Environmental Causes Taking Precedent Over Human Health & Wellness., page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times

Topic started on 2-1-2009 @ 03:39 PM by AshleyD

Please let me be the first to say I fully support being good stewards of our environment, preserving our planet for future generations, rationing our resources, and refraining from the use of environmentally harmful substances as much as possible. However, my concern has been increasing due to the amount of cases that keep appearing where environmental causes are overshadowing human health.

Here are two examples taken from ATS threads to help explain my concern.

Asthma Inhalers.

The ATS thread Asthma Inhalers Banned 2009 currently in progress discusses the new brand of inhaler becoming mandatory as of this year although many asthmatics, including myself, have been forced to use the new type as of 2007. Several members in that thread, again including myself, have confessed our disappointment and frustration due to the product change that has resulted in a more expensive and less effective product. The reason? A little 1/5 of a second squirt from the older type is allegedly destroying the O-zone layer.

From the article:

The change may not be palatable to everyone, but asthmatics should take comfort in the fact that their medicine is no longer destroying the ozone layer.

cleantechnica.com...

Please don't be concerned when your airways are constricting, which could result in death. Your sacrifice is much appreciated by the pharmaceutical companies raking in the profits from your misfortune.

Energy Efficient Light Bulbs.

In a recent debate that was supposed to be a light hearted Holiday Skirmish, I happened across some disturbing information dealing with the light bulb industry. Many countries all over the world, including the United States, are passing legislation to ban the sale of standard incandescent light bulbs. This may not sound like an issue at first until we see the health hazards that are resulting from the use of energy efficient fluorescent bulbs.

Not only are consumers having their existing medical conditions exacerbated by the use these new light bulbs, their governments are slowly but surely giving them no other choice than to have to use them. Some are even having to appeal to various disability acts just to be able to purchase Edison's style bulb.

The fluorescent devices produce a more intense light and can aggravate a range of existing problems, especially in those with light-sensitive conditions. Eco-bulbs are due to become compulsory in British homes within four years. But campaigners want the Government to allow an opt-out so people with health problems can still use old-style incandescent bulbs.

There have been growing concerns that low-energy light can trigger migraines, as well as dizziness, loss of focus and discomfort among those with epilepsy. There have also been complaints from sufferers of lupus - an auto-immune disease causing many symptoms including pain.

www.thisislondon.co.uk...

Please read the entire article for all the alarming information.

Fighting the Ban:

EU to ban traditional light bulbs, but at what cost to health and the environment?

Natural News reports that “according to health advocates including the Skin Care Campaign, Spectrum and even the British Association of Dermatologists, fluorescent light bulbs are known to worsen skin rashes in people with a variety of diseases and conditions including dermatitis, eczema, lupus, photosensitivity, porphyria and Xeroderma Pigmentosum.”

“The groups warned that a complete ban on incandescent lighting for people with such conditions would violate the Disability Discrimination Act, and that employers should also be allowed to purchase incandescent lights if their employees have a need for them.”

Normal lightbulbs on prescription perhaps? I wonder what the ’street’ value would be

stewartcowan.wordpress.com...

I'm not necessarily claiming there is a conspiracy going on. As in, something like population control. All I know is that I find these trends disturbing. Then added to that, I find the government actually mandating the choices of consumers even more frightening. It's nothing less than another invasion into the lives of private citizens. Then not to mention they have no say in the matter when it comes to having products forced upon them that adversely affect their health.

[edit on 1/2/2009 by AshleyD]

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 06:00 PM by DevolutionEvolvd

Hello Ashley!

I was just reading about this on my lunch break today. Here's what I found.

Environmental scientists and waste industry officials are warning that a massive shift to compact fluorescent light bulbs will lead to far more mercury contamination than has been widely supposed.

www.naturalnews.com...

I've always been suspicous of most eco-friendly products being another way to nickel and dime us. And adopting such mandatory product bans, country wide, is ridiculous.

Another article on the harmful effects of granite countertops.

With the increasing popularity of granite countertops, a wide variety of granites are now available from all over the world. A surprising number of these, like the one used in Sugarman's kitchen, contain uranium and give off radiation at several times above the background level.

According to the EPA, a normal person is exposed to a "background level" of 360 millirem of radiation per year from both natural and industrial sources. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says that people living near nuclear reactors should not be exposed to more than100 millirem above background level in a given year.

www.naturalnews.com...

Good Thread Ashley.

-Dev

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 06:32 PM by AshleyD

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd

Thanks a bunch for adding the part about granite counter tops. Fascinating.

About the mercury in energy efficient light bulbs: That also came up in the debate but I didn't want to include it in the already very long O.P. but here it is.

In Germany, the citizens even have to take their bulbs to special disposal facilities instead of tossing them into their household trash:

Furthermore, CFLs contain mercury and other harmful substances that can be dangerous if the bulb is broken. It is also illegal in many countries, including Germany, to dispose of them in household trash. At present, there is no system for the disposal of such light bulbs in Germany, forcing consumers to take expired bulbs to electronic recycling centers themselves.

www.spiegel.de...

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 06:43 PM by ZindoDoone

reply to post by AshleyD

Ashley, darlin' I'm with ya on this. I'm a life long asthma sufferer. In60 years i've run the gamut from the old glass nebulizers to the new ones and this latest incarnation is pure idiocy!!

On the NEW BULB issue. have you gone to your local electrical provider and read exactly wht the regs are from the EPA on the mandatory way to clean up a broken bulb? Its ridiculous. Your supposed to ledave your house immediatly, Call the fire department AND THE EPA and report the toxic spill! Yup you are supposed to PAY the EPA to come clean up your broke vapor bulb. Glenn Beck compiled the actual cost to break one of thesenew bulbs and it waslike $1220.00. Oh and thats not including the fine you pay for poluting the enviornment from that great organisation..The Freekin EPA!!! Star and Flag for you darlin'!!

Zindo

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 06:55 PM by asmeone2

We need to keep in mind that envirnonmental causes and human health and wellness are one in the same. however anyone with a 2-watt brain can see that these reforms are based on greed.

reply posted on 4-1-2009 @ 02:38 PM by Lightmare

Great thread, Ashley. The ugly truth of the matter is that real concern for the environment has been replaced by psuedo-environmentalism. The so-called "green movement" is a sham. These silly "green" products and other silly ideas about carbon emissions and energy consumption are not going to save the planet. If we are ever going to make any real progress toward saving our planet, then we need to start taking great pains to conserve and protect our forests and other wild places.

In other words, we need to start making better use of the land we have already developed rather than carving out more shopping malls, parking lots, office buildings, and various other things that require us to carve out massive dead spots in the earth. What I'm trying to say is that real environmentalism means that we stop tearing down God's creation in order to put up more man made crap.

This is something that we can easily accomplish without all of the silly and ineffective ideas that have resulted in today's misanthropic enviro-nazi movement. It still requires a certain amount of sacrifice on our part, but it would be much more effective than carbon credits, "green" products, and other stupid ideas that do nothing to address the real issues that face our environment.

[edit on 1/4/2009 by Lightmare]

reply posted on 5-1-2009 @ 11:55 AM by melatonin

Problem is, though, double-blind studies have demonstrated that HFA-based inhalers are as effective as CFC-based inhalers. In other words, when people didn't know they were using a different medicine source, it made no difference to the effect on symptoms.

People are so resistant to change, I guess it would be hard to separate a real problem from the psychological. And I'm seeing lots of other more psych (and I don't mean psychopathology, lol) issues that would suggest that possibility in this thread and t'other.

Of course, doesn't mean there aren't technical problems which batches of inhalers. As for the money issue, yeah, pharmaceutical companies are all about extending patents and fleecing the masses, and this has given certain companies the ability to repatent certain generics. I suppose they spent money researching the new delivery method.

And restricting CFCs is a good thing, but if there are real problems with the new inhalers, then they should delay phasing the old CFCs out.

[edit on 5-1-2009 by melatonin]

reply posted on 5-1-2009 @ 12:20 PM by AshleyD

Originally posted by melatonin
Problem is, though, double-blind studies have demonstrated that HFA-based inhalers are as effective as CFC-based inhalers. In other words, when people didn't know they were using a different medicine source, it made no difference to the effect on symptoms.

That's an interesting study. Thank you very much for adding that in the thread.

However, I'll give my own personal testimony that tells a different story. I'm 29 years old and have had asthma all my life. Very severe asthma that has required numerous temporary ER visits and prolonged hospitalizations throughout the years as well as some attacks that almost took my life on about 3-4 occasions.

Throughout my life, I've been subscribed so many brands of inhalers it's impossible to provide a number. The brands are constantly being tweaked and changed. It's not unusual for me to pick up a subscription or refill only to see a new brand of inhaler without notice. I've never been able to tell the difference between them until now (with Primatene Mist being the sole exception which is a nasty OTC brand that burns my throat and is completely different from prescriptions. One puff and you know it's different). I'm sure most ATS asthmatics have experienced the same thing.

This time was different though. After picking up my prescription from the pharmacy for this new inhaler, as of the first puff I turned to my husband and asked what in the world is this? He then told me about the changes for the environment and that they took the 'push' out of the new inhalers. So I picked up on the change instantly without knowing there had been a change.

People are so resistant to change, I guess it would be hard to separate a real problem from the psychological. And I'm seeing lots of other more psych (and I don't mean psychopathology, lol) issues that would suggest that possibility in this thread and t'other.

This is true about people accepting change. However, again most asthmatics will be aware of this, inhalers are constantly changing. It's never been a problem for me. A quick puff and I am ok again (severe attacks aside, of course) regardless of the style (again, PM being the exception). This most definitely is not psychological in this case, though. The composition is dramatically different and several others in the Asthma thread said they picked up on the difference right away as well.

Just a couple of differences I noticed immediately before I even knew there had been a change:

1). The force in which the medicine is expelled from the inhaler is very, very weak compared to the old style. Instead of it being sprayed into constricted lungs, you have to forcefully suck in the medicine to ensure it gets inhaled.
2). I had to take two puffs to feel the relief that one puff of my old inhaler provided.
3). The size of the inhaler which was about half of what I'm normally subscribed.

The only thing that feels similar is the taste. I noticed no difference in taste. Only force, size, and effectiveness.

[edit on 1/5/2009 by AshleyD]

reply posted on 5-1-2009 @ 12:49 PM by melatonin

Originally posted by AshleyD

Originally posted by melatonin
Problem is, though, double-blind studies have demonstrated that HFA-based inhalers are as effective as CFC-based inhalers. In other words, when people didn't know they were using a different medicine source, it made no difference to the effect on symptoms.

That's an interesting study. Thank you very much for adding that in the thread.

There's a number of them. Here's one I found easily enough:

Proventil HFA Provides Bronchodilation Comparable to Ventolin Over 12 Weeks of Regular Use in Asthmatics

Eugene R. Bleecker MD, FCCP1; David G. Tinkelman MD2; Joe Ramsdell MD3; Bruce P. Ekholm MSc4; Nancy M. Klinger BSc4; Gene L. Colice MD, FCCP4; and Herbert B. Slade MD4

Objective: To compare the bronchodilator effectiveness of albuterol reformulated in the chlorofluorocarbon-free propellant hydrofluoroalkane (HFA)134a (Proventil HFA) to that of Ventolin and HFA placebo over 12 weeks of regular dosing.

Design: Randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial of asthmatics requiring inhaled β-adrenergic bronchodilators for symptom control.

Interventions: Treatment qid with Proventil HFA, Ventolin, or HFA-134a placebo for 12 weeks.

Measurements: At weeks 0, 4, 8, and 12, spirometry was performed predose and serially over 6 h after dosing with study drug. Bronchodilator efficacy variables, based on FEV1 response to study drug, were proportion of responders, time to onset of effect, peak percent change, time to peak effect, duration of effect, and area under the curve (AUC).

Results: Demographic and baseline characteristics were similar for patients randomized to Proventil HFA (193), Ventolin (186), and HFA-134a placebo (186). No significant differences were found between the Proventil HFA and Ventolin treatment groups for any FEV1 efficacy variable, either predose or during 6 h of serial spirometry, at weeks 0, 4, 8, and 12. For all efficacy variables, except time to onset of effect, the Proventil HFA and Ventolin results were significantly greater than placebo. Time to onset of effect for the HFA-134a placebo group is misleading; only 13 patients (7%) were found to be responders in the intent-to-treat database. These efficacy results were found to be consistent across subgroup analyses of inhaled and nasal corticosteroid use, age (18 to 35 and 36 to 66 years), sex, race, weight (100 kg), and baseline FEVl (55% and >55% predicted). The peak FEV1 effect, duration of FEV1 effect, and AUC for FEV1 were all significantly smaller at weeks 4, 8, and 12 than week 0 for both the Proventil HFA and Ventolin treatment groups.

Conclusions: Proventil HFA provided bronchodilation comparable to Ventolin and superior effects to HFA-134a placebo over 12 weeks of regular dosing. There was a diminution in bronchodilator response to both Proventil HFA and Ventolin after 4 weeks of use.

Key Words: albuterol • asthma • HFA-134a propellant

Submitted on March 18, 1997
Accepted on July 28, 1000

My boy had asthma when he was younger, he's fine now though. I think it was because we lived directly next to a busy main road. I would have liked to ban emitting crap on that road. But I live in a nice green area now

This time was different though. After picking up my prescription from the pharmacy for this new inhaler, as of the first puff I turned to my husband and asked what in the world is this? He then told me about the changes for the environment and that they took the 'push' out of the new inhalers. So I picked up on the change instantly without knowing there had been a change.

Aye.

Just a couple of differences I noticed immediately before I even knew there had been a change:

1). The force in which the medicine is expelled from the inhaler is very, very weak compared to the old style. Instead of it being sprayed into constricted lungs, you have to forcefully suck in the medicine to ensure it gets inhaled.
2). I had to take two puffs to feel the relief that one puff of my old inhaler provided.
3). The size of the inhaler which was about half of what I'm normally subscribed.

But if they have tested the new inhalers repeatedly over the last several years, and found absolutely no differences (in adults or kids), why would it now be an issue?

As I said, perhaps there are technical problems, and if there are they shouldn't be using them and they should be withdrawn. But if they have been repeatedly tested and found no real problems prior to widespread use, it's hard to know what they could have done differently.

I have similar issues with the bulb and health complaints. The mercury problem is a real one which can readily be overcome by proper methods in using and disposing of them. Indeed, burning fossil fuels emits a lot of mercury directly into the atmosphere, so it's weighing proper treatment of the bulbs with a reduction of mercury from not burning fuel to 'fuel' a thirsty incandescant.

The other health issues can be readily overcome. The newer flourescent (CFLs) bulbs don't produce flicker (and so photo-induced epilepsy shouldn't really be a factor) and the minimal UV can be removed by a special filter (for the lupus-style people). They could also use the newer LED bulbs if it's that much of an issue. Perhaps they should be on prescription for those who find flourescents so problematic. They could just buy them, of course, as they are getting cheaper.

reply posted on 5-1-2009 @ 01:09 PM by ZindoDoone

Meletonin,
Its not just the propelant though. For those of use who pay for our own perscriptions the price went up 40%. You take Albuterol for instance. It's one of the few I can inhale with no problems. I used to pay 76.00 for one month. Now. its 107.00 per month. No difference other then the change from CFC's!

Zindo

reply posted on 5-1-2009 @ 01:14 PM by AshleyD

reply to post by ZindoDoone

Very true. Since we have insurance, my inhalers went from $10 to $35 each with the change. But also, the new ones are half the size of my older ones. If you've ever received a sample inhaler from a doctor then you know what size I'm talking about. It's the sample size at three times the price. My old inhalers would also last 2-3 months but I go through the new ones in about three weeks due to them being half the size and requiring twice the puffs to achieve the same relief. Although they may actually have the environment in mind, I don't trust the intentions of the pharmaceutical companies. I truly feel in my heart it is simply an excuse to milk the people for a medical necessity.

Thank you everyone for your posts.

reply posted on 5-1-2009 @ 01:24 PM by melatonin

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
Meletonin,
Its not just the propelant though. For those of use who pay for our own perscriptions the price went up 40%. You take Albuterol for instance. It's one of the few I can inhale with no problems. I used to pay 76.00 for one month. Now. its 107.00 per month. No difference other then the change from CFC's!

Zindo

Aye, you need to blame capitalism for that. Indeed, you should push for socialised medicine. It's great! I haven't directly paid for a prescription for years, lol.

But, yeah, it has cost the likes of Glaxo money to research these new delivery methods, and they have been able to patent a generic and fleece people. Perhaps the FDA/government should have funded university research and made it unpatentable.

reply posted on 19-2-2009 @ 02:32 PM by Majorion

reply to post by AshleyD

Originally posted by AshleyD
our disappointment and frustration due to the product change that has resulted in a more expensive and less effective product. The reason? A little 1/5 of a second squirt from the older type is allegedly destroying the O-zone layer.

Well I'm a smoker! .. are they gonna ban cigarettes now too based on this logic?! That's just ridiculous!

I'm sorry to hear about this Ashley, when you say less effective.. what you're really trying to say about this is 'ineffective'. If I were you.. I'd get my old supply through the black-market, the old fashioned way