Wellness Forum by Nathan Kagan

Health and wellness for all

Site Search:

Archive for the 'Toxins' Category

January 29, 2013

People! Educate yourselves and your loved ones. Please do not assume that if the product is approved by FDA it is safe. Almost every day you hear that food or drug that is FDA approved been banned. So my suggestion is ppllease  do not by processed food like bleached flower or refined sugar or bread made with bleached flower.

Processed drinks

Don’t drink it!

“What Is Brominated Vegetable Oil? Bromine is a halogen and displaces iodine, which can depress thyroid function, as well as known side effects such as: depression, memory loss, hallucinations, violent tendencies, psychosis, seizures, cerebral atrophy, acute irritability, tremors, ataxia, confusion, loss of peripheral vision, slurred speech, stupor, tendon reflex changes, photophobia due to enlarged pupils, extensor plantar responses, fatigue, lethargy, loss of muscle coordination, and headache.” http://voices.yahoo.com/the-dangers-additive-brominated-vegetable-oil-1569091.html?cat=51

“It’s illegal to use the chemical as a food additive in the European Union, India, Nepal, Canada, Brazil and Japan. Other ingredients that are allowed in American food but not in other countries include certain artificial colors and additives to flour.”

Prescription drugs

Educate yourself.

“FDA’s mission is first and foremost to protect public health by ensuring that foods are safe and properly labeled,” the agency said in a statement, contending that science-based implementation of federal law has helped make the U.S. food supply “the safest in the world.” Really?!
The companies are not required to show the FDA their reasoning or even to notify the agency before using the ingredient. The agency can ask to see the research and investigate if health issues emerge later. Which means that FDA will approve the ingredient but may unapprove it is later on after people test it on themselves and the product makes people sick. Nice approach using people as Ginny pigs!  Manufacturer claims that there is a very small amount added in drinks and food.

The problem is that it is not just one type drink of food item. BVO and many other additives added in many products we eat or drink. We don’t know how many. And this is the crucial point: we do not know what we consume. We do not know why is there an autism epidemic. We do not know why are there so many kids with allergies and asthma. We don’t know why there are increases in cancer. We do not have this knowledge yet,

So you need to educate yourself. No doctor or dietitian will help.

Here are some suggestions:

Drink water if you are thirsty. Not bottled water – filtered water.

If you cannot pronounce the ingredients – don’t eat it!

Eat your juices. Fiber in fruits and vegetables is important for your body.

Healthy habits not medicine.

Doctors use it but not their patients.

Eat red meat once a week, fish once or twice, chicken once a week.

Use quality supplements.

Use deodorants only on special occasions.

If you can shower every other day -not every day.

Exercise !

Learn  how to cope with stress.

Enjoy family and friends.

And remember: doctors are not here to keep your healthy. Doctors are here to help you if something happened to you.

Educate yourself

Read the label.

So stay healthy and don’t relay on doctors too much.

September 14, 2012

One bottle replaces a cabinet-full of leading household cleaners


I recently received this e-mail from the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and it agree. We all need to educate ourselves on what is safe to use. We need to learn how to read the labels and how to read between the lines. The products we use we researched and now we have confidence and peace of mind. But you have to make your own decision. Here it is:

Dear Nathan,

We all know cleaning is a chore that just has to get done – but why does picking a safer cleaning product also have to be a burden?

The scary fact is, ingredient labels aren’t mandatory for cleaning products. Some companies don’t list anything, while others list just one or two ingredients or use vague nonsense terms.

No one is making sure these products are safe for you and your family, so Environmental Working Group went to work. EWG’s 2012 Guide to Healthy Cleaning rates more than 2,000 household cleaning products for toxicity and disclosure.

It might not come as a surprise that there are dangerous ingredients in cleaning products – some known to harm the lungs, trigger asthma or are linked to cancer. What may surprise you is how few good options you have. Click here to see if your cleaners – from all-purpose cleaners to laundry detergent – make the grade.

The good news is, EWG wants to give you information you won’t necessarily find on labels. We’ve worked hard to find products that meet our standards.

For more than a year, our staff scientists have scoured the labels and websites of thousands of products to compile a wide-ranging list of chemicals in household cleaners. We’ve conducted extensive scientific reviews of these substances.

When we built our grading system, we looked not only at the toxicity of a product’s contents but also the transparency of its labeling. We created this important tool so you can get the information you need to live healthier – and do it in a matter of minutes.

Click here to check out the brand new EWG’s 2012 Guide to Healthy Cleaning and get real facts about your cleaners’ ingredients.

Thanks to EWG’s Guide to Healthy Cleaning, you can sidestep the worst products out there and reduce the number of harmful chemicals to which you might otherwise be exposed. One less chore for you to worry about when cleaning your home.

EWG thinks you have the right to know what’s in the sprays and scrubs you use at home. We hope our new guide makes shopping smart easier.


Ken Cook
President, Environmental Working Group


Author: Nathan
September 12, 2012

Here is this old debate again. It seems obvious to me that it is better to eat food without pesticides. And preferably locally grown. And not genetically modified. And no “research will convince me otherwise.


Research suggests there is no difference between organic and not organic food.

Same as organic?

WASHINGTON (AP) — Patient after patient asked: Is eating organic food, which costs more, really better for me?
Unsure, Stanford University doctors dug through reams of research to find out — and concluded there’s little evidence that going organic is much healthier, citing only a few differences involving pesticides and antibiotics.
Eating organic fruits and vegetables can lower exposure to pesticides, including for children — but the amount measured from conventionally grown produce was within safety limits, the researchers reported Monday. Nor did the organic foods prove more nutritious.
“I was absolutely surprised,” said Dr. Dena Bravata, a senior research affiliate at Stanford and long-time internist who began the analysis because so many of her patients asked if they should switch.
“There are many reasons why someone might choose organic foods over conventional foods,” from environmental concerns to taste preferences, Bravata stressed. But when it comes to individual health, “there isn’t much difference.”
[Related: When is buying organic worth it?]

Many of the Health Benefits of Organic are Due to What’s NOT in Your Food…

Suppversity 14 also recently blogged about this Stanford study, rightfully pointing out that the health benefits are not necessarily related to getting more nutrients from your food, but rather about getting less toxins. In this regard, the Stanford study clearly concurred that organic foods expose you to fewer pesticides – about 30 percent on average. Organic meats also reduce your risk of antibiotic-resistant bacteria by an average of 33 percent.

Other studies comparing organics and conventional foods have shown the reduction in toxic exposure may be even greater than that. Suppversity writes:

In a nutshell, the meta-analysis, which looked at 240 reports comparing organically and conventionally grown food (including 17 human studies), DID find that organic foods ARE safer, and probably healthier than conventional foods—if you are of the conviction that ingesting fewer toxins is healthier and safer for you. While I believe organic foods grown in healthy soils can be more nutritious than their conventional counterparts grown in depleted soils with synthetic chemicals, a major benefit of organically grown foods really is the reduction in your toxic loadhttp://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/09/17/organic-vs-conventional-food.aspx?e_cid=20120912_DNL_artTest_A2

To conclude. No matter how hard you try there a chemicals in your food. So I use the detox tea to cleanse my body.

Dangers of fire retardants.

Is he safe?

The remedy is worse than the disease.
Francis Bacon

Article in the Tribune.
The Tribune found, of a decades-long campaign of deception that has loaded the furniture and electronics in American homes with pounds of toxic chemicals linked to cancer, neurological deficits, developmental problems and impaired fertility.
Chemtura Corp. and Albemarle Corp., the two biggest U.S. manufacturers of flame retardants
“The tactics started with Big Tobacco, which wanted to shift focus away from cigarettes as the cause of fire deaths, and continued as chemical companies worked to preserve a lucrative market for their products, according to a Tribune review of thousands of government, scientific and internal industry documents.
These powerful industries distorted science in ways that overstated the benefits of the chemicals, created a phony consumer watchdog group that stoked the public’s fear of fire and helped organize and steer an association of top fire officials that spent more than a decade campaigning for their cause.”

Today, scientists know that some flame retardants escape from household products and settle in dust. That’s why toddlers, who play on the floor and put things in their mouths, generally have far higher levels of these chemicals in their bodies than their parents.
Blood levels of certain widely used flame retardants doubled in adults every two to five years between 1970 and 2004. More recent studies show levels haven’t declined in the U.S. even though some of the chemicals have been pulled from the market. A typical American baby is born with the highest recorded concentrations of flame retardants among infants in the world.

People might be willing to accept the health risks if the flame retardants packed into sofas and easy chairs worked as promised. But they don’t.
The chemical industry often points to a government study from the 1980s as proof that flame retardants save lives. But the study’s lead author, Vytenis Babrauskas, said in an interview that the industry has grossly distorted his findings and that the amount of retardants used in household furniture doesn’t work.
Other government scientists subsequently found that the flame retardants in household furniture don’t protect consumers from fire in any meaningful way.

On payroll of chemicals industry.


Dr. David Heimbach, a frequent witness for the industry, who has given testimony several times about a babies that died when a candle fell onto an untreated pillow. Turns out, despite repeated detail-flecked retellings, there’s no baby, no pillow, and no candle.

A study of products designed for newborns, babies, and toddlers – including car seats, breast feeding pillows, changing pads, crib wedges, bassinet mattresses and other items made with polyurethane foam – found that 80% of products tested contained chemical flame retardants that are considered toxic, according to a peer-reviewed study published in Environmental Science & Technology Journal. Other retardants discovered had so little health and safety data on them it is not possible to know their effects at this time. The same flame retardants found in some of the products are also found in children’s bodies and widely dispersed throughout the environment and in food.
Halogenated flame retardants added to fabric, to foam used in furniture and other products, to carpet padding, and to electronic equipment, also create more smoke and soot when these materials smolder or burn than do materials without these chemicals. And the smoke is deadly. First, inhalation can be deeply damaging to lungs. Fire fighters wear protective gear, but gear may not always function as intended. Second, intense smoke can be disorienting and disabling, making it impossible for fire fighters and building occupants to reach safety when surrounded by dense smoke and soot.

Fire retardants, sunscreens, air fresheners, deodorants. It is a a long list where the treatment is worse than a disease. But the industry is playing on our fears. In it is a powerful tool.
The bottom line: use common sense. Like not putting a candle on the pillow. This is just plain stupid!
Be suspicious of any chemicals.
Get educated. There is plenti information online about products safety.
Cleanse your body periodically.
Here a some products I use: http://www.marketamerica.com/product-2228/nutriclean-7day-cleansing-system.htm

January 16, 2012

Kerry GrensReuters. 1:24 p.m. CST, January 12, 2012

They would not survive for long

Endangered species...now we know why

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – Drinking a liter of regular cola every day increases the amount of fat in the liver and in the muscles and surrounding the organs in the belly, according to a new Danish study.

“This study suggests that the adverse effects of sugary beverages go beyond just weight gain or fat gain. It’s the gaining of the wrong fat in the wrong places,” said Dr. Frank Hu, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, who was not involved in this study.

The American Heart Association recommends drinking no more than about three cans of soda a week, while young men far exceed that, with about two cans a day on average (see Reuters Health report of August 31, 2011).

Submitted by: Leah Zerbe 2012-01-12 00:00

The negative effects of sodas:

Read the rest of this entry »

June 17, 2011

(CBS)  More than ever, people are worried about how all the chemicals we’re exposed to are affecting our health: among them a family of chemicals known as phthalates, which are used in everyday plastics. Not plastic bottles of water or soda, but soft and flexible things like shower curtains. They’re also in shampoos and carpeting. Phthalates are so ubiquitous, we all have traces in our bodies.

Dangerous chemicals

Is it safe?

Recently the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, put phthalates on a list of chemicals that “may present a risk” to the environment or human health. That’s because they disrupt hormone activity and some preliminary studies show that they may be causing a slow and steady demasculinizing of men. But if phthalates were on trial, a jury might find the evidence against them conflicting and inconclusive.

And yet last year Congress took action, doing what Europe had already done: it banned certain phthalates in children’s toys. Swan told “60 Minutes” correspondent Lesley Stahl she found that the higher the level of phthalates in the mother’s urine during pregnancy, the greater the problems occurred in young boys.

Asked what she found in babies, Swan said, “We found that the baby boys were in several subtle ways less completely masculine.” Dr. Howard Snyder, a pediatric urologist at Children’s Hospital in Philadelphia, says Swan’s findings line up with what he’s seeing in newborn baby boys: an alarming increase in deformed sex organs. Dr. Snyder operated on one-year-old Griffin to correct something called “hypospadias,” a birth defect that causes problems in urination.

Phthalates in beauty products.

High price of beauty

Phthalates in cosmetics and beauty products

The Environmental Working Group conducted a web-based analysis to locate consumer products, particularly cosmetics and beauty aids, containing phthalates. We found both dibutyl phthalate (DBP) and diethyl phthalate (DEP) in numerous products, and butylbenzyl phthalate (BBP) in a smaller number of products. Ultimately we limited our search to DBP, because it is a more potent reproductive and developmental toxin than DEP, and is found in a greater number of products than BBP.

Several points became clear during our product search. First, alternatives to phthalates are readily available to industry, as only a fraction of any given type of cosmetic or beauty product contains phthalates. Our product label searches in electronic and real-world drugstores showed that, for the consumer, the products most easily found that contain DBP are nail enamels and hardeners. In a limited label search of nail products on online drugstore web sites, EWG found DBP in a wide variety of name brand items, including Cover Girl and Maybelline nail enamels

In America, just about anything goes with chemicals until someone shows they are dangerous. In Europe, the REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals) program reverses the burden of proof; manufacturers must show that they are safe. Where chemicals are considered hazardous, REACH sets “sunset” dates, deadlines for elimination. But you can’t complain that it is the precautionary principle gone mad when it comes to HBCD; the stuff is known to be unhealthy.

A new study says chemical flame retardants are harming the brain development of children throughout Europe. Of particular concern is the retardant known as deca, used in many plastics in computers and televisions. A recent EWG investigation included the first tests for deca in the household dust of 10 American families, and found levels of the toxic chemical well above those that are causing concern in Europe.” (Environmental Working Group) [29]

So again we start using products and then discover that we get sick from it. Should we call it “Trial and Error” approach? The problem is that “error” means death!

Teas to detoxify your body



Author: Nathan
May 5, 2011

Electronic products wasteland.

Waste land

The amount of electronic products discarded globally has skyrocketed recently, with 20-50 million tonnes generated every year. If such a huge figure is hard to imagine, think of it like this – if the estimated amount of e-waste generated every year would be put into containers on a train it would go once around the world!

Discarded electronics contain hazardous materials. If disposed improperly, they pose a potential threat to human health and the environment. E-Waste accounts for 40 percent of the lead and 75 percent of the heavy metals found in landfills. Although safe when used, once electronics are discarded in a landfill, the acidic conditions provide an environment in which lead and other heavy metals may leak out. If the landfill’s liner fails, the groundwater supply may become contaminated.
A whole bouquet of heavy metals, semimetals and other chemical compounds lurk inside your seemingly innocent laptop or TV. E-waste dangers stem from ingredients such as lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, copper, beryllium, barium, chromium, nickel, zinc, silver and gold. Many of these elements are used in circuit boards and comprise electrical parts such as computer chips, monitors and wiring. Also, many electrical products include various flame-retardant chemicals that might pose potential health risks.
The most abundant component of e-waste is plastics. Plastics comprise almost twenty-three percent of a typical desktop computer (Microelectronics 1995). They are used for insulation, cables and housing for all electronic devices; the variety of products available for recovery complicates the de-manufacturing process. Due to the complex recovery process, large amounts of plastic e-waste are disposed of through landfills, incinerators and open burning, allowing toxic substances to leach into the environment.
UC researchers believe pregnant women—and more specifically their growing fetuses and young children—living in developing countries where primitive and informal e-waste recycling occurs are at increased risk for neurotoxicity.
“Because the brain is in a state of rapid development, the blood-brain barrier in infants and young children is not as effective as in adults, and neurotoxic substances—like heavy metals—can cause developmental damage,” explains Chen.
Did you know?
The average lifespan of computers in developed countries has dropped from six years in 1997 to just two years in 2005.
Mobile phones have a lifecycle of less than two years in developed countries.
183 million computers were sold worldwide in 2004 – 11.6 percent more than in 2003.
674 million mobile phones were sold worldwide in 2004 – 30 percent more than in 2003.
By 2010, there will be 716 million new computers in use. Therewill be 178 million new computer users in China, 80 million new usersin India.
41.1 million desktops & laptops   The EPA (in report summarized above) estimates that 29.9 million
desktops and 12 million laptops were discarded in 2007.  That’s over 112,000 computers discarded per day!
31.9 million computer monitors   The EPA report (above) estimates that 31.9 computer monitors were
discarded in 2007 – both flat panel and CRTs.
400 million units of  e‐waste
In a 2006 report, the International Association of Electronics Recyclers projects that with the current growth and obsolescence rates of the
various categories of consumer electronics, (a broader list than the EPA used above, including DVDs, VCRs, mainframes) somewhere in the
neighborhood of 3 billion units will be scrapped during the rest of this decade, or an average of about 400 million units a year.
Over 3 million tons of e‐waste disposed in 2008 in USA. In 2008, we generated 3.16 million tons of e‐waste in the U.S. Of this amount, only 430,000 tons or 13.6 % was recycled, according to the EPA. The rest was trashed – in landfills or incinerators. (The total generated increased from 3.01 million tons of e‐waste generated in 2007, but the recovery rate stayed at 13.6%.
It is a big and growing problem. Please be aware that every time you get a new electronic gadget the old one may end up poisoning children.


Author: Nathan
April 25, 2011

Contaminated water

Burning water

“In America today you can murder land for private profit.  You can leave the corpse for all to see, and nobody calls the cops.” (Paul Brooks)

“For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, I don’t think we can drill, fracture and remove pieces of anything and not see a change in the matter. The “gas rush” could prove to be catastrophic.” By JAMIE HETRICK on March 19, 2011


Two days ago, a fracking well in Canton, Pennsylvania exploded, spilling thousands of gallons of toxic chemicals over farms, fields and the private property of local families. The chemicals even flowed into a creek that connects to the Susquehanna River.

In 2005, the Bush/ Cheney Energy Bill exempted natural gas drilling from the Safe Drinking Water Act. It exempts companies from disclosing the chemicals used during hydraulic fracturing. Essentially, the provision took the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) off the job. It is now commonly referred to as the Halliburton Loophole.

Dick Cheney

Dick Cheney

Unfortunately, because of Dick Cheney’s Halliburton loophole for the oil and gas industry, the corporation that runs the well, Chesapeake Energy Corporation, is under no legal obligation to pay for their mess or for the medical expenses of the people that may suffer health problems as a result.

The gas comes up wet in produced water and has to be separated from the wastewater on the surface. Only 30-50% of the water is typically recovered from a well. This wastewater can be highly toxic.

For each frack, 80-300 tons of chemicals may be used. Presently, the natural gas industry does not have to disclose the chemicals used, but scientists have identified volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene.

NY Times published new information

The documents reveal that the wastewater, which is sometimes hauled to sewage plants not designed to treat it and then discharged into rivers that supply drinking water, contains radioactivity at levels higher than previously known, and far higher than the level that federal regulators say is safe for these treatment plants to handle.

Other documents and interviews show that many E.P.A. scientists are alarmed, warning that the drilling waste is a threat to drinking water in Pennsylvania. Their concern is based partly on a 2009 study, never made public, written by an E.P.A. consultant who concluded that some sewage treatment plants were incapable of removing certain drilling waste contaminants and were probably violating the law.

The Times also found never-reported studies by the E.P.A. and a confidential study by the drilling industry that all concluded that radioactivity in drilling waste cannot be fully diluted in rivers and other waterways.

So enjoy “safe and clean” natural gas. Who cares about water or this planet anyway?

The least we can do is to be aware of  dangers of fracking. Detoxify your body. It is better than nothing!

April 21, 2011

Fresh strawberries

Fresh and safe

AT THE HEART of both the state and federal risk assessments are safety concerns. Even though workers who handle methyl iodide must be trained and wear proper protective gear, including gloves and a respirator, and buffer zones must be established around treated areas, accidents likely will happen. If a spill were to occur, workers and nearby residents would be exposed, opponents say.

Methyl iodide is a nasty chemical. It is a known neurotoxin and endocrine disruptor, and scientists in labs handle only small amounts using special protective equipment because it is so toxic. But do you know where else it is used? As a pesticide on strawberries and other food crops.
The battle against methyl iodide is being fought on several fronts. Last summer, Washington state banned the use of the pesticide. Unfortunately, the pendulum swung the other way in California, when despite more than 53,000 public comments submitted by CREDO activists and our allies, the state’s Department of Pesticide Regulation approved the chemical for agricultural use last December.
But the ultimate power to regulate pesticides lies with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which has just decided to reconsider its approval of methyl iodide — approval that was granted during George W. Bush’s administration.
EPA first looked into approving methyl iodide in 2006 as a replacement for methyl bromide, which is a fumigant that is banned under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer but allowed for critical uses for which no alternatives exist. The agency initially dropped its plan because of concerns over methyl iodide’s toxicity but changed its position in 2007.

Picking strawberries

Methyl iodide is so toxic because it is a strong alkylating agent, says Robert G. Bergman, an organometallic chemist at UC Berkeley. Alkylating agents can chemically modify DNA and can alter gene expression.

“Methyl iodide is pretty damaging to living tissues. It’s damaging to DNA and thereby should be considered carcinogenic,” adds Ted Schettler, a toxicologist and physician with Science & Environmental Health Network, a nonprofit organization formed by a consortium of environmental groups. Schettler is also one of the scientists who signed the letter to EPA last year. Although Schettler is concerned about the carcinogenic properties of methyl iodide, he says his biggest concern has to do with its effects on the developing brain.
U.S. EPA to reconsider federal approval
Due to the concerns raised by California’s Scientific Review Committee, U.S. EPA staff confirmed in August 2010 that they would re-open their national decision on methyl iodide for public comment. The science is in and it is unequivocal.
In a region where farmers once stockpiled barrels of toxic ethylene dibromide, farmers are now learning to fight pests with meadows of mustard. This year, it is estimated that nearly 40,000 acres of potato fields in Washington and Idaho will have switched from using dangerous synthetic fumigants like metam sodium to employing mustard as a less expensive, natural bio-fumigant.
So what do we do in the mean time?
I suggest to detoxify with this excellent product

You are currently browsing the archives for the Toxins category.

Contact Us

Recent Posts

Marco Island Condo