Third-Hand Smoke

All Hype or Major Health Issue?

I understand the natural instinct to protect our children. But the latest suggestion of the danger some people do to their children has me wanting to know more.

What is third-hand smoke?

What I’m talking about is a recent study conducted on the dangers of third-hand smoke. Third-hand smoke is a newly coined term used to describe tobacco toxins that you cannot see. But you can smell them, and you probably have, every time you’ve been near a smoker after they’ve finished a cigarette, ridden alone in a cigarette-smelling elevator, or checked into a hotel room with a lingering scent of tobacco. Invisible third-hand smoke permeates a smoker’s surroundings and can cling to things like furniture, clothing, carpeting, and vehicle interiors.

The group of Berkeley scientists behind this latest study suggests that third-hand smoke can adhere to any surface with which tobacco smoke comes into contact. They say it’s possible because nicotine turns into a vapor as it burns. They also say the vapor is highly toxic, containing 60+ known carcinogens.

The ability to adhere to or stain a surface is the point at which the potential problem with third-hand smoke begins. You might not realize this, but also present in our environment is a very common indoor pollutant called nitrous acid. Car exhaust and unvented gas appliances are two common sources of nitrous acid.

Dangerous chemicals called tobacco-specific nitrosamines, or TSNAs, are produced when nicotine stains react with this pollutant. And not just a few. On tested surfaces, scientists found that when exposing nitrous acid to a surface contaminated by third-hand smoke, the level of newly-formed TSNAs was boosted by up to 10 times!


Naturally, smokers are skeptical

Lately, smokers have had a hard time fitting into a society that continually tries to ostracize them. And they believe this is one more propaganda-filled attempt to get them to quit. They understand the dangers of first-hand smoke, but choose to continue anyway. They’ve had no choice but to comply with laws banning them from smoking in public places to help reduce other people’s exposure to second-hand smoke. But they’re having a tougher time accepting the idea and the inherent dangers of third-hand smoke.

No doubt this newly-released study is the first of many we’ll be seeing in the future. Those who understand that there is such a thing as third-hand smoke, and who understand its potential dangers, want everyone to know what they know.

Innocent children are the driving force

Because they’ve accepted the potential dangers of exposing their children to second-hand smoke, many smokers have started smoking outside the home, or cracking their car windows while driving, or using a fan to circulate the air in a smoke-filled room. They believe these actions eliminate their children’s exposure to second-hand smoke.

But what they don’t realize is that these actions don’t eliminate their children’s exposure to third-hand smoke. Especially vulnerable are young children who crawl on rugs, or who chew on things since they may be absorbing carcinogen-filled third-hand smoke through their skin or ingesting it.

And this raises an interesting question: Should smokers now refrain from smoking inside their own homes and their vehicles?

What do you think?

TV and Heart Disease

Here’s a Good Reason to Turn off the Television

First it was smoking, and then it was food, and now—television? Believe it or not, a newly released study suggests a quantifiable relationship between increased heart disease risk and, of all things, the number of hours spent watching television!
I think much of the stuff that makes it onto television is pretty bad, especially some of those reality television shows. But are these and other TV shows really so bad that they can cause heart problems and possibly even death?

All joking aside

It’s not the quality of television programming that causes the increased risks. Rather, it’s the sedentary aspect of television watching that researchers and other health professionals worry about most. And they believe the increased risk of heart disease involves more than just television.

People who spend many hours a day sitting in front of computer screens may be equally at risk. I don’t watch a lot of television because in my opinion, there isn’t much that’s worth watching. But I do spend a lot of time sitting in front of my computer screen. Many of you reading this probably do too. And that’s when I realized I needed to pay closer attention to the results of this study.

Study details

The results of the Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle Study were recently published in Circulation, a reputable journal published by the American Heart Association. Study participants included 8,800 men and women, none of whom had any history of heart disease. Each participant was older than age 25. Blood samples were taken prior to the study and used as baseline data to measure blood-sugar and cholesterol levels.


At the start of the study, researchers asked participants to keep track of their television viewing habits each day for one week. Based on their record-keeping, participants were then separated into three categories including those who watched television each day: less than 2 hours; between 2 and 4 hours; and more than 4 hours.

Six years later, researchers studied the group again. They discovered that of the initial 8,800 participants, 87 had succumbed to cardiovascular disease and 125 participants had developed cancer. They also concluded that the highest increase in cardiovascular disease occurred in the group that watched television more than 4 hours each day.

What’s so bad about sitting?

As some researchers expected, exercise and eating habits didn’t increase or decrease cardiovascular risks. Neither did smoking, high cholesterol, or high blood pressure. The only thing that seemed to matter was the number of hours spent sitting in front of the television!

When we sit, especially for long periods of time, our muscles don’t get enough chance to move. Movement causes muscle contraction; something that many of our body’s important regulatory processes require. Less bodily movement means fewer muscle contractions which means diminished ability to effectively carry out processes like converting glucose into energy. Less movement also causes muscles to weaken.

So put down the remote and get moving!

Because movement might be the cheapest and easiest thing you can do to lower your risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and death!

To Tan or Not to Tan

That is the question...

Tanned skin wasn’t always as highly sought after as it is today. In earlier times, whether or not your skin was tanned was an obvious sign of where you stood in society. Fair skin meant wealth, and tanned skin meant poverty. People with tans got them because of long hours spent laboring in the fields while the wealthy individuals who hired them sat comfortably beneath the shade.

Sometime during the past century, opinions changed. I think change started with Coco Chanel, when she returned from a cruise sporting a deep tan. Around that same time, women’s roles were beginning to change, too. And as roles changed, so did the perception of skin color. Suddenly, after centuries of going to sometimes extreme lengths to achieve the palest skin, a quest for the deepest, darkest tan had taken hold.

In the years since, people have spent countless hours baking in the sun. Thanks to the invention of the tanning beds some 30 years ago, even people without access to the sun can “tan.” Today, tanned skin is a symbol of beauty and ironically, good health.

But is it?

Ultraviolet rays, both UVA and UVB, have long been at the center of controversy. UV rays are emitted by the sun and also by tanning beds. For years, experts have warned of the importance of applying sunscreen while outdoors and of limiting outdoor exposure to certain times of the day. Some people have listened, but most have not.


Now in a few months, the FDA will convene public hearings aimed at changing its regulatory power over tanning beds. Currently, the FDA classifies tanning beds as minimal risk medical devices. Referred to as “Class 1” this low-level classification is the same classification that’s applied to bandages. The FDA also wants more regulation over tanning bed warning labels.

Maybe what’s fueling the FDA’s quest for tighter tanning bed regulation is the World Health Organization. Just last year, the WHO stated definitively that tanning beds cause cancer. This came in response to recently completed studies concluding that the risks of developing melanoma, a dangerous malignant tumor that occurs mostly on the skin, increases a whopping 75% in people that frequent tanning beds during their younger years.

A different approach

My guess is the FDA realizes that, like the sun, people won’t be willing to give up their tanning beds either. Instead of fighting what will probably be a losing battle, maybe they hope to scare people into paying more attention to the increased health risks of tanning bed overuse.

Their message: More time spent in tanning beds won’t necessarily result in considerably darker skin, but could result in a greater risk of developing melanoma, or basal and squamous cell carcinomas.

I don’t know if this strategy will work, or if the FDA will even succeed in getting the increased regulatory authority it seeks.

But I do know that if we could go back to the way things were, we wouldn’t even have to participate in the great debate over tanning bed safety!

E-Cigarette Update

E-Cigarette Import Ban Lifted

Is the FDA protecting public health, or is it protecting Uncle Sam’s wallet? Like most spicy conspiracy theories, to get to the bottom of this one, you have to follow the money.

On January 14, 2009, U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon decided that the U.S. FDA could no longer block the importation of electronic, or e-cigarettes, those battery-operated cigarette look-alikes that produce no smoke or carcinogens.

For years, the FDA has justified the importation ban because in its view, e-cigarettes are unapproved gadgets designed to deliver drugs. But the judge didn’t agree. Instead, his decision sided with e-cigarette manufacturers who claim they’re no different than a pack of regular cigarettes and should be regulated in the same way.

They’re also the parties that brought suit against the FDA’s importation ban. The federal judge even went as far as saying that this case is “another example of F.D.A.'s aggressive efforts to regulate recreational tobacco products as drugs or devices."

The FDA’s reaction

Needless to say, the FDA was not happy with Judge Leon’s decision. The regulatory agency stands firm on its belief that e-cigarettes are a public safety threat. It’s so concerned that the Administration is using public safety as the basis for crafting an appropriate response to Judge Leon’s decision.

Which is actually kind of funny in a way. Seems to me if the FDA really was concerned about public safety, they would have done something about real cigarettes long ago. Cigarettes are addictive and they cause cancer. If anything should be banned, it seems cigarettes should be. But they aren’t.


E-cigarettes are—or at least the were—until the federal judge got involved.

And that’s what got me thinking about the money trail and what is more likely behind the FDA’s hesitation to give e-cigarettes the thorough regulatory review they’re due. If e-cigarettes really are a safer alternative to cigarettes, the FDA should let the world know about it. And if they aren’t any better, the world should know that, too.

So why has the FDA been hesitant to conduct more tests on e-cigarettes?

Judge Leon may have taken away any excuses the Administration might have. In another part of his decision, he reminded the FDA that because of the sweeping tobacco legislation passed last year, it has the power to regulate all marketing claims made by e-cigarettes manufacturers. And it has the power to regulate e-cigarette contents. But will it exercise that power?

Here’s what I think

Maybe the FDA doesn’t want to find a safer alternative to cigarettes because of the impact a discovery like this might have on the U.S. economy. Imagine how many jobs would be lost or affected if cigarette demand declined because of competition—farmers, tobacco pickers, tobacco processors, packagers, convenience store owners—the list goes on and on. Now think how much less revenue the U.S. government would take in from taxes and regulatory measures. This could cripple the economy.
And maybe that’s the real problem with e-cigarettes. It’s just a thought.

Aspartame...

Helpful Friend or Deadly Foe?

As we continue waging war against our weight, many of us will consider adding aspartame to our arsenal.

Aspartame is a popular artificial sweetener that is a couple of hundred times sweeter than regular table sugar. Most people are more familiar with its packaging than its name. It’s the one in the blue package called Equal. It’s also marketed as NutraSweet and Spoonful.

If you like super sweet things, aspartame may be a good choice. It has only about 4 calories per gram, which is negligible. And since it’s so sweet, you really don’t need that much. So calorie-wise, aspartame’s impact on your diet is barely noticeable.

Aspartame is not a sugar. It’s a synthetic blend of amino acids that gained FDA approval decades ago. Aspartame doesn’t perform well when heated, so you’ll usually find aspartame in soft drinks, pudding, yogurt, breath mints, gelatin, tea, and other dietary products. It’s also added into some vitamins and sugar-free cough suppressors.

Because it’s not a sugar, aspartame will not cause cavities. It also won’t affect glucose levels, so it’s perfect for diabetics searching for sweet tastes that won’t affect blood-sugar. Its use saves money for manufactures since only a little bit of aspartame is needed to achieve the same level of sweetness that sugar provides.


That’s the good news about Aspartame.

But of course, whenever it seems like there’s a good way to help people lose weight and maintain weight loss, plenty of critics come out of the woodwork.

• One study involving rats fed aspartame-sweetened yogurt suggests that aspartame promotes weight gain. The reasoning is that since aspartame is synthetic, it’s effective in getting taste buds excited. But it does nothing to satisfy taste buds so they crave more calories; creating somewhat of an instant appetite, so people eat more.

• Another study linked aspartame with the development in mice of brain damage. It also linked aspartame with the development of cancerous tumors in rats. Participating rats developed tumors in the testes, liver and thyroid. Believe it or not, this study was conducted by Searle, the company that discovered the artificial sweetener! Rumor has it the results weren’t published or reported to the FDA.

• Yet another study showed that even at levels below currently acceptable daily intake levels (which, if you’re wondering, is 50 milligrams per kilogram of body weight), aspartame had the potential to cause cancer.

• A whole army of scientists believe back-room negotiating going led to aspartame’s approval by the FDA.

• And there’s more. Aspartame has also been blamed for causing headaches, dizziness, and even Gulf War syndrome. Huh?

Who’s right and who’s wrong?

FDA spokespersons stand by their decisions, and point out that aspartame has been extensively studied by regulatory agencies in other countries. Others stand by their test results and their beliefs that aspartame is nothing more than sweet poison and should be avoided.

Me? I’ll stick with natural sweeteners because I believe natural is always better—in moderation, of course.

What do you think?

Blood Donation

Do Something Different This Year — Give Blood

What New Year’s resolutions did you make? Did you resolve to lose weight? Quit smoking? Find a job? Be a better spouse? Something else?

How’s that going for you?

If your New Year’s resolution is already off-track, here’s a better one to try. It’s simple, it’ll make you feel good, and it’ll save people’s lives.

This year, resolve to help others

If you have no health issues, are 17 years old or older, and are within certain weight and height ranges, you meet all the requirements to be a blood donor.

People don’t stop getting into accidents. And they don’t stop needing treatment for serious illnesses, diseases and trauma. But many of them do need donated blood to help them recover. And it’s not just a few people who need it. Right now over 39,000 pints of blood are needed to meet demand. And at least 39,000 pints will be needed to meet tomorrow’s demand, and another 39,000+ will be needed the day after that, and every day after that for the rest of the year.

The people who need blood rely on generous donations from people like you and me. There’s an urgent need for type O negative blood and type B negative, but all types of donated blood will help.

Donated blood is also used to help individuals in need of platelets. Because of their ability to stick together, platelets cause blood to clot. Cancer patients, leukemia patients, burn victims, babies needing intensive care, and people with lots of other serious diseases all benefit from the donated platelets used in their treatments. Problem is, platelets are unusable after just a short period of time, only 5 days. A constant donated supply is the only way to keep up with demand.


Why give blood?

The thought of giving blood makes some people squeamish. Images of needles and blood are an instant turn-off, so they pass up the opportunity to help where help is desperately needed. But giving blood isn’t that big of a deal. It barely hurts and you don’t even have to watch. You just lie down and relax while someone else does all the work. In a few minutes, it’s all over.

And you get something sweet like cookies and juice afterwards to help bring your blood-sugar level back to normal. But that’s not all you get.

• You get a good feeling knowing you did something that will help others.
• You might even get free gifts. In the past I’ve gotten free t-shirts and hats, and free or discounted admission tickets to area theme parks and special events from the blood donor organization in my area.
• You get instant gratification—something you probably aren’t getting from your other resolutions.
• And you get to donate blood several times this year. Donations of blood are allowed every 56 days; donations of platelets every 7 days.

Find out how you can donate by visiting www.redcrossblood.org or calling (800) GIVE-LIFE.

Promise for Type 1 Diabetes Sufferers

New Use for Multi-Tasking Drug Offers Promise for Type 1 Diabetes Sufferers

It’s kind of considered a Grand Slam when researchers discover an unintended use for a prescription drug that’s already in production. All of the research is already done, the drug is on the market and all of a sudden, wham! A new use.

That’s what happened when researchers working with the drug Rituximab (brand name Rituxan) had a Eureka moment. According to a story published recently in the New England Journal of Medicine, Rituximab is showing some great promise for patients newly diagnosed with Type 1 Diabetes.

It turns out that the drug stimulates the body to produce small amounts of insulin. And since Type 1 Diabetes sufferers lack the ability to produce insulin, this is a pretty big deal. Rituxan is commonly prescribed to rheumatoid arthritis sufferers and people diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. So the prospect of using the drug to stimulate insulin production was quite a surprise.

But there’s a lot more testing and research required before doctors will be able to prescribe Rituximab to their Type 1 Diabetes patients, if they end up being able to prescribe it at all.


Researchers were quick to point out potential deal killers including the fact that test group participants receiving the drug versus the placebo produced only a small amount of insulin. Another issue is that it only seems to be effective on newly diagnosed patients.

But even given that limit, it could still be quite a breakthrough considering that over 1 million people suffer from Type 1 Diabetes, and more than 300,000 new patients are diagnosed each year. Also, it’s still way too early to tell whether Rituximab will have any effect on the known Type 1 Diabetes-related complications like heart disease and blindness that develop over time.

Despite all these concerns, researchers agree that the fact the drug appears capable of helping to produce any insulin at all is a major breakthrough. Who knows where that will lead to?

Now that scientists know Type 1 Diabetes patients are even capable of producing insulin, which was previously thought impossible, a whole new wave of research is surely on the horizon. So even if Rituximab isn’t the answer, some yet-to-be-discovered drug may be.

Here’s how Rituximab is thought to work

Researchers think Rituximab has something to do with the drug’s ability to focus on a different set of immune cells than the traditional medicines for the disease focus on. Most Type 1 Diabetes treatments are directed at the cells that attack the pancreas. These are called T-lymphocytes.

But Rituximab targets the antagonizing cells; the ones believed responsible for stimulating the trouble that the T-lymphocytes cause. These are known as B-lymphocytes, or as I like to call them, the “Before the trouble begins” cells. Patients receiving Rituximab showed fewer of these trouble-making b-cells.

It’s easy to see why this new approach is causing a lot of excitement. Besides the observations noted above, treatment with Rituximab may offer other benefits. It’s an outpatient treatment process and it’s also shorter, with 3 weeks of treatment giving a response that lasts up to a full year. And best of all, patients receiving Rituximab needed less external insulin than patients in the placebo group.

Cures and treatments often come from unexpected sources. And this may very well be the case for Type 1 Diabetes suffers if Rituxan lives up to its expectations.

Stay tuned for more updates!

Cell Phones Are Safe?

Good News! Cell Phones Are Safe – Or Are They?

All the reports about how cell phones may cause brain tumors has got parents, educators, doctors and government agencies burning up their rollover minutes spreading the word about the dangers.

But that was before the latest news: Cell phones don’t cause brain tumors!

At least we don’t think they cause cancer. They might, but we’re not really sure, so for right now, let’s go with – they’re safe.

I don’t know; maybe it’s me. But when you read some big headline that says, “Scientific Study Determines Cell Phones Pose No Risk Of Brain Tumors” you come away thinking that cell phones don’t cause brain tumors right?

All of a sudden, it’s okay to buy your little Johnny that cell phone he’s been begging for; the one you were afraid would destroy his young brain cells faster than an egg cooks in the microwave.

Who could blame you for thinking cell phones are safe?

After all, the December 3rd online edition of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute ran those headlines over a story that explained how a 30-year study on brain cancer in Scandinavia concluded that the incidence of brain tumors has not changed significantly during a period including 1998 to 2003, which was about the time cell phone usage was ramping up big time.


Or at least that’s what the survey started out saying. But things got murky from there.

Read a little deeper and the story starts to move from “whew” to “liar, liar pants on fire.” Check this out:

Lead researcher Isabelle Deltour, representing the Institute of Cancer Epidemiology in Copenhagen, reported, "If mobile phones were to cause brain tumors we would expect to see a sudden rise in the number of brain tumors at some point in time, and we don't see it."

Sounds conclusive, right? “Hey, little Johnnie? What color cell phone do you want?”

But don’t buy that phone yet because a paragraph or two later Deltour starts waffling like a politician speaking at a Town Hall Meeting.

She continues by saying, "Either it means that mobile phones don't cause brain tumors or it means that we don't see it yet or we don't see it because the increase is too small to be observed in this population, or it is a risk that is limited to a small subgroup of the population."

Oh. So then cell phones are kind of safe, maybe, but check back with us in a few years to make sure. Meanwhile, you’re left to ponder whether or not little Johnny’s brain could end up on a slice of toast if you give in and add another cell phone to your family plan.

So, are cell phones safe to use?

Beats me. However, anytime a multibillion-dollar industry comes up against public health issues, you’d do well to be suspicious.

So what about you; are you suspicious? Maybe the bigger question is: Could you live without your cell phone if your health was in danger?

New Mammogram Recommendations

New Mammogram Recommendations Cause Anger and Confusion

Just recently, the United States Preventative Services Task Force unveiled updated recommendations for mammogram screenings. And have these recommendations caused an uproar.

Previously, it was recommended that women get an annual mammogram screening beginning at age 40. The new recommendations revised the starting age upward to age 50. But not only that, the new recommendations suggest that average risk women aged 50 to 62 need only get a mammogram every other year. Plus, there are no mammogram screening recommendations for women aged 72 and older.

If a woman is part of a breast cancer high-risk group, for example, a sister or mother has been diagnosed with it, the Task Force does recommend more frequent screenings.

An ulterior motive?

As you might imagine, the new mammogram screening recommendations have set off a chain reaction of opposition. They’ve also led to accusations of health care rationing and insurance industry meddling. On all sides of the fence, emotions are running high as women, doctors, the American Cancer Society and other interested parties try to make sense of these recent recommendations.


I have to admit, the first thing I thought about when I heard the updated screening recommendations was the possibility of losing an important health insurance benefit I’ve come to rely on. I was angry and upset about more meddling into my private life. But I must admit, after taking time to hear the task force’s reasoning I’m willing to be more open-minded.

First and foremost, the task force claims the new recommendations are not financially or politically motivated. The group assures the public that its analysis was fair, that participants are skilled at interpreting research data, that its research approach is endorsed by the Institute of Medicine, and that the recommendations were made before debate about health care reform was a daily occurrence.

They point to the increased risks younger women experience when exposed to more frequent mammograms. Too many false positives often lead to unnecessary stress and anxiety, and also to additional screenings including biopsies and MRIs. More frequent screenings also mean more exposure to radiation over a woman’s lifetime.

Another problem has to do with perception. Too many people mistakenly believe that a mammogram prevents cancer. It doesn’t and there currently isn’t anything that can prevent cancer. A mammogram’s main purpose is detection.

The task force reminds us that a mammogram won’t save a life. The same is true about breast self-examinations, which the task force also believes are ineffective in saving lives. Proponents point to the screenings’ ability to detect cancer sooner, when they believe treatment options are usually more effective. But whether and for how long a woman survives breast cancer once confirmed depends on the stage of the cancer and available treatments.

No wonder we’re confused

To help simmer the confusion over the new recommendations, women are being encouraged to discuss with their doctors their medical and family history along with the benefits and disadvantages of age-related mammogram screenings.

And now that I’ve looked at both sides, I can honestly say that’s what I think makes the most sense!

Cigarette Smoking

Some News about Cigarette Smoking

Few deaths are as preventable as those that result from cigarette smoking. When you stop and think about the many different ways cigarette smoking harms the body, it really is amazing that anyone still does it. Cigarette smoking damages your heart, your lungs, your esophagus, your skin, your teeth, gums, lips, and more.

I’m not saying anything that smokers aren’t already well aware of. Many years have been spent arguing lawsuits against tobacco companies. Countless dollars have been spent on campaigns designed to increase public awareness. Schools teach children as young as 10 about the dangers of smoking.

Yet still, millions of people across the globe continue to do it. It doesn’t seem to matter that nearly five and a half million people die each year because of tobacco or that the death toll is expected to increase dramatically to over 8 million in just 20 years.

According to the World Health Organization, there are about 1.3 billion smokers in the world right now and if that’s not scary enough, the organization also reports that a former or current smoker dies every 6.5 seconds. That’s nearly 10 people every single minute of every hour, every day of the year. One-third to one-half of all smokers lives an average of 15 years less than those who don’t smoke. For those that live, smoking affects their quality of life to a much greater extent than those that don’t.

Safer cigarettes?

Regardless of what smokers want to believe, there aren’t any “safe” cigarettes, either. Flavored cigarettes are just as deadly. In fact, the US FDA recently banned the sale of flavored cigarettes to minors. Cigarettes that taste like candy or fruit or cloves are just killers in disguise. Their sweet taste doesn’t make them any safer, but it does attract younger non-smokers at an alarming rate. Once smokers take up the habit, it’s very difficult to break.

What also aren’t any safer or healthier are “light” cigarettes. A lot of smokers make the switch to light cigarettes thinking that it’s a first step towards becoming smoke-free. However, studies show that this doesn’t happen. Many do make the effort to stop smoking, but most are unsuccessful. The failure rate may have something to do with smokers mistakenly thinking that light cigarettes are better for them.


Because they think this way, they’re less motivated to stop and as a result, quitting altogether ceases to become a priority. Success resulting from a recent lawsuit gives the FDA the power to restrict sales of some tobacco products, regulate the tobacco industry’s marketing efforts, and even limit the amount of nicotine in some products. And that’s a good thing. We recently wrote an article about the Electronic Cigarette, but is this really any safer, we still dont know.

It’s a tough addiction to overcome

But even so, there’s no denying that cigarettes are highly addictive and anyone that says they’re not is lying. Once a person starts, it’s really difficult to cease. That’s not to say that people don’t stop. Many do, and never smoke again. But many more quit just temporarily, resuming the habit when the effects of nicotine withdrawal get too strong.

If you smoke, ask yourself whether it’s time to get serious about quitting.

The Faces Were Scary

The Faces Were Scary, but the Face Paint Was Even Scarier!

Way back in history, strange things were happening to beautiful people and no one knew why. It took a while to figure out the cause of so many untimely deaths and problems such as irritability, infertility, madness, and skin issues. The culprit? Makeup.

Up until very recently, there were no corner drug stores or department store cosmetics counters. So men and women relied on the fruits of the earth to enhance their images. As long as they were doing things like using strawberries to color their lips, there weren’t any problems. But they also used ground up semi-precious stones and natural minerals like malachite and galena which, in case you don’t know it, are composed of lead, copper, ore and other metals.

Today we are very aware of the dangers associated with these metals, especially when ingested and, in the case of makeup, applied directly to the skin.

That’s why I was so surprised when I learned that some face paints sold this past Halloween season contained many of the same metals that in the past caused so many health issues and even death!

We’re living in the 21st century, aren’t we?

I wasn’t the only one surprised by the report compiled by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. According to the report, ten different brands of Halloween face paints targeted at children were sent to an independent lab. There the different face paints were tested for heavy metals.

All of them contained lead and just over half of the samples tested positive for nickel, cobalt, or chromium, all of which are known skin allergens. This is despite labeling on at least one of the products tested that claimed it was non-toxic and hypoallergenic.


Putting our children at risk

We tell our kids to be safe on Halloween by using flashlights, not eating unwrapped candy, and walking in groups. But we don’t tell them to be careful about what they put on their faces, which may actually be the biggest threat to their safety at Halloween or any time!

Lead can damage children’s developing brains, even at low levels of exposure. And exposing children to skin allergens can cause lifelong sensitization and contact dermatitis – an allergic reaction – on the face.

Here’s what surprises me even more

Don’t think that just because Halloween is over, so is the danger. Anytime your children apply face makeup when they play dress-up, or during theatrical performances, or even for no reason at all, the risks exist. Why? Because of lax laws and staffing shortages.

There currently aren’t any laws requiring ingredient labels on cosmetics or other personal care products to list lead, heavy metals or other contaminants. Because it lacks the authority, the FDA can’t require companies to assess the safety of their products or the ingredients in those products before coming onto market, either. The FDA is required to approve any color additives used in cosmetics, including face paint and theatrical makeup, so there is some oversight.

But that’s not enough for many parents, including me! Please let us know what you think...

The Latest News About Obesity

The Latest News About Obesity is Alarming!

As weight increases, so do the consequences to your health. You probably already know the health issues commonly associated with excess weight and obesity; things like Type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, coronary heart disease, stoke, sleep apnea, breathing problems, and increased difficulty with mobility.

The cancer link

But what you may not have heard is that those extra pounds are thought to be linked to the development of cancer, especially cancer of the breast, esophagus, uterus, kidney and colon. Evidence also supports a probable link between excess weight and a higher risk of developing cancer of the pancreas, gallbladder, ovaries, and thyroid.

According to the National Cancer Institute, a whopping 14% of cancer deaths in men and 20% of cancer deaths in women have been attributed to excess weight or obesity! If the increased risk of heart disease, sleeping and mobility problems aren’t enough to motivate you to start living a healthier lifestyle, maybe the potential link to cancer will.

But if not, here’s something else to think about as you ponder whether to sit on the couch tonight with a bag of potato chips or take a walk around the block:
If you’re a woman, and you’re middle-aged, the extra weight you’re carrying around could prevent you from living a long, healthy life!

That bag of chips doesn’t sound so appetizing right now, does it?

How much excess weight is too much?

You’re probably wondering how much excess weight puts you at higher risk of developing the types of health issues mentioned above. That gets a little complicated, but the guidelines that determine healthy weight versus overweight versus obesity are based on a calculation of your body’s height and your body’s weight. The resulting number is called BMI or Body Mass Index.

We all have a weight range that’s considered healthy for our height. However, when we gain weight, the excess weight can put the percentage of body fat your body carries into dangerous territory.

• A BMI between 18.5 and 24.9 is considered healthy.
• An overweight adult has a BMI between25 and 29.9.
• An obese adult has a BMI of 30 or higher.


If you’re uncomfortable with your weight, or are already experiencing health issues because of excess weight, you probably don’t need to figure out your actual BMI. You already know what you have to do to live a longer, happier life.

You need to adopt a healthier lifestyle.

That means eating more of the right foods, getting your body in motion, and doing a better job managing your weight. Instead of calorie-dense foods, start eating nutrient-dense foods like whole grains, lean protein, vegetables, fruits, and “good” fats.

Also try changing the way you think about exercise. Exercise doesn’t have to mean grueling and intimidating workouts at the gym. Instead, do what you enjoy. Play tennis, bike, walk, swim, dance, or kayak. The point is to get your body moving.

If you find it difficult to make these changes on your own then change for the people ones you love. They want you around as long as possible!

Should Marijuana Be Legalized?

What Do You Think? Should Marijuana Be Legalized?

If you live in California or any of the other dozen states with laws allowing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, you could argue that marijuana already is legal. That’s because, whether you have one of the problems for which marijuana’s use is recommended or you don’t, you can obtain it legally simply by consulting with the “right” doctor.

And isn’t that the way it’s always been with marijuana and most other drugs, and really, anything in life? If you want something badly enough, eventually you find a way to get it. That’s what motivates us to work harder to achieve our goals.

The benefits of legalized marijuana

So the biggest benefit of legalizing marijuana seems to be eliminating the risk of getting “caught” buying or selling marijuana and suffering the associated consequences. But it has the potential to do something more, and that something more is getting the attention of state lawmakers everywhere.

If marijuana legalization is handled at the state level as opposed to the federal level, individual states will have total control over marijuana growing and distribution. Reading between the lines, this means that state governments may be in a position to profit – not just a little bit, but a lot – by taxing marijuana sales.
In addition to making money, states can potentially save quite a bit of money. With marijuana legalized, it’ll put an end to the millions of dollars spent each year arresting, processing, and trying individuals accused of distributing or possessing marijuana.

It would seem then that legalized marijuana might just be a state budget’s best chance at achieving balance. Or is it?

What are the downsides of a community that sustains itself by selling pot?

Legalization of marijuana for medicinal use has spawned an entire industry. Average citizens as well as university professors are teaching courses on how to cultivate marijuana and classes are filled to capacity. Young and old alike are becoming farmers, growing the maximum number of plants allowed. Suppliers provide growers with florescent lighting, containers, watering systems, soil enhancers, pruning gear, how-to manuals and more. Stay-at-home moms create and sell tasty treats that include marijuana on the ingredients label.


It seems everyone is getting in on the marijuana business, and profiting. Competition is strong, and innovation is applauded. And there’s nothing wrong with that. But what happens if this very lucrative business model collapses?
As with everything, with the good comes some bad.

Violent crime is on the rise in areas with medicinal marijuana dispensaries, turning once-safe neighborhoods into battle grounds. The prevalence of the product makes it hard for children and adults to “Just Say No.” And you don’t just light up a pipe and smoke marijuana anymore. Now synthetic marijuana is available in pill form, and work is underway to develop better and faster-acting delivery methods. The marijuana available today tends to be more potent, too.

The jury’s still out

As it has been for decades, marijuana legalization will continue to be a very hotly debated topic. Do you smoke or know someone that smokes the fine green herb? Tell us what you think about marijuana legalization.

The Electronic Cigarette

Are Electronic Cigarettes Any Better?

The first time I saw someone smoking a cigarette in the mall, I was shocked. I mean, cigarette smoking in public places? That’s against the law where I live. I couldn’t believe how someone could be so bold and so inconsiderate. But then something interesting happened. I didn’t smell that nauseating cigarette smoke odor. I walked right by the smoker and smelled nothing. Boy, was I confused. Then my teen-aged daughter explained why I didn’t smell anything. “It’s an electric cigarette,” she said, so matter-of-factly.

A what?

Hundreds of thousands have taken up the electronic cigarette habit, thinking they’re getting a healthier alternative. Battery operated, e- cigarettes mix a liquid with nicotine. As the mixture heats up, it turns into a vapor. And that vapor is what e-cigarette enthusiasts inhale or “vape.”

Some smokers who have been unsuccessful in kicking the regular cigarette habit have found success with e-cigarettes. Others just like the fact that they can “smoke” these cigarettes in places where it’s usually against the law to smoke, like shopping malls. Still others like that they now have an option to traditional cigarettes. But are e-cigarettes really any better?

Here’s what people are saying about e-cigarettes:

Cost
Long-term, e-cigarette smokers probably come out ahead. But each person has to do the math and compare the expense to the amount they spend on traditional cigarettes. Initially you have to slap down a huge chunk of cash to buy the electronic cigarette. Prices range from a low of $69 and go as high as $200. After that, you need only purchase replacement batteries and cartridges. A package of 5 costs around $6.50 and each cartridge lasts the equivalent of about 10 traditional cigarettes.

Fewer carcinogens
Because they don’t burn or produce smoke, e-cigarettes have no tar or other carcinogens. So there’s no danger to others from second-hand smoke. The lack of smoke also means no unsightly stains on teeth, no foul breath and no stinky clothing.

So the perception is that they’re a healthier alternative. However, the safety of e-cigarettes is a source of heated controversy since they reportedly contain diethylene glycol, something found in antifreeze; a substance that’s known to be toxic to animals and humans. Verifiable studies on the product’s safety concerns agencies like the FDA. Ideally, the FDA would like to restrict sales of the product until more is known about the safety issue and regulations have been put into place.

Nicotine dosage
E-cigarettes have less nicotine than traditional cigarettes. But nicotine is still present. While e-cigarettes may be effective smoke cessation devices, they don’t end people’s addition to nicotine.

Freedom to smoke
For now anyway. Because e-cigarettes produce no odor, people are “vaping” them (inhaling the vapors) in places where cigarette smoking is currently banned. However, work is underway to implement the same type of restrictions currently in place for traditional cigarettes. So it’s hard to say how long this freedom will last.


For more information about the Electronic Cigarette, please visit the Wiki Page.

Have you made the switch to e-cigarettes? If so we want to know what you think!