5 Strep Throat Home Remedies to Kick Strep Throat Without Antibiotics

How To Get Rid Of Constipation Immediately and Naturally

4 Ways to Ease Your Bunions Without Surgery

Trouble Sleeping? Try These 5 Best Essential Oils for Sleep

5 Best Ways To Get Rid of Body Odour and Excessive Sweating

How To Get Rid Of Blackheads For Good (DIY Blackheads Face Mask)

12 Toxins in Your Drinking Water

1. Fluoride

Adding fluoride to drinking water is a process that began back in the 1940’s to help reduce tooth decay. It sounds like a noble cause but fluoride is a neurotoxin and an endocrine disruptor. It can harm the thyroid gland and calcify the pineal gland. It’s so toxic that several countries have banned water fluoridation. Even some U.S. cities have caught on and started rejecting the process of fluoridation.^[1]

2. Chlorine

Chlorine has disinfectant properties that make it useful for cleaning products and swimming pools. It’s even used to sanitize sewage and industrial waste. Chlorine is added to drinking water as a purification technique, despite not being completely safe.^[2]
Chlorine is a reactive chemical that bonds with water, including the water in your gut, to produce poisonous hydrochloric acid. Chlorine exposure can cause respiratory problems and damage cells. Long term effects include memory loss and impaired balance.^[3][4]

3. Lead

Lead is the main toxin causing problems in Flint. Corroded pipes are releasing up to ten times the allowable amount of lead into the water. Lead is toxic to almost every organ and affects children the worst. Developmental issues, stunted growth, deafness, behavioral problems, learning disabilities, and brain damage can all result from exposure to lead.^[5] If ingested during pregnancy, lead can cause premature birth.^[6] Lead exposure has even been linked to autism, prostate cancer, and reproductive problems for both men and women.^[7] It’s damaging to the cardiovascular system and kidneys, too.^[8]

4. Mercury

Although mercury is a naturally occurring element, “natural” does not mean “safe.” Mercury is extremely toxic and can cause brain damage, blindness, nerve damage, cognitive disability, impairment of motor functions, headaches, weakness, muscle atrophy, tremors, mood swings, memory loss, and skin rashes.
A byproduct of mining and industrial practices, mercury vapor can linger in the atmosphere and ride the winds halfway around the globe.^[9]

5. PCBs

PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, are chemicals used for industrial purposes such as insulation, machinery, oil, paints, adhesives, electronics, and fluorescent lights.
Although PCBs were banned in 1979, they’re still present in landfills and pose a danger to the environment. PCBs break down slowly and infiltrate the environment. They have been found in snow and sea water thousands of miles from where they were produced.^[10]
Animal tests have found PCBs to cause cancer and negatively affect the immune, reproductive, nervous, and endocrine systems.^[11]

6. Arsenic

Arsenic, despite being poisonous, is used in a multitude of industrial processes. Environmental contamination may result from improper waste disposal, or from poorly-planned wells that hit a natural source.^[12]
Arsenic poisoning can cause vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhea, and even death in severe cases. Long-term exposure can lead to skin cancer, lung cancer, and bladder cancer. In Taiwan, arsenic causes “blackfoot disease,” a type of gangrene that causes blood vessels to die and rot.^[12]

7. Perchlorate

Perchlorates are a key ingredient in rocket fuel and explosives. They dissolve easily and seep into groundwater from military and industrial sites. It’s believed that perchlorates have contaminated much of the Colorado river.^[13] The problem is severe; almost all humans will test positive for perchlorates, which attack the thyroid.

8. Dioxins

Dioxins are released during combustion, such as burning of hazardous waste, forest fires, cigarette smoke, and burning oil and coal. They settle in the environment and destroy water sources.^[14]
Short term exposure can cause lesions and respiratory problems. Long-term exposure can affect the immune, nervous, endocrine, and reproductive systems. The International Agency for Research on Cancer has declared dioxins are carcinogenic. In developing fetuses, dioxin poisoning can cause birth defects or stillbirth.^[15]

9. DDT (Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane)

DDT was used as an insecticide in the 1940s to combat insect-borne diseases like malaria and typhus. It had widespread use as an agricultural insecticide until it was banned in the United States in 1972 due to environmental concerns.^[16]
It remains in use in other parts of the world and is still a major health concern for all of us. DDT molecules are persistent and can travel vast distances in the atmosphere.^[17]
Animal testing has found DDT causes reproductive problems and liver damage. The International Agency for Research on Cancer has declared DDT is a cancer risk.^[18]

10. HCB

Until 1965, HCB, or Hexachlorobenzene, was used as a pesticide. Production has been banned, but it is still formed as a byproduct from the production of other chemicals. A large dose can result in death. Smaller doses can lead to liver disease and skin lesions. The EPA has classified HCB as a probable cancer source.^[19]
In Anatolia, Turkey in the late 1950’s, over 4500 people suffered HCB poisoning as a result of tainted grain. Over 500 people died, including children. 30 years later, follow-up studies found that the breast milk of women in the area still contained up to 150 times the amount of HCB allowed in cow’s milk.^[20]

11. Dacthal

Dacthal (dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate, or DCPA) is an herbicide that contaminates soil and water sources. Unlike HBA and DDT, Dacthal is still in use today. Animal tests have found dacthal damages the adrenal glands, kidneys, liver, thyroid, and spleen.^[21][22]

12. MtBE

MtBE (methyl tertiary-butyl ether) is a gasoline additive that can render large quantities of groundwater completely undrinkable. In 1996, the city of Santa Monica, CA found this out the hard way and the city had to shut down 50% of its water supply and pay for replacement water.^[23]
The health effects of MtBE are not understood. Animal tests have linked it to kidney damage, seizures, and problems with fetal development.^[24]

Further Concerns and Safety

I need to clear up a common misconception. Some people are under the impression that they can remove toxins from water by boiling it. Boiling water kills harmful organisms but does nothing to remove toxic chemicals, compounds, salts, and metals.
This is by no mean a complete list of all the toxins that might be in drinking water. Please keep informed of water quality issues in your area. If poor-quality tap water is a problem for you, I recommend investing in a quality water filter or glass-bottled distilled water.

How Your Nail Polish Could Be Damaging Your Health

How to Get Rid of Puffy Eyes, Swollen Eyelids

Top 5 Natural Home Remedies For Food Poisoning

Get Relief from Varicose Veins with This Natural Treatment

How to Remove Plaque and Tartar from Teeth at Home

According to the National Eye Institute, twice as many women as men are diagnosed with vision-threatening diseases each year. Across the globe, women are more likely to suffer blindness and vision loss. Of the common eye diseases, dry eye syndrome is two to three times more common in women than in men at any age because of differences in hormones.

Autoimmune diseases, such as lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, and certain forms of cataract are more prevalent in women than in men. These risks, as well as age-related afflictions like macular degeneration increase with age, affecting women more often because women tend to live longer.

Here are some steps women can take to reduce their risk of vision problems.

--> To read the rest of this blog post and learn other tips that can improve and protect your vision, follow the link below:

https://www.rebuildyourvision.com/blog/womens-eye-health/womens-unique-vision-issues/

To your vision – for life.

Tyler

7 Proven Health Benefits of Blueberries

Ginger, Honey and Cinnamon Mixture to Reverse Arthritis, Diabetes, Colds...

This is How to Detox Each Organ to Never Feel Sick or Tired Again!

The ADA’s “Non-Facts”

The ADA’s “Non-Facts” After, 13 years the American Dental Association (ADA) has finally updated its statement on Water fluoridation. Throughout its 100+ page document, Fluoridation Facts 2018 the ADA provides us with “opinions” dressed up as “Facts.” It’s central opinion – which it has held for over 60 years (the ADA endorsed fluoridation in 1950 and it has defended it ever since) -is that any study that finds any harm caused by fluoride, at doses close to those experienced by anyone drinking fluoridated water, cannot possibly be a sound study. This opinion is the “belief” that underpins its unscientific and unprofessional promotion of this reckless and unethical practice. From this belief it works backwards. Here is an example on an issue that our readers know something about. The following paragraph is how the ADA handles the groundbreaking 12-year mother-child study funded by US-government agencies and carried out by some of the most prestigious researchers on cognitive function in the world. In 2017 a study from Mexico City149 received some coverage in the popular press. The authors concluded higher urinary fluoride levels- of pregnant women were associated with lower scores on tests of cognitive function in their children. This was an observational study that by definition could only show a possible association between fluoride exposure and IQ - not cause and effect. This small study did not adequately address a number of potential confounders that might explain the possible association such as breast feeding, maternal age, gestational age, birth weight and education as well as exposures to lead, mercury, arsenic and iodine that affect IQ and other measures of cognitive ability. Unlike conditions in the U.S., the pregnant women participating in the study were exposed to varied fluoride levels from naturally occurring fluoride in the water supply (in some cases at levels almost twice as high as the level recommended for community water fluoridation in the U.S.) and fluoridated salt.149  Lets look at ADA claims about this study line by line.  We’ll see that ADA is completely wrong or misleading in every statement they make about this study.  (ADA’s original words in red) In 2017 a study from Mexico City149 received some coverage in the popular press. This is misleading because it ignores the more important fact about the study, which is that it was published in the leading peer-reviewed journal of environmental health (Environmental Health Perspectives), which is published by the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), a division of NIH.  It was funded with $3 million in US government grants from the NIH, NIEHS and EPA.  The authors were some of the world’s foremost experts in studying neurotoxicity from fetal and early childhood exposures. The authors concluded higher urinary fluoride levels of pregnant women were associated with lower scores on tests of cognitive function in their children. This is correct but incomplete and understates the strength of the findings.  The results of the study showed that for every 1 mg/L increase in urine fluoride in the pregnant mothers, their children averaged 6 IQ points lower test scores, a large effect.  This finding was highly statistically significant.  A 1 mg/L difference in urine fluoride is roughly the difference one would expect between mothers in fluoridated parts of the USA and those in unfluoridated parts. This was an observational study that by definition could only show a possible association between fluoride exposure and IQ - not cause and effect. This is a red herring and is also misleading.  On ethical grounds it is prohibited to conduct experimental studies on humans where an exposure is intentionally given in order to determine whether that exposure causes harm.  Thus, virtually all studies of harmful outcomes of any chemical exposure are observational studies. This particular study found a large dose-response effect that was statistically significant and they ruled out most possible alternative explanations.  It can therefore be described as having found strong evidence that fluoride does cause a large loss of IQ at the exposure levels in the people studied.  The ADA bringing in the philosophical question of what types of studies can prove cause and effect is an attempt to distract from the strength of this study. This small study This was one of the largest studies of fluoride and IQ to date.  It included 300 mother-child pairs.  This is as large as many of the studies that have been used to show that childhood lead exposure causes loss of IQ.  Furthermore, this study has individual-level information on every mother and child.  The mothers were followed throughout pregnancy and the children followed from birth through age 6-12 years.  This was neither an ecological study design or a cross-sectional study design, it was the strongest study design possible. ...did not adequately address a number of potential confounders that might explain the possible association such as breast feeding, maternal age, gestational age, birth weight and education as well as exposures to lead, mercury, arsenic and iodine that affect IQ and other measures of cognitive ability. This is the most serious criticism of the Bashash study, and it is also the falsest of the ADA’s cricitisms. The ADA Fluoridation Facts 2018 lists nine potential confounding factors and says they were not adequately addressed by the study.  This claim is simply not true.  Maternal age, gestational age, birth weight, and mother’s education were all measured as continuous variables and controlled for fully.  Lead and mercury were measured as continuous variables and controlled for fully.  Arsenic was not measured but the authors did not find any evidence that arsenic was elevated in the Mexico City area of their study.  More importantly, for confounding, arsenic would not only have to be elevated but it also would have had to be strongly positively correlated with fluoride exposure.  But most fluoride exposure in the Mexico City women was from fluoridated salt, which would not have been contaminated with arsenic. Iodine was not measured, but there are strong grounds for expecting that if iodine confounded the relationship between fluoride and IQ, that it would attenuate the effect not exaggerate the effect.  That is because in Mexico City the main source of fluoride is from fluoridated salt and that salt is also iodized.  Therefore, mothers with higher fluoridated salt intake would also have higher iodine intake.  Iodine is protective against loss of IQ, so it would counteract the fluoride in the salt. The only potential confounder suggested by ADA that was not considered in the study was breast feeding.  However, for a factor to actually confound the relationship between fluoride exposure and loss of IQ, the factor must be correlated with both fluoride exposure and the outcome, IQ.  The main source of fluoride exposure was fluoridated salt.  There is unlikely to be a correlation between breast feeding a child and fluoridated salt consumption in pregnant women.  Furthermore, even if there was a very close correlation between breast-feeding and fluoride exposure, with the women with the lowest urine fluoride levels during pregnancy being much more likely to breast feed their child than the women with the highest urine fluoride levels, this would be unlikely to explain more than about half of the decrease in IQ.  That’s because meta-analyses of the benefit of breast feeding on IQ have found it only increases IQ by about 3 points [Anderson et al 1999], whereas the Bashash study found a 6 point difference in IQ between those with high and low fluoride exposure. So, in direct contradiction to the ADA claims that the study did not adequately account for potential confounders, in fact, one of the most important strengths of the study was how comprehensively and carefully it did control for potential confounding. Unlike conditions in the U.S., the pregnant women participating in the study were exposed to varied fluoride levels from naturally occurring fluoride in the water supply (in some cases at levels almost twice as high as the level recommended for community water fluoridation in the U.S.) and fluoridated salt.149 This is a very misleading statement on several grounds.  Most importantly, it ignores the fact that it is the total fluoride exposure, not exposure from a single source, that is relevant for comparing the Bashash study to exposures in the U.S.  Mother’s urine fluoride level is a good reflection of total fluoride intake.  It is also likely to be strongly correlated with the fetal fluoride exposure. Therefore, the best way of assessing whether the Bashash study exposure levels are relevant to the U.S. is to compare the urine fluoride levels in Bashash to those in the U.S.  No studies of the urine fluoride levels in pregnant women in the U.S. are known, however studies of U.S. adults have found a similar range of urine F as found in the Bashash study.  Also, national surveys of urine F in Canada and the United Kingdom have also found a similar range as the Bashash study. There has been one study of urine F in pregnant women in a city with artificial fluoridation in New Zealand.  This study, by Brough et al (2015) found an average urine F and range of urine F that were almost exactly the same as found in the Bashash study.  The existing evidence is therefore strong that pregnant women in the U.S. will have a similar range of exposures as was found in the Bashash study.  Whether their fluoride exposure comes from artificially fluoridated water, water with a natural high fluoride level, fluoridated salt, or eating a lot of canned sardines (which are high in fluoride) is immaterial. The ADA’s implication that the Bashash study is not relevant to the U.S. because the main source of fluoride was not artificially fluoridated water is the same fallacy used by Broadbent et al. (2015) in the study of fluoride and IQ in New Zealand that was not able to find an effect.  Broadbent only considered fluoridated water as a source of fluoride and did not properly account for fluoride supplements.  Fluoride supplements were given to those without fluoridated water so that those children had total fluoride intake almost as high as the children with fluoridated water.  There was little difference in total fluoride exposure so it is not surprising Broadbent found little difference in IQ. There is another misleading, if not outright false “fact” in this ADA statement about fluoride exposures: …naturally occurring fluoride in the water supply (in some cases at levels almost twice as high as the level recommended for community water fluoridation in the U.S.) This uses the same false logic as the ADA and other fluoridation defenders have used when criticizing many previous studies of fluoride and IQ.  They frequently cite only the highest level of exposure that showed an effect, not the average level or lowest levels.  In toxicology and when setting public policy, it is the lowest levels of exposure that cause harm that are relevant, not the highest levels.  This should be self-evident. So, for ADA to state “in some cases” the natural water fluoride level was “almost twice as high” as the 0.7 mg/L level currently recommended for water fluoridation in the U.S. is simply an attempt to distract from the relevant exposures, which are the lowest exposures that caused harm. Furthermore, it ignores the evidence from a separate study by Martinez-Meir et al (2005), one of the co-authors of the Bashash study, that found the average water fluoride level in Mexico City was only 0.3 mg/L, which is less than half of the recommended fluoridation level in the U.S. In summary, every one of ADA’s “Fluoridation Facts” about the Bashash study are false, misleading, or deceiving because of omission. The ADA is attempting to deny the science.  It plays “fast and lose” with the “facts” to support its agenda to defend fluoridation at all costs. And the costs in this case is a serious risk that fluoride exposure -at levels experienced in artificially fluoridated communities – threatens our children’s brains.   Thank you,  Paul Connett, PhD. Executive Director See previous bulletins that discuss Bashash: *March 29, Authors of U.S.-Funded Fluoride IQ Study Strengthen Findings *March 27,  Moms2B Avoid Fluoride: Better safe than sorry *March 22, Health England Makes a Scientific Fool of Itself • March 21, A Mind Is A Terrible Thing To Waste • March 16, Help us get a warning to pregnant women about fluoride’s dangers to their unborn child • March 12, TSCA: Defending our Children’s Brains in Court • March 9, TSCA: Another IQ Study Supports our Law Suit Against EPA • March 6, TSCA: Our Two Campaigns * March 1, Second Victory in Lawsuit Against EPA Additional Resources: • The full TSCA petition submitted to EPA on Nov 22, 2016 • A shorter 8-page summary • Follow the news reports here • The Documents submitted into the court record * The Timeline of the Lawsuit See all FAN bulletins online                          Reply Forward Click here to Reply or Forward 2.73 GB (18%) of 15 GB used Manage Terms - Privacy Last account activity: 8 minutes ago Details

2.73 GB (18%) of 15 GB used

Manage

Terms - Privacy

Last account activity: 8 minutes ago

Details

Sending...