The Brockovich Report

Acrylamide

Another chemical has been pointed out by the media. Acrylamide is not exactly the phrase on everyone's lips, but it is nothing new; it's something the EPA set water regulations for in 1974.

FYI, it's an organic white, odorless, flake-like crystal used as a coagulant in water treatment, in making chemicals and dyes, sizing paper and textiles and in ore processing. For the short term, exposure causes damage to the nervous system, weakness and lack of leg coordination; long term, it causes damage to the nervous system, paralysis; cancer.

It's something to learn about.

As far as I know, it's not something adds like a spice or even as a preservative. But if you fry food at high temperatures, it is created in the process.

It's time to eating it and stop feeding it to your kids.

Wake up America. Another reason not to eat fried foods.

I'm not surprised that the chemical acrylamide found in fries, cakes and snacks. I don't think this would be something to sue about, but it is something to know about and to avoid.

I've had my experience with foods that hurt. For the past two years my health has not been good. I attributed it to my exposures to chemicals and my severe allergy to sulfur, After finding no help through modern medicine except more antibiotics, steroids to reduce inflammation, nose sprays, eye drops and more antibiotics, I finally sought help.

It had to be something I was exposed to everyday that was causing all my fatigue, sinus problems, watery eyes, depression.

The culprit seems to have been foods allergies. I got off sugar, processed foods, frozen foods, and yes, by coincidence, french fries. This really started making me aware of what chemicals are in our food. I can absolutely say after several months of watching what I eat, that food can make you sick. Bad food choices can be poison to our bodies.

Fortunately good food choices can make us feel better.

So now, if God didn't make it, I don't eat it, and my health is fantastic. I have energy, no bags under my eyes, no headaches, no sinus problems, I take NO medicine, my vision is no longer blurred.

I'm not trying to set myself up as the poster child for organic eating. I've cheated--I recently had a chocolate chip cookie--even if it didn't stay down very long. It's just that fast food french fries show high levels of acrylamide--from 39 to 72 micrograms. Since it forms in fries during high-temperature frying, realistically, it just means that we can eat our potatoes cooked another way. Besides, who needs all those starchy carbs anyway?

So let's say no to acrylamide. We don't need fries--and other processed fried or baked goods containing acrylamide-- to survive. They aren't so evil they need to be illegal. But we will probably live a little longer and feel a little better without them.

Don't forget about Gardasil if I don't talk about it every week. They won't talk about it in Australia, either. Hundreds of Australian girls have experienced paralysis, dizzy spells and seizures and more. Australian records are not to my knowledge made public as they are in the US.

Gardasil is a vaccine that claims to be partially effective against some strains of HPV, some of which may cause cancer. Look at all of that equivocation: partially effective against some strains which might...

Weigh that against the ad campaign about wanting to be one woman less who has cancer.
There's a huge leap between partially effective against some...especially when there's some indication that taking the vaccine may be related to Acute Demyelinating Encephalomyelitis. Don't believe it? Look up "Brittany bell" and Gardasil.

How did MERC push its way thru the FDA approval process and get put on the market before it had completely complied with U.S. protocols and procedures? We know at least one reason why: they were in a rush to beat a competitive European product before it hits the US. Market.

Before you jump in with all four feet defending this vaccine as a cancer preventative, please remember that drug companies are NOT all about protecting our daughters. They are all about selling products. The vaccine has not been fully tested. No one has been studying it long enough to know what the LONG TERM consequences are. They don't even know how long the vaccine is effective or how frequently it will require boosters. How can anyone be talking about requiring ALL our young girls to be vaccinated with such an unknown quantity? What about the side effects? What are they?

Before my daughter ingests or is exposed to any chemical, I want to know it has been fully tested and is judged completely effective as well as completely safe.

After 5758 documented complaints of adverse reactions and up to 8 DEATHS, I believe a safety check is warranted. Individuals with Lyme disease, for example, had especially adverse reactions; and there are a lot of undiagnosed cases of Lyne disease out there.

And frankly, even if it is safe, it is NOT effective. *"Protective efficacy of this vaccine against different types of human papillomavirus was very low and the protection may be because of sub-clinical infection with human papillomavirus or antigenically related viruses." Pendru Raghunath, Senior Research Fellow.

And why is it not approved for use in males? Males get HPV, even if they do not get cervical cancer. Is it possible that marketing it to boys would remind people that the vaccine is not really a cancer preventative but a partially effective measure against a sexually transmitted disease?

The National Vaccine Information Center issued a press release that Gardasil MERCK'S GARDASIL VACCINE NOT PROVEN SAFE FOR LITTLE GIRLS National Vaccine Information Center Criticizes _FDA for Fast Tracking Licensure. The issues include flawed science, marketing strategy, and a need to show apparent results in a race for research grants.

Shades of Orwell and Doublespeak.

Are those the drug companies claim to be helping today actually tomorrow's victims?

I have said before that being Green has philosophical meaning. Of course philosophy is purely theoretical, and our approach to living Green can not be limited to the philosophical. It has to be purely realistic. We don't live in a philosophical world. We live in a real world. Being Green, Living Green, and making Green choices are not some theoretical thought processes which only affect our minds. These are choices that affect life. Not just our life, but life around us, and the life that is to come after us.

I get a lot of mail from people who share my concerns about how our increasingly contaminated environment increasingly threatens our health.

Just imagine we if we all addressed the issues, we would probably have lower health insurance rates, but who wants that?

Recently I got an email from Mike Cushman, a Canadian who is a prime example of someone who is getting involved. He too has become alarmed by the connection between toxic environment and illness. He read a book by Dr. Devra Davis Director of the Center for Environmental Oncology. Combined with Davis's book, Mike's research and his own family history, Mike had a wake-up call:

• Illness and the contaminated environment are connected.
• Greening the environment should be top priority for us all.

Mike Cushman took advantage of the Freedom of Information Act. He did as we all should; he informed himself, and then he took it on himself to make a noise, and inform other people.

Being Green is not and should not be just another trend for people to make money. It can not be a cause of the week for us to make a so so effort and then move on to the next fad.

Being Green is an imperative.

We must look at all contamination in all its facets. Air. Water. Earth.
We must clean up the contamination in all its facets. Air. Water. Earth.

There is no magic reality. A clean-up won't just happen spontaneously. It won't ever happen if we look the other way. We can not close our eyes. There is only one option for us, and that is to face the issue: we have runaway contamination. It is killing us.

How can we clean it all up?

We must heal the dysfunction of the EPA. We must inform the our public agencies who daily, yearly look the other way and make them do their jobs.

I see the power of Industry; Industry has the funds to clean up after itself. But it does not.
Therefore it is the EPA's job--it is my job--your job--everyone's job--to hold industry accountable.

Thirty years ago, the federal government funded 75% of the costs of maintaining a clean water infrastructure and now its support is down to 5%. One possible solution could be a Clean Water Enforcement Trust Fund. What about a dedicated trust fund that would be used exclusively to keep Industry accountable for cleaning up its own mess? This backed with a two-sided accountability: Industry Accountability AND Administrative Accountability. Americans will NOT tolerate waste, fraud or abuse. There MUST be an effective firewall for this trust fund. Funding must be held to its original intent.

We must all become active participants in Greening the world. Our future generations deserves a greater legacy from us than a ruined planet.

Life is all about cycles. Open up any student biology book and it will show you animal life cycles, cell cycles, water cycles, ecosystem cycles and the like. It is all a balance between producers and consumers, and how energy flows through an ecosystem.

If you look at the big picture of our ecosystem, plants get their energy from the sun; herbivores get their energy from plants; carnivores get their energy from herbivores; and omnivores get their energy from plants and herbivores. It's pretty efficient. Most energy is recycled within our ecosystem, but there is some loss, mostly heat or kinetic. This in spite of that law in physics. The "law of conservation of energy" that states that the quantity of energy in a system is constant.

It seems that our scientists should be able to use that law, somehow, to help us find energy sources as all of this energy is constantly transitioning form one form to another to another to another.

We just have to find that balance, you know the one implied in that Disney Lion King song--Circle of Life. Not that the Circle of Life song goes into physics; but it promises "we find our place/ On the path unwinding/ In the Circle/ The Circle of Life."

For us, nature is the ultimate environmental continuum in our circle of life, one that is not overly destructive--especially as we human beings are conscious of our participation in the dynamics of life-cycles.

We just have to find our place in it.

I hate to say "I told you so." But it keeps happening.

Scientific Panel Says Erin Brockovich Was Right. "Sixteen years after activist Erin Brockovich first suggested that hexavalent chromium in drinking water might be a health hazard, a federal scientific panel has agreed with her. " That's a direct quote. And to be accurate, you have to add on a year or two more to get to the day I first started looking into and talking about the undocumented underestimated dangers of hexavalent chromium.

Now there's another batch of scientists who are verifying what I've been talking about. Again. There's an article titled AP Probe Finds Drugs in Drinking Water which says "A vast array of pharmaceuticals — including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones — have been found in the drinking water supplies of at least 41 million Americans, an Associated Press investigation shows."

I won't say I told you so. It only means that it takes science a little while to catch up with what people observe. (Wait...haven't I been saying that too?)

I won't say I told you so. Though I have been talking about the importance of clean water all along. The importance of having clean water should be apparent to everyone who drinks water. (That includes all of us, right?) Where else do all the groundwater contamination lawsuits come from? There is contamination out there. Water contamination is more widespread than any of us would like to believe.

Other people are saying "I told you so" too. Even Environmental Sociologists like Michael R. Meuser, M.A. Take a look at this website that maps 179 groundwater contamination sites in Santa Clara County alone. 179 contaminated sites in a single county. Why isn't everyone up in arms over the contaminated state of our most essential resource?

But I shouldn't say "I told you so." It's not just industrial solvents, like trichloroethylene, or TCE, a potentially potent carcinogen typical of what industry allows to leach into the water table. This latest probe reveals unexpected findings like prescription drugs dissolved into our drinking water. After all, it makes sense. People take pills; pills dissolve and that water eventually re-enters the water system. The probe talks about pharmaceuticals like medications for pain, infection, high cholesterol, asthma, epilepsy, mental illness and heart problems, anti-epileptic and anti-anxiety medications, mood-stabilizers, even sex hormones. Adding chlorine, which kills biotic toxic agents, makes it worse. Reverse osmosis--a water purification method--does remove even pharmaceuticals that we don't test for but it is prohibitavely expensive, and it can't be done at every source of contamination, like leaky private septic tanks.

But I won't say "I told you so."

In history, they always talk about the pendulum swinging. First we go one way, then we swing back the other. Right now, we're still on the upswing. For years--forever maybe except for a little rebellious blip during the sixties--we have been a consumer society. Way back when our agrarian culture moved from the farms and toward the cities, the substance and spirit of being "successful" transmogrified. Forget actualization. Making it isn't really about developing who we are as much as it is about improving and increasing what we have.

I grew up in a house where if something broke, my father fixed it or had it fixed. If the television quit, we fixed it or did without. We didn't toss it out and run to the store to get a new one. No one of that generation did. Because products weren't built with planned obsolescence. They didn't have unibody plastic insides that couldn't be serviced; they had replaceable parts. They were intended to be archival--built to last. Things have changed. In a way, we are at the mercy of progress. Simply because robotic factories build fast in enormous quantities instead of slowly by hand--making our entire marketplace possible; and because technology changes so fast that we must toss out old devices to access the current thing; but also because we can only buy stuff that we are sold. And we are sold stuff that is expected to be tossed instead of repaired. Simply, products are made to be cheaper to buy than to fix.

I mentioned the buzzword last week: consumerism. Conspicuous consumerism. You know, keeping up with the Joneses. One upsmanship. Having the biggest house, the fastest car on the block. Our whole Horatio Alger rags-to-riches philosophy of life just wouldn't have the same oomph if we didn't get to show off the riches a little bit when we get to be a have instead of a have-not. Make that show off the riches alot.

We are all about shopping. I know because that's what the television tells me. And magazines. And the media.

Last week I was talking about this same thing. Shopping green is a good start--but in a sense, is it not an oxymoron? Because being green is not so much buying new stuff that happens to be organic and recyclable. It isn't so much about being a consumer. It's about being a "conserver." Remember conservation? As in people who repair what they have instead of replace it. As in conservation of resources. Recall the conservation movement: to protect plants, animals and habitats. Energy conservation: reducing energy consumption, and finding renewable resources.

How does all of this shopping we do fit in with the holistic philosophy of reduced consumption and smaller footprints?

The idea of conservation flies in the face of the construct our entire society, which hinges on consumers using up stuff that industry has to make more of. I don't want to put the cogs and wheels out of business; maybe the marketplace will keep chugging along until it finds the happy medium where new unbiodegradable pseudo-disposable-plastic-styrofoam-wasteful junk merchandise is replaced by high quality product that is intended to last. And of course, if industry will clean up after itself, or better yet, devise ways not to be destructive, then that's even better.

But still--buying green is a start; it is certainly better than the alternative. And I wonder is buying green the new gateway drug that will take us one day to a more balanced society? Only the swinging pendulum knows for sure.

Smell the freshly cut grass. It's the scent of green.

Hear each leaf whisper in the wind. It's the sound of green.

Feel the brush of the willow, the velvet of verdant moss under your bare feet. It's the touch of green.

I don't think it's an accident that green is the symbol and the name of the Green movement. It's the color signature of life. Instant recognition. The media person who coined the metaphor should have his name inscribed up there with the major media geniuses. What better to symbolize the environment and sustainability? And sustaining life--and a better quality of life--is what being green is all about.

The green movement is all about choice. Where we choose to live; how we choose to live. More importantly, it is a lifestyle philosophy. We Americans have that luxury that many other countries do not have: choice. After decades of conspicuous consumerism, how do we now choose to lessen our impact on the earth? The only way we can is to choose the "greener" options. And choose less. Waste less.

We can always choose to buy the item that is sustainable, like bamboo instead of Brazilian Rosewood, for example. Because bamboo grows fast and replaces itself, and Brazilian Rosewood is so rare they don't even import it any more. Or eating Wild Alaskan Salmon (who die when they spawn anyway) instead of slow growing Orange Roughy that can live to be 149 years old. Sometimes it is about buying less, or getting what is locally grown so it hasn't required significant transportation. But living green is not just about shopping.

It's about lifestyle choices--everything from riding public transportation to using organic produce to not using pesticides to creating a wildscape in your yard instead of a lawn to recycling instead of buying new. There's a deeper meaning beneath the action of choice. It is a philosophy of living life "naturally."

Instead of gossiping how some "green" movie star shows up in a gas guzzler, shouldn't we all be talking about groundwater contamination? Why aren't people pushing to get adequate funding for the EPA so that it isn't a failure? Where are the priorities? Without clean water there is no life. We can not live without it. It's time for all of us to make a lifestyle choice too: to write about something significant. Like clean water.

Being Green is not a trend. It's not a popular movement. It is an evolution. The philosophy not new. We've heard it at least three times. It's the philosophy of the Native Americans who lived lightly on the land. It's like the second coming of the hippies (or Sixties revenge if you prefer.) And now it's the science of "environmentalism." If it takes that triangulation to get the idea across that maybe we should waste not want not, then so be it. But whether it is couched in the terms of science, sixties or Native American mythology, the whole movement rises on a backbone of reverence for the earth, for the amazing biology that sustains us. It is amazing; and it is too frail for us to take for granted. We cannot afford for our children to drink water that gives them cancer. We cannot let the green movement fall to the wayside. We must choose Green while we have a choice.

Before it is too late.

A lawfirm advertises a medical brochure about Mesothelioma. On Television.

A news broadcast announces that many Lipitor patients experience memory loss. (Why would this be surprising? Statins reduce cholesterol and the brain relies on cholesterol to function. )

Some Avandia patients won't take their medication. Some Avandia patients have an increased risk of heart attack. Some people take Avandia and have heart attacks. Some of them die. Some of them didn't have to.

Every day for us, it's an information war out there. A war between information and disinformation; between fact and fear; between supposition and position; it's a war of possibilities.

I think sometimes it is important to remember that opinions and belief can be irrelevant. Think of it for a moment. If you believe the world is square, does it matter? The world is round (technically an oblate spheroid—a rounded shape with a bulge around the equator) no matter what you believe. And round or square or cubic zirconium, we're not going to fall off of it. The truth--or the untruth--of a claim does not rest in belief. It rests in fact. Hopefully we may discover the truth if we investigate it; but we above all should maintain the right to our own voices. In spite of what we believe, there is a tangible truth out there. Just...it may not be a universal truth and sometimes--like those folks on the other side of the earth who do not fall off--the consequences of the truth and all its facets are counterintuitive.

What is the point to all of this philosophizing?

There is more than one perspective out there. There are as many perspectives as there are people--maybe even more, since some people are open-minded enough to see more than one point of view. And that is all right, because we have freedom of speech, and we have first amendment rights.

And because we have freedom of speech and first amendment rights, internet advertising should reflect that. Curtailing attorneys from internet advertising is a violation of freedom of speech and first amendment rights.

Business would have us all be a world of robots, taking their commands, buying their products, buying their bull.

In particular, I'm responding to articles like this one One problem in this article is that a single spurious assumption can ruin a study; and studies can be slanted to seem to say nearly anything. And there's a straw dog in that article, a false premise. They claim drug litigation is about trial lawyer profits. When it comes down to it, drug litigation is not about trial lawyer profits. Drug litigation is about empowering the tiny voice of the consumer against the fat cats of industry. Victims have a right to be heard. Victims have a right to have "megaphones" so their voice can be heard; and trial lawyers are the personification of megaphones. Articles like the link I just posted seem to be holding up the voice of reason, but they are not. They are trying to quell rights, and what is more shameful than that, especially in a free and ethical society?

Remember in the Wizard of Oz, how Dorothy announced herself? "I am Dorothy, the small and meek."

Come on people and take off the blinders! It is no coincidence that thousands on Avandia now have heart attacks. Don't they have a right to be more than a petulant Dorothy trembling--and dying--at the feet of the Great and Powerful pharmaceutical companies?

We live in a country that proudly announces we have freedom of speech and free enterprise. Certainly at it's zenith, these freedoms can produce the most sublime art. At the other end of the spectrum we find night-time television flooded with infomercials, and daytime television flooded with commercials that tweak the imagination and regularly imply more utopian product satisfaction than any materialistic thing could realistically deliver. We live in a society where radio ads tease us; newspaper clipper coupons lure us to shop here or there, and full color magazine ads tantalize us into buying expensive brand name products simply for the prestige of wearing the label, even if it is only to the nearest Walmart, Publix, Costco, Kroger or 7/11.

Is it any wonder that the internet abounds with a plethora of advertisement? It's important to remember any time you go on the internet, especially if you're looking for "truth, justice and the American way," you always have to do something that your great great great horse-trading grandfather would have advised you to do.

"Consider the source."

Someone showed me this Washington Times article with the following quote:

"Because for every noble, heartstring-pulling Erin Brockovich fantasy, there are countless real-life personal-injury lawyers who erode public confidence in our civil justice system, undermine America's economic competitiveness and contribute to health care inflation with frequently meritless lawsuits."

First, I'd like to say that there are personal injury lawyers out there in the world because there are people who get injured due to negligence of one kind or another, and they need someone to advocate for them. That said, their worst internet advertising is probably no worse than nighttime infomercials; and one's experience with them is bound to be not far off from one's experience with nighttime infomercials too. Remember that night you stayed up late and after thirty minutes of tele-shopper-hypnotism, ended up purchasing some get rich quick real estate program; or some make a million building websites program; or some extreme diet or exercise plan; or some peculiar kitchen device that looked really amazing in the tele demonstration, but is going to spend the next seventeen years gathering dust in your appliance garage. Hopefully the worst thing that can happen is a brief waste of time, or coming out of the experience like Marion the Librarian, sadder but wiser.

Accessibility of information is one of the great benefits of our age; of course it is a shame thee is so much useless rubbish to sort thru. There are always going to be best case scenarios and worst case scenarios. But somewhere between the sublime and the ridiculous, amid that topography of internet verbiage is the path for a victim to find just recourse. And I wonder--is that such a very bad thing?

There are Unidentified Flying Objects. There are Unidentified Submarine Objects. Now there are Unidentified Cutaneous Objects. (For those of us without an MD, and even for those WITH an MD, cutaneous means relating to or existing on or affecting the skin.) These "UCO" are classified officially as Delusional Parasitosis since the Center for Disease Control and Prevention doesn't know what they are, or even IF they are. And of course, what they don't know about must be delusional.

I suppose whenever humankind faces something new, it is a throwback to the day when we believed we lived in a geocentric universe in which the sun and everything else revolved around us, and everyone who was anyone said the world was flat. Just like those long ago days, now they're all having a whopping case of denial. And I'm not talking about that river in Egypt. I'm talking about Morgellons syndrome. It IS denial when a scientist won't even look at the problem. Not investigating. . . that is not scientific method.

Maybe it is a scary thing when we have to admit there's something new out there in the big bad world. After all, we humans are creatures of habit. Most of us would like to be able to take a snapshot of things and be able to relax and say "This is how it is." But the world keeps turning. We keep discovering new things about our old world. Our body of knowledge keeps on growing, in spite of denial. Things grow. Things change, even if we say they don't.

You'd think a researcher would be thrilled to find something new. But they (the official powers that be) spent years denying the existence of Morgellons syndrome. It is a debilitating condition which wears down those afflicted by it, a condition which is characterized by itching skin, the sensation of crawling or biting on or below the skin, skin lesions, and weird fibers that grow below the skin.

In fact, experts don't agree on anything about this condition. Is it a single parasite? Are there misdiagnoses in addition to legitimate cases? Is Morgellons a collection of other conditions mislabeled and lumped into a single category? Is the syndrome imaginary? Is it a mental illness?

For now, it is classified as an Unexplained Dermopathy; at least it's been acknowledged to the point of being investigated in epidemiological studies by the CDC. For the past few years, sufferers have had http://www.morgellons.org/ which is working toward getting more money for more research centers. Because of Morgellons Org., there are some legitimate researchers getting involved: Oklahoma State University, California State University – Hayward, State University of NY – Stonybrook, a microbiologist at Clongen Laboratories, and possibly others.

So, how is the research going? Some scientists think that the fibers are consistent with substances created by the body. They've discovered half of the people they've investigated who have symptoms of Morgellons also have Lyme disease. At least they're looking at the problem. There may not yet be a light at the end of the tunnel, but at least they're admitting there is a tunnel, and not declaring it hysterical spelunker syndrome.

Links
On Wikipedia
Morgellons Research Foundation
Study seeks clues on skin-crawling Morgellons

There's been a public advisory about eating toxic fish. Those of you who have been eating fish because it's healthier, but you've been walking around achy and fatigued, listen up.

" Consumption of smallmouth bass caught in Chartiers Creek from the PA Route 980 Bridge in Canonsburg to the mouth in Washington and Allegheny Counties, and in Little Chartiers Creek from Canonsburg Lake Dam to the mouth in Washington County, should be limited to six meals per year, due to polychlorinated biphenyl, or PCB, contamination."

I see things like this and it really makes me wonder at the thinking. Do I need fish so much that I want a 1/6th portion of poison with it?

So what is PCB and why is it in my fish?

Polychlorinated biphenyl is an organic compound of benzene, carbon and chlorine that used to be used in coolant, electronics, sealants, adhesives, caulking, pesticides, carbon paper, and various other industrial uses. Production has been banned since the 1970s. It is especially dangerous because it is odorless and tasteless, and so stable that it hangs around a long time.

Clean water is always a concern for me. The EPA has set a limit of 0.0005 milligrams of PCBs per liter of drinking water (0.0005 mg/L). Unfortunately, industry released up to 1,300,000 pounds of PCBs into the Hudson river alone between approximately 1947 and 1977. It's seems that it is still there. And PCBs are bad for people.

PCB consumption is bad for pregnant and nursing woman, and harms the neonatal and natal immune system. It is linked to long term immune and autoimmune disorders, rheumatoid arthritis, dermatitis, bacterial infections, and various cancer.

If you want to know more about PCBs, you can contact the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

Division of Toxicology and Environmental Medicine
1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop F-32
Atlanta, GA 30333
Phone: 1-800-CDC-INFO • 888-232-6348 (TTY)
FAX: 770-488-4178
Email: cdcinfo@cdc.gov

.pdf