Posted on 05/17/2012 8:42:30 AM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
Did you know that our food contains 1 part per billion of radioactive carbon?
Looking back, I am so glad we moved to Canada when my son was five and my daughter, 18 months. I don't want him exposed to that stuff in the drinking water--we have a deep well.
This ain’t nothin’. Google breast cancer rates by nation since 1960. I’m not going to post any links. Let the skeptics do their own homework.
Turns out, as Pope PaulVI said, messing with the natural order doesn’t end well.
I’m not worried about “radioactive carbon,” which is naturally occurring background radiation.
But long acting synthetic female hormones in our water supplies, which are not broken down by normal biological processes as are human hormones, is something to be worried about.
——I cannot convince my boss that putting a generator on the wheel of an all-electric car to charge the battery as it travels is NOT going to work.——
That, my friend, is sheer awesomeness.
You probably won’t have any better luck than I have had trying to convince my wife that she pays both halves of SS.
——I wonder if they are not made available because they show a spike coincident with the introduction of The Pill in the 1960s?——
There are a lot of dollars and dogmas at stake.... Draw your own conclusions...
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/PBC/table1F.html
http://m.ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/2/285.abstract
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.2910170209/abstract
“Move to the country and get a deep well.”
I’ve operated a small water company, kinda in the sticks, for 30 years. 4 wells at about 300 foot depth. We have to test for everything! Almost all results are not even detectable by the testing used. A few, like some radiologicals, are so far below the EPA minimums action levels, that abdo-lutely nothing needs to be done. Country, yup! Deep well, yup!
Fascinating ...
Glad I live in the sticks and drink well-water.
Hormones break down in nature. They also can be filtered with a sand filter.
http://junkscience.com/2012/04/22/sand-filter-removes-estrogen-with-ease/
More on chemicals in everyday life:
http://www.wbur.org/npr/152818798/breasts-bigger-and-more-vulnerable-to-toxins
Very interesting and not surprising.
Flushed hormones change sex of fish [what are they doin' to you???]
Posted on Sunday, January 06, 2002 12:50:00 AM by Dr. Brian Kopp
Flushed hormones change sex of fish
Synthetic estrogen in water from sewage causes male fish to produce eggs: study
Tom Spears
The Ottawa Citizen
Saturday, January 05, 2002
Women who take birth control pills or hormone therapy are flushing enough hormones down the toilet to make male fish downstream produce eggs, a Canadian study shows.
Synthetic estrogen in the women's urine goes through sewage treatment plants without being completely broken down, and the fish absorb it, with bad effects following.
Male fish produce eggs in their testes. Female fish are stimulated by the extra hormones to produce eggs at the wrong times of year.
And there are questions, still unanswered, about whether these chemically altered fish are capable of reproducing at all.
Scientists have seen this "gender-bending" effect in fish downstream from sewage plants, but lacked proof that birth control pills are a cause.
So Karen Kidd of Fisheries and Oceans Canada started dribbling bits of the synthetic hormone from birth control pills into a 34-hectare lake in northwestern Ontario, west of Dryden, to find out. The lakes are so remote they don't even have names (this one is called Lake 260) and are perfectly suited to act as giant experiments because they are practically untouched by pollution.
Sure enough, the male lake trout, white suckers, fathead minnows and pearl dace turned up this fall with proteins that females use to manufacture egg cells, and in some cases with the eggs themselves.
"The question now is whether this feminization is affecting the population size or sustainability," she said. "Can males with eggs in their testes reproduce effectively? Can they contribute to the population?"
It will take another summer of adding chemicals, and a couple of years of counting fish afterwards, to know the full effects. But Ms. Kidd is finding an interested audience in Vancouver this weekend, where she will show her early results to a conference of fisheries scientists.
"People consume the birth control pills and it's lost from their bodies and goes into the sewage," said Peter Leavitt, a biology professor at the University of Regina. "So we get this huge population in sources like cities, dumping this very high concentration of hormones into the water bodies. And the question is: Is it having an influence?
"It seems to be mimicking some of the reproductive hormones that other organisms use, and it's basically messing up their reproductive strategies," he said. "I think it's really significant," because no one thought of human sewage as a source of this type of pollution before, he said.
"And what Karen is showing is that there are consequence of large numbers of people living in an area ... It's not so much that we're destroying their (the wildlife's) habitat. But we're actually changing the chemical environment in which they live and breathe."
Ms. Kidd says both natural and synthetic estrogen go into sewage in urine, but bacteria take longer to break down the synthetic version, which means more of it gets into the fish.
For 10 years scientists have studied chemicals that act like estrogen in fish, other wildlife, and even humans that eat tainted fish. Many of these come from pesticides or industrial waste and are never intended to be like hormones at all. But this study is unique in looking at real hormones flushed down the drain.
Ms. Kidd says both natural and synthetic estrogen go into the sewage system in urine, but bacteria take longer to break down the synthetic version, which means more of it gets into the fish.
The Lake 260 experiment uses the amount of hormone that would come from 6,000 women taking the pill, she said.
And we routinely poison our water with flouride. That can't be filtered out either.
The evil of contraception.
I must look up the confirmation and post reasons why one of the inventors of “the pill” CONDEMNS it now.
Seeee...Science can’t be your God, proof, follow God instead,
He is right every time.
The real reason everyone is turning gay.
Read his reasons, #1, the “pill” is an abortifacient.
http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2009/01/inventor-of-birth-controll-pill.html
Media Manipulation and The PillBrian J. Kopp
Saint Gianna Physician Guild
Two months have passed since the publication of comments by Carl Djerassi, one of the co-creators of the synthetic progestagen Norethisterone, warning of demographic catastrophe in Austria. Given his credentials, his comments in the Austrian newspaper Der Standard could hardly be ignored by the worldwide press and medical establishment. Following a firestorm of controversy, Djerassi has demanded corrections in the media. Writing in The Guardian, Tuesday 27 January 2009, he claims that "I never blamed the pill for the fall in family size."
In the same week, the president of the World Federation of Catholic Medical Associations, Dr. Jose Maria Simon Castellvi, writing in L'Osservatore Romano, highlighted the abortifacient effect of the Pill as well as its environmental impact. The fact that the Pill is contaminating drinking water supplies has been known since the early 1990's, with alarming transgender effects on fish downstream from water treatment facilities. According to CNA, Dr. Jose Maria Simon Castellvi noted the “devastating ecological effects of the tons of hormones discarded into the environment each year. We have sufficient data to state that one of the causes of masculine infertility in the West is the environmental contamination caused by the products of the ‘pill’.”
The mainstream media and medical establishments responded in predictable fashion.
For instance, according to the Austrian Times,
Angelo Bonelli, of the Italian Green party, said it was the first he had heard of a link between the pill and environmental pollution. The worst of poisons were to be found in the water supply. "It strikes me as idiosyncratic to be worried about this."
A leading gynaecologist and member of the New York Academy of Science, professor Gian Benedetto Melis, called Simón's claims "science fiction", saying that the pill blocked ovulation only.
On December 13, 2008, the same week as Djerassi's controversial comments, the American Journal of Epidemiology published a study titled "A Case-Control Study of Oral Contraceptive Use and Incident Breast Cancer." This study, which once again demonstrated an increased risk of breast cancer from the use of oral contraceptives, has received no press coverage whatsoever.
The reluctance of the media to cover negative news on the Pill is not new. Chris Kahlenborn, MD, is the author of a key article published in October 2006 in the prestigious journal Mayo Clinic Proceedings entitled “Oral Contraceptive Use as a Risk Factor for Pre-menopausal Breast Cancer: A Meta-analysis.” His meta-analysis of the world literature found that oral contraceptives were linked with a measurable and statistically significant association with pre-menopausal breast cancer. I asked him about Djerassi's comments and the media embargo of the December 2008 American Journal of Epidemiology study.
Q: Does this study confirm the findings of your meta-analysis?
A: Yes, Rosenberg noted a 60% increased risk of developing breast cancer in women age 50 or under who took oral contraceptives. We found a 52% increased risk in the same group of women if they took the pill for four years or more prior to the birth of their first child.
Q: Why would these researchers fail to cite your meta-analysis?
A: Dr. Rosenberg has noted in the past that she does not put much credibility in meta-analyses as a whole, however, given that our’s is the only current meta-analysis out there, it seems she surely knew about it and chose to avoid mentioning it. I am not sure why.
Q: At present, how many studies have confirmed this risk and how many have found no risk?
A: 22 out of 24 studies have found an increased of premenopausal breast cancer in women who took oral contraceptives prior to the birth of their first child.
Q: In layman's terms, what are the cancer risks for women taking oral contraceptives (including other types of cancers)?
A: Women who take oral contraceptives increase their risk of breast, cervical and liver cancer and decrease their risk of ovarian and uterine cancer.
Q: Do the recent comments of Austrian Carl Djerassi change the nature of the debate?
A: Perhaps slightly but not much. The media as a whole has refused to cover the oral contraceptive-breast cancer link, mostly for ideological reasons in my view. I recently had contact with some of the editors of USA Today and asked them if they would do a story on Rosenberg’s paper as well as ours. They said they already addressed it. I challenged them to tell me of one time they or any other major media had addressed either paper. I almost guarantee you that they will cease corresponding with me from this point onward.
Unfortunately, this type of “hide for cover” by “not covering” a story is typical. In 2006, after our meta-analysis came out in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings the New York Times called the Mayo Clinic to get a copy of it. I feel certain they read it, but they have never done a story on it. Bottom line: if it does not fit the mainstream media’s ideological purpose, they simply pretend the medical studies were never published and refuse to cover them.
Dr. Kahlenborn's research can be reviewed online at The Polycarp Research Institute.
Dr. Kopp, could exposure to high levels of estrogen lead to greater feminization of males?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
