Kids poisoned by their own clothing
Not long ago, I warned you about many of the hidden chemical dangers in many so-called “natural” products. I told you about an 18-month old baby with sky-high levels of chemical flame retardants in her blood – two or three times the amount that’s known to cause major nerve damage in lab rats. The poor thing had absorbed these chemicals through her skin because her clothing had been INTENTIONALLY doused with flame- retardants – as is mandated for all children’s clothing, thanks to U.S. law.
At the time, I thought this was an isolated incident. But a new study reveals that this problem with flame retardant chemicals and children is actually far more widespread than I’d ever imagined.
The Environmental Working Group, which has campaigned against the use of these chemicals for years, recently studied 20 families and found that ALL the toddlers and preschoolers in the study had a level of chemical fire retardants in their blood that was an average of THREE TIMES higher than their mothers’!
The chemicals in question are known as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs). Unlike the flame retardant antimony, which is generally the kind used to make clothing fire-resistant, PBDEs are widely used and are a part of nearly every conceivable household item you can imagine: mattresses, TVs, computers, remote controls, and more.
Like antimony, PBDEs have been known to cause brain damage in animals. But doctors fear that the possible effects on human children could range from hyperactivity to damage to hormone systems and reproductive organs.
So how does this kind of chemical danger seep into our lives? The usual way: government over-regulation thanks to misguided liberal do-gooders. Linda Birnbaum, a senior toxicologist with the Environmental Protection Agency, said that Americans as a whole tend to have a much higher level of fire retardants in their bodies than Europeans because fire safety regulations in the U.S. are so much stricter.
Yes, that’s right: by getting the government to pass laws to make us “safer,” they’ve exposed generations of our children to harmful chemicals. Thank you Senator Save the Children! As usual, your solution is as bad as the problem – and maybe worse.
Of course, there is backpedaling and denial from the manufacturers of these widely used (and probably amazingly lucrative) poisons. John Kyte, spokesman for the Bromine Science and Environmental Forum, an industry association, had the nerve to question the results of the study. Kyte claimed that the levels of the fire retardants in the children were, in fact, low compared to their mothers.
“Flame retardants save actual human lives,” Kyte said. “And no illness, ailment, or harm to any human anywhere has ever been reported as a result of exposure to Deca, even among those who work producing the material.” Deca, like PBDEs, is another widely used flame retardant.
Excuse my cynicism, Mr. Kyte, but I can’t recall any incident that’s ever been reported where a flame retardant in a TV or a remote control or a computer has saved “actual human lives.” Last time I checked, there are still plenty of fire-related deaths in this country in spite of the fact that the members of your industry have managed to use a misguided government mandate to push your poisons into every consumer good in modern life.
It’s discouraging: how do you win the fight against legally mandated toxins that are so ubiquitous? The answer is, you keep sounding the alarm until everyone finally sits up and takes notice.
Salmonella is going to the dogs
You can’t swing a dead cat without hitting a newspaper containing a story about a new tainted food recall. Actually, maybe I should’ve said you can’t swing a dead dog, because the newest salmonella outbreak seems to be a bigger danger to canines than people.
Recently, the California Department of Public Health warned consumers that some bags of Pedigree Complete Nutrition Small Crunchy Bite could be contaminated with salmonella. Apparently, not even our pets are safe from these nightmares.
Salmonella can have the same effect on pets as it does on people: high fever, lethargy, bloody diarrhea, and vomiting. California’s DHP believes that some tainted animal protein – probably poultry – was the source of the bacteria.
Thankfully, this outbreak seems to have been limited to dog food; how in the world could anyone know if a cat had salmonella when one of the key symptoms is lethargy?
