For the first time in nearly a half-century, the federally mandated amount of fluoride in drinking water may soon fall from its current range of 0.7-1.2 milligrams per liter to a recommended ceiling of 0.7 milligrams, according to a recent joint announcement by the nation's EPA and the Department of Health and Human Services.

The primary reason: Americans, especially kids, are getting too much of it, as evidenced by reports of dental fluorosis a condition marked by streaking and spottiness on teeth, becoming surprisingly common among young teens (ages 12-15). So much so, the number of young teens with fluorosis jumped from 23 percent in a 1986-87 study to 41 percent in another from 1999-2004.

Another huge concern cited in an EPA report: A review of 14 studies, including one related to rising bone problems (fractures, brittle bones and abnormalities) also triggered by too much fluoride in drinking water.

To many folks, this proposed drop is long overdue, and probably not nearly enough to satisfy some experts, while other groups like the American Dental Association are applauding it. Depending on where you live in America, this change may not affect you much at all.

In any event, please be sure to review our recent feature on ensuring your continuing good health by enhancing the quality of your drinking water.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 7, 2011

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Fluoride Studies January 7, 2011 Free Full PDF Reports

USA Today January 7, 2011

Yahoo News January 7, 2011

The toxic reach of hexavalent chromium (chromium-6) -- called the "Erin Brockovich chemical" by some -- isn't limited to the drinking water in Hinkley, Calif., or a handful of weight-loss supplements, unfortunately. A recent Environmental Working Group (EWG) study discovered trace amounts of this harmful chemical in the tap water in all but four of the 35 American cities it tested.

The town of Norman, Okla., topped the list by a long shot, with levels of hexavalent chromium at 12.9 ppb (parts per billion), six times greater than number two Honolulu (2 ppb). Sounds tiny, except that California's EPA has proposed a maximum safe concentration of 0.06 ppb in tap water in hopes of reducing cancer risks.

Overall, levels of hexavalent chromium in the tested tap water of these cities were three times greater than California's proposed limits. By comparison, hexavalent chromium levels in tap water in the town of Hinkley reached 500 ppb back in the day.

Concerned about reducing your family's exposure to hexavalent chromium? Dr. Rebecca Sutton, chief author of the EWG study, recommended to Norman residents in The Norman Transcript to install a reverse osmosis filter on their water faucets.

These reports also prompted two U.S. Congresswomen, Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), to discuss proposed legislation that would compel the EPA to set an enforceable standard for hexavalent chromium.

Environmental Working Group December 20, 2010 Free Full Study

The Norman Transcript December 19, 2010

USA Today/Greenhouse December 20, 2010

Washington Post December 19, 2010

Yahoo News December 22, 2010

Containing the spread of nasty germs on our hands has been on everyone's minds lately, especially with food safety crisis still in the news. Unfortunately, this news about the true value of the ever-popular, alcohol-based hand sanitizer may not do much for your confidence or your health…

Based on a study funded by Dial Corp., hand sanitizers were only marginally more effective in killing rhinovirus infections (the known cause of a third of the common cold cases among adults) on the hands of patients (42 per 100) than taking no special precautions at all (51 per 100). Additionally, signs of flu germs were present on the hands of 12 patients (per 100) using sanitizers compared to 15 patients (per 100) who took no extra precautions.

Here's the scary part: The hand sanitizer used by patients for the study was a special concoction containing organic acids that were supposed to kill viruses for up to four hours and assumed to be better chemically than the kinds you can buy at your neighborhood grocery store. This discovery also led experts to speculate the flu bug and rhinovirus may be spread more effectively through the air than by hand contact.

All of this unnerving news makes me wonder when mainstream science will get around to comparing the effectiveness of soaps using essential oils, good for killing Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) versus those with alcohol.

University of Virginia Health System September 13, 2010

Los Angeles Times September 13, 2010

The Daily Progress September 12, 2010

What's the difference between not enough and too much and how does that gap really affect your health? That's the conundrum I'm seeing in today's blog post about the potential for rising cancer risks associated with swimming in chlorinated indoor pools.

A recent CDC review reported the many problems with keeping outdoor swimming pools clean. More than half of the 120,000 routine pool inspections done in 13 states in 2008 yielded at least one violation, and 12 percent were closed immediately due to more serious health concerns.

Unfortunately, swimming in potentially bacteria-laden water may be the least of your worries. According to this trio of reports from Environmental Health Perspectives, when the disinfection by-products (DPBs) used to keep indoor pools clean come in contact with the skin, sweat and urine from swimmers, one result could be DNA damage that may lead to cancer, a process referred to as genotoxicity.

Spanish scientists detected evidence of short-term genotoxic effects in the bodies of 49 healthy adults after they swam in a chlorinated pool for 40 minutes. One of two increased biomarkers associated with genotoxicity (detected in the exhaled breath of patients) -- micronuclei in blood lymphocites -- has been linked to cancer risks in healthy folks. They also discovered more than 100 DPBs in pool samples, including some never reported before in chlorinated drinking water or pools.

Fortunately, lowering one's cancer risks is as simple as reducing the amount of disinfectants in pool water. But what about keeping pool water clean and your body protected from the bugs found in the CDC report released earlier this year? Not wanting to discourage exercise in any way, researchers recommended folks wear swim caps, take a shower before swimming and be mindful not to urinate in the pool area.

And, yes, that goes double for your kids too!

Environmental Health Perspectives September 12, 2010 Free Full Text PDF

Environmental Health Perspectives September 12, 2010 Free Full Text PDF

Environmental Health Perspectives September 12, 2010 Free Full Text PDF

ScienceDaily September 14, 2010

Yahoo News September 13, 2010

Last year, we "introduced" you to atrazine, a common herbicide used on lawns, crops and even golf courses that may be hiding in your drinking water.

Already connected to a number of health problems -- birth defects and low birth weights -- in previous animal studies, this latest study (co-funded by the EPA and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences) links prenatal exposure to atrazine by male rats to delayed puberty and an 81 percent likelihood they will develop prostate inflammation.

Here's the real issue: The mothers of the affected male rats were exposed to the amount of atrazine that's close to what's legally allowed in drinking water. Not to mention, these findings may also apply to more herbicides in the chlorotriazine "family" (simazine, propazine).

Let's hope studies like this one persuade the EPA to reconsider its current position on atrazine. Until that day comes -- it could take many more years for the EPA to make a "final" decision -- there is one thing you can do to lessen the daily bombardment of environmental toxins: Consider these safe detox tips to eliminate chemicals from your body and to support the health of your liver and kidneys - naturally.  

Receive Daily Health Updates from CNCA Subscribe to This Blog: RSS or Email

 Image source: Wikipedia.org

Reproductive Toxicology August 19, 2010

ScienceDaily August 24, 2010

Having been a Weight Watchers member for a while, the program has really driven home for me the need to drink plenty of clean, fresh water without really understanding why. It have to do, in part, with water safely and naturally elevating your blood pressure, according to a new study from Vanderbilt University Medical School.

Scientists made the initial discovery a decade ago while observing patients whose bodies had temporarily lost their ability to monitor short-term changes in blood pressure, called baroreflexes, until they drank water. Since then, an American Red Cross study found that drinking a pint of water before donating blood reduced the chances of patients fainting by 20 percent.

This latest series of studies on mice took it a step further, by routing water directly into the stomach or duodenum (the front of the small intestine) which raised blood pressure, then a saline solution that didn't. Eventually, researchers determined water dilutes the plasma in blood vessels leading away from the duodenum, thus reducing the concentration of salt in blood and naturally elevating blood pressures.

Here's the kicker: The presence of water promotes activity in the nervous system, the burning of energy in the body and, consequently, weight loss. According to one estimate, a patient could lose up to 5 pounds a year just by drinking three 16-ounces glasses of water, and doing nothing else.

What an easy way, theoretically speaking, to lose weight.

Hypertension, Vol. 55, No. 6, pp. 1438-1443, June 1, 2010

insciences.org July 8, 2010

As studies grow by the day about the health hazards of bisphenol A (BPA), conventional wisdom seems to be pointing toward common tap water being the safer solution over the countless brands of bottled water sold at the grocery store.

Heavy contact with the very same chemical used to make CDs, dental sealants and sunglasses as well as clear plastic bottles may be responsible for a wide range of health problems for women, from irregular heartbeats (arrhythmias) to fertility issues for their babies. In both cases, BPA creates problems because it works like a synthetic hormone with qualities similar to estrogen.

Adding to the problems associated with bottled water, the FDA has almost no ability to regulate it. For example, municipal water utilities are required by law to disclose test results to the public, but bottled water producers are exempt from such scrutiny. Although bottled water companies are required by the FDA to test for contaminants and other issues, their products don't have to be tested by a certified lab, nor do such problems have to be disclosed in a timely fashion.

In fact, a recent survey by the Environmental Working Group revealed less than 2 percent of the 200 brands of bottled water disclosed the methods their companies used to purify their products, chemical contaminants or the original source of the water.

CNN July 13, 2009

healthfinder.gov June 10, 2009