-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
I don't really like McDonald's but what a hipster deuce bag.if that's consideered good art I need to bank on these idiots pronto
R
Robrites
R
Robrites
R
Robrites
We call squirrels comfort food around here. lol.
Woman removed from plane after boarding with 'emotional support' squirrel.
"The Orlando Police Department was forced to remove a woman from a Frontier Airlines plane Tuesday night after she tried to bring a squirrel on board, claiming it was an emotional support animal, according to the airline. The woman was advised that squirrels are not allowed on board by Frontier's support animal policy."
"
https://abcnews.go.com/US/woman-removed-plane-boarding-emotional-support-squirrel/story?id=58400567
Woman removed from plane after boarding with 'emotional support' squirrel.
"The Orlando Police Department was forced to remove a woman from a Frontier Airlines plane Tuesday night after she tried to bring a squirrel on board, claiming it was an emotional support animal, according to the airline. The woman was advised that squirrels are not allowed on board by Frontier's support animal policy."
"
https://abcnews.go.com/US/woman-removed-plane-boarding-emotional-support-squirrel/story?id=58400567
R
Robrites
https://www.news.com.au/technology/...n/news-story/f092e06469c6832c47e7d366f895e44a
A PROFESSIONAL snake catcher has warned of the serious damage non-venomous snakes can do.
Sue Ambler was removing a python from a tree when it landed on her and wrapped around her neck, squeezing so tight it burst her blood vessels and caused friction burn on her face.
Ms Ambler, from Mission Beach in north Queensland, shared photos of her horrific injuries on Facebook as a warning for people not to attempt to catch snakes themselves.
She said her terrifying ordeal — which she nearly left her dead — showed that even non-venomous snakes could be dangerous and people should always call in the professionals.
“I was catching a snake the other day and things turned for the worst,” she said.
“When I grabbed the snake out of the tree it landed around my neck and before I could unwind the snake from my neck it tightened around my neck and face and before long it asphyxiated me to the point I passed out and fell to the ground.
“If it wasn’t for the quick thinking of the people I was catching the snake for I wouldn’t be alive to tell my story.
“The ambulance guy said one more minute and I would have been dead so as a professional snake catcher this can even happen to us.”
Pythons use strangulation to kill prey as large as wallabies, and are known to kill and consume domestic pets.Ms Ambler stressed her point, further saying that pythons could be moody and cranky.
“Even though pythons are non-venomous they are dangerous too so please don’t handle snakes by yourself — call in a professional snake catcher,” she said.
“I ended up with two black eyes. I busted a lot of blood vessels in my eyes. I have friction burn on my nose from it tightening on my face and I’m in quite a lot of pain so please call a snake catcher and don’t remove snakes by yourself.”
She said her incident would not stop her doing what she loved.
A PROFESSIONAL snake catcher has warned of the serious damage non-venomous snakes can do.
Sue Ambler was removing a python from a tree when it landed on her and wrapped around her neck, squeezing so tight it burst her blood vessels and caused friction burn on her face.
Ms Ambler, from Mission Beach in north Queensland, shared photos of her horrific injuries on Facebook as a warning for people not to attempt to catch snakes themselves.
She said her terrifying ordeal — which she nearly left her dead — showed that even non-venomous snakes could be dangerous and people should always call in the professionals.
“I was catching a snake the other day and things turned for the worst,” she said.
“When I grabbed the snake out of the tree it landed around my neck and before I could unwind the snake from my neck it tightened around my neck and face and before long it asphyxiated me to the point I passed out and fell to the ground.
“If it wasn’t for the quick thinking of the people I was catching the snake for I wouldn’t be alive to tell my story.
“The ambulance guy said one more minute and I would have been dead so as a professional snake catcher this can even happen to us.”
Pythons use strangulation to kill prey as large as wallabies, and are known to kill and consume domestic pets.Ms Ambler stressed her point, further saying that pythons could be moody and cranky.
“Even though pythons are non-venomous they are dangerous too so please don’t handle snakes by yourself — call in a professional snake catcher,” she said.
“I ended up with two black eyes. I busted a lot of blood vessels in my eyes. I have friction burn on my nose from it tightening on my face and I’m in quite a lot of pain so please call a snake catcher and don’t remove snakes by yourself.”
She said her incident would not stop her doing what she loved.
R
Robrites
Man run over by lawn mower while trying to kill son with chainsaw
Man run over by lawn mower while trying to kill son with chainsaw
BRISTOL, Tenn. – A man who police say was run over with a lawn mower while trying to kill his son with a chain saw has had to have his leg amputated.
The Bristol Herald Courier reports that a warrant for 76-year-old Douglas Ferguson couldn’t be served until Tuesday because of the severity of his injuries.
According to a Sullivan County Sheriff’s Office release, officers called to a home June 28 found Ferguson bleeding from his leg and head. A preliminary investigation indicated he had tried to attack his son with a running chain saw while he son mowed the yard.
Detectives say the father and son had an ongoing feud.
Ferguson is charged with attempted second-degree murder and violating probation. It’s unclear whether he has a lawyer to comment on his behalf.
Man run over by lawn mower while trying to kill son with chainsaw
BRISTOL, Tenn. – A man who police say was run over with a lawn mower while trying to kill his son with a chain saw has had to have his leg amputated.
The Bristol Herald Courier reports that a warrant for 76-year-old Douglas Ferguson couldn’t be served until Tuesday because of the severity of his injuries.
According to a Sullivan County Sheriff’s Office release, officers called to a home June 28 found Ferguson bleeding from his leg and head. A preliminary investigation indicated he had tried to attack his son with a running chain saw while he son mowed the yard.
Detectives say the father and son had an ongoing feud.
Ferguson is charged with attempted second-degree murder and violating probation. It’s unclear whether he has a lawyer to comment on his behalf.
R
Robrites
R
Robrites
R
Robrites
R
Robrites
R
Robrites
Dangerous BPA Toxic Exposure is Worse from Handling Thermal Paper Receipts
Dangerous BPA Toxic Exposure is Worse from Handling Thermal Paper Receipts
Many of us are aware of the endocrine disrupting potential of BPA (bisphenol-A) used in many plastic containers and inner linings of cans that the food processors label “BPA Free” as a marketing device.
Unfortunately, the replacement chemical, BPS (biphenol-S) has been discovered with, at least, the same endocrine mimicking dangers or perhaps even worse effects on hormonal health than BPA.
Dangerous BPA Toxic Exposure is Worse from Handling Thermal Paper Receipts than Eating Food Packaged in BPA Plastics
Cash register sales receipts printed on thermal rolled paper image.
Many of us are aware of the endocrine disrupting potential of BPA (bisphenol-A) used in many plastic containers and inner linings of cans that the food processors label “BPA Free” as a marketing device.
Unfortunately, the replacement chemical, BPS (biphenol-S) has been discovered with, at least, the same endocrine mimicking dangers or perhaps even worse effects on hormonal health than BPA.
Study: Replacements for BPA in BPA-free Products Just as Toxic – Time for Non-toxic Hemp Plastics?
This leads to conscientious consumers being duped into exposure from biphenol endocrine disruptors from containers labeled “BPA Free” if other bisphenols such as BPS are used. Those who aren’t duped have to deal with concerns about labels and do more research.
But there’s one ubiquitous item that openly contains BPA in order for it to function, and that is ink-less printing paper. Thermal paper is used by almost all cash registers, ATMs, medical equipment, and other machines that offer printouts.
There have been concerns about skin exposure with BPA thermal paper and its cons
October 17, 2018
Dangerous BPA Toxic Exposure is Worse from Handling Thermal Paper Receipts than Eating Food Packaged in BPA Plastics
Cash register sales receipts printed on thermal rolled paper image.
Many of us are aware of the endocrine disrupting potential of BPA (bisphenol-A) used in many plastic containers and inner linings of cans that the food processors label “BPA Free” as a marketing device.
Unfortunately, the replacement chemical, BPS (biphenol-S) has been discovered with, at least, the same endocrine mimicking dangers or perhaps even worse effects on hormonal health than BPA.
Study: Replacements for BPA in BPA-free Products Just as Toxic – Time for Non-toxic Hemp Plastics?
This leads to conscientious consumers being duped into exposure from biphenol endocrine disruptors from containers labeled “BPA Free” if other bisphenols such as BPS are used. Those who aren’t duped have to deal with concerns about labels and do more research.
But there’s one ubiquitous item that openly contains BPA in order for it to function, and that is ink-less printing paper. Thermal paper is used by almost all cash registers, ATMs, medical equipment, and other machines that offer printouts.
There have been concerns about skin exposure with BPA thermal paper and its consequences, and there are studies now confirming that handling these receipts are exposing our bodies to BPA toxicity even more than consuming food in BPA packaging.
A Recent Study on BPA Toxicity from Skin Exposure to Thermal Paper
A 2017 study discovered that skin contact with thermal paper is a pathway that leads to BPA in the body at higher levels and with longer residual effects than oral consumption of foods or beverages packaged in BPA plastic containers.
This study, Prolonged Exposure to Bisphenol A from Single Dermal Contact Events was published online by the journal Environmental Science and Technology on July 31, 2017.
Knowing that thermal paper is coated with BPA, the researchers were curious about the pharmacokinetics of BPA “dermal exposure” and how it compares with “dietary exposure” to BPA.
So, they measured serum and urine samples of six volunteer male subjects who were exposed to both dermal and dietary BPA exposures and monitored their BPA levels and the lengths of time it took to clear BPA from their systems.
The thermal papers were handled for only five minutes then they washed their hands after two hours. A week later subjects returned for a bout of dietary BPA and serum, and urine samples were closely monitored the same way.
An extreme example was when one individual, who did the bare skin handing of thermal paper a second time, had detectable BPA showing in urine and serum samples for nine days. But after dietary BPA exposure, the same subject cleared BPA from his system within 24 hours.
The other five subjects’ times varied with both dermal and dietary BPA exposures.
But half of the subjects had traces of BPA from thermal paper dermal exposure for a week, while clearing dietary BPA from their systems took much shorter times.
The researchers concluded :
Compared to dietary BPA exposure, dermal absorption of BPA leads to prolonged exposure and may lead to higher proportions of unconjugated BPA in systemic circulation.
It seems that our internal ecosystems, with their livers and gastrointestinal (GI) tracts, are geared to chemically break down BPA structures into harmless compounds for elimination faster than dermal BPA exposure with chemical mechanisms, which are unknown at this time.
Considering that skin exposure leads to infiltrating the blood system, which bypasses the digestive system, it makes sense that BPA dermal exposure can lead to higher amounts of intact BPA remaining in one’s system.
It also makes sense that repeated dermal exposure to BPA among individuals who handle thermal paper as part of their jobs, or anyone who handles thermal paper on a fairly regular basis, may be major contributors to the almost 100 percent of tested Americans showing levels of BPA from urine samples.
CDC scientists, between years 2003 and 2004, measured 2,517 participants’ urine to determine the amount of BPA that had gone through their systems.
CDC scientistThe survey participants ages ranged from adult to children six years old. So, there was a spectrum of young children out of the 2,517 whose involvement with plastic toys and other plastic items is a source of dermal exposure to BPA, which is used to strengthen many of those plastic items. s found BPA in the urine of nearly all of the people tested, which indicates widespread exposure to BPA in the U.S. population.
Dangerous BPA Toxic Exposure is Worse from Handling Thermal Paper Receipts than Eating Food Packaged in BPA Plastics
Cash register sales receipts printed on thermal rolled paper image.
Study: Replacements for BPA in BPA-free Products Just as Toxic – Time for Non-toxic Hemp Plastics?
This leads to conscientious consumers being duped into exposure from biphenol endocrine disruptors from containers labeled “BPA Free” if other bisphenols such as BPS are used. Those who aren’t duped have to deal with concerns about labels and do more research.
But there’s one ubiquitous item that openly contains BPA in order for it to function, and that is ink-less printing paper. Thermal paper is used by almost all cash registers, ATMs, medical equipment, and other machines that offer printouts.
There have been concerns about skin exposure with BPA thermal paper and its consequences, and there are studies now confirming that handling these receipts are exposing our bodies to BPA toxicity even more than consuming food in BPA packaging.
A Recent Study on BPA Toxicity from Skin Exposure to Thermal Paper
A 2017 study discovered that skin contact with thermal paper is a pathway that leads to BPA in the body at higher levels and with longer residual effects than oral consumption of foods or beverages packaged in BPA plastic containers.
This study, Prolonged Exposure to Bisphenol A from Single Dermal Contact Events was published online by the journal Environmental Science and Technology on July 31, 2017.
Knowing that thermal paper is coated with BPA, the researchers were curious about the pharmacokinetics of BPA “dermal exposure” and how it compares with “dietary exposure” to BPA.
So, they measured serum and urine samples of six volunteer male subjects who were exposed to both dermal and dietary BPA exposures and monitored their BPA levels and the lengths of time it took to clear BPA from their systems.
The thermal papers were handled for only five minutes then they washed their hands after two hours. A week later subjects returned for a bout of dietary BPA and serum, and urine samples were closely monitored the same way.
An extreme example was when one individual, who did the bare skin handing of thermal paper a second time, had detectable BPA showing in urine and serum samples for nine days. But after dietary BPA exposure, the same subject cleared BPA from his system within 24 hours.
The other five subjects’ times varied with both dermal and dietary BPA exposures.
But half of the subjects had traces of BPA from thermal paper dermal exposure for a week, while clearing dietary BPA from their systems took much shorter times.
The researchers concluded:
Compared to dietary BPA exposure, dermal absorption of BPA leads to prolonged exposure and may lead to higher proportions of unconjugated BPA in systemic circulation.
Commentary on this Study
It seems that our internal ecosystems, with their livers and gastrointestinal (GI) tracts, are geared to chemically break down BPA structures into harmless compounds for elimination faster than dermal BPA exposure with chemical mechanisms, which are unknown at this time.
Considering that skin exposure leads to infiltrating the blood system, which bypasses the digestive system, it makes sense that BPA dermal exposure can lead to higher amounts of intact BPA remaining in one’s system.
It also makes sense that repeated dermal exposure to BPA among individuals who handle thermal paper as part of their jobs, or anyone who handles thermal paper on a fairly regular basis, may be major contributors to the almost 100 percent of tested Americans showing levels of BPA from urine samples.
CDC scientists, between years 2003 and 2004, measured 2,517 participants’ urine to determine the amount of BPA that had gone through their systems.
CDC scientists found BPA in the urine of nearly all of the people tested, which indicates widespread exposure to BPA in the U.S. population.
The survey participants ages ranged from adult to children six years old. So, there was a spectrum of young children out of the 2,517 whose involvement with plastic toys and other plastic items is a source of dermal exposure to BPA, which is used to strengthen many of those plastic items.
Earlier Studies Demonstrate Higher Potential for BPA Toxicity from Dermal Exposure
One scientific article from medicalxpress.com suggests that dermal BPA exposure is responsible for higher numbers of consumers with traces of BPA in their systems than what was once estimated that the numbers would be if only dietary BPA was considered.
The same online magazine briefly summarized three studies taken around the time of its publishing in November of 2010. A French study simply proved BPA is easily absorbed through the skin.
A Harvard epidemiological study measured BPA urine sample levels from 389 pregnant women and then correlated the data with their occupations. Cashiers had the highest concentrations of BPA, while others had considerably lower levels.
The University of Missouri-Columbia conducted tests on urine samples from 400 pregnant women in the Cincinnati, Ohio area. Again this proved BPA from thermal paper can penetrate skin, because the highest levels were among the women who were cashierThe BPA Toxicity Challenge
The challenge comes mostly from the industry that supports using BPA in plastics manufacturing.
A thermal paper industry group admits BPA is the layer of coating that creates the type of surface necessary to produce ink-less printing for receipts and machinery printouts.
But it refutes BPA dangers by citing a few different governmental health agencies worldwide who approve it as safe, stating:
BPA is extremely stable and heat-resistant, it is used to make the coatings that give thermal paper the unique properties that allow for inkless printing.
BPA is also one of the most widely researched substances on the market, and has been used extensively in commerce for 50 years with no evidence of harm to human health – even among workers exposed to significantly higher levels than the general public.
Dangerous BPA Toxic Exposure is Worse from Handling Thermal Paper Receipts than Eating Food Packaged in BPA Plastics
Cash register sales receipts printed on thermal rolled paper image.
Many of us are aware of the endocrine disrupting potential of BPA (bisphenol-A) used in many plastic containers and inner linings of cans that the food processors label “BPA Free” as a marketing device.
Unfortunately, the replacement chemical, BPS (biphenol-S) has been discovered with, at least, the same endocrine mimicking dangers or perhaps even worse effects on hormonal health than BPA.
Study: Replacements for BPA in BPA-free Products Just as Toxic – Time for Non-toxic Hemp Plastics?
This leads to conscientious consumers being duped into exposure from biphenol endocrine disruptors from containers labeled “BPA Free” if other bisphenols such as BPS are used. Those who aren’t duped have to deal with concerns about labels and do more research.
But there’s one ubiquitous item that openly contains BPA in order for it to function, and that is ink-less printing paper. Thermal paper is used by almost all cash registers, ATMs, medical equipment, and other machines that offer printouts.
There have been concerns about skin exposure with BPA thermal paper and its consequences, and there are studies now confirming that handling these receipts are exposing our bodies to BPA toxicity even more than consuming food in BPA packaging.
A Recent Study on BPA Toxicity from Skin Exposure to Thermal Paper
A 2017 study discovered that skin contact with thermal paper is a pathway that leads to BPA in the body at higher levels and with longer residual effects than oral consumption of foods or beverages packaged in BPA plastic containers.
This study, Prolonged Exposure to Bisphenol A from Single Dermal Contact Events was published online by the journal Environmental Science and Technology on July 31, 2017.
Knowing that thermal paper is coated with BPA, the researchers were curious about the pharmacokinetics of BPA “dermal exposure” and how it compares with “dietary exposure” to BPA.
So, they measured serum and urine samples of six volunteer male subjects who were exposed to both dermal and dietary BPA exposures and monitored their BPA levels and the lengths of time it took to clear BPA from their systems.
The thermal papers were handled for only five minutes then they washed their hands after two hours. A week later subjects returned for a bout of dietary BPA and serum, and urine samples were closely monitored the same way.
An extreme example was when one individual, who did the bare skin handing of thermal paper a second time, had detectable BPA showing in urine and serum samples for nine days. But after dietary BPA exposure, the same subject cleared BPA from his system within 24 hours.
The other five subjects’ times varied with both dermal and dietary BPA exposures.
But half of the subjects had traces of BPA from thermal paper dermal exposure for a week, while clearing dietary BPA from their systems took much shorter times.
The researchers concluded:
Compared to dietary BPA exposure, dermal absorption of BPA leads to prolonged exposure and may lead to higher proportions of unconjugated BPA in systemic circulation.
Screen Shot 2018-10-12 at 9.11.58 AM
This graphic is from this study’s abstract.
Commentary on this Study
It seems that our internal ecosystems, with their livers and gastrointestinal (GI) tracts, are geared to chemically break down BPA structures into harmless compounds for elimination faster than dermal BPA exposure with chemical mechanisms, which are unknown at this time.
Considering that skin exposure leads to infiltrating the blood system, which bypasses the digestive system, it makes sense that BPA dermal exposure can lead to higher amounts of intact BPA remaining in one’s system.
It also makes sense that repeated dermal exposure to BPA among individuals who handle thermal paper as part of their jobs, or anyone who handles thermal paper on a fairly regular basis, may be major contributors to the almost 100 percent of tested Americans showing levels of BPA from urine samples.
CDC scientists, between years 2003 and 2004, measured 2,517 participants’ urine to determine the amount of BPA that had gone through their systems.
CDC scientists found BPA in the urine of nearly all of the people tested, which indicates widespread exposure to BPA in the U.S. population.
The survey participants ages ranged from adult to children six years old. So, there was a spectrum of young children out of the 2,517 whose involvement with plastic toys and other plastic items is a source of dermal exposure to BPA, which is used to strengthen many of those plastic items.
Earlier Studies Demonstrate Higher Potential for BPA Toxicity from Dermal Exposure
One scientific article from medicalxpress.com suggests that dermal BPA exposure is responsible for higher numbers of consumers with traces of BPA in their systems than what was once estimated that the numbers would be if only dietary BPA was considered.
The same online magazine briefly summarized three studies taken around the time of its publishing in November of 2010. A French study simply proved BPA is easily absorbed through the skin.
A Harvard epidemiological study measured BPA urine sample levels from 389 pregnant women and then correlated the data with their occupations. Cashiers had the highest concentrations of BPA, while others had considerably lower levels.
The University of Missouri-Columbia conducted tests on urine samples from 400 pregnant women in the Cincinnati, Ohio area. Again this proved BPA from thermal paper can penetrate skin, because the highest levels were among the women who were cashiers.
The BPA Toxicity Challenge
The challenge comes mostly from the industry that supports using BPA in plastics manufacturing.
A thermal paper industry group admits BPA is the layer of coating that creates the type of surface necessary to produce ink-less printing for receipts and machinery printouts.
But it refutes BPA dangers by citing a few different governmental health agencies worldwide who approve it as safe, stating:
BPA is extremely stable and heat-resistant, it is used to make the coatings that give thermal paper the unique properties that allow for inkless printing.
BPA is also one of the most widely researched substances on the market, and has been used extensively in commerce for 50 years with no evidence of harm to human health – even among workers exposed to significantly higher levels than the general public. (Source)
But concerned independent scientists disagree. The following 2011 study review, Bisphenol A: An endocrine disruptor with widespread exposure and multiple effects analyzed several other independent studies on BPA and had the following conclusion:
The various reported adverse effects of BPA are reviewed, and the potential mechanisms of BPA action are discussed.
Although many questions remain to be answered, it is becoming increasingly apparent that exposure to BPA is ubiquitous and that the effects of this endocrine disruptor are complex and wide-ranging.
In addition to cutting through the complexity of plastic containers with biphenol content to avoid BPA or its endocrine disrupting analogs such as BPS, it’s wise to thoroughly wash your hands shortly after handling thermal paper.
Those who handle thermal paper often as part of their daily occupational routines may consider searching for gloves that allow dexterity while not containing any bisphenols.
In the video below, Dr. Michael Greger uses different studies than what were presented in this article with similar results regarding the BPA thermal paper issue.
[YOUTUBEIF]85guGsJJe4k[/YOUTUBEIF]
Source: https://healthimpactnews.com/2018/dangerous-bpa-toxic-exposure-is-worse-from-handling-thermal-paper-receipts-than-eating-food-packaged-in-bpa-plastics/
RMS
Dangerous BPA Toxic Exposure is Worse from Handling Thermal Paper Receipts
Many of us are aware of the endocrine disrupting potential of BPA (bisphenol-A) used in many plastic containers and inner linings of cans that the food processors label “BPA Free” as a marketing device.
Unfortunately, the replacement chemical, BPS (biphenol-S) has been discovered with, at least, the same endocrine mimicking dangers or perhaps even worse effects on hormonal health than BPA.
Dangerous BPA Toxic Exposure is Worse from Handling Thermal Paper Receipts than Eating Food Packaged in BPA Plastics
Cash register sales receipts printed on thermal rolled paper image.
Many of us are aware of the endocrine disrupting potential of BPA (bisphenol-A) used in many plastic containers and inner linings of cans that the food processors label “BPA Free” as a marketing device.
Unfortunately, the replacement chemical, BPS (biphenol-S) has been discovered with, at least, the same endocrine mimicking dangers or perhaps even worse effects on hormonal health than BPA.
Study: Replacements for BPA in BPA-free Products Just as Toxic – Time for Non-toxic Hemp Plastics?
This leads to conscientious consumers being duped into exposure from biphenol endocrine disruptors from containers labeled “BPA Free” if other bisphenols such as BPS are used. Those who aren’t duped have to deal with concerns about labels and do more research.
But there’s one ubiquitous item that openly contains BPA in order for it to function, and that is ink-less printing paper. Thermal paper is used by almost all cash registers, ATMs, medical equipment, and other machines that offer printouts.
There have been concerns about skin exposure with BPA thermal paper and its cons
October 17, 2018
Dangerous BPA Toxic Exposure is Worse from Handling Thermal Paper Receipts than Eating Food Packaged in BPA Plastics
Cash register sales receipts printed on thermal rolled paper image.
Many of us are aware of the endocrine disrupting potential of BPA (bisphenol-A) used in many plastic containers and inner linings of cans that the food processors label “BPA Free” as a marketing device.
Unfortunately, the replacement chemical, BPS (biphenol-S) has been discovered with, at least, the same endocrine mimicking dangers or perhaps even worse effects on hormonal health than BPA.
Study: Replacements for BPA in BPA-free Products Just as Toxic – Time for Non-toxic Hemp Plastics?
This leads to conscientious consumers being duped into exposure from biphenol endocrine disruptors from containers labeled “BPA Free” if other bisphenols such as BPS are used. Those who aren’t duped have to deal with concerns about labels and do more research.
But there’s one ubiquitous item that openly contains BPA in order for it to function, and that is ink-less printing paper. Thermal paper is used by almost all cash registers, ATMs, medical equipment, and other machines that offer printouts.
There have been concerns about skin exposure with BPA thermal paper and its consequences, and there are studies now confirming that handling these receipts are exposing our bodies to BPA toxicity even more than consuming food in BPA packaging.
A Recent Study on BPA Toxicity from Skin Exposure to Thermal Paper
A 2017 study discovered that skin contact with thermal paper is a pathway that leads to BPA in the body at higher levels and with longer residual effects than oral consumption of foods or beverages packaged in BPA plastic containers.
This study, Prolonged Exposure to Bisphenol A from Single Dermal Contact Events was published online by the journal Environmental Science and Technology on July 31, 2017.
Knowing that thermal paper is coated with BPA, the researchers were curious about the pharmacokinetics of BPA “dermal exposure” and how it compares with “dietary exposure” to BPA.
So, they measured serum and urine samples of six volunteer male subjects who were exposed to both dermal and dietary BPA exposures and monitored their BPA levels and the lengths of time it took to clear BPA from their systems.
The thermal papers were handled for only five minutes then they washed their hands after two hours. A week later subjects returned for a bout of dietary BPA and serum, and urine samples were closely monitored the same way.
An extreme example was when one individual, who did the bare skin handing of thermal paper a second time, had detectable BPA showing in urine and serum samples for nine days. But after dietary BPA exposure, the same subject cleared BPA from his system within 24 hours.
The other five subjects’ times varied with both dermal and dietary BPA exposures.
But half of the subjects had traces of BPA from thermal paper dermal exposure for a week, while clearing dietary BPA from their systems took much shorter times.
The researchers concluded :
Compared to dietary BPA exposure, dermal absorption of BPA leads to prolonged exposure and may lead to higher proportions of unconjugated BPA in systemic circulation.
It seems that our internal ecosystems, with their livers and gastrointestinal (GI) tracts, are geared to chemically break down BPA structures into harmless compounds for elimination faster than dermal BPA exposure with chemical mechanisms, which are unknown at this time.
Considering that skin exposure leads to infiltrating the blood system, which bypasses the digestive system, it makes sense that BPA dermal exposure can lead to higher amounts of intact BPA remaining in one’s system.
It also makes sense that repeated dermal exposure to BPA among individuals who handle thermal paper as part of their jobs, or anyone who handles thermal paper on a fairly regular basis, may be major contributors to the almost 100 percent of tested Americans showing levels of BPA from urine samples.
CDC scientists, between years 2003 and 2004, measured 2,517 participants’ urine to determine the amount of BPA that had gone through their systems.
CDC scientistThe survey participants ages ranged from adult to children six years old. So, there was a spectrum of young children out of the 2,517 whose involvement with plastic toys and other plastic items is a source of dermal exposure to BPA, which is used to strengthen many of those plastic items. s found BPA in the urine of nearly all of the people tested, which indicates widespread exposure to BPA in the U.S. population.
Dangerous BPA Toxic Exposure is Worse from Handling Thermal Paper Receipts than Eating Food Packaged in BPA Plastics
Cash register sales receipts printed on thermal rolled paper image.
Study: Replacements for BPA in BPA-free Products Just as Toxic – Time for Non-toxic Hemp Plastics?
This leads to conscientious consumers being duped into exposure from biphenol endocrine disruptors from containers labeled “BPA Free” if other bisphenols such as BPS are used. Those who aren’t duped have to deal with concerns about labels and do more research.
But there’s one ubiquitous item that openly contains BPA in order for it to function, and that is ink-less printing paper. Thermal paper is used by almost all cash registers, ATMs, medical equipment, and other machines that offer printouts.
There have been concerns about skin exposure with BPA thermal paper and its consequences, and there are studies now confirming that handling these receipts are exposing our bodies to BPA toxicity even more than consuming food in BPA packaging.
A Recent Study on BPA Toxicity from Skin Exposure to Thermal Paper
A 2017 study discovered that skin contact with thermal paper is a pathway that leads to BPA in the body at higher levels and with longer residual effects than oral consumption of foods or beverages packaged in BPA plastic containers.
This study, Prolonged Exposure to Bisphenol A from Single Dermal Contact Events was published online by the journal Environmental Science and Technology on July 31, 2017.
Knowing that thermal paper is coated with BPA, the researchers were curious about the pharmacokinetics of BPA “dermal exposure” and how it compares with “dietary exposure” to BPA.
So, they measured serum and urine samples of six volunteer male subjects who were exposed to both dermal and dietary BPA exposures and monitored their BPA levels and the lengths of time it took to clear BPA from their systems.
The thermal papers were handled for only five minutes then they washed their hands after two hours. A week later subjects returned for a bout of dietary BPA and serum, and urine samples were closely monitored the same way.
An extreme example was when one individual, who did the bare skin handing of thermal paper a second time, had detectable BPA showing in urine and serum samples for nine days. But after dietary BPA exposure, the same subject cleared BPA from his system within 24 hours.
The other five subjects’ times varied with both dermal and dietary BPA exposures.
But half of the subjects had traces of BPA from thermal paper dermal exposure for a week, while clearing dietary BPA from their systems took much shorter times.
The researchers concluded:
Compared to dietary BPA exposure, dermal absorption of BPA leads to prolonged exposure and may lead to higher proportions of unconjugated BPA in systemic circulation.
Commentary on this Study
It seems that our internal ecosystems, with their livers and gastrointestinal (GI) tracts, are geared to chemically break down BPA structures into harmless compounds for elimination faster than dermal BPA exposure with chemical mechanisms, which are unknown at this time.
Considering that skin exposure leads to infiltrating the blood system, which bypasses the digestive system, it makes sense that BPA dermal exposure can lead to higher amounts of intact BPA remaining in one’s system.
It also makes sense that repeated dermal exposure to BPA among individuals who handle thermal paper as part of their jobs, or anyone who handles thermal paper on a fairly regular basis, may be major contributors to the almost 100 percent of tested Americans showing levels of BPA from urine samples.
CDC scientists, between years 2003 and 2004, measured 2,517 participants’ urine to determine the amount of BPA that had gone through their systems.
CDC scientists found BPA in the urine of nearly all of the people tested, which indicates widespread exposure to BPA in the U.S. population.
The survey participants ages ranged from adult to children six years old. So, there was a spectrum of young children out of the 2,517 whose involvement with plastic toys and other plastic items is a source of dermal exposure to BPA, which is used to strengthen many of those plastic items.
Earlier Studies Demonstrate Higher Potential for BPA Toxicity from Dermal Exposure
One scientific article from medicalxpress.com suggests that dermal BPA exposure is responsible for higher numbers of consumers with traces of BPA in their systems than what was once estimated that the numbers would be if only dietary BPA was considered.
The same online magazine briefly summarized three studies taken around the time of its publishing in November of 2010. A French study simply proved BPA is easily absorbed through the skin.
A Harvard epidemiological study measured BPA urine sample levels from 389 pregnant women and then correlated the data with their occupations. Cashiers had the highest concentrations of BPA, while others had considerably lower levels.
The University of Missouri-Columbia conducted tests on urine samples from 400 pregnant women in the Cincinnati, Ohio area. Again this proved BPA from thermal paper can penetrate skin, because the highest levels were among the women who were cashierThe BPA Toxicity Challenge
The challenge comes mostly from the industry that supports using BPA in plastics manufacturing.
A thermal paper industry group admits BPA is the layer of coating that creates the type of surface necessary to produce ink-less printing for receipts and machinery printouts.
But it refutes BPA dangers by citing a few different governmental health agencies worldwide who approve it as safe, stating:
BPA is extremely stable and heat-resistant, it is used to make the coatings that give thermal paper the unique properties that allow for inkless printing.
BPA is also one of the most widely researched substances on the market, and has been used extensively in commerce for 50 years with no evidence of harm to human health – even among workers exposed to significantly higher levels than the general public.
Dangerous BPA Toxic Exposure is Worse from Handling Thermal Paper Receipts than Eating Food Packaged in BPA Plastics
Cash register sales receipts printed on thermal rolled paper image.
Many of us are aware of the endocrine disrupting potential of BPA (bisphenol-A) used in many plastic containers and inner linings of cans that the food processors label “BPA Free” as a marketing device.
Unfortunately, the replacement chemical, BPS (biphenol-S) has been discovered with, at least, the same endocrine mimicking dangers or perhaps even worse effects on hormonal health than BPA.
Study: Replacements for BPA in BPA-free Products Just as Toxic – Time for Non-toxic Hemp Plastics?
This leads to conscientious consumers being duped into exposure from biphenol endocrine disruptors from containers labeled “BPA Free” if other bisphenols such as BPS are used. Those who aren’t duped have to deal with concerns about labels and do more research.
But there’s one ubiquitous item that openly contains BPA in order for it to function, and that is ink-less printing paper. Thermal paper is used by almost all cash registers, ATMs, medical equipment, and other machines that offer printouts.
There have been concerns about skin exposure with BPA thermal paper and its consequences, and there are studies now confirming that handling these receipts are exposing our bodies to BPA toxicity even more than consuming food in BPA packaging.
A Recent Study on BPA Toxicity from Skin Exposure to Thermal Paper
A 2017 study discovered that skin contact with thermal paper is a pathway that leads to BPA in the body at higher levels and with longer residual effects than oral consumption of foods or beverages packaged in BPA plastic containers.
This study, Prolonged Exposure to Bisphenol A from Single Dermal Contact Events was published online by the journal Environmental Science and Technology on July 31, 2017.
Knowing that thermal paper is coated with BPA, the researchers were curious about the pharmacokinetics of BPA “dermal exposure” and how it compares with “dietary exposure” to BPA.
So, they measured serum and urine samples of six volunteer male subjects who were exposed to both dermal and dietary BPA exposures and monitored their BPA levels and the lengths of time it took to clear BPA from their systems.
The thermal papers were handled for only five minutes then they washed their hands after two hours. A week later subjects returned for a bout of dietary BPA and serum, and urine samples were closely monitored the same way.
An extreme example was when one individual, who did the bare skin handing of thermal paper a second time, had detectable BPA showing in urine and serum samples for nine days. But after dietary BPA exposure, the same subject cleared BPA from his system within 24 hours.
The other five subjects’ times varied with both dermal and dietary BPA exposures.
But half of the subjects had traces of BPA from thermal paper dermal exposure for a week, while clearing dietary BPA from their systems took much shorter times.
The researchers concluded:
Compared to dietary BPA exposure, dermal absorption of BPA leads to prolonged exposure and may lead to higher proportions of unconjugated BPA in systemic circulation.
Screen Shot 2018-10-12 at 9.11.58 AM
This graphic is from this study’s abstract.
Commentary on this Study
It seems that our internal ecosystems, with their livers and gastrointestinal (GI) tracts, are geared to chemically break down BPA structures into harmless compounds for elimination faster than dermal BPA exposure with chemical mechanisms, which are unknown at this time.
Considering that skin exposure leads to infiltrating the blood system, which bypasses the digestive system, it makes sense that BPA dermal exposure can lead to higher amounts of intact BPA remaining in one’s system.
It also makes sense that repeated dermal exposure to BPA among individuals who handle thermal paper as part of their jobs, or anyone who handles thermal paper on a fairly regular basis, may be major contributors to the almost 100 percent of tested Americans showing levels of BPA from urine samples.
CDC scientists, between years 2003 and 2004, measured 2,517 participants’ urine to determine the amount of BPA that had gone through their systems.
CDC scientists found BPA in the urine of nearly all of the people tested, which indicates widespread exposure to BPA in the U.S. population.
The survey participants ages ranged from adult to children six years old. So, there was a spectrum of young children out of the 2,517 whose involvement with plastic toys and other plastic items is a source of dermal exposure to BPA, which is used to strengthen many of those plastic items.
Earlier Studies Demonstrate Higher Potential for BPA Toxicity from Dermal Exposure
One scientific article from medicalxpress.com suggests that dermal BPA exposure is responsible for higher numbers of consumers with traces of BPA in their systems than what was once estimated that the numbers would be if only dietary BPA was considered.
The same online magazine briefly summarized three studies taken around the time of its publishing in November of 2010. A French study simply proved BPA is easily absorbed through the skin.
A Harvard epidemiological study measured BPA urine sample levels from 389 pregnant women and then correlated the data with their occupations. Cashiers had the highest concentrations of BPA, while others had considerably lower levels.
The University of Missouri-Columbia conducted tests on urine samples from 400 pregnant women in the Cincinnati, Ohio area. Again this proved BPA from thermal paper can penetrate skin, because the highest levels were among the women who were cashiers.
The BPA Toxicity Challenge
The challenge comes mostly from the industry that supports using BPA in plastics manufacturing.
A thermal paper industry group admits BPA is the layer of coating that creates the type of surface necessary to produce ink-less printing for receipts and machinery printouts.
But it refutes BPA dangers by citing a few different governmental health agencies worldwide who approve it as safe, stating:
BPA is extremely stable and heat-resistant, it is used to make the coatings that give thermal paper the unique properties that allow for inkless printing.
BPA is also one of the most widely researched substances on the market, and has been used extensively in commerce for 50 years with no evidence of harm to human health – even among workers exposed to significantly higher levels than the general public. (Source)
But concerned independent scientists disagree. The following 2011 study review, Bisphenol A: An endocrine disruptor with widespread exposure and multiple effects analyzed several other independent studies on BPA and had the following conclusion:
The various reported adverse effects of BPA are reviewed, and the potential mechanisms of BPA action are discussed.
Although many questions remain to be answered, it is becoming increasingly apparent that exposure to BPA is ubiquitous and that the effects of this endocrine disruptor are complex and wide-ranging.
In addition to cutting through the complexity of plastic containers with biphenol content to avoid BPA or its endocrine disrupting analogs such as BPS, it’s wise to thoroughly wash your hands shortly after handling thermal paper.
Those who handle thermal paper often as part of their daily occupational routines may consider searching for gloves that allow dexterity while not containing any bisphenols.
In the video below, Dr. Michael Greger uses different studies than what were presented in this article with similar results regarding the BPA thermal paper issue.
[YOUTUBEIF]85guGsJJe4k[/YOUTUBEIF]
Source: https://healthimpactnews.com/2018/dangerous-bpa-toxic-exposure-is-worse-from-handling-thermal-paper-receipts-than-eating-food-packaged-in-bpa-plastics/
RMS
R
Robrites
R
Robrites
R
Robrites
These Fruits & Veggies Have The Most Pesticides This Year
These Fruits & Veggies Have The Most Pesticides This Year
Every year, the Environmental Working Group sifts through the fruit and veggie market to find out which types of conventionally grown produce contain the most—and least—chemical pesticides.
The 2018 report, released early this morning, found that nearly 70 percent of produce tested was contaminated with pesticide residues. According to the EWG's research, strawberries, spinach, and nectarines were the worst offenders for the second year in a row. The average strawberry sampled tested positive for a whopping 20 different pesticides, and spinach had 1.8 times more pesticide residue by weight than any other crop.
On the other end of the spectrum, avocados and sweet corn were the cleanest crops, with less than 1 percent of samples showing any detectable pesticides.
Certain pesticides have been shown to have negative effects on human and environmental health, and the latest research out of Harvard University found that women undergoing fertility treatment who reported eating two or more servings per day of produce with higher pesticide residues were 26 percent less likely to have a successful pregnancy than ones who ate fewer servings. So if you're reaching for anything on the Dirty Dozen list, it's probably best to go for an organic version if it's available, especially if you are pregnant or have kids.
According to Philip Landrigan, M.D., the dean of global health and director of the Children's Environmental Health Center at Mount Sinai, "Even low levels of pesticide exposure can be harmful to infants, babies, and young children, so when possible, parents and caregivers should take steps to lower children's exposures to pesticides while still feeding them diets rich in healthy fruits and vegetables."
If you're reaching for something with a thicker peel like avocado, corn on the 2018 Dirty Dozen
Strawberries
Spinach
Nectarines
Apples
Grapes
Peaches
Cherries
Pears
Tomatoes
Celery
Potatoes
Sweet bell peppers
2018 Clean Fifteen
Avocados
Sweet corn
Pineapples
Cabbage
Onions
Frozen sweet peas
Papayas
Asparagus
Mangoes
Eggplant
Honeydew melon
Kiwi
Cantaloupe
Cauliflower
Broccolicob, or pineapple, you're probably OK with conventionally grown.
Source: https://www.mindbodygreen.com/articles/ewg-dirty-dozen-and-clean-fifteen-lists-2018
RMS
These Fruits & Veggies Have The Most Pesticides This Year
Every year, the Environmental Working Group sifts through the fruit and veggie market to find out which types of conventionally grown produce contain the most—and least—chemical pesticides.
The 2018 report, released early this morning, found that nearly 70 percent of produce tested was contaminated with pesticide residues. According to the EWG's research, strawberries, spinach, and nectarines were the worst offenders for the second year in a row. The average strawberry sampled tested positive for a whopping 20 different pesticides, and spinach had 1.8 times more pesticide residue by weight than any other crop.
On the other end of the spectrum, avocados and sweet corn were the cleanest crops, with less than 1 percent of samples showing any detectable pesticides.
Certain pesticides have been shown to have negative effects on human and environmental health, and the latest research out of Harvard University found that women undergoing fertility treatment who reported eating two or more servings per day of produce with higher pesticide residues were 26 percent less likely to have a successful pregnancy than ones who ate fewer servings. So if you're reaching for anything on the Dirty Dozen list, it's probably best to go for an organic version if it's available, especially if you are pregnant or have kids.
According to Philip Landrigan, M.D., the dean of global health and director of the Children's Environmental Health Center at Mount Sinai, "Even low levels of pesticide exposure can be harmful to infants, babies, and young children, so when possible, parents and caregivers should take steps to lower children's exposures to pesticides while still feeding them diets rich in healthy fruits and vegetables."
If you're reaching for something with a thicker peel like avocado, corn on the 2018 Dirty Dozen
Strawberries
Spinach
Nectarines
Apples
Grapes
Peaches
Cherries
Pears
Tomatoes
Celery
Potatoes
Sweet bell peppers
2018 Clean Fifteen
Avocados
Sweet corn
Pineapples
Cabbage
Onions
Frozen sweet peas
Papayas
Asparagus
Mangoes
Eggplant
Honeydew melon
Kiwi
Cantaloupe
Cauliflower
Broccolicob, or pineapple, you're probably OK with conventionally grown.
Source: https://www.mindbodygreen.com/articles/ewg-dirty-dozen-and-clean-fifteen-lists-2018
RMS
