More generally there is way too much crap in the environment and it is past time for people to start protesting this. We are likely paying a price for this in rising rates of obesity and deteriorating mental health. It's time for cleaner outdoor air, better indoor air quality and ventilation and a tighter rein on the proliferating number of chemicals that surround us. As the item notes, Parkinson's rates have been increasing for some time and are expected to continue to increase in the coming decades.
Good luck getting any laws on this passed if Republicans control any branch of congress, or not struck down if they continue to leverage their judiciary control for blatantly political ends.
Don't get me wrong, I kind of hate the democrats too. It's frustrating that the choice is between "kind but mostly incompetent and somewhat corrupt" and "cruel and extremely corrupt"
Pardon my myopia, but what’s an example of Republican-proposed legislation or reform aimed at protecting Americans from exposure to potentially harmful waste products? I genuinely don’t know.
Depopulation? You mean stepping back from overpopulation? Do you want to live in a world where everyone lives in a 200sqft box and eats manufactured sludge because we don't have resources for people to live like actual humans unless they're from an oligarch family?
I can feed my family with a small permaculture farm, some chickens and goats, without relying on anyone else. I can heat my house with wood and solar energy retained in water, again without relying on anyone else. If my farm is surrounded by polluters and thus the ground is so tainted that nothing grows without buying Monsanto's entire catalog, that would be the fault of Republicans who've blocked environmental regulation.
Well since there are many billions of people, solutions should adapt to their presence, not to a sick ideal of eliminating several billion of them. The world is in the first place not even overpopulated, it just manages its resources badly in certain contexts, and secondly, no person alive today has any less right to life than you. Ergo, if you hate several billion extra humans, you should also hate your own presence by this logic.
I dislike being around people. More people means more competition for the good stuff like space, a nice view, quiet, delicious fish/game, etc.
You might argue that more people produce more other good stuff, but that is a flawed argument for a few reasons. For starters, a lot of scarcity in our economy is fake and introduced to maximize profit. Second, there's only so much valuable work to be done, but everyone has to have a job, so somewhere between 50-80% of people end up doing meaningless work (think of all the people involved in making/marketing a lot of infomercial garbage and lame tchotchkes like dog bowls shaped like toilets that flush when the dog eats). Nobody would miss those things if they'd never existed, and I'm sure none of the people responsible wanted to do that sort of thing growing up. It's basically a big capitalist circle jerk.
I am an introvert, I don't always like being around people. But I am glad that those people got a chance to exist and experience life, and am willing to accept inconvenience for that.
But if they didn't exist then it would not have mattered? We are just space dust, until we are born we have no conscience, those who not exist cannot miss anything.
You should try living in Hong Kong and see how you feel about overpopulation. As climate change makes huge swathes of land unlivable and population continues to grow that will be your future.
'You should try living in the Yukon and see how you feel about overpopulation. As climate change...'
Your experience is valid but the population density of a particular city (or lack thereof in a particular territory) is a poor indicator of whether the earth's population is too high for its carrying capacity.
1. Republicans refuse to enforce any environmental regulation on industries, no matter how dire the consequences.
2. Poisonous chemicals leech into air, soil, water. Then they accumulate up the food chain. Humans are at the apex.
3. Synthetic hormones, plastics, and etc. decimate fertility.
If you’re concerned about population growth, you should support some degree of environmental regulation. Only one mainstream* party in the states gets you that.
* A mathematical consequence of first past the post voting systems is that the two largest parties are stable. Third parties only exist as unstable equilibria. If you desire a serious third party, you should also support election reform. . . which also means not voting Republican.
It's funny you mention elections, because the 2020 election was a potent demonstration of why reality has a liberal bias. (FWIW in 2016 I was the one telling my friends Trump was likely to win)
Both major parties are corrupt corporocracy boosters, but at least the Democrats still keep their social media fueled nutjobs mostly in check rather than embracing them from the pulpit. I used to think this was a flaw, but apparently I've gotten more conservative as I've gotten older.
Everyone who's candidate loses says this every single election, regardless of party. And the electoral college was a deliberate concession to the sparsely populated states where all the food is grown, as is the Senate. Because America is a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy. I don't know if this is still taught in school but I distinctly remember learning it.
The ironic thing is that HN is actually biased towards libertarians and bernie bros, it only feels like it's heavily democrat because those groups don't like a lot of republican policy either.
Bernie bros are pro social equity (income distribution fairness), pro education, pro drug law reform and anti-establishment, but also typically not into political correctness or D&I, and frequently either gun positive or gun neutral (schools excepted). They are mostly people who came under the democratic umbrella to support Bernie but often do not consider themselves democrats.
I was a Bernie bro and now I'm a registered Pacific Green. Which means to Democrats online, I'm a Republican, and to Republicans online, I'm a Democrat.
[Environmental contamination] is way less of an explanatory variable of obesity and mental health than [dietary choice and activity level]. Its effect resides in the error term.
I don't entirely agree with what they have to say, especially when they search for a possible target chemical, but they provide a whole bunch of contradictory evidence against the naive laziness hypothesis. Of which the most convincing argument is lab animals: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rspb.2010...
Lab animals do not have control over their diet and activity level, and yet are becoming more obese.
Is it really a choice when 75% of all food found in the supermarket has been spiked with sugar and 88% of the US population is suffering from metabolic issues? And sugar has been linked to a host of degenerative neurological conditions.
>Is it really a choice when 75% of all food found in the supermarket has been spiked with sugar and 88% of the US population is suffering from metabolic issues? And sugar has been linked to a host of degenerative neurological conditions.
Yes, it is. If you walk into the store, pick up the item, pay for it, take it home, and eat it, then it was 100% your choice. Just because a decision is difficult doesn't absolve an individual of responsibility.
>We can't outrun a bad diet.
You can, but it's not easy. However, what tends to happen is when you increase you activity level your body will auto-regulate cravings for better food. High performance athletes can get by on mostly fast food if they need. Most don't because they know it's not optimal.
Both of your notions are currently popular but that doesn't make them right. Emotional reasoning has taken over diet, fitness, and health and caused millions of people to give up their personal responsibility and sense of control. It's harmful thinking.
Somehow you have to pay for the convenience of having quick food 24/7.
To really asses if air pollutants play a role in weight gain subjects under test should eat the same calories and breathe the same (or different) air, still it would be difficult as not all metabolisms are the same. As a totally anecdotal note, i’ve never met an obese person who doesn’t overeat.
> More generally there is way too much crap in the environment and it is past time for people to start protesting this.
Some of this crap is worse than others. Some we can destroy and maybe make our food supply and water safe. But others are really hardy, by design (Teflon!). There's no good way to get rid of them and this should have been treated as an emergency ages ago. In a sense they are worse than radioactive waste because they don't even decay.
If teflon didn't decay it would be fine as it doesn't pose a health risk, its basically inert. Its the manufacturing chemicals and degradants (PFAS/PFOA) that are the problem and represent persistent contamination.
Thank you for posting this account. My grandfather had Parkinson's and I have followed news on the disease my entire life. In my grandfather's case he owned a slaughterhouse (in Detroit) and in an accident was hit in the head by a meat hook.
I spent twenty years in the fertilizer industry. I always read the chemical sheets on everything we sold. Paraquat which this article mentions was the single most toxic herbicide that we sold.
My bosses wife got a small amount mixed with water in her hair once. She grabbed a comb to try and thin the amount. When she stopped combing she examined her comb and it looked like a melted glob of plastic. This shocked all of us and she very quickly went and washed her hair.
Thanks for posting this, neurodegenrative diseases are horrible but at the same time this is a review of the literature.
They are reporting about feeding mice with 400 mg/kg/day during 6 to 8 weeks. For humans, this is equivalent to 33mg/kg/day. So for a 80kg body: 2.6g, half a sugar cube every day.
If you feed an animal (including us) with unreasonable levels of most anything you will observe weird stuff.
For example feeding mice with high fat diets gives them a kind of Alzheimer disease.
It reminds me a bit of the datasheet for sodium chloride - common table salt - that describes the skin contact LD50 (the amount that is a lethal dose for 50% of a population of test rabbits) as ">25kg".
So what do we read from that? If you drop a sack of salt weighing as much as an eight-year-old child on a series of rabbits, roughly half of them will die? I can't say I'm *very* surprised...
> So what do we read from that? If you drop a sack of salt weighing as much as an eight-year-old child on a series of rabbits, roughly half of them will die?
No, you should read exactly what it says. If you put a series of rabbits in skin contact with 25kg of salt each, less than half of them will die. That's how we know the LD50 is greater than 25 kilograms.
I assume 25 kilograms was the limit of testing, and that's why the result is reported the way it is.
I'm also willing to go out on a limb and assume the number of test rabbits that died from being put in skin contact with 25kg of salt was zero, which is less than half of the test pool as long as it contained a positive number of rabbits.
I'd be surprised if a rabbit has enough skin surface area to be in contact with more than about 1Kg of salt. How could the skin contact test continue past the point where extra salt wasn't in skin contact?
If you assume that solid salt can't flow, then it can't.
But for e.g. a contact poison absorbed through the skin, sticking your finger into a large pool of the stuff might get you a bigger dose than sticking your finger into a tiny puddle, even with little to no difference in surface area of skin making contact.
Going back to salt, it is known and used for its ability to draw water out of other materials. If you stay in contact with a large quantity of salt, it will kill you through dehydration, because even though it can't flow, the water that you contain can. Your skin should have a good amount of resistance to this; the inside of your nostrils, or an open wound, not so much.
I'm speculating here; if you really want a definitive answer, you'll need to find someone who creates data for MSDS sheets.
> I'm also willing to go out on a limb and assume the number of test rabbits that died from being put in skin contact with 25kg of salt was zero,
Depending on what height it was applied from
> less than half of the test pool as long as it contained a positive number of rabbits.
Positive integer number of rabbits, with any luck, although I suspect in this instance imaginary rabbits may have been used. Definitely not complex ones though.
It's different if dropping the salt crushes the animals, gets eaten and causes a heart attack, burns off their fur, causes bleeding, or causes Parkinson disease. That last one is so odd you'd take note of any high dose of anything causing it. Like TFA suggests, this is reason for further investigation.
Not very different from study designs used by pharmaceuticals to show that their new patent-pending drug outperforms the generic one. They deliberately design it so that the competing drug isn't the right dose or somehow not administered correctly... and if someone tries to fight them, their license is taken away.
> feeding mice with high fat diets gives them a kind of Alzheimer disease.
Do you have a link for this.
I found this:
"However, some of these diets contain levels of dietary fat that are much higher than the levels that humans routinely consume. The question has been raised as to whether experimental use of these diets with very high levels of fat adequately models the situation of human obesity."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41366-019-0363-7
So? That doesn't preclude low doses over a long period from causing harm. High doses are used to prove a conclusive link, not establish a lower limit of toxic effects.
If you're unsure whether there is an effect you probably want to start with a very high dose to justify funding for follow-up studies that determine which dose is safe.
Great. I spent all four years in highschool rebuilding car engines practically swimming in this stuff because my friends and I used it as a degreaser. We didn't swallow it, but we did get blisters on our hands and it turned our skin white and ashy.
Once I left highschool I stopped working on cars (discovered computers), but I wonder how screwed we are, or are going to be (we're all nearing our 60's even though we still have the maturity of 20 somethings).
My dad was an aircraft mechanic and he got a ton of tumors in his arm from whatever cleaning liquids they used at the time. It has given me a lifetime of paranoia, always wearing gloves when I’m working on some mechanical thing.
All that shit is probably in the ground water though.
What's sad about this is that in 2023 there's still a subculture of mechanics who think it's "weak" or "unmanly" to use things like gloves when working on cars (and I'm pretty sure that extends to other forms of hands on work)
We don't have the excuse earlier generations had, we know this stuff causes cancer, we know it seeps into your skin and doesn't come out just because you washed your hands well, but people still don't see a problem with going fist deep in used engine oil or dumping half a can of brake cleaner on something in an enclosed garage
Two football star athletes at a local high school (poor, majority-Black neighborhood) died of mysterious brain tumors about 5 years ago. Their high school is a few hundred feet down a gentle grade from a row of auto shops. The parents of the deceased were certain for years that the auto shops were the problem, and brought it up repeatedly to city council and the mayor, but no one acted on it. No one even tested the groundwater until a routine inspection of the high school's heating system in the basement a couple years later, where they found extremely unhealthy levels of TCE. I'm not sure if they ever started enforcing things better, but knowing the local government I doubt it.
I had a bottle of this stuff I recently hazmatted. Someone gave it to me from the 80's. They used to sell solvents to the electronics industry...then the CFC/Ozone regulations caused them to require to shut down.
He has stories about mixing TCE and Freon...55 gallon drums of it.
As far as I know he doesn't have Parkinsons but that doesn't mean anything.
Apparently, this stuff was great for cleaning electronics PCBs but clearly it is super bad for you. I am not sure how you could slightly smell it and not realize it...has a very strong "I cause cancer" smell to it.
Tobacco companies dump over 300 carcinogenic chemicals into cigarettes, called additives, to make them more addictive, and which make up half of nearly all cigarettes.[1] That is what kills people, smoking carcinogenic chemicals. Unadulterated tobacco, such as what pipe smokers use, does not actually cause cancer, yet it shouldn't surprise us why cigarette smokers die in droves. The American Lung Associate did not discriminate: tobacco is bad! Yet all of this information came out during the late 1990's, lawsuit, US v. Philip Morris, and yet the settlement permitted tobacco companies to continue the practice of poisoning cigarettes. Half of the $200B+ settlement was forgiven by the mid-2000s.
But the US Surgeon General had different findings, and the only conclusion that we can make is that it is not tobacco that kills, only cigarettes:
Death rates for current pipe smokers were little if at all higher than for non-smokers, even with men smoking 10 pipefuls per day and with men who had smoked pipes for more than 30 years.[2]
Among the pipe smokers.... The US mortality ratios are 0.8 for non-inhalers and 1.0 for inhalers.[3]
Smoking actual tobacco can cause emphysema, not cancer. But most commercial tobacco is intentionally poisoned to increase the addictiveness of nicotine, and the result is cancer.
It is certainly true that cigarettes are generally more carcinogenic. However, your statement that "actual tobacco can cause emphysema, not cancer" is emphatically false.
I would suggest being somewhat less confrontational when your primary source on an actively researched topic is from 1964. In your words, "[j]ust love how everyone insists they know absolutely everything and are never wrong. Guess what?"
> It is clear based on the following study that even exclusive pipe smoking causes a variety of cancers:
That's awesome. Please cite which paragraph mentions "natural tobacco," because here "pipe smokers" is ambiguous, and even pipe tobacco can be treated to not only increase its nicotine content, but also be infused with carcinogenic additives to make the final product more addictive, and thereby also making it more deadly (not due to it's addictiveness directly, but by the chemicals that cause it to be more addictive, such as adding ammonia), In fact, it is standard practice for major brands of pipe tobacco to treat the tobacco to turn it into something that should be distinguished as "not tobacco," so unless the study distinguishes between natural and treated tobacco smokers, it is a flawed study.
Is it really so impossible to believe that you were lied to and believe total crap? Tobacco, natural tobacco without any carcinogenic chemicals added, does not cause cancer.
It isn't my argument, it is the US Surgeon General's. And with all due respect, seems a bit something to believe smoking something without more than 300 known chemical carcinogens causes cancer at the same rate as with them. Please think before you post.
> I think they're referring to your original claim that tobacco smoke, without additives, doesn't cause cancer.
Once again I am being attributed something that is not mine. It is not my claim, it is the claim of the US Surgeon General's Report on Smoking and Health, and I stand by the science which claims (i.e. it is not my claim, it is the claim of the US Surgeon General) that pipe smokers who inhale live as long as nonsmokers, and pipe smokers that don’t inhale live longer than non-smokers.
Smoking tobacco that is not infused with more than 300 known carcinogens does not cause cancer. No one is saying smoking is healthy, only that the cancer rates of natural tobacco smokers are non-existent, no higher than the general population. They'll just have to deal with that fact, that they've been lied to in order to protect Big Tobacco's cash cow and methods of making cigarettes intentionally more addicting to drive it. Natural tobacco, in comparison, has a fraction of the amount of nicotine as what's in national brand cigarettes and thus is in comparison far less addictive.
I honestly don't care. I just think it's interesting that most people believe tobacco causes cancer so strongly, and they're provably wrong. It's what they put in cigarettes that causes cancer, and I don't know how anyone can call that tobacco.
IBM had to do a massive cleanup of the stuff at their original site in Endicott NY where they made PCBs. The locals call it the plume, apparently IBM just dumped Trichloroethylene as well as other chemicals on the ground for years in some of their buildings.
I second this. I used it to clean electronic systems in the military and they did not really give much training on this chemical which surprised me as they trained extensively on much less dangerous chemicals. Some of my team members liked inhaling the fumes.
I think this is what someone I knew used. He had all kinds of health problems, diabetes, vision issues, heart problems, and he suspected it was from some electronics related chlorinated solvent.
It's also in brake cleaner, which I have no idea how anyone tolerates that stuff.
I've never in my life been in a situation where I wanted a stronger solvent than acetone, I'm very skeptical most of these harsh cleaning chemicals are actually needed outside specialist industrial uses.
There's a lot of chemicals that do basically the same thing with widely varying desire to kill you. I don't understand why people like the dangerous ones.
They say it works better but what does that mean? Saves a few minutes? Gets it cleaner? Are people seeing failures in the field because of the less toxic alternatives leaving residue? Does it even matter at all how clean or not some of this stuff is? Is it just gonna get covered in more grease in 5 minutes?
I remember that if you use brake cleaner on hot parts, you would get a really really toxic chemical.
EDIT: phosgene gas.
Chlorinated brake cleaner containing tetrachloroethylene will, on exposure to high temperatures (above 500 °F (260 °C)) or strong UV light, decompose into phosgene and hydrogen chloride, both of which are extremely dangerous if inhaled.
I used to work in an automotive wire manufacturing plant. One of the plastic coatings we used was PVC. When the operators would have quality problems (centering the copper within a few mm of the plastic sheath or uneven sheath surface defects), they would suspect their tooling (tip + die) was in some way dirty or compromised. The proper way to remediate was to shut down the line (plastics extruder, pulleys, etc) and replace the tooling with a fresh clean set. Then restart. Total cycle time might be 30 mins. Unfortunately, this came at great expense to the operator in lost efficiency since they were paid by productivity (how much good quality wire was produced during their shift) which obviously took a serious hit. So, in spite of warnings about the dangers of toxic fumes (phosgene), they would take the personally efficient and lucrative shortcut of running a blow torch against the suspect tooling while the line was in motion until the quality “wrinkle” was ironed out (e.g some rogue piece of hardened plastic on the tooling has been melted/burnt away). Problem solved and paycheck protected. It was a daily occurrence to see little plumes of smoke regularly wafting upward periodically across 7-8 separate production lines and settling in the top 1/3 of the factory airspace. Phosgene was undoubtedly a large component. No amount of admonishment and warning can be effective when it hits the operators wallet. For those unaware of phosgene, “ When vinyl chloride burns, it releases hazardous chemicals such as phosgene and hydrogen chloride into the air. Phosgene is a colorless gas with a pungent odor that can cause vomiting and breathing difficulties“ [0]
Phosgene is heavier than air (and so it sinks to ground level). That's why it was used in trench warfare in WWI. It would have stayed down where the workers were, not floated up by the ceiling. Those would have been other toxins up there.
Interesting. And Yikes! That's even worse than I thought for all of us on the shop floor. There was so much particulate in the air on a regular basis that a white paper taped on the wall at the start of the day was gray by lunch time. No masks. Appreciate the additional insight.
It pays to check the (M)SDS. Chlorinated brake cleaner is nasty stuff, real dangerous if you're using it on something you want to weld. However, I haven't seen chlorinated brake cleaner in California since I was a kid. Lately they've been cracking down on the non-chlorinated stuff due to VOCs. The non-chlorinated stuff I use is acetone, naptha, heptane+n-heptane, and CO2.
Acetone is blissfully not so toxic but it is extremely volatile, which is both a safety and a practical concern. I bought a small flask of the stuff recently from the big box store and you could not buy it at the self-checkout.
The chlorinated stuff is just a better solvent. Dries faster, leaves less residue (than some non-chlorinated versions), and is better at dissolving the greasy funk. Generally it's not enough of an improvement, even if you have the chlorinated stuff at your disposal.
I'll say. Oak Ridge National Lab has this to say about the toxicity of acetone:
> Acetone (CAS No. 67-64-1) is a clear, colorless, highly flammable liquid with a vapor pressure of 182 mm Hg at 20C (Morgott, 1993). It is completely miscible in water and soluble in organics such as benzene and ethanol (ATSDR, 1994). Its log Kow has been estimated to be -0.24 (ATSDR, 1994). Acetone is used primarily as a solvent and chemical intermediate, and it is also found in some consumer products such as nail polish remover (Inoue, 1983; Kumai et al., 1983).
Given a choice between the chlorinated stuff, and something one can drink half a shot glass of and not suffer any toxic effects, I'll take the acetone any day.
I generally buy my acetone online, BTW. It's relatively easy to buy small quantities of pure acetone, because it's sold as nail polish remover.
> Given a choice between the chlorinated stuff, and something one can drink half a shot glass of and not suffer any toxic effects, I'll take the acetone any day.
Fun fact: if you drink isopropyl alcohol, your body metabolises it (partly) to acetone, which you can smell and taste. But, well, don't drink either anyway. :-)
Well, even in California, you can buy pure acetone OTC – you just have to interact with a human cashier who probably won't even know why the self-checkout refuses to let you buy it. I don't care one way or another except that the big box stores try to push you towards the self-checkout lanes.
Nail polish remover, like non-ethyl alcohol, is likely to be adulterated (e.g. with scents or crap to soften your cuticles, etc.). Depending on how clean you need something to be it may be an issue (and you probably can find high test nail polish remover). I was removing these infernal stickers from cooking implements so I went with the big box store. Depending on what you're working with you may still need to wipe it down with isopropyl anyhow.
Acetone bought from your local shop that sells car spare parts, tools, and whatnot is likely several orders of magnitude cheaper than the same acetone bought from the cosmetics department. I keep offering my bottle of acetone to my SO but she insist on using the cosmetics department version. ;)
This is a popular brake cleaner sold on Amazon [0] that I bought some time ago, I'm not sure but reading through the SDS it seems it does not contain TCE?
It says it contains "Hydrocarbons, C6-C7, n-alkanes, isoalkanes, cyclics, <5% n-hexane"[1]
There are two common types of brake cleaner available in most of the United States: chlorinated and non-chlorinated. The big advantage of retail packaging is that it's typically in an aerosol can so you have the added perk of mechanical cleaning action. I typically use CRC brand stuff since it's easy to find, doesn't seem to harm most of the PA6/66 plastic under the hood, and works well. In not-California CRC markets the chlorinated brake cleaner with a red label and the non-chlorinated stuff with a green label. In California it's all non-chlorinated (potentially all low-VOC now too) despite the red/green cans having different SKUs. I suspect that the EU outlawed the chlorinated stuff a while back as they're typically more proactive than not-California.
Having used TCE to clean heavily fouled parts I can't emphasize enough how much better it is than acetone. It's really not close. Acetone might as well be water compared to TCE. TCE makes years of caked-on, baked-on crud wipe off like it was never there. And 30 seconds later not a trace of residue will remain. In the extremely rare case that something is hard to clean with TCE, that same thing will be nearly impossible to clean with a less evil substance.
Don't get me wrong, I have zero doubt it causes cancer and God-only-knows what else. The stuff is like an eraser for physical reality. Whatever tiny droplets of it you breathe in, are desperately trying to clean your nasty organs away and leave a gleaming, residue-free skeleton behind. I suspect it could clean the face right off your head like in the end scene of Raiders of the Lost Ark.
I no longer use it. For my purposes anything that can't be cleaned without TCE, doesn't need to be cleaned that badly. But I do get why it was used so much.
Having worked in art-related fields which involve various dangerous processes, many people are cavalier about the dangers of toxins. They do not accept that safety equipment or precautions are worth the effort, and often gauge danger by whether they feel ill immediately so long/medium term hazards are ignored. It’s a combination of machismo, laziness and ignorance.
I use isopropyl alcohol for cleaning bicycle brake discs - that evaporates away without leaving residue, but you don't want to be inhaling too many fumes from it.
Pretty much any of this stuff - including the chlorinated stuff - is okay as long as you're using it somewhere well-ventilated and not making a habit of getting it on you.
My husband has Parkinson’s disease, he is about 63 years old it was diagnosed 2 years ago. It was getting more difficult to live for him, because of stiff muscles he couldn’t even move. Mirapex and levodopa medicines were given, but didn’t give much relief. He couldn’t eat food without choking. I thought this might be the last stage and the medications he was given did not help at all, so I started to do alot of research on Ayurveda treatments, I was introduced to Health Natural Centre and their Parkinson’s Ayurveda Protocol. He started on the Ayurveda Treatment last year, his symptoms gradually diminished including his vocal cord spasm, Muscle Weakness, Tremors and Difficulty with swallowing. Reach them at naturalherbscentre.com , he is getting active again since starting this treatment, he is able to walk again ( down the street and back ) he has also resumed exercising to strengthen muscles!! God Bless all PD Caregivers. Stay Strong, take small moments throughout the day to thank yourself, to love your self, and pray to whatever faith, star, spiritual force you believe in and ask for strength. I can personally vouch for these remedy but you would probably need to decide what works best for you.
My husband who had been diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease for 2 years at the age of 75 had all his symptoms reversed with Ayurveda medicine from naturalherbscentre. com after undergoing their Parkinson’s natural protocol. God Bless all Parkinson’s Caregivers. Stay Strong, take small moments throughout the day to thank yourself, to love your self, and pray to whatever faith, star, spiritual force you believe in and ask for strength. I can personally vouch for these remedy but you would probably need to decide what works best for you.
There's also a very high correlation between PD and insecticide use. Cows eating grass treated with insecticide (sometimes because a farmer on the plot upwind of their meadow uses it) produce milk that contains high concentrations of insecticides. People drinking lots of dairy ingest those insecticides and develop PD.
My grandmother retired to a farm where she used a ton of herbicides and insecticides (endless battle agains fire ants) including DDT and who knows what else. She ended up with a Parkinson’s-like condition - supposedly not Parkinson’s, but same symptoms. I’m not sure how they determined that.
An interesting quirk of TCE is that it's a "dense non-aqueous phase liquid" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dense_non-aqueous_phase_liquid), which means that it sinks in water generally and groundwater specifically, making it hard to remediate.
In July last year, I started on Parkinson’s disease TREATMENT PROTOCOL from Natural Herbs Centre (ww w. Naturalherbscentre. com). One month into the treatment, I made a significant recovery. After I completed the recommended treatment, almost all my symptoms were gone, great improvement with my movement and balance. Its been a year, life has been amazing
It can evaporate, but doesn't chemically decompose very quickly. Its tendency to evaporate isn't very relevant if it's in your groundwater, for instance.
Persistent, in this case, means it doesn't break down readily. As it happens once it does eventually break down the resulting stuff is also pretty nasty: first you get 1-2-DCE, and then vinyl chloride.
The entire city of Mountain View is literally one giant EPA Superfund site (look it up) and I wouldn’t go near any of those beautiful creeks they have running around or play in the soil…
It's not just Mountain View. All of Silicon Valley is dotted with superfund sites. Years ago IBM got sued by former employees about exposure to carcinogens at their San Jose factories. IBM won, but, yeah, I'd still be careful.
Yes good point about the military waste. Hunters Point in SF comes to mind. A highly contaminated radioactive site that required extensive soil remediation.
A lot of the radioactive soil was just sent to regular state landfills.
Then after they had started building multi family homes on top of the site, they found out the cleanup company was falsifying soil samples and the site was still highly radioactive.
I hope that situation is not typical of how Superfund sites are handled
What Lennar did in BVHP ought to be criminal. Treasure Island (also an ex-military Superfund site) is a mess of radioactive waste on its way to becoming luxury condos as well. Oh well, it will be a fun cancer cluster in a couple decades.
AMD, Intel, Fairchild, IBM, HP, Nat Semi, Raytheon, Teledyne, Westinghouse, and LLNL all gifted the Bay Area with Superfund sites with most concentrated in Santa Clara county. Even stuff that doesn't rise to the level of a Superfund site can still be far too polluted to develop (e.g. Brisbane).
Note that the map only shows National Priority List sites. They're considered to be the most polluted but that doesn't mean that sites not on the NPL list aren't also a concern (my county only has one NPL site but over a dozen non-NPL contaminated areas)
It's a good question. It's easy to locate Swiss water decaf in the US now, but apparently that wasn't true in the mid-80's, so the answer depends on when and where the caffeine was extracted from the coffee.
Depends on how the coffee is decaffeinated. Swiss Water Process, for instance, literally just uses water. Most other methods involve organic solvents of some sort.
And every day you're in this place you're two days nearer death
But you go
There's overtime and bonus opportunities galore
The young men like their money and they all come back for more
But soon you're knockin' on and you look older than you should
For every bob made on the job you pay with flesh and blood
I'm somewhat fascinated by the image the song paints of a factory that will happily pay above-market rates for as many hours as you care to work there.
Trichloroethylene for decaf sounds as an idea as bad as tetraethyl lead for fuel, freon for refrigeration, teflon for non-stick pans, glyphosate for weed control and PFAS for microwave popcorn bags and tampons.
PSA for bird owners: that off gassing is highly lethal to birds. You shouldn't cook with teflon and have birds. They can die in minutes even when on the other side of the house.
Yes. It can emit toxic gasses at high temperatures though, so I'd recomment always trying to keep it under 200°C (390° F). (My pans are a ceramic non-stick so I don't have to worry, but they are more expensive).
Conveniently it seems that the smoking point of olive oil is about that, while its boiling point is ~300°C (570°F), which give nice physical cues without having a thermometer.
Damn. Checks label on CRC QD (quick dry) contact cleaner. No TCE, but it's the all-star team of halogenated stuff that will volatilize as quick as possible.
