At a clinical ecology seminar, Edward Winger, PhD presented two possible models whereby chemical exposure may lead to chronic disease;
1. Test-tube studies have been done with cells which contain genetic material of Epstein-Barr (infectious mononucleosis virus, in which the virus is in the latent or inactive state. When certain chemicals were introduced into the test tube, viral proliferation took place and the virus was transformed to an active, infectious state. This may represent one of the common causes for persistent viral infections, such as chronic mononucleosis and chronic hepatic infections, being recognised with increasing frequency.
2. Basic to the second model to chemical sensitivity is that rapidly dividing of cells of the body are more susceptible to the toxic effects of chemicals than cells that divide more slowly. The most rapidly dividing systems of the body are the gastrointestinal and the blood-producing (hematopoietic) systems.Our interest concerns the latter and its production of immune bodies, primarily various types of white blood cells. The capacity of white blood cells to respond to foreign antigens is impressive with a potential for approximately 100,000 types of responses. We may assume that this system carries a large part of the burden of protecting the body from potentially toxic chemicals. But suppose a certain cellular line assigned the task for protection against a specific chemical is caught in the rapid cellular division, like a soldier being caught out of foxhole during enemy fire. If there was significant toxic exposure at this time, this cellular line would be destroyed, leaving the individual unprotected against this chemical and possibly others.
The next time you buy tampons, you may want to check the labels of the sanitary pads or tampons that you are going to buy the next time, and see whether you spot any of the familiar signs stated in in this paragraph.. No wonder so many women in the world suffer from cervical cancer and womb tumors. Have you heard that tampon makers include asbestos in tampons?
Why would they do this? Because asbestos makes you bleed more, if you bleed more, you’re going to need to use more. Why isn’t this against the law since asbestos is so dangerous? Because the powers that be, in all their wisdom(not), did not consider tampons as being ingested, and therefore wasn’t illegal or considered dangerous.
Tampons contain two things that are potentially harmful: Rayon (for absorbency), and dioxin (a chemical used in bleaching the products). The tampon industry is convinced that we, as women, need bleached white products in order to view the product as pure and clean. The problem here is that the dioxin produced in this bleaching process can lead to very harmful problems for a woman.
Dioxin is potentially carcinogenic (cancer-associated) and is toxic to the immune and reproductive systems. It has also been linked to endometriosis and lower sperm counts for men-for both, it breaks down the immune system.
In September 1999, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported that
there really is no set “acceptable” level of exposure to dioxin given that it is cumulative and slow to disintegrate. The real danger comes from repeated contact (Karen Houppert “Pulling the Plug on the Tampon Industry”).
Wouldn’t you say using about 4-5 tampons a day, five days a month, for 38
menstruating years is “repeated contact”, wouldn’t’ you? Rayon contributes to the danger of tampons and dioxin because it is a highly absorbent substance. Therefore, when fibers from the tampons are left behind in the vagina (as it usually occurs), it creates a breeding ground for the dioxin. It also stays in a lot longer than it would with just cotton tampons. This is also the reason why TSS (toxic shock syndrome) occurs.
Using feminine hygiene products that aren’t bleached and that are all cotton. Other feminine hygiene products (pads/napkins) contain dioxin as well, but they are not nearly as dangerous since they are not in direct contact with the vagina. The pads/napkins need to stop being bleached, but obviously tampons are the most dangerous.
So, what can you do if you can’t give up using tampons? Use tampons, > that are made from 100% cotton, and that are unbleached. Unfortunately, there are very, few companies that make these safe tampons. They are usually only found in health food stores. Countries all over the world (Sweden, German, British Columbia, etc.) have demanded a switch to this safer tampon, while the U.S. has decided to keep us in the dark about it. In 1989, activists in England mounted a campaign against chlorine bleaching. Six weeks and 50,000 letters later, the makers of sanitary products switched to oxygen bleaching (one of the green methods available). (MS magazine, May/June 1995).
Breast implants are now in their fourth decade of use, no regulations for pre-market safety testing having been in place when they were first marketed. Studies which should have been done long ago are only now being done, well after most of the approximately two million women had their implants. Of 1135 published studies in the National Library of Medicine database under the search terms “silicone implants” and “adverse effects”, 387 or only 34% were published between 1966 and 1989, a 24-year interval. 748, or 66% were published in the past 8+ years (1990 to now).
Less well-documented evidence suggestive of a link comes from a growing number of published cases in which women with otherwise irreversible autoimmune diseases such as scleroderma had significant improvement following breast implant removal.
Finally, Canadian plastic surgeon Walter Peters summed up these lines of evidence in the Annals of Plastic Surgery. While admitting there is yet no proven cause-and-effect relationship between breast implants and autoimmune connective tissue disease, he said “there is growing concern that immunological sensitization could potentially develop in certain susceptible patients and that this could contribute to the development of autoimmune connective tissue disease.”
Given what they are being exposed to, women definitely have to be the “stronger” of the sexes.