more desirable fatty acid composition than conventional milk".

Some of the differences may be due to organic milk and beef coming from cattle that graze on grass (organic farming standards require  grazing/forage-based diets), while most conventional milk and beef come from cows subsisting on grain. Beneficial omega-3 is much more prevalent in grass than in grain, which is why organic livestock and milk also contain higher levels, while omega-6 levels were lower in organic meat and dairy.

The researchers did not look at antioxidant, vitamin and mineral concentrations between the meat groups because there weren't enough studies to look at. Two years ago, Dr. Leifert led a similar review for fruits and vegetables that found organic produce had higher levels of some antioxidants and less pesticide residue than conventionally grown crops. From Medical Xpress:

New study finds clear differences between organic and non-organic milk and meat

In the largest study of its kind, an international team of experts led by Newcastle University, UK, has shown that both organic milk and meat contain around 50% more beneficial omega-3 fatty acids than conventionally produced products. Analyzing data from around the world, the team reviewed 196 papers on milk and 67 papers on meat and found clear differences between organic and conventional milk and meat, especially in terms of fatty acid composition, and the concentrations of certain essential minerals and antioxidants.  ...continue reading "Clear Differences Between Organic and Non-Organic Milk and Meat"

Published on Leave a comment on Oral Bacteria Linked to Hemorrhagic Stroke

The finding that the oral bacteria Streptococcus mutans, which is found in 10% of the population, is linked with hemorrhagic strokes is big. S. mutans is found in tooth decay or cavities (dental caries). The researchers found a link with cnm-positive S. mutans with both intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) and also with cerebral microbleeds.

Some risk factors for strokes have long since been known, such as high blood pressure and advanced age, but then there are those hemorrhagic strikes that don't seem to fit the norm, with no apparent risk factors. Well, apparently the presence of cnm-positive S. mutans is one. My understanding of what cnm-positive S. mutans means is S. mutans bacteria that carries the collagen-binding Cnm gene. This bacteria can be found in a person's saliva and in dental plaque, and swabs of both were taken for this study.

This study builds on other studies that find a link between the bacteria Streptococcus mutans and a number of systemic diseases, including bacteremia, infective endocarditis and hemorrhagic stroke. The researchers of this latest study suggest that infection with cnm-positive S. mutans causes constant inflammation (as shown by 2 inflammatory markers: CRP and fibrinogen), which then causes damage to blood vessels (endothelial damage) in the brain. Bottom line: take care of your teeth and gums.

From Science Daily: Oral bacteria linked to risk of stroke

In a study of patients entering the hospital for acute stroke, researchers have increased their understanding of an association between certain types of stroke and the presence of the oral bacteria (cnm-positive Streptococcus mutans).

In the single hospital study, researchers at the National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center in Osaka, Japan, observed stroke patients to gain a better understanding of the relationship between hemorrhagic stroke and oral bacteria. Among the patients who experienced intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), 26 percent were found to have a specific bacterium in their saliva, cnm-positive S. mutans. Among patients with other types of stroke, only 6 percent tested positive for the bacterium.

Strokes are characterized as either ischemic strokes, which involve a blockage of one or more blood vessels supplying the brain, or hemorrhagic strokes, in which blood vessels in the brain rupture, causing bleeding.

The researchers also evaluated MRIs of study subjects for the presence of cerebral microbleeds (CMB), small brain hemorrhages which may cause dementia and also often underlie ICH. They found that the number of CMBs was significantly higher in subjects with cnm-positive S. mutans than in those without. The authors hypothesize that the S. mutans bacteria may bind to blood vessels weakened by age and high blood pressure, causing arterial ruptures in the brain, leading to small or large hemorrhages.

"This study shows that oral health is important for brain health. People need to take care of their teeth because it is good for their brain and their heart as well as their teeth," Friedland said. "The study and related work in our labs have shown that oral bacteria are involved in several kinds of stroke, including brain hemorrhages and strokes that lead to dementia."

Multiple research studies have shown a close association between the presence of gum disease and heart disease, and a 2013 publication by Jan Potempa, Ph.D., D.Sc., of the UofL School of Dentistry, revealed how the bacterium responsible for gum disease worsens rheumatoid arthritis. The cnm-negative S. mutans bacteria is found in approximately 10 percent of the general population, Friedland says, and is known to cause dental cavities (tooth decay). Friedland also is researching the role of oral bacteria in other diseases affecting the brain.  http://www.nature.com/articles/srep20074

Published on Leave a comment on Eating An Egg Daily OK For Heart Health?

Remember all the medical advice for years about not eating eggs frequently (high cholesterol! heart disease!) and to instead eat egg white omelettes if one absolutely wanted to eat eggs? Remember the obsession with dietary cholesterol? Well, this recent research followed 1032 men for 21 years and found that a relatively high intake of dietary cholesterol, or eating one egg every day, was not associated with an elevated risk of incident coronary heart disease - not in the entire study population nor in those with the APOE4 phenotype. Also, the study did not establish a link between dietary cholesterol or eating eggs with thickening of the common carotid artery walls. Time to enjoy eggs again! From Science Daily:

High-cholesterol diet, eating eggs do not increase risk of heart attack, not even in persons genetically predisposed, study finds

A new study from the University of Eastern Finland shows that a relatively high intake of dietary cholesterol, or eating one egg every day, are not associated with an elevated risk of incident coronary heart disease. Furthermore, no association was found among those with the APOE4 phenotype, which affects cholesterol metabolism and is common among the Finnish population.

In the majority of population, dietary cholesterol affects serum cholesterol levels only a little, and few studies have linked the intake of dietary cholesterol to an elevated risk of cardiovascular diseases. Globally, many nutrition recommendations no longer set limitations to the intake of dietary cholesterol. However, in carriers of the apolipoprotein E type 4 allele -- which significantly impacts cholesterol metabolism -- the effect of dietary cholesterol on serum cholesterol levels is greater. In Finland, the prevalence of the APOE4 allele, which is a hereditary variant, is exceptionally high and approximately one third of the population are carriers.

The dietary habits of 1,032 men aged between 42 and 60 years and with no baseline diagnosis of a cardiovascular disease were assessed at the onset the Kuopio Ischaemic Heart Disease Risk Factor Study, KIHD, in 1984-1989 at the University of Eastern Finland. During a follow-up of 21 years, 230 men had a myocardial infarction, and 32.5 per cent of the study participants were carriers of APOE4.

Published on

 Last fall a study came out that estimated that annually about 3.3 million deaths throughout the world were caused from air pollution. But a study was presented Friday at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) that gave a much higher estimate of annual air pollution deaths: 5.5 million. A horrifying number. And yet... governments, companies, and people resist  measures to cut air pollution. Why? It costs money. And also many people are too poor (e.g., China and India) to use cleaner sources of heating and cooking fuel - so they are damaging their own health in their own homes. From Science Daily:

Poor air quality kills 5.5 million worldwide annually

New research shows that more than 5.5 million people die prematurely every year due to household and outdoor air pollution. More than half of deaths occur in two of the world's fastest growing economies, China and India.

Power plants, industrial manufacturing, vehicle exhaust and burning coal and wood all release small particles into the air that are dangerous to a person's health. New research, presented today at the 2016 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), found that despite efforts to limit future emissions, the number of premature deaths linked to air pollution will climb over the next two decades unless more aggressive targets are set.

"Air pollution is the fourth highest risk factor for death globally and by far the leading environmental risk factor for disease," said Michael Brauer, a professor at the University of British Columbia's School of Population and Public Health in Vancouver, Canada. "Reducing air pollution is an incredibly efficient way to improve the health of a population."

For the AAAS meeting, researchers from Canada, the United States, China and India assembled estimates of air pollution levels in China and India and calculated the impact on health. Their analysis shows that the two countries account for 55 per cent of the deaths caused by air pollution worldwide. About 1.6 million people died of air pollution in China and 1.4 million died in India in 2013.

In China, burning coal is the biggest contributor to poor air quality. Qiao Ma, a PhD student at the School of Environment, Tsinghua University in Beijing, China, found that outdoor air pollution from coal alone caused an estimated 366,000 deaths in China in 2013....In India, a major contributor to poor air quality is the practice of burning wood, dung and similar sources of biomass for cooking and heating. Millions of families, among the poorest in India, are regularly exposed to high levels of particulate matter in their own homes.

In the last 50 years, North America, Western Europe and Japan have made massive strides to combat pollution by using cleaner fuels, more efficient vehicles, limiting coal burning and putting restrictions on electric power plants and factories. 

Additional facts about air pollution: - World Health Organization (WHO) air quality guidelines set daily particulate matter at 25 micrograms per cubic metre. - At this time of year, Beijing and New Delhi will see daily levels at or above 300 micrograms per cubic meter metre; 1,200 per cent higher than WHO guidelines..... - According to the Global Burden of Disease study, air pollution causes more deaths than other risk factors like malnutrition, obesity, alcohol and drug abuse, and unsafe sex.... - Cardiovascular disease accounts for the majority of deaths from air pollution with additional impacts from lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and respiratory infections. Video: https://youtu.be/Kwoqa84npsU 

Published on Leave a comment on Physical Fitness Now and Brain Size Years Later

Another famous long-running study (Framingham Heart Study) finds more bad news for middle-aged coach-potatoes (that is, those who don't exercise or have poor physical fitness). It's an observational study (thus they found an association), but the finding is pretty damn convincing: that poor physical fitness (basically a sedentary life-style) may be linked to a smaller brain size (brain volume) 20 years later. The reason this is significant is because shrinking brain volume means that accelerated brain aging is occurring.

Researcher Nicole Spartano said: "Brain volume is one marker of brain aging. Our brains shrink as we age, and this atrophy is related to cognitive decline and increased risk for dementia. So, this study suggests that people with poor fitness have accelerated brain aging." Bottom line: if you don't get much exercise or lead a sedentary life-style, then increase your activity levels for hopefully better brain health decades later. Just getting out daily (or several times a week) and walking briskly would improve fitness. From Medical Xpress:

Couch potatoes may have smaller brains later in life

Poor physical fitness in middle age may be linked to a smaller brain size 20 years later, according to a study published in the February 10, 2016, online issue of Neurology, the medical journal of the American Academy of Neurology."We found a direct correlation in our study between poor fitness and brain volume decades later, which indicates accelerated brain aging," said study author Nicole Spartano, PhD, with Boston University School of Medicine in Boston.

For the study, 1,583 people enrolled in the Framingham Heart Study, with an average age of 40 and without dementia or heart disease, took a treadmill test. They took another one two decades later, along with MRI brain scans. The researchers also analyzed the results when they excluded participants who developed heart disease or started taking beta blockers to control blood pressure or heart problems; this group had 1,094 people. 

The participants had an average estimated exercise capacity of 39 mL/kg/min, which is also known as peak VO2, or the maximum amount of oxygen the body is capable of using in one minute. Exercise capacity was estimated using the length of time participants were able to exercise on the treadmill before their heart rate reached a certain level. For every eight units lower a person performed on the treadmill test, their brain volume two decades later was smaller, equivalent to two years of accelerated brain aging. When the people with heart disease or those taking beta blockers were excluded, every eight units of lower physical performance was associated with reductions of brain volume equal to one year of accelerated brain aging.

The study also showed that people whose blood pressure and heart rate went up at a higher rate during exercise also were more likely to have smaller brain volumes two decades later. Spartano said that people with poor physical fitness often have higher blood pressure and heart rate responses to low levels of exercise compared to people with better fitness. Spartano noted that the study is observational. It does not prove that poor physical fitness causes a loss of brain volume; it shows the association. (Link to study in journal Neurology.)

Published on Leave a comment on Will the Blue Light From Device Screens Damage Our Eyes?

Now and then I hear people wondering whether the many hours we spend staring at computer, cell phone, and tablet screens is damaging our eyes. And what about fluorescent lighting (which seems to bother many people) and LED lights? After all, the blue light of all our device screens seems intense, and researchers have long known that blue light is toxic to the retina.

Recently researchers measured the blue light on various device screens and lamps (including over extended time periods) and compared it to looking at a clear blue sky in June (but not looking at the sun). They found that most devices put out less blue light than the blue sky on a clear day and all were less than international standards for blue light exposure limits. Whew...we're all OK. But don't use them for a long time at night because their bright emissionInternational Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protectisuppresses melatonin (needed for sleep). From Medscape:

Blue Light From Screens, Bulbs Won't Damage Retina

Despite concerns that staring at devices putting out high amounts of the blue light wavelength could damage human retinas, a recent study finds that most devices put out less of that light than the blue sky on a clear day. "Even under extreme long-term viewing conditions, none of the low energy light bulbs, computers, tablets and mobile phones we assessed suggested cause for concern for public health," said lead author John O'Hagan, head of the Laser and Optical Radiation Dosimetry Group of Public Health England in Chilton, U.K., in an email.

As people are using computers and phones more often and low-energy lighting like fluorescent and LED bulbs is becoming more common, the types of light human eyes are encountering is changing, the researchers pointed out January 15 online in the journal Eye. Compared to traditional incandescent bulbs, electronic screens and low-energy light bulbs tend to emit more blue light, which has long been known to be toxic to the retina, they write.

Based on that toxicity research, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) has proposed a safe exposure limit, below which blue light is unlikely to harm a viewer's eye. O'Hagan and his team measured the blue light emitted by several sources, including mobile phones, tablet computers, laptops and lamps, over time periods similar to the way people use the devices. Then they compared the emissions to the ICNIRP's exposure limits.

After comparing multiple colors on device screens, the researchers found that a white screen had the highest blue light emissions, so they used a white screen set at maximum brightness for their measurements.They also compared the blue light emissions from various devices to the levels people would encounter when looking at a clear blue sky in summertime in Chilton, in southern England, and also to an overcast winter sky in the same location.

The blue light exposure on a clear day in June was around 10 percent of the ICNIRP safe limit. A cloudy day in December produced around 3 percent of the limit. Comparing these natural exposures with light from lamps, computer screens and mobile devices like smartphones, the study team found that the artificial light produced even lower exposures than people normally encounter outdoors. That is, provided they're staring just at the sky, not directly at the sun.

 

Even considering that people may stare at computer screens for hours in the course of work or play, the study team concludes that there's no danger to the retina.They caution, however, that the amount of light that gets transmitted from the surface of the eye to the retina is age-related, so children may be more sensitive to blue light. Light sources that are comfortable for adults could be distressing for children, the authors warn.

Published on Leave a comment on BPA Free and BPA Plastic Have Similar Effects

Once again, research shows that "BPA-free" plastic does not mean it is safer than BPA plastic. Both BPA and BPS (the usual replacement for BPA) leach estrogenic chemicals into the foods and beverages, which means negative health effects when ingested. Both BPA and BPS mimic the effects of estrogen, as well as the actions of thyroid hormone. Yes, this study was done on zebrafish, but think of them as "the canaries in the mine" - if it affects them, it could affect humans also, especially developing fetuses and young children.

BPA  and BPS can leach into food, particularly under heat, from the lining of cans and from consumer products such as water bottles, baby bottles, food-storage containers, sippy cups, and plastic tableware. BPA can also be found in contact lenses, eyeglass lenses, compact discs, water-supply pipes, some cash register and ATM receipts, as well as in some dental sealants. A good way to minimize exposure to BPA , BPS, and other estrogenic chemicals is to try to avoid food and beverages in plastic containers and cans, but instead try to buy and store food in glass containers, jars, and bottles. From Science Daily:

'BPA-free' plastic accelerates embryonic development, disrupts reproductive system

Companies advertise "BPA-free" as a safer version of plastic products ranging from water bottles to sippy cups to toys. Many manufacturers stopped used Bisphenol A to strengthen plastic after animal studies linked it to early puberty and a rise in breast and prostate cancers.Yet new UCLA research demonstrates that BPS (Bisphenol S), a common replacement for BPA, speeds up embryonic development and disrupts the reproductive system.

Using a zebrafish model, Wayne and her colleagues found that exposure to low levels of BPA and BPS -- equivalent to the traces found in polluted river waters -- altered the animals' physiology at the embryonic stage in as quickly as 25 hours. "Egg hatching time accelerated, leading to the fish equivalent of premature birth," said Wayne, who is also UCLA's associate vice chancellor for research. "The embryos developed much faster than normal in the presence of BPA or BPS."

The UCLA team, which included first author Wenhui Qiu, a visiting graduate student from Shanghai University, chose to conduct the study in zebrafish because their transparent embryos make it possible to "watch" cell growth as it occurs.... In a second finding, the team discovered that the number of endocrine neurons increased up to 40 percent, suggesting that BPA overstimulates the reproductive system.... "We saw many of these same effects with BPS found in BPA-free products. BPS is not harmless."

After uncovering her first finding about BPA in 2008, Wayne immediately discarded all of the plastic food containers in her home and replaced them with glass. She and her family purchase food and drinks packaged in glass whenever possible. "Our findings are frightening and important," emphasized Wayne. "Consider it the aquatic version of the canary in the coal mine."

Finally, the researchers were surprised to find that both BPA and BPS acted partly through an estrogen system and partly through a thyroid hormone system to exert their effects. "Most people think of BPA as mimicking the effects of estrogen. But our work shows that it also mimics the actions of thyroid hormone," said Wayne. "Because of thyroid hormone's important influence on brain development during gestation, our work holds important implications for general embryonic and fetal development, including in humans."

Researchers have proposed that endocrine-disrupting chemicals may be contributing to the U.S.' rise in premature human births and early onset of puberty over the past couple of decades. "Our data support that hypothesis," said Wayne. "If BPA is impacting a wide variety of animal species, then it's likely to be affecting human health. Our study is the latest to help show this with BPA and now with BPS."

1

Published on 1 Comment on Beards and Bacteria in Hospitals

Once again, two opposing views about beards have been in the news - that they harbor all sorts of nasty disease-causing bacteria vs they are hygienic. An earlier May 5, 2015 post was about the question of whether bearded men have more bacteria on their faces than clean shaven ones. I cited a 2014 study found that they don't, and that we are all covered with bacteria, all sorts of bacteria, and this is normal.

Now another study has looked at the issue of hospital workers with and without beards and whether they carry infectious bacteria. Researchers swabbed the faces (center of the cheek and the skin of the upper lip under the nostrils) of both clean shaven individuals and individuals with facial hair (beards) that worked in two hospitals (they all had direct contact with patients) and looked at the bacteria present. They especially looked for the presence of the bacteria Staphylococcus aureus, which surprisingly was found more in the clean-shaven men.

Also to their surprise, it was more of the clean shaven men who carried the pathogenic bacteria Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (also known as MRSA). For those bacterial groups most closely associated with hospital acquired infections, such as Klebsiella species, Pseudomonas species, Enterobacter species., and Acinetobacter species, prevalence was low in both groups, and less than 2% for each group.

For other, less harmful bacteria, researchers found that bearded employees harbored no more bacteria than their clean-shaven colleagues. In summary: The researchers say that "results suggest that male hospital workers with facial hair do not harbour more potentially concerning bacteria than clean-shaven workers, and that in some instances, clean-shaven individuals are significantly more likely to be colonized with potential nosocomial pathogens". (NOTE: nosocomial means a disease originating or acquired in a hospital.)

And why is that? According to the study, one explanation is "microtrauma to the skin," which occurs during shaving and results in abrasions, which could support bacterial colonisation and growth of bacteria on the clean-shaven men. However, some other researchers have a different hypothesis — that beards themselves actually fight infection.

This stems from an experiment carried out by Dr. Michael Mosley who recently swabbed the beards of a variety of men and sent the samples to Dr. Adam Roberts, a microbiologist at University College London. Roberts grew more than 100 different bacteria from the beard samples, but found that in a few of the petri dishes a microbe was killing the other bacteria -  a bacteria called Staphylococcus epidermidis, and which they believe has antibiotic properties.

From the Journal of Hospital Infection: Bacterial ecology of hospital workers’ facial hair: a cross-sectional study

Summary: It is unknown whether healthcare workers' facial hair harbours nosocomial pathogens. We compared facial bacterial colonization rates among 408 male healthcare workers with and without facial hair. Workers with facial hair were less likely to be colonized with Staphylococcus aureus (41.2% vs 52.6%, P = 0.02) and meticillin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci (2.0% vs 7.0%, P = 0.01). Colonization rates with Gram-negative organisms were low for all healthcare workers, and Gram-negative colonization rates did not differ by facial hair type. Overall, colonization is similar in male healthcare workers with and without facial hair; however, certain bacterial species were more prevalent in workers without facial hair.

[Excerpts from Discussion]:Several studies to date have demonstrated that physician white coats and neck ties can act as significant sources of nosocomial bacteria. Our study suggests that facial hair does not increase the overall risk of bacterial colonization compared to clean-shaven control subjects. Indeed, clean-shaven control subjects exhibited higher rates of colonization with certain bacterial species. This finding may be explained by microtrauma to the skin during shaving resulting in abrasions, which may support bacterial colonization and proliferation. This may be akin to the enhanced risk of surgical site infections in patients shaved with razors prior to surgery. Further, our results are consistent with prior evidence pertaining to bacterial colonization on the hands and nares of HCWs (Health care workers).