Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Greenpeace finds highly toxic chemicals in branded clothing
by Christina Luisa(NaturalNews) Earlier this week Greenpeace announced at the launch of its report "Dirty Laundry 2" that traces of toxic chemicals have been detected in products made by 14 big brand top clothing manufacturers.
These chemicals, called nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs), are commonly used as detergents in industries including the production of natural and synthetic textiles. NPEs break down to form nonylphenol, a dangerous toxin that has persistent and hormone-disrupting properties. This toxin has been proven to mimic female hormones, alter sexual development and affect reproductive systems.
Greenpeace said it purchased 78 different branded clothing samples (most of them made in China, Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines) from 18 countries around the world and subjected them to careful scientific analysis. NPEs were detected in two-thirds of the samples the group tested, including popular brands such as Calvin Klein, Adidas, Converse, Ralph Lauren, Abercrombie & Fitch, Bauer Hockey, Cortefiel, Uniqlo, Gap, H&M, Lacoste, Nike, Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation (PVH Corp) and Puma. During the course of the past year, Greenpeace has found that all of these commonly purchased brands are linked to two specific manufacturers.
The issue of toxic chemicals in clothing is not only a problem for the developing countries where textiles are made. Since residual levels of NPEs are released when clothes are washed, these chemicals are now inching their way into countries where their use is banned or avoided.
The danger of NPEs
Certain components of NPEs have been involved in the widespread "feminization" of male fish in parts of Europe and also in the disruption of hormone processes in some mammals, according to the campaign group WWF. Even at low levels, this toxin represents a big threat to the environment and to human health. It is no coincidence that use of NPEs is completely restricted in Europe.Our skin is our largest organ and what we put on it our bodies literally drink in. Everything we consume - including the chemicals that linger on and in our clothing -- either gets assimilated or eliminated. Chemical toxins we expose our skin to through our clothing and skincare/body products can tax our bodies in a major way.
NPEs can certainly contribute to the increasing incidence of health problems linked to hormonal disturbances.
All of our modern-day toxic overload concerns should be considered against the backdrop of a monumental biological shift. Only 150 years ago, girls got their first period at around age 15 or 16 and went through menopause in their late 30s and 40s. However, in modern times girls often begin puberty as early as 9 and menopause generally does not occur until around 50.
Not only have we increasingly begun pushing and trifling with our bodies in ways we never did before, but our environments are also becoming increasingly toxic in ways we are often not fully aware of. This is evident when noting the fact that the period in which women's bodies go through a series of significant hormonal shifts has extended over a much longer period of time, increasing not only their fertile years, but also their chances of getting breast cancer. Toxic chemical exposure through household products, our modern food supply, beauty/care products and clothing certainly all play into this.
The alarming truth about clothing factories
In the past, Greenpeace became concerned by the amount of water used to make the majority of our clothing. On average, fiber for one cotton t-shirt requires 713 gallons of water to make, and traditional wet-dye methods for clothing use from seven to 75 gallons of water per pound of fabric. All this adds up to trillions of gallons of water each year passing through textile factories merely for dyeing alone.Now Greenpeace has gone on to prove that the water leaves the factories polluted with heavy metals and toxic chemicals that cause serious health problems to animals and people. Recently "Dirty Laundry" has outright accused the manufacturers of well-known textile brands such as Adidas of polluting major rivers in China with chemical waste.
The practices of two of China's major textile dye factories were closely examined within the details the company released of its year-long investigation. To gather the information Greenpeace campaigners wore protective suits and collected water samples from outside the factories being carefully analyzed. The results clearly showed that toxins are spilling into China's rivers on a daily basis.
According to Greenpeace, the discharge from these factories includes heavy metals and "hazardous and persistent chemicals with hormone-disrupting properties were found being discharged from these facilities." Alkylphenols including nonylphenols were found in wastewater samples from both factories examined, and perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) were present in the wastewater from one of the complexes (the Youngor Textile Complex).
Eight samples of wastewater from two factories in the Yangtze and Pearl River deltas, identified as suppliers for the brands, contained "a cocktail of hazardous chemicals": Greenpeace said in last month's "Dirty Laundry" report.
Clothing companies respond -- or do they?
Most of the international brands found to be tainted with these toxins have denied using the dye services at either of the two guilty factories, saying that they are only "cut and sew" customers for these locations. However, that does not change the fact that the practices of these two factories are typical of what you'll find all over China - where most of our clothing is made -- and anywhere else wet-dyeing is used in the production of clothes.When the Greenpeace report was released, Greenpeace activists dressed as referees caused a ruckus when they surrounded one of Adidas' busiest flagship stores in Hong Kong and demanded that the store eliminate hazardous chemicals in their products. The activists also forcefully urged potential customers to "rethink" their decision to purchase the contaminated clothing.
After storming the store, the activists handed out campaign leaflets to customers and gave store staff yellow warning cards that cautioned the brand line of clothing to "play clean".
Since then Nike and Puma have been the only brands to promise to eliminate the use of hazardous chemicals in their products -- but only by year 2020!
One would assume that as the second biggest supplier in the sportswear industry, Adidas has a clearly posed obligation to detoxify its global supply chain.
However, Adidas has ignored repeated requests for comment, according to a Greenpeace spokeswoman. The company previously admitted it uses the Youngor Group -- one of the accused clothing suppliers -- for garment cutting and sewing only and not to source fabrics. Adidas has now asked Youngor to investigate Greenpeace's claims and added that the company has a comprehensive policy on avoiding dangerous substances and chemicals.
Many of the name-brand clothing companies accused have reportedly been working on improving their sustainability efforts and reducing the environmental footprint of their products. However, their plans at no point included clear-cut goals to eliminate toxic dyes.
Greenpeace urges companies: "Detox Now!"
Greenpeace has now launched the Detox Now! campaign to pressure Nike, Adidas and other big clothing companies to publicly agree to eliminate the release of hazardous chemicals from the entire lifecycle of their products.People around the world are responding rapidly and enthusiastically. Thousands have signed an online petition, and 600 people in ten different countries showed up outside Nike and Adidas stores and did a striptease on July 23rd of this year.
The pressure from the public is beginning to take some effect, but not nearly enough. Puma was the first of the companies last week to take responsibility for the toxins released in the making of their athletic apparel and shoes. However, the company has stated that elimination of these toxins will take up to 9 years. In a statement posted to their website, Puma says:
"...Sportlifestyle company PUMA recognizes the urgent need for reducing and eliminating industrial releases of all hazardous chemicals. According to its approach based on prevention and precautionary principles, PUMA is committed to eliminate the discharges of all hazardous chemicals from the whole lifecycle and all production procedures that are associated with the making and using of PUMA products by 2020."
No word has come yet from Adidas or other brands on if they will agree to Greenpeace's request and eliminate these dangerous toxins from their supply lines.
These toxins are unnecessary harm to our lives
The Greenpeace report is an important step toward educating people about just how hazardous the textile industry is. It's also a good method of putting necessary pressure on big name brands who claim to want to be eco-friendly (and have the resources available) to move the apparel industry into a non-toxic future. You can sign the Detox Now! petition here: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/toxics/water/detox/Tell-Nike-and-Adidas-to-Detox/Synthetic textiles don't need water in order to absorb dyes properly. The high temperatures these textiles require to get the fibers to take on colors can be achieved without using water at all. This means that these popular apparel brands DO have choices in the matter and could easily eliminate the toxins used to dye their shoes, shirts, and other products.
Read more about toxins in clothing here:
http://www.naturalnews.com/022803.html
Sources used and further reading:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/08/23-1
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=213789
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/08/23/greenpeace-finds-toxic-chemicals-in-top-brand-name-clothes/
http://www.naturalnews.com/005342.html
http://organicfamilycircle.com/synthetic-chemicals-make-dangerous-clothing-advantages-organic-fabrics.html
Hospital patients now being microchipped with "electronic tattoos"
by Christina Luisa(NaturalNews) Being microchipped is now being spun as a method of protecting the health of hospital patients. To help mask the practice of this bodily invasion with a trendy, high-tech appearance, microchipping sensors are being referred to as "electronic tattoos" that can attach to human skin and stretch and move without breaking.
Supposedly the comparisons of this hair-thin electronic patch-like chip to an electronic tattoo are being made because of how it adheres to the skin like a temporary tattoo using only water.
The small chip is less than 50 micrometers thick, which is thinner in diameter than a human hair. It is being marketed as a "safe" and easy way to temporarily monitor the heart and brain in patients while replacing bulky medical equipment currently being used in hospitals.
This device uses micro-electronics technology called an epidermal electronic system (EES) and is said to be a development that will "transform" medical sensing technology, computer gaming and even spy operations, according to a study published last week.
The hair-thin chip was developed by an international team of researchers from the United States, China and Singapore and is described in the Journal of Science.
The proven link between animal microchipping and cancer
Pet microchips have become increasingly common over the past few years. These chips are marked with a small barcode that can be scanned just like the tags on grocery items.This seems to suggest that microchips are meant to turn the wearer into an object that can be tracked and catalogued. Once inserted in an animal, the chip stays there for the entirety of its lifetime and can be used to identify the pet if it should be found on the street or turned into a shelter. The subdermal chips are often recommended by vets and animal care experts as a way to ensure lost pets find their way home again.
But research suggests that despite their proclaimed usefulness, pet microchips may cause cancer. Multiple studies have clearly linked pet microchips with increased incidence of cancer and tumors in mice and rats.
In the past, public disclosure of these suggested links between microchipping and cancer in animals stirred widespread concern over the safety of implantable microchips in living beings. The animal microchip study findings that created such an uproar were so persuasive that Dr. Robert Benezra, head of the Cancer Biology Genetics Program at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, was quoted in an article about microchipping as saying, "There's no way in the world, having read this information, that I would have one of those chips implanted in my skin, or in one of my family members."
A 2001 study found that 1% of rats with implanted microchips developed cancerous tumors near the chip location. At least a dozen animal studies have been done between 1990 and 2007 and most concluded that microchips significantly increased the risk of cancer at the microchip site.
Soon we'll all have "cool electronic tattoos!"
All the electronic parts of the new EES chip are built out of wavy, snake-like components which allow them to be stretched and squeezed. They also contain tiny solar cells which can generate power or get energy from electromagnetic radiation. The sensor is mounted on to a water-soluble sheet of plastic and attached to the body by brushing the surface with water - hence the comparison to a temporary tattoo.This new device being implanted in hospital patients certainly looks and acts like a microchip - yet it is persistently being referred to as an "electronic tattoo" in order to make the concept appear harmless, friendly - even trendy!
Invasive microchips - is the cost worth the convenience?
Scientists claim the supposed advantage of the EES chips is their ability to cut back on the bevy of wires, gel-coated sticky pads and monitors that are currently relied on to keep track of the vital signs of hospital patients. Apparently these traditional forms of bulky equipment and monitors are overly "distressing" to patients.It appears scientists believe these new microchips are convenient enough that they outweigh the potential risks.
In test trials, the microchip was purposefully attached to the throat of a human and used to detect differences in words such as up, down, left, right, go and stop. Researchers used these functions to control a simple computer game.
Is the convenience of not having to manually operate equipment great enough to justify the implantation of an electronic sensor beneath the skin of humans? Would you trust a microchip to monitor your bodily functions without causing health hazards in the process?
The future of America: microchipped zombies
Researchers believe the technology could be used to replace traditional wires and cables, but this sounds remarkably like an excuse used to cover up the real truth: that this new microchipping method is a way to ensure all of us are eventually microchipped and able to be tracked and monitored. Soon, everyone will be required to wear chips or "tattoos" that prove they got their vaccinations, to link to health records, credit history and social security records.If the government can require Americans to carry microchipped documents including your work, financial and health records, it seems it is only a matter of time before these chips will be implanted for the sake of "convenience" or "security." According to them, all of this is being done "for our own good."
Read more and watch videos about the government's agenda to microchip all humans by 2017 here: http://yedies.blogspot.com/2010/11/...
Sources used and further reading:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14...
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?
id=CNG.6e1e2ad90e2d94b12b6258b7e9c5b33d.611&show_article=1
http://www.suite101.com/content/do-...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)