Women warned not to wear perfume during pregnancy

February 24th, 2009

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/health/Women-warned–not-to.4443471.jp

By Kate Foster

PREGNANT women have been advised to avoid using perfumes or scented body creams after research suggested the products can cause unborn boys to suffer infertility or cancer in later life.

Research on rats carried out by Professor Richard Sharpe has found that the reproductive system of male foetuses can be damaged as early as at eight weeks’ gestation by chemicals including those found in many cosmetics.

The damage can result in in fertility or testicular cancer – both growing medical problems across the world – said Sharpe, principal investigator at the Medical Research Council’s Human Sciences Unit.

Sharpe, who will unveil his findings at a major conference on fertility in Edinburgh this week, has discovered a “time window” at 8 to 12 weeks’ gestation – before some women even know they are pregnant – during which certain hormones in the foetus are activated and the male reproductive system is established.

Sharpe has found that future problems with male fertility including undescended testicles, low sperm count and the risk of testicular cancer could be determined at this time if these hormones, such as testosterone, do not work properly.

Experiments on rats have confirmed that if the hormones are blocked the animals suffered fertility problems.

Sharpe told Scotland on Sunday: “We have found the male programming window, which occurs far earlier in foetal development than was previously thought, before the reproductive organs fully develop. This is when the androgens such as testosterone in the foetus are at their most active.

“If the male foetus does not receive enough androgens it may not realise its full reproductive potential, including the size of the penis and testes, undescended testes or the sperm count. The chances are, something will be wrong with the reproductive system. It may be one thing or several things.

“Women could stop using body creams and perfumes. Although we do not have conclusive evidence that they do harm, there are components about which there are question marks; for example it could be certain combinations of chemicals. If you are thinking about how a baby might be exposed, that’s one way, and it’s something positive you can do. It might have no consequence, but it’s something positive women can do for their baby.”

Sharpe will reveal his findings this week at the Simpson Symposium in Edinburgh, a gathering of fertility experts organised by Edinburgh University.

Up to 8% of boys are thought to be born with undescended testicles, which is the most common birth defect in boys and is linked to infertility. The condition is also a risk factor for developing testicular cancer later in life.

Sperm quality and number have declined in the last 30 years. About one in seven couples in the UK will have difficulty conceiving at some time. About one third of cases are due to problems in the man.

Testicular cancer is also increasing worldwide by between 1% and 6% a year. The annual number of new cases of testicular cancer in the UK grew from 850 in 1975 to 1,889 in 2004.

However, campaigners urged women not to panic over the suggestion until further studies are conducted.

Susan Seenan, spokeswoman for the charity Infertility Network UK, said: “A lot of women will not even know they are pregnant at this stage, or how far along they are. I would be very concerned about alarming women until these tests have been done on humans. We welcome any new research in infertility but we would like to see a lot more research in this area before the findings on animals can be said for humans.”

How To Repel Ants So They Don’t Come Back

February 24th, 2009

http://dld123.com/q&a/index.php?cid=28We own a small business with office and shop employees. We had ants in the office, lounge areas, restrooms, lunchrooms, etc. Very disturbing to the ladies in the office trying to do their work. My wife is chemical sensitive and we couldn’t even use the baits that you find in the grocery store. Found the following recipe in “Common Sense Pest Control” and modified it slightly. It works overnight and the ants don’t come back.

Mix in a small jar. I use a baby food jar and it keeps in the refrigerator: 1/4 cup of sugar, 3/4 cup of water, 1 tablespoon of borax. Stir and let it sit until it is all dissolved. Soak a piece of homemade bread crust about 1″ square in the liquid until it is saturated. Place the dripping bread crust in the path of where the ants are coming in. In a few minutes the crust is completely covered by ants and you may need to place a couple more pieces in the area to satisfy the amount of ants you have. The next day they are gone and don’t come back.

Getting a Monthly dose of Poison with your Tampons

February 24th, 2009
Note: Canary Cosmetics carries Natracare Tampons. 
Every month millions of women everywhere depend on a little helper to do it’s job but how many of us realize we are taking a little dose of poison at the same time. The rise of female diseases and compromised immune systems of our multi generational female population encourages a closer look at this dependable and consistent consumer choice.

Ninety nine percent of the conventional tampons marketed to women are a rayon fiber and or cotton combination of fibers that have been chlorine bleached. Rayon fibers are made from chemically processed wood pulp in a process that wastes almost two thirds of the wood material. The cotton used in conjunction with the rayon fibers have been bleached in chlorine. Chlorine leaches a chemical by-product known as “dioxins” which are powerful carcinogens that can damage the immune system and disrupt the endocrine system. Hundreds of studies have shown a direct link between dioxin exposure and cancer, birth defects and reproductive disorders.

When was the last time you looked at the ingredients on your tampon box? Here are the usual ingredients listed: Rayon and/or Cotton Fiber, Polyethylene/Polyester, Polyester or Cotton, Polysorbate 20, Fragrance. Anytime you see “Fragrance” in the ingredient list…buyer beware! When there is not a direct and conclusive list of the fragrance source such as “organic rose or lavender oil” you are unconsciously subscribing to phthalates. Phthalates are industrial chemicals frequently added to consumer products to make fragrances last longer and to make plastic more flexible. Phthalates are found in shower curtains (a recent pull from all major stores), makeup, nail polish and in our bodies via a “blood burden” test. Phthalates are suspected hormone disruptors that can enter the human body via skin absorption, inhalation and ingestion.

We Americans have been desensitized to what smells, feels and tastes good to us. We have forgotten what “squeaky” clean means through a number of masked and very well thought out marketing campaigns to make us “think” we know what smells, feels and tastes good. Currently there are only two companies that are creating 100% organic cotton tampons that have not been bleached with chlorine. Natracare and Seventh Generation make tampons with or without applicators that are clean and green enough to use anywhere in or on your body. Shouldn’t that be the idea? Their websites are www.natracare.com and www.seventhgen.com

I encourage you to try them out and see if you can feel the difference! You may spend a few pennies more each month but on the flip side you won’t be spending hours of your precious life in compromise. It is a completely different feeling having something inside of you that isn’t compromised and drenched in chemicals.

Burning incense increases cancer risks: study

February 24th, 2009

Last Updated: Monday, August 25, 2008 | 
CBC News 
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008/08/25/incense-cancer.html 
 
Inhaling incense fumes over long periods increases the risk of developing cancers of the respiratory tract, a finding that applies to Asian populations worldwide, researchers warn. 

Burning incense — a mix of plant materials and oils — is an integral part of daily life in large parts of Asia, as well as in North Africa and among Inuit populations.

Incense releases large amounts of smoke containing particulate matter that gets caught in the lungs, as well as possible carcinogens such as polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), carbonyls and benzene.

Indoor concentrations of particulate matter from burning incense has been found to far exceed outdoor air quality standards, and can potentially produce more particulate matter than second-hand tobacco smoke, previous studies have shown.

Burning incense almost doubled the risk of squamous cell carcinomas in the upper respiratory tract, such as the nose and sinuses, tongue, mouth and larynx, said the researchers led by Dr. Jeppe Friborg of the epidemiology department at Statens Serum Institut in Copenhagen, Denmark. 

Their findings are published in the Oct. 1 issue of the journal Cancer.

‘Given the widespread and sometimes involuntary exposure to smoke of burning incense, these findings carry significant public health implications,’ the study’s authors concluded.

‘Besides initiatives to reduce incense smoke exposure, future studies should be undertaken to identify the least harmful types of incense.’

While a cause-and-effect relationship could not be established in this type of study, experts suggest burning incense less often and improving ventilation to minimize the long-term risks.

The risk increased in both smokers and non-smokers, the study of more than 61,000 Singaporean Chinese found. The intensity and duration of incense use were also both linked to the levels of risk, Friborg’s team found.
 
The overall risk of lung cancer did not appear to increase with incense use, but the study did suggest a link to increased risk of a specific type of disease, squamous cell carcinoma of the lung.

Participants were aged 45 to 74 and were free of cancer when they were first interviewed in 1993-1998. They were followed until 2005. 

Over that time, a total of 325 upper respiratory tract cancers (including nasal/sinus, tongue, mouth, laryngeal and other cancers) and 821 lung cancers were found.

Antibacterial battle

February 24th, 2009

http://www.oregonlive.com/living/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/living/121909290381270.xml&coll=7&thispage=1
 
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
CARRIE NUGENT
The Oregonian Staff
Dish soap. Conveyor belts. Toothpaste. Socks. Deodorant. Latex paint.

You can buy “antibacterial” versions of plenty of products, all imbued with triclosan, the chemical that provides the bacteria-killing muscle. Classified as a pesticide, triclosan kills good and bad bacteria indiscriminately. That’s just one of several concerns and controversies surrounding the man-made chemical:

It lingers in the environment.

Shoppers might not know when they’ve bought antibacterial products because it’s not always clear what is or isn’t.

What does it mean that it’s in so many household products?

Studies show that for household needs, regular soap and water fight bacteria just fine, so why use it?

Manufacturers maintain it is innocuous — unless you are bacteria. Opponents worry about its health effects and that widespread use will breed resistant bacteria.

Triclosan, initially intended for medical settings, isn’t the only antibacterial chemical — its cousin, triclocarban, also is used sometimes. Of course, not all products have these chemicals added.

To help shoppers choose more wisely, we sort out what’s known.

CLAIM: Antibacterial soaps get things cleaner

The concentrations of triclosan in soaps have not been found to be any more effective than plain soap and water.

A study comparing households with and without triclosan products found no difference in cleanliness. Killing all bacteria, as triclosan does, can harm health. It kills not only the “bad” bacteria that can make us sick — such as E. coli — but also the harmless or even helpful bacteria hanging around our body that we need.

“Washing with soap and water is probably better than putting something on you that is over the long term inhibiting bacteria growth,” says Fred Berman, director of the Center for Research on Occupational and Environmental Toxics at Oregon Health & Science University.

“To go beyond that, in a way, is overkill. We don’t know for sure whether the use of something like triclosan is ultimately harmful.” Bottom line: Plain soap and water is all you need to keep your hands and dishes clean. Check “active ingredients” on the back label to see if soap contains triclosan.

CLAIM: It does no harm

Triclosan attacks bacteria differently than alcohol or soap and water. Some scientists are concerned that casual use of the chemical could breed triclosan-resistant bacteria, robbing people with weak immune systems of an important protection.

Laboratory cultures of E. coli bacteria can develop resistance to triclosan-treated soaps. Many strains of E. coli are harmless, but a few can cause severe food poisoning, such as the strains behind several meat and vegetable recalls this summer.

Other bacteria, studies show, aren’t as adaptable, but some scientists think that in time, triclosan-resistant strains of all kinds of bacteria will emerge. Bottom line: Limit triclosan to medical settings to prolong its effectiveness.

CLAIM: Triclosan keeps kids healthier

Many advertisements target parents, showing mothers wiping pools of chicken juice on counters or adorable toddlers sneezing on toys.

Several commercials have been downright misleading. (The Environmental Protection Agency forced Microban in 2004 to back off its marketing claims.) According to Dale Kemery of the EPA, the agency regulates triclosan as a bacteriostat — it stops bacteria from reproducing but does not kill them. Any further implication, such as that a treated plastic toy will keep your kid from catching his buddy’s strep throat, go beyond what triclosan has been proved to accomplish.

Besides, some bacteria build healthier immune systems. A widely cited study shows that in a rural community, children who grew up on farms had fewer allergies than those who did not. The hypothesis is that immune systems need a certain level of bacteria to develop. Bottom line: “I think there is something to the argument that we are trying to be too sanitary,” OHSU’s Berman says. “I’m not aware, in the literature or anywhere, of children having increased illness because they are playing with toys. And if parents are concerned — they can just wash the toys in mild soapy water occasionally.”

CLAIM: It’s rigorously tested

Two government agencies regulate triclosan — the Food and Drug Administration for products like soap and toothpaste, the EPA for products like mattresses and plastic toys.

The EPA is reviewing triclosan, along with other chemicals under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, to ensure that they meet standards. To read the preliminary assessment online: epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/triclosan_fs.htm

Like with many government reports, not everyone was pleased with the results. The assessment states, “There are no food-use tolerances for triclosan. Therefore, a formal Food Quality Protection Act analysis is not needed for this chemical.”

Some see that as a problem because triclosan is often in dishwashing soap. And unlike conventional soap, triclosan does not easily rinse away — the molecule’s slow solubility allows it to stick around — on your plates, on your silverware and on your hands. That’s why some people want the EPA to evaluate triclosan and food-use tolerance. The EPA did evaluate the risk of it entering food that touches countertops, cutting boards and the like, and said: “All results are below level of concern.”

Products marketed as dishwashing liquid are labeled “antibacterial hand soap” if they include triclosan, says Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, based in Washington, D.C. That allows triclosan products an easier path to federal approval.

“Many people wash their fruits and vegetables with this soap, not giving it a second thought that this product contains this extra chemical, that in this case has not been evaluated to use on food,” Feldman says. Bottom line: The EPA’s final decision on triclosan is scheduled for September.

CLAIM: It disappears down the drain

Wastewater treatment removes triclosan in varying efficiencies, between 53 and 99 percent, according to the EPA. What’s left ends up in the environment, generally sticking to sediment.

It’s found at low levels in streams throughout the world as well as in our own backyard, including Fanno Creek, the Columbia Slough and the Tualatin River. It’s not clear how or whether plants and animals are affected by constant low levels. However, the EPA’s preliminary assessment concludes, “Triclosan is highly toxic to freshwater invertebrates.”

Other troubling findings: University of Minnesota researchers have shown sunlight can convert triclosan to a toxin. Scientists at Virginia Tech discovered that triclosan mixed with chlorinated tap water — like what happens when you wash dishes or shower — can form chloroform, a carcinogen.

Triclosan’s chemical structure resembles the thyroid hormone. A study at the University of Victoria in Canada showed triclosan affected tadpole development, though a later study, funded by triclosan manufacturer Ciba, indicates that low levels do not affect tadpoles.

Triclosan can be absorbed through skin. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found widespread exposure in the United States. One study found it in some human breast milk. Bottom line: Triclosan is in the environment and our bodies — and scientists aren’t sure of the consequences.

To kill bacteria without triclosan:

Ordinary soap and water

Diluted solution of bleach and water

Alcohol

Hydrogen peroxide

Products with triclosan

Not everything has triclosan. Check “active ingredients” on the back label of items including soaps, toothpaste and deodorant, which must list it.

Some, but not all, Microban products contain triclosan. However, unlike FDA-regulated products like dish soap, manufacturers are not required to list triclosan as an ingredient.

The list of products is from an EPA report on triclosan. Not all brands and versions of these items contain triclosan: plastic toys, floors, brooms, caulking compounds, latex paints, shower curtains, tents, mattresses, toothbrushes, toilet bowls, garbage cans, insulation, air filter materials, upholstery fabrics, rugs/carpets, conveyor belts and ice-making equipment.

 

Sun damage may exacerbate skin penetration of nano-sunscreens

February 24th, 2009
Nanoparticles may penetrate sun damaged skin causing concern about their increasingly widespread use in sunscreens, according to new research.

In a paper published in Nano Letters, scientists at the University of Rochester found that quantum dot nanoparticles penetrated UV damaged skin more than non-compromised skin.

The conclusion was reached from in-vivo tests carried out on mice exposed to UV light levels similar to those that would induce medium level sunburn in humans.

Gauging the impact of sun damage

To gauge the impact of sun damage on the penetrative capabilities of nano-based sunscreens the scientists used quantum dot nanoparticles.

These are not generally used in sunscreens despite their UV absorption properties but they are a similar size to the titanium dioxide nanoparticles used commonly in sunscreens.

The authors of the study said the higher penetration levels observed in sunburned skin led them to the conclusion that the condition of the skin strongly influences penetration.

Important discovery

“This is an important discovery for nanoparticle safety concerns as consumers often apply sunscreens containing metal oxide nanoparticles of similar size and raw material properties to UV-exposed skin,” said the authors.

They said direct comparisons were impossible to make at this stage as a wide variety of surface coatings are used in commercial sunscreens that may alter skin penetration characteristics.

The authors called for further research. “Future in-vivo studies using custom imaging modalities and commercial sunscreen formulations are planned to generate the necessary insight to assess human health risks from applying nanoparticle sunscreens to UV-damaged skin.”

In Vivo Skin Penetration of Quantum Dot Nanoparticles in the Murine Model: The Effect of UVR
Luke J. Mortensen, Gunter Oberdörster, Alice P. Pentland, and Lisa A. DeLouise
Nano Lett.; 2008; ASAP Web Release Date: 08-Aug-2008; (Letter) DOI: 10.1021/nl801323y

Feds: Common pesticides jeopardize salmon survival

February 24th, 2009
ASSOCIATED PRESS 
1:29 a.m. August 14, 2008 
GRANTS PASS, Ore. – Three pesticides commonly used on farms and orchards throughout the West are jeopardizing the survival of Pacific salmon, the federal agency in charge of saving the fish from extinction has found.Under the settlement of a lawsuit brought by anti-pesticide groups and salmon fishermen, NOAA Fisheries has issued a draft biological opinion that found the way chlorpyrifos, diazinon and malathion get into salmon streams at levels high enough to kill salmon protected by the Endangered Species Act.

The chemicals interfere with salmon’s sense of smell, making it harder for them to avoid predators, find food, and even find their native spawning streams.

Banned from many household uses, tens of millions of pounds of the chemicals are still used throughout the range of Pacific salmon on a wide range of fruits, vegetables, forage crops, cotton, fence posts and livestock to control mosquitoes, flies, termites, boll weevils and other pests, according to NOAA Fisheries.

Jim Lecky, head of the office of protected resources for NOAA Fisheries Service, said his team has until a court-imposed deadline of Oct. 31 to work with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to find new ways to safely use the chemicals.

Lecky would not speculate whether the pesticides might ultimately be banned, but acknowledged that scientists have found that even with careful use under current guidelines, the chemicals are finding their way into streams at levels harmful to salmon.

The chemicals are the first of 37 that NOAA Fisheries and EPA must evaluate by 2012 under terms of a settlement reached last week in a lawsuit brought by Northwest Coalition Against Pesticides and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, which represents California commercial salmon fishermen.

A total of 28 species of Pacific salmon are classified as threatened or endangered from overfishing, dams, logging, grazing, urban development, pollution, irrigation, misguided hatchery practices and other threats.

Lecky said he could not say where pesticides rank in the threats to salmon, but eliminating the harm from pesticides would boost efforts to save them.

Nanotechnology: It’s a small, small world

February 24th, 2009

Note: Canary Cosmetics does not use nanoparticles in our products.

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/26249409.html?location_refer=Lifestyle

By Karen Youso, Star Tribune

August 5, 2008

When Andrew Taton slathers sunscreen on his toddler he knows he’s protecting her from the sun’s rays, but he’s also aware of an invisible magic in sunscreen: nano particles. 

Zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, which put the “screen” in sunscreen, used to leave a white film. Now they’ve been nanosized, made so small that they’re invisible. “They’re really very super small particles,” explained Taton, a chemistry professor at the University of Minnesota who specializes in nanoparticles.

But he’s not completely comfortable with the magic. “I’m a scientist, and I have to issue a cautionary note,” he said. “Science doesn’t really know if they stay on the skin.”

Sunscreen isn’t the only product using nanotechnology. It’s in Behr brand paint at Home Depot, Nano-Tex sheets sold at J.C. Penney, stain-resistant pants from L.L. Bean, the First Response pregnancy test from Walgreens. Even the Metrodome beer hawker is selling nanotechnology in the plastic bottles.

Surprised? You’re not alone. Polls show that most Americans have no idea how far this new realm of science and engineering has reached into their lives.

Indeed, some 600 consumer products now contain nanoparticles, according to Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies in Washington, D.C., which maintains an inventory of consumer products using nanomaterials (www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/consumer). Two to three are added daily, according to director David Rejeski — but that’s only a guess. Manufacturers don’t have to disclose the use of nanotechnology.

Why are nanoparticles in stores?

Thousands of times smaller than the width of a human hair, roughly 1 to 100 nanometers in dimension, nanoparticles occur naturally in the environment, such as the very minute particles in smoke.

What is new is that we can now create and manipulate them, change their atoms around, make different shapes and sizes. And that’s where the magic lies. Carbon, for instance, becomes as light as plastic but many times stronger than steel; aluminum becomes explosive. 

Apply these new materials to consumer goods and your socks don’t stink (nanosilver), liquids roll right off your trousers (tiny whiskers in cotton) and the urine dipstick changes color if you’re pregnant (nano- gold). Thousands of transistors will fit in the space of a hair, making for powerful microelectronic devices. With the right nano-coating, guitar strings last longer and squeak less. Hockey sticks, golf clubs and tennis rackets are lighter yet stronger.

Consumer products are a natural — and lucrative — outlet for nanotechnology, but it doesn’t stop there.

Nanotechnologies can deliver medicine precisely where needed in cutting-edge chemotherapy. MIT’s Institute for Soldier Nanotechnology is creating a battlefield suit that, among other things, detects and neutralizes chemical and biological agents. Nokia’s Morph concept is a cell phone that’s rigid one moment and flexible the next, so it can be worn around your wrist.

There isn’t an aspect of living that won’t be affected by nanotechnology, experts predict.

The dark side

Despite the opportunities and promise of nanoscience, many scientists and environmentalists are sounding the alarm.

“We don’t know nearly enough about the adverse reactions to any of these materials, environmental or biological,” said J. Clarence Davies, a former Environmental Protection Agency official and one of the nation’s foremost authorities on environmental regulation and policy.

It was recently discovered, for example, that when some nano-sized carbon material enters the lungs, it acts like asbestos, creating tissue and cell scarring that scientists say could lead to cancer. And some materials go where they’re not supposed to. A University of Rochester, N.Y., study found that when rats inhaled nanoparticles, instead of lodging in the nose or lung as expected, the particles also made their way to the rats’ brains.

In sunscreens, nanoparticles have been used for the past decade or so, and they’re generally believed to be safe. Some watchdog groups, such as the Environmental Working Group, prefer them over sunscreens containing other chemicals such as oxybenzone. They appear to stay on the skin — unless there’s a cut or abrasion, noted Christy Haynes, who is researching nanoparticle toxicology at the University of Minnesota. 

If that happens, “nobody has a good answer to where they go in your body and what happens when they’re there,” she said.

More research needed

Then there’s the environmental question. One study shows manufactured nanoparticles in nature could be trouble. A University of Montreal study found nanoparticles of cadmium in shellfish, which caused reproductive and digestive problems.

The silver nanoparticles in socks and lining the inside of some washing machines do a good job of killing bacteria, but they apparently don’t stay there. They wash out and enter the wastewater, where they kill beneficial bacteria needed to treat wastewater. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been asked to classify these products as pesticides, requiring that they be registered.

What is needed now, Davies says, is more research and oversight.

“Sometimes we want nanomaterial to be toxic, like when it’s used in chemotherapy,” said Haynes, who is working on studies to develop toxicity guidelines. “But we don’t want toxic side effects in nanomaterials that are repelling stains.”

Davies hopes the next administration in Washington will fund research and regulation to ensure health and safety for consumers, workers and to protect the nanotechnology industry.

Nanotechnology has incredible potential to cure disease, increase communication and even solve pollution problems and energy dilemmas. But it’s important to find out about problem materials before and not after widespread application, Davies said.

“The future of nanotechnology is unimaginable; science fiction looks pale in comparison,” he said. “We just need to do it right.”

Burning joss sticks ‘as deadly as traffic fumes or cigarette smoke’

February 24th, 2009

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/30/health 

Worship is generally not a life-threatening pursuit. But devotees across Asia could be taking their life into their hands every time they go to a temple to pray, according to a study by a Thai doctor.

Burning joss sticks lit as an offering in shrines and temples fill the air with cancer-causing toxins that are every bit as deadly as traffic fumes and cigarette smoke, says Dr Manoon Leechawengwong.

Dr Manoon, who has just completed a two-year study of temple workers tasked with clearing the smouldering sticks, found the cocktail of chemicals in the smoke put them at risk of leukaemia, lung, blood and bladder cancers.

“One joss stick creates the same amount of cancer-causing chemicals at one cigarette,” said Dr Manoon, who led the research. “I knew there would be some carcinogens, but I was surprised by the levels.”

Joss sticks are a type of incense used in worship in many Asian countries. In Buddhism they are believed to aid spiritual communication and serve as an offering.

Dr Manoon’s study was conducted among 40 workers in three temples at Ayutthaya, Chachoengsao and Samut Prakan, sites chosen deliberately far from Bangkok’s traffic pollution. The findings were compared with another 25 people living in a joss-stick free environment.

Temple workers were exposed to high levels of benzene, also known as petroleum ether, related to leukaemia; butadiene involved in blood cancer; and benzo[a]pyrene that can cause lung, bladder and skin cancers.

The level of benzene in the temple workers was four times higher than normal, butadiene was 260 times higher, and benzo[a]pyrene - the most dangerous carcinogen - 63 times greater.

Analysis of the temple workers blood and urine samples discovered damage to their DNA, with a correspondingly lower capacity of their bodies to repair that damage.

“We know from our study that there’s DNA damage,” said Dr Manoon. “But what we don’t know is if they will develop cancer. Certainly they have a greater risk. It’s like smoking. Not all smokers get cancer, it’s about 20% .”

But Dr Manoon urges worshippers to reduce the risks by extinguishing the scented joss stick immediately after use, rather than leaving it standing pots of sand as it burns down. Manufacturers could also produce sticks that burn for a minute or less.

“It’s not necessary as part of the ritual for these traditional joss sticks to burn down,” he said. “By putting them out after a minute or so the air pollution would be cut by 30 to 40 times.”

Dead Zones: How Agricultural Fertilizers are Killing our Rivers, Lakes and Oceans

February 24th, 2009

http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/documents-and-links/publications/dead-zones

Fertilizer run-off from industrial agriculture is choking the planet’s oceans, rivers and lakes. Nitrogen and phosphorus pollution feed explosive algae blooms that suck the oxygen from the water as they grow. These algae blooms result in dead zones that have become a recurrent feature in every ocean and on every continent.

As global warming heats our oceans, these problems will only worsen. Unless measures are put in place to control fertilizer usage, losses to biodiversity will continue to mount, coastal and inland fisheries will suffer and summer beaches could become toxic no-go zones devoid of life.