Why are people sicker today.
Recently my sister sent me this list of common chemicals that are used in all beauty products. Why does the government even allow these chemicals to be allowed in our products when they are banned in other country's because they are known to cause cancer, birth defects, skin rashes, headaches, etc. Since I already don't have good health I have been going through and replacing things that I know have bad chemicals in them. Yes I know you can't get away from it altogether. But I can choose whether or not what I am smearing all over my body has bad things in it. My younger sister tells me I am turning into a 'GRANOLA' person  . But I have already noticed a difference in how I feel. Especially after I clean. Since I have gotten rid of the mainstream chemicals and am using alternatives I don't feel sick afterwards.
When did progress as a human race to make our life better turn into something that is not good for us? http://www.greenlivingonline.com/Health ... -to-avoid/ |
|
|
| Why do you have the impression that these things are occurring more frequently? |
Ron wrote: Why do you have the impression that these things are occurring more frequently?
What makes you think that they are not? Every disease statistic will give you a 1 in so many number for all the thousands of maladies people have. Are we becoming more complainers about things, is medical knowledge just greater so we diagnose more, or are we having more problems because of the over use of chemicals? With the whole Autism thing (while I think that it is probably somewhat caused the by shots given) people say that it has always been around. Then where are all these old people in the nursing homes with it? What about the health risks with plastic? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pvc This is another interesting article. http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Horm ... n-Food.htm "Quite possibly, say researchers at the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. They reported last November that hypospadias, a birth defect in males in which the urinary opening is mislocated--on the underside of the penis or even on the scrotum--doubled between 1968 and 1993, and now afflicts nearly 1 of 100 newborn boys nationwide. "That makes it the most common specific type of birth defect among males," says lead researcher Len Paulozzi" When I read health news articles it seems like there are a lot of increasing statistics for what ever malady it is. Like the one mentioned above. If we keep having all these recalls about toys made in China because of a very low level of lead. Shouldn't we be worried about these low levels of known dangerous chemicals used in our everyday products? Random thoughts I know..... |
| I tend to agree that these things happen more frequently, however I temper the volume of increases that are stated with a few thoughts.
One is that the population has increased tremendously, and with that, genetic diseases will increase as well. Also, our life expectancies are longer than ever, so we just may not have known about things that may have always existed but never were seen because people died of other causes earlier (before the cancer struck, for example). Additionally, our diagnostic skills increase every year, so the ability to detect - especially very early - diseases or syndromes that we may never have understood in the past increases. Couple those things with the ever prevalent use of chemicals and over-use of anti-biotics, and it's the perfect storm. As for where are the elderly with autism question: I do think autism is more prevalent, and agree there is more to learn about our immunizations. Realize, however, that it's only in recent years been more understood, so in years past, autism would have been misdiagnosed. Most likely people who were autistic in those years would have been institutionalized, would not have received the quality of medical care available today, and would have not had the life expectancy of a "normal" person, hence few in nursing homes, etc. today. None of that is said to diminish your argument regarding increasing prevelance of diseases, only to say that there are a lot of factors to consider. I agree there is a lot to consider regarding chemical and anti-biotic use and our collective health. |
| I have mixed feelings about the statement as well. First we are quick to put weird stuff in our mouth and call it convenience.......precooked meals full of preservatives, artificial sweeteners, health drinks that read like a chemistry text book. We don't walk, we drive. We sit, we don't play. Our household furniture is plastic as our our carpets.....where did the natural fabrics go. Our houses are more air tight making the use HVAC equipment necessary to reduce pollutants. We put urethane on our floors, not wax. Our food comes from countries that still use pesticides we banned and our Ag Dept only checks 3% of the produce coming into our country. Our air is cleaner (so they say) but asthma is exploding. Infants are vaccinated with several dozen formula before they reach school. On the other hand, people got sick and died or died quicker. We are seeing a return of disease malaria, TB and new goodies such as AIDS. The surge in killer infections (which killed my neighbor last Spring) are on the rise because our antibiotics can't keep up with the diseases' mutations. International air travel brings us all sorts of wonders we should be exposed to (another neighbor caught West Nile...and survived, sorta). But then compare our lives to those 100 years ago....1907....smoke stacks galore, polluted water, sanitation if you were lucky. We didn't live as long, we died of things easily treated now.
Continue to use the natural cleaners if they make you feel better. You may have indeed built up a chemical sensitivity. |
crustybirds wrote: Ron wrote: Why do you have the impression that these things are occurring more frequently? What makes you think that they are not? 
But since you asked, sooo many diseases have been nearly eradicated... just coming to mind: Measles Mumps Smallpox Polio Rickets Spina Bifida Scurvy Plague SIDS (Since 1983, the rate of SIDS has fallen by over 50 percent) Then all of the diseases caused by bacterial infections that used to kill or maim people like scarlet fever, strep throat, skin infections, pneumonia. Then all of the diseases "cured" by surgery like cancers, kidney/liver/eye/whatever transplants, heart valve repair and replacement, blocked arteries, appendicitis Then all of the diseases that are manageable now like diabetes (insulin dependent, especially), AIDS, Cystic Fibrosis, dyslipidemia... This is what made me ask you why you felt the number of people getting sick was higher. |
| Hmm, it's probably not fair to team up on this one, but the landscape of health problems is only as rosy or dark as you want to see it. Although many of the conditions you listed have been eradicated, others have surfaced and some are making a comeback. The story about killer infections on Google News right now stands out:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/200 ... taph_N.htm Also, I'm not sure I would call cancer "cured". Despite a variety of surgeries to eliminate some cancers, death rates from cancers have remained constant over the past 30 years. This would seem to indicate that other behavioral or environmental factors are raising the overall incidence. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2003/04/ ... 30416.html But perhaps all of this is missing the real point crustybirds was trying to make. Many of the products we use on a daily basis are known to have hazardous side effects and few Americans actually realize this. These claims are backed by lots of research that doesn't make it into the mainstream media because debating child custody for Britney Spears is more interesting. http://www.safecosmetics.org/about/reports.cfm As an example, we looked through the ingredients of one of crustybirds' lotions recently and found 5 ingredients that have known or possible health risks including several preservatives which mimic the behavior of estrogen and are banned in Japan and Sweden and a derivative of the formaldehyde family with a whole list of weird side effects, banned in Europe. Once you start reading about this sort of thing and taking it seriously, you want to re-evaluate your cleaners, skin care products, makeup, and food intake. We never even thought about this sort of thing until about 6 months ago. But when you realize how little of what you can buy in the store is actually regulated .. that's a little shocking. Since then we have replaced nearly every product that comes in a bottle, switched to more vegetables and organic foods, less meat, nothing in a box, and given up soft drinks. |
Ron wrote: But since you asked, sooo many diseases have been nearly eradicated... just coming to mind:
Measles Mumps Smallpox Polio Rickets Spina Bifida Scurvy Plague SIDS (Since 1983, the rate of SIDS has fallen by over 50 percent) This is so not the point of this post so forgive my sidetrack here, but Spina Bifida? I don't think that comes close to being eradicated. From what I'm reading, it's still one of the most prevalent birth defects there is. The only documented change in Spina Bifida is that due to early detection, more people have chosen to voluntarily terminate their pregnancies, hence less live-births. But the occurrence has not decreased, and there is no cure for the defect, only treatments. Which makes me think - that's likely the case in a number of neuro-tube and genetic disorders that we can now detect early in pregnancy. It's not that they're going away, just that more people than in the past choose to end the pregnancy. Long-term, that poses a problem for researchers who will have less of the defects to study. <<Sidetrack over>> 
I think the crustybirds crew has very good points regarding chemicals. Now THAT said, remember too that not everything that is "natural" is good for us either! There are no clinical trials on homeopathic/natural anything (which of course speaks to the money that's in pharmaceuticals, but that's a different post). There are many natural things that can cause all sorts of problems as well. I think it's all about a balance, doing away with as much of the chemicals as possible, finding organic, anti-biotic and hormone free food sources and limiting our anti-biotic use. I am especially concerned about the latter because my children as well as myself have had long-term anti-biotic use, and find that we can't treat simple bacterial infections with the basic anti-biotics. |
rdf wrote: Spina Bifida? I don't think that comes close to being eradicated. From what I'm reading, it's still one of the most prevalent birth defects there is. The only documented change in Spina Bifida is that due to early detection, more people have chosen to voluntarily terminate their pregnancies, hence less live-births. But the occurrence has not decreased, and there is no cure for the defect, only treatments. Quote: Neural tube defects (NTDs) are serious birth defects of the spine (e.g., spina bifida) and the brain (e.g., anencephaly) that occur during early pregnancy, often before a woman knows she is pregnant; 50%--70% of these defects can be prevented if a woman consumes sufficient folic acid daily before conception and throughout the first trimester of her pregnancy Source: http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5317a3.htm
[...] Mandatory fortification of cereal grain products went into effect in January 1998; during October 1998--December 1999, the reported prevalence of spina bifida declined 31%, and the prevalence of anencephaly declined 16% BTW, for anyone not up on their chemical names, "folic acid" is just vitamin B9. So eradicated was not the proper category for spina bifida... how about "dramatically reduced?" |
crustybird's husband wrote: Although many of the conditions you listed have been eradicated, others have surfaced and some are making a comeback. The story about killer infections on Google News right now stands out: The infections that are now "superbugs" are named so not because they are more potent, but because they are resistant to our current antibiotics. Their predecessor strains were, in general, just as lethal as the "superbugs" are now.http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/200 ... taph_N.htm (I should have added TB to the list... )crustybird's husband wrote: Also, I'm not sure I would call cancer "cured". Despite a variety of surgeries to eliminate some cancers, death rates from cancers have remained constant over the past 30 years. I don't know where you get that, the cancer incidence rate has been declining by an average of about 1/2 of 1% per year for a long time now, and the death rate has been dropping much much faster:Quote: A turning point came in 2002, scientists conclude Monday in the annual “Report to the Nation” on cancer. Between 2002 and 2004, death rates dropped by an average of 2.1 percent a year. Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21299632/That may not sound like much, but between 1993 and 2001, deaths rates dropped on average 1.1 percent a year. crustybird's husband wrote: This would seem to indicate that other behavioral or environmental factors are raising the overall incidence. I think that is a flawed conclusion from the observation, especially since I also thing that the premise is incorrect. Even if I agreed with the premise, the fact that men are living past the age of 62 and the vast majority of the most prevalent cancers (colorectal, prostatic) don't start occurring in huge numbers until after then, would skew the numbers moving the actual statistics in the exact opposite direction of your conclusion.
I do agree that environmental factors are causing cancers and other diseases, but my point was that the original statement about people being sicker -in general- is just not supported by the evidence that I have seen. |
| By the way, I've posted about this before. Why aren't you hearing cheers and adulation for the scientists and doctors who have finally turned the corner on cancer death rates and prevalence?
The answer is essentially that the people who raise money for these diseases are worried that people will think "Oh, cancer? They've got that licked now. I don't need to donate anymore." Even besides the altruistic people that are trying to prevent cancers (like some in the ACS) don't want to have people let their guards down. The politicians don't want people to ease up on taxing cigarettes. Those gallant researchers certainly don't want the government to declare victory and go away from funding. ....and neither do I !!! But I prefer an honest discussion. I can keep the big picture of the war in my head while celebrating the victorious battles. Feel free to gang up. |
Ron wrote: rdf wrote: Spina Bifida? I don't think that comes close to being eradicated. From what I'm reading, it's still one of the most prevalent birth defects there is. The only documented change in Spina Bifida is that due to early detection, more people have chosen to voluntarily terminate their pregnancies, hence less live-births. But the occurrence has not decreased, and there is no cure for the defect, only treatments. Quote: Neural tube defects (NTDs) are serious birth defects of the spine (e.g., spina bifida) and the brain (e.g., anencephaly) that occur during early pregnancy, often before a woman knows she is pregnant; 50%--70% of these defects can be prevented if a woman consumes sufficient folic acid daily before conception and throughout the first trimester of her pregnancy Source: http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5317a3.htm[...] Mandatory fortification of cereal grain products went into effect in January 1998; during October 1998--December 1999, the reported prevalence of spina bifida declined 31%, and the prevalence of anencephaly declined 16% BTW, for anyone not up on their chemical names, "folic acid" is just vitamin B9. So eradicated was not the proper category for spina bifida... how about "dramatically reduced?" Interesting that the cite only links the mandatory fortification of cereal grain as a cause, when the timing is also right in line with the onset of early-pregnancy diagnosis. I know two couples, one in CO and one in OK who chose to terminate pregnancies when spina-bifida was diagnosed. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the decision, just saying that it happens and I do not think that adding B9 to our diets has dramatically reduced the occurrences. The statistics are only collected on live births. |
| I know that my doctor's office HIGHLY recommends all women of child bearing age, especially those who are thinking of having babies in the near future, to take either a regular vitamin with folic acid or even a prenatal vitamin. You can't go into the office without hearing this or seeing posters. So I think doctors are better at getting that info out to people, thus making some headway in reducing the neural tube defects with preventative action.
Oh, and TB is on the rise... AND, I think that a lot of the superbugs are occuring because people get sick, take 3 out of 10 pills of their antibiotic and then the bug lives on, yet becomes resistant to that particular drug...So take your ENTIRE course of meds, people... |
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|