TidBits Of Info

The Myth About Healthy Skin!
By Lena Sanchez
 
Skin, the largest organ of the body is compromising our health with myths!

There is a myth roaming around the world; that only chemical and animal laden products can make for healthy glowing skin, yes that is all it is "a myth". In fact for more gorgeous and healthier skin the products we apply to our skin should be chemical free?
 
Natural and botanical can be far healthier and give you that healthy glow with great satisfaction and the confidence that you are not interrupting your hormonal balance in some way! Scientists are slowly waking up but we women are awake and screaming, give us healthy at a price we can afford and finally a few companies are coming around and hearing the shouts.
 
Sorry to say that not all companies out there are interested in your health as much as their wealth. When using body lotions, shampoo, conditioner, bath and shower soaps use botanical where possible? Not only does a certain rule apply with foods but in personal care products the adage of "Read Labels," must apply as well... Here are some facts you probably would rather not know but for your health's sake necessary!
 
One study done by scientist at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) found that 13 percent of burylated hydroxytoluene  (BHT) that was applied to the skin was absorbed, while 49 percent of DDT was absorbed. BHT is a cosmetic preservative, while DDT is a pesticide sometimes found in the COSMETIC INGREDIENT LANOLIN, which just happens to be in most OTC skin care and makeup products!
 
Unlike the drug industry the cosmetic industry is on the honor system and has no controls over it. Harmful ingredients can be used for decades before any problem is found and then it's left up to the individual companies to make the changes for our benefit.
 
A few scientists believe the skin is a thirstier sponge than usually believed. "There's overwhelming evidence that the skin is highly permeable to a very wide range of chemicals." Says Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.
 
Other ingredients now used in most cosmetics and should never have been there;
DIETHAMOLAMINE (DEA) still being used in products even after the 1997 findings of the National Toxicology Program?s study that DEA is a carcinogen.
TALC: A powdered mineral that has been linked to ovarian and lung cancer.
PROPYLENE GLYCOL used in antiperspirants and other products is considered a skin and eye irritant by the National Toxicology Program.
DIAXOLIDINYL UREA AND IMIDAZOLIDINYL UREA found in hair and skin products emit formaldehyde gas linked to cancers.
 
The testing phase of product safety actually lies with us, the consumer. The true dangers will not be known for regarding products for at least twenty years after released to the public; so in essence, we are the guinea pigs... We have absolutely no knowledge as to how long it will take for us to develop illness or cancer with the use of carcinogens. Some will be fast and others may take years. It all depends on how well the Immune System is kept up and functioning to it optimum level!
 
The attitude of one cosmetics industry mogul is "People who worry about these small things will not hesitate to speed or wear seat belts. People can always find something to worry about.? How many of the company heads feel this way and are putting your health at risk" I don't know and neither do you. The best rule is "Better to be safe then sorry later on."
 
And now an added skin problem discovered:
 
Did you know the beauty creams you slather on your body and face contains animals? It does unless it's botanical. Some contain just the tallow and fat from them. Tallow contains ground up entrails and junk part of the animals... But now a new worry that some scientists feel the public is in danger of contracting Mad Cow Disease from the use of skin care products which contain animal parts.

Taking care of that largest organ could mean the difference in health or illness!

~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
SHOWCASE SPOTLIGHT 
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
MONTHLY SPOTLIGHTs 
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Next Victim of Warming: The Beaches
By CORNELIA DEAN
June 20, 2006

NEW SMYRNA BEACH, Fla. ? When scientists consider the possible effects of global warming, there is a lot they don't know. But they can say one thing for sure: sea levels will rise.

This rising water will be felt along the artificially maintained beaches of New Jersey, in the vanishing marshes of Louisiana, even on the ocean bluffs of California. According to a 2000 report by the Heinz Center for Science, Economics and the Environment, at least a quarter of the houses within 500 feet of the United States coast may be lost to rising seas by 2060. There were 350,000 of these houses when the report was written, but today there are far more.

"If it is as bad as people are saying, at some point it will be a crisis," said Thomas Tomasello of Tallahassee, Fla., a lawyer who represents many owners of coastal property. But he does not dwell on it. "I cannot deal with sea level rise," he said. "That's such a huge issue."

Though most of the country's ocean beaches are eroding, few coastal jurisdictions consider sea level rise in their coastal planning, and still fewer incorporate the fact that the rise is accelerating. Instead, they are sticking with policies that geologists say may help them in the short term but will be untenable or even destructive in the future.

Florida is a good example. To prepare for hurricane season, which began June 1 and has already brought Tropical Storm Alberto, Floridians were still repairing storm damage from 2005 and even 2004, building or repairing walls to shield beachfront buildings.

Until May 1, when turtle nesting season forced them to stop, they were also pumping hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of sand onto eroded beaches. Florida has relied on this approach for decades, but after the past few storm seasons, there has been an increase in applications for sea wall permits, many from Mr. Tomasello's clients. "If you have a house or a condo that's threatened, it's really the only alternative," he said.

Maintaining eroding beaches with artificial infusions of sand is difficult and costly, and as sea levels rise, it may become economically impractical or even impossible. "The combination of sea walls and rising sea level will accelerate the rate of land loss in front of those sea walls," said Peter Howd, an oceanographer who conducts shoreline research for the United States Geological Survey in St. Petersburg. "So people with a sea wall and a beach in front of it will end up with just a sea wall."

Many people "want to disagree" that global warming is a threat to the coast, said Daniel Trescott, a planner on the staff of the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, one of 11 such boards in the state. "But the first place you see these impacts is on the beach."

The council is participating in a federal program to map areas that are vulnerable to rising sea levels, identify crucial infrastructure there and assess how much will probably end up protected by armor. Mr. Trescott said he hoped that the effort would put sea levels "on the radar, to start addressing how we are going to respond to this rise."

Elsewhere, scientists are studying data from ancient sediment formations to predict how the barrier islands that form most of the East and Gulf Coasts will respond to rising seas. "As scientists, and especially as federal agency scientists, it's our responsibility to think long term," said S. Jeffress Williams, a coastal geologist at the United States Geological Survey in Woods Hole, Mass., who is organizing a session on sea level rise at a meeting of coastal scientists next year. "What are the cumulative impacts we can expect over the next 50 to 100 years?"

Dr. Williams pointed to a plan by the Army Corps of Engineers for beach maintenance on the South Shore of Long Island, from Fire Island to Montauk Point. The project relies on historical rates of sea level rise, measured by an array of instruments in many locations, rather than on predictions of future acceleration, said Cliff Jones, a project manager for the corps. That is typical of the corps, he said, "to take advantage of what history has shown, as opposed to what might be predicted."

It is an understandable approach, Dr. Williams said, but "it is going to build up false expectations."

As with climate change and other environmental problems that develop imperceptibly, it is hard for people to see rising sea levels as a threat.

"It's a slow process," Dr. Howd said. "It's not something that is visible right now or next week or a year from now."

And the remedies are not attractive, to say the least. Few coastal residents want to see their towns walled off and surrounded by water. And few want to elevate their houses by 20 feet or more, as flooding experts are beginning to recommend in some coastal areas. The approach favored by many scientists, a gradual retreat from the coast, is a perennial nonstarter among real estate interests and their political allies.

"Socioeconomically, politically, it's an ugly mess," Dr. Howd said.

www.nytimes.com