• Home
Latest Natural Health News

Got Chemicals?

Reading a complete list of chemicals contained in their shampoo, conditioner, lotion, moisturizer, hairstyling products, deodorant, cosmetics and cologne would shock most consumers. A recent study found that the average British woman wears over 500 chemicals every day. Clearly, American women do the same. And yet, with the exception of a few enlightened integrative practitioners who practice environmental medicine, no medical professional ever queries patients about their daily application of chemicals to their bodies and scalps.
There’s growing evidence that chemicals in the environment can adversely affect the health of susceptible individuals. Nevertheless, the opinion-editorial page of the Wall Street Journal recently issued a baby-bottle “red alert,” stating this “common chemical… is everywhere in our Young woman on the phonelives” and “Without BPA [bisphenol A], people would be exposed to more harmful metals and substances”. The option to buy products free of BPA is an important freedom of choice. But consumers are derided in certain political circles for wishing to retain that choice. The truth is that humans are the unwitting subjects of an experiment to learn the consequences of living in an ever-swelling sea of chemicals. Even if we believed these chemicals are totally safe, how would we explain that 1 in 6 American children is learning- or behavior-disabled, or explain why in recent years the rate of autism has grown from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 100? Why the explosion in the incidence of neurodegenerative disease in the United States? Why does our rate of Alzheimer’s disease far exceed that in Asian countries?
Consider the following headlines, all of which appeared within one week:

On February 4, 2010, Keri Powell, an attorney for Earthjustice, told a New York state judge that members of his environmental firm “want access to the information [i.e., what chemicals household products contain] so they can determine the kind of chemicals they are introducing into their homes”.
How many chemicals do you wear each day?

Share This Post

11 thoughts on “Got Chemicals?

  • C. R. Haessler

    Which is why I switched to all Shaklee products for cleaning, personal care and supplements to avoid contaminations and chemicals when I returned back to the USA 40 yrs. ago. Takes a lot of worry off my mind! 72 and no health problems nor take drugs, so I must be doing something right. Saves us money and worries.

  • Ann Curtis

    Totally agree on this one. Amazing, what is all in the personal products we use everyday. Until I discovered that I have a genetic mutation that doesn’t allow my body to detox or metobolize correctly (no WONDER I was so sick!), I never gave a thought as to how my shampoo/conditioner or soap or deoderant or bug spray/sunscreen affected my body until I was forced to review them. My body can’t detox–so if it can’t detox what I put into it (i.e., chemicals and pesticides in the food/water), then how can it possibly detox any of the manmade chemicals found in our everyday supplies and personal care products that I breathe or put on my skin?
    Simple: it can’t.
    I have switched over to 100% organic personal care products and am working on converting household products as well. What a difference it makes! Wow, the difference is so incredible, nobody would believe it unless they did it for themselves (remember, I also had severe heavy metal toxicity and went through three rounds of chelation).
    Have you ever looked at what is actually on the bottle of shampoo you use, then gone to the Web site/Internet and actually LOOKED at what those ingredients are? You would be absolutely amazed, shocked, and horrified at what companies put into their products. And you’d be shocked at how many of those ingredients are made from petroleum or petroleum byproducts. Yes, OIL.
    Last I knew, human beings weren’t made to be able to digest, detox, or get rid of oil. And what nutritional purpose does oil hold for the human body? Nada.
    Did you know there are roughly 9,000 different chemicals being used in the world today, and only about 1000 or so of them have been tested as to their affect on the human body? And that none of them have been tested for synergistic effects? That means, interactions that involve more than one chemical being used. We, as human beings, are being used as guinea pigs. The chemical companies, of course, have absolutely no reason to test their products/chemicals. It takes time and money, and they’re not going to waste their time on fiinding out whether their products are good or bad for people, or the environment. They’re only concerned about profits.
    Did you know that if an environmental agency that is concerned about you and what chemicals are doing to you/the environment decided to test the chemicals we currently have in use that it would take 1,000 years? And that’s only for each SINGLE chemical, NOT for any of them in combination.
    Can you say scary?

  • Karen

    They should stop making Teflon. They want you to get sick, so you have to go to the Doctor, and spend your $ money, then in turn, they make $ money.

  • Anita Knight

    There is also BPAF with fluorides, this is online. One very important source of heavy metals is the fluoridation agent most often used in some 90% of drinking water systems: Fluorosilicic Acid. In “Geology of Florida”, 1997, Univ. Press of Florida, page 143 gives source: “In addition to uranium, fluorine is an economical byproduct of phosphoric-acid production. The fluorine from the rock reacts with silica to form SiF4 gas. During acid production this gas is recovered as fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) in wet scrubbers that are part of the environmental-protection equipment. Fluorosilicic acid is widely used in the preparation of chemical compounds and in the treatment of public drinking water.”
    This commercial grade is noted in your utilities’ AWWA Standard for Fluorosilicic Acid B703-06, there’s an entire page ranging from arsenic, lead, cadmium and more down to uranium, radium 226-228, and Alpha and Beta particles. Low levels, but these can be cumulative in a person with poor diet, especially calcium, that in high dietary levels can form insoluble complexes with fluorides, making it unabsorbable from the gastrointestinal tract. (NAS/NRS Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride, 1993, available online.

  • Anita Knight

    One further comment is that cooking with fluoridated water will not destroy the chemicals, but compound them. Another concern is for processed beverages and foods, with no fluorides levels on labels. The EPA nominated aluminum-fluorides for neurotoxicity studies in 2000. The papers noted that cooking in aluminum with fluoridated water resulted in fluorides leaching and combining with aluminum. Another concern was for beverages in aluminum cans are now lined, but to be careful not to buy any dented or out of date.

  • bonnie

    What scares me is how hard to find a shampoo without laurel sulfate, flouride in toothpaste,
    even found antifreeze in salad dressing…Kraft yet!

  • After I was poisoned by chloromine gas (chlorine and ammonia – found in many household cleaning products, such windex and comet) I completely withdrew from the usage of dangerous chemicals. I was shocked at how sensitive I was to the smells of chemicals after that… and how pervasive chemicals are in our daily lives. It is tough to make the transition, because there are many wolves in sheep’s clothing. However, as a concerned individual, I am diligent in searching (and manufacturing) products that are safe.

  • Suzanne

    Additionally, the US should give some kickbacks to the organic food divisions of companies instead of Big Food divisions like Kraft, etc. to make organic food less expensive and more accessible to people.
    There are so many studies on the superiority and health of organics over MSM food. With movies like Food Inc., people should be buying organic food more often. It’s really not that much more expensive since it will probably keep you living longer and healthier.

  • Carroll

    Much valuable information here. I wasn’t able to find out what the chemicals were that led to Parkinson’s disease. I wish you used bigger type and that that flashing, changing picture weren’t moving so boldly while I’m struggling to read the tiny print. Thank you for listening.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts