U.S. Drinking Water Contamination Far Worse Than Previously Thought

Dark humor comedian George Carlin liked to say that he didn’t consider himself a good American if he didn’t let his food and water poison himself a bit every day. For real though, if you want at least some defense against the contamination, the people in the know recommend robust water filtration systems.

America is great again! Keep this version of America great 2020, don’t change it! Only over a hundred million people there drink contaminated water every day!

The contamination of US drinking water with manmade “forever chemicals” is far worse than previously estimated with some of the highest levels found in Miami, Philadelphia and New Orleans, said a report on Wednesday by an environmental watchdog group.

The chemicals, resistant to breaking down in the environment, are known as perfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS. Some have been linked to cancers, liver damage, low birth weight and other health problems.

The findings here by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) show the group’s previous estimate in 2018, based on unpublished US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data, that 110 million Americans may be contaminated with PFAS, could be far too low.

“It’s nearly impossible to avoid contaminated drinking water from these chemicals,” said David Andrews, a senior scientist at EWG and co-author of the report.

The chemicals were used in products like Teflon and Scotchguard and in firefighting foam. Some are used in a variety of other products and industrial processes, and their replacements also pose risks.

Of tap water samples taken by EWG from 44 sites in 31 states and Washington DC, only one location, Meridian, Mississippi, which relies on 700ft (215m) deep wells, had no detectable PFAS. Only Seattle and Tuscaloosa, Alabama had levels below 1 part per trillion (PPT), the limit EWG recommends.

In addition, EWG found that on average six to seven PFAS compounds were found at the tested sites, and the effects on health of the mixtures are little understood. “Everyone’s really exposed to a toxic soup of these PFAS chemicals,” Andrews said.

In 34 places where EWG’s tests found PFAS, contamination had not been publicly reported by the EPA or state environmental agencies.

The EPA has known since at least 2001 about the problem of PFAS in drinking water but has so far failed to set an enforceable, nationwide legal limit. The EPA said early last year it would begin the process to set limits on two of the chemicals, PFOA and PFOS.

The EPA said it has helped states and communities address PFAS and that it is working to put limits on the two main chemicals but did not give a timeline.

In 2018 a draft report from an office of the US Department of Health and Human Services said the risk level for exposure to the chemicals should be up to 10 times lower than the 70 PPT threshold the EPA recommends. The White House and the EPA had tried to stop the report from being published.

How Toxic Chemicals Are Robbing Vulnerable Children of Millions of IQ Points

The crisis of contaminated water seen in Flint, Michigan is ongoing and terrible, but other related events of contamination are more common than people tend to think they are. America is a society with many protections for the most powerful, and not enough for the most vulnerable.

The chemicals we’ve long feared the most – heavy metals like lead and mercury – are less of a threat to kids’ developing brains than they were two decades ago. But two new menaces may be taking their place: pesticides and flame retardants.

According to new research from New York University, flame retardants resulted in a loss of 162 million IQ points among children in the US between 2001 and 2016.

The study, published Tuesday in the journal Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology, looked at the four chemicals known to impact the brain of a developing child most: lead, mercury, pesticides, and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (otherwise known as flame retardants).

Leo Trasande, a paediatrician and public-health researcher at NYU who co-authored the study, described these pollutants as “hit-and-run” chemicals: Once a child is exposed to them, there’s no reversing the damage.

“Kids’ brain development is exquisitely vulnerable,” Trasande told Business Insider. “If you disrupt, even with subtle effects, the way a child’s brain is wired, you can have permanent and lifelong consequences.”

The study found that lead cost US kids 78 million IQ points during the 15-year period studied, while pesticides caused a loss of nearly 27 million IQ points during those years. Mercury, meanwhile, caused a loss of 2.5 million IQ points.

Children’s’ lower IQs are costing the US trillions of dollars

The researchers found that among kids exposed to toxins from 2001 to to 2016, the proportion of IQ loss due to exposure to flame retardants and pesticides increased from 67 percent to 81 percent. Flame retardants can be found in household furniture and electronics, while pesticides can be consumed when they linger on produce.

“What we found was quite striking,” Trasande said.

“We know that there is no safe level of lead exposure. The same is true for methylmercury, pesticides, and flame retardants.”

The study also found that there is an economic cost to childhood brain damage: Trasande said that each individual IQ point is worth roughly 2 percent of a child’s lifetime economic productivity. So if a child could potentially make US$1 million over the course of their lifetime, they would lose US$20,000 for every IQ point lost.

“A kid’s brain power is the engine of our economy,” Trasande said.

“If a child comes back from school with one less IQ point, maybe mum or the parent might not notice. But if 100,000 children come back with one less IQ point, the entire economy notices.”

According to the researchers, IQ loss due to lead, mercury, flame retardants, and pesticide exposure combined cost the US around US$6 trillion from 2001 to 2016.

Regulations on flame retardants and pesticides are more lax than heavy metals

For decades, scientists have understood that exposure to lead and mercury can result in childhood brain damage. So many of the main hideouts for these chemicals – leaded gasoline, lead paint, and mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants – have been phased out.

As early as the 1970s, the Environmental Protection Agency required lead to be phased out of gasoline and paint (though lead paint can still be found in homes built before 1978).

The agency also set standards to reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants in 2011, though some power plants still do not meet these requirements.

But there have been fewer efforts to regulate pesticides and flame retardants.

The EPA has banned around 37 pesticides, though more than 500 have been used in the US. Another 97 have been voluntarily withdrawn by pesticide manufacturers.

More than a dozen states have adopted legislation that restricts the use of flame retardants in products like furniture, carpeting, and children’s toys, but none of the chemicals are banned federally.

Ways to reduce kids’ exposure

Many factors can influence a kid’s exposure to a chemical, Transande said.

“The science has really evolved such that the dose is not the only thing that makes the poison,” he said. Other factors to consider could include the timing and frequency of exposure.

Trasande added that regulating all of these chemicals has a far lower long-term economic cost than the cost of kids’ lost IQ points due to exposure.

To minimise personal risk in one’s own home, Trasande suggested simple steps like opening windows so that dust laced with flame retardants can escape. He also suggested vacuuming frequently and using a wet mop to sop up chemicals on the floor.

In addition, parents should avoid mattresses and children’s toys that contain polyurethane foam (which often carries flame retardants).

Trasande also said households should avoid spraying pesticides on their lawns or backyards and recommended switching to organic foods (though organic produce can also contain pesticides).

“We’ve made less progress in phasing out or banning some of the pesticides of greatest concern,” Trasande said. “But there are steps we can take proactively as consumers.”

Major Benefits of Reducing Air Pollution

Air pollution has for many years been a major public health problem that doesn’t receive much attention despite its significant effects on the population. It has been estimated that the majority of people in the world are regularly breathing unclean air.

Reductions in air pollution yielded fast and dramatic impacts on health-outcomes, as well as decreases in all-cause morbidity, according to findings in “Health Benefits of Air Pollution Reduction,” new research published in the American Thoracic Society’s journal, Annals of the American Thoracic Society.

The study by the Environmental Committee of the Forum of International Respiratory Societies (FIRS) reviewed interventions that have reduced air pollution at its source. It looked for outcomes and time to achieve those outcomes in several settings, finding that the improvements in health were striking. Starting at week one of a ban on smoking in Ireland, for example, there was a 13 percent drop in all-cause mortality, a 26 percent reduction in ischemic heart disease, a 32 percent reduction in stroke, and a 38 percent reduction in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Interestingly, the greatest benefits in that case occurred among non-smokers.

“We knew there were benefits from pollution control, but the magnitude and relatively short time duration to accomplish them were impressive,” said lead author of the report, Dean Schraufnagel, MD, ATSF. “Our findings indicate almost immediate and substantial effects on health outcomes followed reduced exposure to air pollution. It’s critical that governments adopt and enforce WHO guidelines for air pollution immediately.”

In the United States, a 13-month closure of a steel mill in Utah resulted in reducing hospitalizations for pneumonia, pleurisy, bronchitis and asthma by half. School absenteeism decreased by 40 percent, and daily mortality fell by 16 percent for every 100 ?g/m3 PM10 (a pollutant) decrease. Women who were pregnant during the mill closing were less likely to have premature births.

A 17-day “transportation strategy,” in Atlanta, Georgia during the 1996 Olympic Games involved closing parts of the city to help athletes make it to their events on time, but also greatly decreased air pollution. In the following four weeks, children’s visits for asthma to clinics dropped by more than 40 percent and trips to emergency departments by 11 percent. Hospitalizations for asthma decreased by 19 percent. Similarly, when China imposed factory and travel restrictions for the Beijing Olympics, lung function improved within two months, with fewer asthma-related physician visits and less cardiovascular mortality.

In addition to city-wide polices, reducing air pollution within the home also led to health benefits. In Nigeria, families who had clean cook stoves that reduced indoor air pollution during a nine-month pregnancy term saw higher birthweights, greater gestational age at delivery, and less perinatal mortality.

The report also examines the impact of environmental policies economically. It highlights that 25 years after enactment of the Clean Air Act, the U.S. EPA estimated that the health benefits exceeded the cost by 32:1, saving 2 trillion dollars, and has been heralded as one of the most effective public health policies of all time in the United States. Emissions of the major pollutants (particulate matter [PM], sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and lead) were reduced by 73 percent between 1990 and 2015 while the U.S. gross domestic product grew by more than 250 percent.

Given these findings, Dr. Schraufnagel has hope. “Air pollution is largely an avoidable health risk that affects everyone. Urban growth, expanding industrialization, global warming, and new knowledge of the harm of air pollution raise the degree of urgency for pollution control and stress the consequences of inaction,” he says. “Fortunately, reducing air pollution can result in prompt and substantial health gains. Sweeping policies affecting a whole country can reduce all-cause mortality within weeks. Local programs, such as reducing traffic, have also promptly improved many health measures.”

Abortion Reversal — The Dangerous Practice You’ve Probably Never Heard Of

In the United States, many more laws have been implemented that restrict or ban a woman’s ability to have an abortion. Abortion reversal is a new technique that hasn’t undergone much medical testing since the one test on it showed significant harm to the women.

Several states now require women who seek medication abortions to be provided with dubious information that the procedure could be stopped, allowing a pregnancy to continue.

But when researchers attempted to carry out a legitimate study of whether these “abortion reversal” treatments were effective and safe, they had to stop almost immediately – because some of the women who participated in the study experienced dangerous hemorrhaging that sent them to the hospital.

By passing these abortion reversal laws, “states are encouraging women to participate in an unmonitored experiment,” Creinin said.

Creinin and his colleagues detailed their concerns in a commentary in the journal Contraception, and they will publish their study in January’s edition of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Medication abortions, which are used up to 10 weeks into a pregnancy, consist of taking two pills in sequence. The first pill in the regimen, mifepristone, loosens the pregnancy’s attachment to the uterus. The second pill, misoprostol, forces the uterus to contract to push out the pregnancy. The pills must be taken consecutively to complete the abortion, and there’s a chance the pregnancy will continue if the second pill is not taken.

A total of 862,320 abortions were provided in clinical settings in 2017, according to the Guttmacher Institute, about 39 percent of which were medication abortions. Research has shown that using these drugs is a safe way to end a pregnancy.

Some antiabortion activists and legislators claim that not taking the second pill, or giving a woman high doses of the hormone progesterone after taking mifepristone, can help stop, or “reverse,” a medical abortion.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists firmly states that “claims regarding abortion ‘reversal’ treatment are not based on science and do not meet clinical standards” and say the purported studies that underpin these antiabortion arguments lack scientific rigor and ethics.

Despite this, the claims made in these discredited studies have worked their way to antiabortion lawmakers, who in turn have put them into abortion reversal legislation that was signed by governors in North Dakota, Idaho, Utah, South Dakota, Kentucky, NebraskaOklahoma and Arkansas. The laws are currently blocked or enjoined in Oklahoma and North Dakota.

Because reliable research on these treatments is nonexistent, earlier this year, Creinin and his colleagues designed a legitimate double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial that aimed to observe 40 volunteers who had already elected to have a surgical abortion.

Their goal was to see if giving progesterone to women who took the first pill in the prescribed regimen would effectively and safely halt an abortion.

After the women took the first pill in the abortion protocol, mifepristone, rather than take the second pill, misoprostol, they were either given a placebo or a dose of progesterone.

Researchers only enrolled 12 women before they had to stop the study.

Bleeding is normal during a medication abortion. But three of the women who enrolled in the UC-Davis study experienced far more serious bleeding than anyone could have anticipated when the second pill was not administered.

One woman “was so scared she called an ambulance,” while another woman startled by the amount of blood “called 911 and crawled into her bathtub”, Creinin said. A third woman who went to the emergency room needed a transfusion. One of the women had received a placebo, while two others had taken the progesterone.

Creinin and his colleagues halted the study as soon as it became clear that they could not proceed safely.

“I feel really horrible that I couldn’t finish the study. I feel really horrible that the women … had to go through all this,” Creinin said. Because the study ended prematurely, the researchers could not establish any evidence that progesterone was an effective way to stop a medication abortion.

“What the results do show, though, is that there’s a very significant safety signal” when it comes to disrupting the approved medication abortion protocol, Creinin said.

In their upcoming paper in Obstetrics and Gynecology, the researchers warn that “patients in early pregnancy who use only mifepristone may be at high risk of significant hemorrhage.”

Medical experts are so concerned about abortion reversal laws that the American Medical Association joined a lawsuit against North Dakota’s abortion reversal law, which was blocked by a federal judge in September.

The North Dakota abortion reversal law, signed by Gov. Doug Burgum (R) in March, instructed health-care providers to tell a woman “that it may be possible to reverse the effects of an abortion-inducing drug if she changes her mind, but time is of the essence” and to provide a woman with literature on how to do this. The law fails to specify what that literature would include, or what such a treatment might entail.

Letting Students in Germany Start High School an Hour Later Showed Benefits

The teenage German students who took part in this were better rested and more alert for their academics. Teenagers generally need more sleep than adults and many find it difficult to go to sleep at earlier hours — there is clearly a significant benefit to having high schools start at later hours.

Society is in the midst of an epic sleep deprivation crisis, and some of the most affected people are teenagers, a broad body of sleep research shows.

Because of this, in recent decades researchers in the US and around the world have been investigating the potential benefits of starting the school day later. While initial results are promising, it’s still only early days for this field of research overall, given the limited number (and nature) of experiments conducted so far.

To date, most studies in this area have looked at the effects of making a static change in school start time (starting all classes for a group of students an hour later, for example). But what happens if you give kids a say in the matter, letting them choose what time they begin classes in the morning?

That’s what one high school in Germany did. Alsdorf high school (Gymnasium Alsdorf) in western Germany won an award for innovative teaching methods in 2013, and practises an educational system called the Dalton Plan, originally developed in the US.

The Dalton Plan calls for flexible teaching methods, tailored to students at a personal level, and helping children to learn at their own pace. Schools across the world use these principles, and for chronobiology researchers at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Alsdorf high school provided a unique chance to study how the system might be able to benefit sleep-deprived teenagers.

“We had the opportunity to study the effects of later school starting times when a high school in Germany decided to introduce flexible start times for their senior students,” the team, led by chronobiologist Till Roenneberg, explains in their paper.

“Instead of fixed starts at mostly 8 am, in this new flexible system, the senior students could decide whether to start at 8:00 am or at 8:50 am (referred to as ‘9 am’ herein for convenience) on a daily basis by attending or skipping the first period (a self-study period).”

For nine weeks in total in 2016, the researchers attempted to measure the effects of the system change on students in the 10th, 11th, and 12th grades.

While students in earlier grades still had to turn up for school at the standard time of 8 am, the older students were given the option of starting the day approximately one hour later for classes, in which case they had to make up the missed period (a self-study period) later in the week.

For the nine weeks (three prior to the system being introduced, and six weeks after the change), the researchers collected daily sleep diaries from the senior students taking part in the experiment, as well as collecting movement data from wrist-worn sleep monitor devices used by some of the students.

What the researchers found is that giving the students the ability to postpone their starting time even by only one hour gave them beneficial extra sleep time.

“In our study, virtually all participating students (97 percent) benefited from later start times, sleeping longer on schooldays with a ≥9 am-start – on average students gained one hour of sleep on those days,” the authors write.

“Importantly, not only was the overall benefit universal but also the magnitude of the benefit was similar across the important factors chronotype, gender, grade, and frequency of later starts.”

That’s an important finding, because even though it may seem obvious that students electing to attend school one hour later would get one hour more sleep, it’s also thought that later school times can encourage students to stay up later at night before school, negating the benefits of the sleep-in.

That didn’t happen here, though, with students on average sleeping 1.1 hours longer than they normally did on mornings where they attended classes later, increasing from 6.9 hours of sleep on average to 8 hours of sleep.

“One of the greatest concerns regarding later school starts is that teenagers might be tempted to stay up even later in the evening either consciously or via delayed circadian rhythms from later exposure to advancing morning light,” the authors explain.

“In our study, however, there was no evidence that sleep onset times differed between ≥9 am-days and 8 am-days.”

What did surprise the researchers was how little the students opted to take advantage of the late start. Overall, the students only chose to start late 39 percent of the time, roughly two days out of five in terms of a regular school week.

Nonetheless, when students did start later, they rated themselves as enjoying higher-quality sleep, and survey responses at the end of the experiment suggested they felt less tired, could concentrate better during class, and felt an improved ability to study at home after school as well.

Of course, all of those outcomes are self-reported, as were other data in the study, such as things like naps, which may have been non-declared or under-reported – limitations that the researchers acknowledge.

At the same time, there are obviously some hugely important takeaways from the experiment, which suggest students like being given the choice of when they start school in the morning (in addition to simply getting more shut-eye).

“On days with a later start, students have the opportunity to sleep longer. This should reduce the accumulation of sleep debt during the week,” the authors conclude.

“In addition, especially important for practical applications, students prefer the flexible system and their subjective parameters are improved.”

The findings are reported in Sleep.

Study: 95 Percent of Baby Foods Have Toxic Chemicals That Lower Babies’ IQ

Human society is really in that bad of shape, where defenseless and innocent babies are exposed to toxic food that harms them.

A new study finds 95 percent of tested baby foods contain toxic chemicals that lower babies’ IQ, including arsenic and lead.

What it means for babies’ health: The chemicals found in baby food arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury are neurotoxins that can permanently alter the developing brain, erode IQ, and affect behavior.

Why baby foods contain these toxic heavy metals: These four harmful metals are found in all food not just baby food. They occur naturally or from pollution in the environment. Crops absorb them from soil and water, and they are even found in organic food. Their presence in baby food raises unique concern, because babies are more sensitive to the toxic impacts.

Link to the full study: https://www.healthybabyfood.org/sites/healthybabyfoods.org/files/2019-10/BabyFoodReport_FULLREPORT_ENGLISH_R5b.pdf

Two Hours of Nature a Week is Key for Well-Being and Health

A new reason for wanting to preserve natural environments. There are many people today that are struggling with too much stress and health problems, and some good doctors have started prescribing time in nature because the evidence more and more shows its effectiveness.

Spending at least two hours a week in nature may be a crucial threshold for promoting health and wellbeing, according to a new large-scale study.

Research led by the University of Exeter, published in Scientific Reports and funded by NIHR, found that people who spend at least 120 minutes in nature a week are significantly more likely to report good health and higher psychological wellbeing than those who don’t visit nature at all during an average week. However, no such benefits were found for people who visited natural settings such as town parks, woodlands, country parks and beaches for less than 120 minutes a week.

The study used data from nearly 20,000 people in England and found that it didn’t matter whether the 120 minutes was achieved in a single visit or over several shorter visits. It also found the 120 minute threshold applied to both men and women, to older and younger adults, across different occupational and ethnic groups, among those living in both rich and poor areas, and even among people with long term illnesses or disabilities.

Dr Mat White, of the University of Exeter Medical School, who led the study, said: “It’s well known that getting outdoors in nature can be good for people’s health and wellbeing but until now we’ve not been able to say how much is enough. The majority of nature visits in this research took place within just two miles of home so even visiting local urban greenspaces seems to be a good thing. Two hours a week is hopefully a realistic target for many people, especially given that it can be spread over an entire week to get the benefit.”

There is growing evidence that merely living in a greener neighbourhood can be good for health, for instance by reducing air pollution. The data for the current research came from Natural England’s Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment Survey, the world’s largest study collecting data on people’s weekly contact with the natural world.

Co-author of the research, Professor Terry Hartig of Uppsala University in Sweden said: “There are many reasons why spending time in nature may be good for health and wellbeing, including getting perspective on life circumstances, reducing stress, and enjoying quality time with friends and family. The current findings offer valuable support to health practitioners in making recommendations about spending time in nature to promote basic health and wellbeing, similar to guidelines for weekly physical.”