Home | About | Donate

Toxic Phthalates Are Everywhere: Report Reveals Ubiquity of 'Hormone-Assaulting Chemicals'


#1

Toxic Phthalates Are Everywhere: Report Reveals Ubiquity of 'Hormone-Assaulting Chemicals'

Andrea Germanos, staff writer

A new report puts the spotlight on the widespread use of toxic chemicals known as phthalates, finding them in products from paints to shoelaces to greeting cards.

The report, What Stinks? Toxic Phthalates in Your Home (pdf), used data submitted to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, as the New England state requires manufacturers to disclose their use of four kinds phthalates.


#2

Since everyone is now assumed guilty until they prove themselves innocent, the same thing applies to any corporation as person. "Prove that our product caused your cancer". No. The corporation must prove it didn't. Such a system would boast employment.


#3

To bloody hell with their "corporate rights" to their "trade secrets" and "proprietary formulas."

We have EVERY RIGHT to know what is in EVERY product offered for sale or otherwise used by corporations in their corporate activities.

We absolutely must break the death grip that out-of-control capital holds over every aspect of society and the political economy. Self-interested corporate zombies should be allowed ZERO influence over public policy.

In the meantime, and as your default: DO NOT BUY IT.


#4

Who cares, we are all making money. That's all that is important to unregulated capitalism. Things like this fragile planet, other humans; especially, the mentally ill and the homeless, future generations (if any), nature, don't matter to the 1%. Important things, like huge estates as many as you can buy, yachts, fancy fast cars (especially ones that burn a lot of gasoline), getting free stuff from governments, returning the population to serfs or slaves while working them harder and keeping them insecure, being richer than the other rich 1% bastards are what really matters.

By the way, there was a great article on why we should expand the use of natural gas in the Houston Chronicle today. At least it said "commentary" on the web address, but not in business section of the paper.

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/conferences/article/Commentary-Don-t-overlook-the-promise-of-natural-7394258.php?cmpid=gsa-chron-result


#5

The phrase 'Can I have a straw?' Is hazardous to your health!


#8

until you know what is in every product you buy, DO NOT BUY IT. in fact what a concept - stop spending your money on unneeded and unnecessary to a safe and sane life anywhere on earth. be well folks.


#9

http://phys.org/news/2010-10-scientists-cancer-purely-man-made.html

This article refers to a study done by Doctors in the UK that suggest Cancer a man made disease caused by industrial pollution. They premise this claim on investigating hundreds of Egyptian mummies and finding little to no traces of cancer cells , this including Mummies of people that had died well into old age.

They also studied the literature of many Greek texts and found that the incidences of cancer and cancerous tumours only started to occur in literature during the Industrial revolution.


#10

It seems there's an underlying assumption in our culture that yes, the current epidemic of cancer is a result of all the new chemicals released into our environment on a continual basis but that's just the price we pay for having all this wonderful stuff that makes our lives so easy. The corporate driven message is that it's somehow worth it. That sentiment changes pretty quickly when someone you love gets cancer. At least it does when the victim's loved ones make the connection. If we had truth in advertising and companies were forced to not only tell us what's in their products but also forced to admit "look, this shit is going to kill many people and some of those people are going to be people you know and love, well maybe then we'd have safer products and a less consumptive lifestyle.


#11

"Our nation's chemical safety system is badly broken. Chemical ingredients in most household products are kept secret, leaving consumers to wonder which products are actually safe."

The criminal inmates really are in charge of the asylum.....

Corporate "personhood" and wholesale corruption of our "regulatory" agencies combine to create a crime against humanity! The vast majority of chemicals introduced into our food, products, homes and environment are never tested or oversight provided by our corrupt corporate government - profits above people with cancer and numerous conditions and diseases the result!
None of them should be allowed until proven safe, not as today's model must be proven deadly, and even then decades pass with zero action - and the perpetrators are shielded from most prosecutions - what a boon for profits of the "health-care" industry.......


#12

Yes, wouldn't it be something if some well-respected scientist (a new Rachel Carson) came to the conclusion "Without question, all cancer is artificially caused", as the study pointed out by SuspiraDeProfundis suggested. Another thing I wonder about is the Vaccine issue. I wonder what other CDers think about this. Robert DeNiro recently was in the news saying he would like people to see this film he wanted to get shown at the Tribeca Film Festival in New York, a film that raises questions about whether vaccines are hurting some children and may even be causing autism (the rate of which seems to be going up). He said he was interested in this because his own son is autistic. He later withdrew the film because it started this firestorm of protest. Is this another example of how what man is doing to man is not necessarily helping, but is hurting? I mean, it is quite possible that vaccines have in a group-perspective-sense massively cut down the incidence of various diseases that were prevalent before they came up with this method of fighting them. However, that doesn't mean that some children aren't hurt by them. I liked what De Niro said, which was "why not have some kind of test of the child to see if he/she is sensitive to this cocktail of drugs, before administering it?" Sounds reasonable to me.


#13

New rule:

If it's packaged in plastic, don't buy it. The softners in the plastic leech into your food. Impossible you say?

Yeah, it's hard. Even the Britling Filter pitcher uses polycarbonate, which researchers say is deadly. So we now only use it to water the ferns on the terrace. Some of those ferns kicked the bucket...

I use glass, or I don't consume it. But bottle water gets me sooner or later when I leave home.

Man, it really sucks to live in this Brave New Push-button World of Tomorrow. Wish I was back in the 70's before all this plastic chit showed up. Plastic is made from oil, you know. Not only does it kill you, it kills the planet when it is produced.

But now it sounds like I can't even let my kids sit on my vinyl couch without putting them at risk.

God I hate these Oil Company Azzholes who force us to live in an ocean of plastic.


#14

This has been apparent to me since I was a child. It's apparent today to a even a child's logic. Children, you see, have not yet learned to fear the ridicule of the mainstream press. The last I heard about this was a long time ago. The 2008-2009 Annual Report of the President's Cancer Panel:
http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/annualReports/pcp08-09rpt/PCP_Report_08-09_508.pdf
This report was TOTALLY ignored by the mainstream media.

I've always been suspicious of the anti-smoking movement. It seemed overblown to me. Every passing day I'm more convinced it was employed as a scapegoat. All these anti-smokers that will gladly jump down the throats of a smoker -- they gonna jump down the throats of these corporations?

Excuse me while I roll across the floor laughing. Looking forward to reading your link.


#15

Oh, man. I didn't even read the rest of your post before I replied. The "old age" argument is insulting and absurd. I really, really, really like the mummified Egyptians all of a sudden. I tend to argue against the old age argument from this angle: "So, our children are older today than they were in the past?" It's good logic, but hard evidence trumps logic.


#16

This is a pretty significant find you've posted. Thanks.

TJ


#17

I agree with your perspective. In the case of Mr. De Niro there may be corporate legal restraints that are designed to protect/ensure future profits of a company. Legal, prior restraints, similar to those that now contend that for an individual to personally witness the inner workings of a company, there can potential loss of future revenue and/or profitability. This was upheld recently in maybe Utah where the court ruled in favor of a corp that did not want people to see the nature of... slaughter house operations.


#18

Yes a lot of people stand behind that "we live longer argument" which as most know is nonsense. People seem to think that because life expectancy was some 40 years back then this means everyone dropped dead at 40.

The fact is if you survivived childhood you could expect to live about as long as people do today.


#19

"People seem to think that because life expectancy was some 40 years back then this means everyone dropped dead at 40.

The fact is if you survivived childhood you could expect to live about as long as people do today."

Killin' it Suspira. I hadn't previously considered that point. Sounds robust. I would like to get ahold of some of the numbers and get a better sense of the issue.