If you follow the news, you’re probably aware of the controversy over whether glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup Weed & Grass Killer and many other herbicides, poses a significant threat to human health.
Nobody argues the fact that humans are exposed to this chemical. It is the most commonly used herbicide on the market and is commonly and frequently used to control weeds in crops and forests, on lawns and gardens, in industrial areas, and even in lakes and ponds to control unwanted aquatic plants. As a result, it is often dispersed in the air, where it may be inhaled, and it finds its way to our drinking water and food products, where it is ingested. Also, there is general agreement that glyphosate causes acute toxicity at certain concentrations.
Disagreements arise, however, over whether and to what degree exposure to low concentrations of glyphosate, such as those common in the environment, contribute to a variety of chronic conditions, including cancer. For example, while California added glyphosate to its list of potential cancer-causing agents in 2017, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced just this month that it will not approve warning labels for products containing glyphosate because that would “constitute a false and misleading statement.”
Adding to the debate are a series of commentaries published by Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff highlighting the potential pathways by which glyphosate could contribute to a wide range of chronic conditions followed by a rebuttal titled ““Facts and Fallacies in the Debate on Glyphosate Toxicity” by Robin Mesnage and Michael N. Antoniou, in which they conclude that the commentaries are a “misrepresentation of glyphosate’s toxicity [that] misleads the public, the scientific community, and regulators.”
In their critique of the commentaries, Mesnage and Antoniou are careful to point out that continue reading
Even as summer vacations draw to a close in much of the nation, the perils of sunscreen to the environment remain in the news. Of local interest to those of us here in Tampa are recent media reports about a potential ban on certain types of sunscreen — namely those that might provide the best protection against the sun but are toxic to coral reefs.
Turns out that even tiny amounts of sunscreen that wash off a swimmer’s skin in the ocean is enough to cause corals to bleach, lose their algae food source, and make them susceptible to viral infections. In addition, the chemical oxybenzone — an active ingredient in many sunscreens — inhibits the ability of baby corals (polyps) to attach themselves to the reef.
The chemicals in commercial sunscreens may also affect the health of oyster domes and other filter-feeding organisms. Environmental concerns have risen to the point where some areas — most notably Hawaii and Key West — have banned the use of certain sunscreens. While here in Tampa, Spectrum News 9 recently ran continue reading
In AMC’s fictional cable TV series Better Call Saul, Saul’s older brother, Charles Lindbergh “Chuck” McGill, is convinced he suffers from electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) — often described as an “allergy” to electric and magnetic fields. Symptoms include anxiety, depression, headaches, itchy skin, blurred vision, and heart palpitations.
The condition forces Chuck to move to an electricity-free home, using gas lamps for light and foregoing many other modern conveniences. Visitors, including Chuck’s younger brother Jimmy, are forced to place their electronic devices in the mailbox and ground themselves to discharge any static electricity before entering his home. Chuck even wraps himself in what Jimmy describes as a “space blanket” to shield himself from any electromagnetic fields (EMFs).
Fast forward to the real world, where the introduction of 5G networks promises to deliver ultrafast data and connectivity to our mobile devices, and Chuck’s precautions seemfairly sensible — especially when you consider EMF radiation has been implicated as a possible cause of anxiety, depression, fatigue, and even cancer in humans, along with the deaths of large populations of bees and birds near 5G cell phone towers.
However, the truth about EMFs and their potential for causing illness in humans is far less dramatic. In this post, we separate fact from fiction and present practical precautions for keeping you and your family safe and healthy.
Coffee is a lightning rod for conflicting medical studies. Every few weeks it seems, a new study comes out touting the benefits or risks of drinking coffee or drinking too much coffee — an amount which is also hotly debated.