Thermography - The Newest Line of Defense in Early Cancer Detection

  More women are diagnosed with breast cancer in America than any other cancer. Fortunately, treatment has come a long way, indicated by the 89% of women who had a five- year survival rate from 1999-2006 (National Cancer Institute). But early detection still plays a vital role in optimizing a breast cancer patient’s chances for full recovery. Women today understand the importance of annual mammograms and monthly self examinations, but many women have not tried or even heard of another early detection exam available to them: breast thermography.

Breast thermography, also known as Digital Infrared Thermal Imaging (DITI) is a simple, safe non-invasive test of the breast. Thermography can provide early detection of breast conditions beyond what is possible through monthly self-exam, doctor exam or mammogram. Thermography works by taking infrared images of the breast that detect minute temperature changes associated with breast inflammation and tumors. Having this information allows for the earliest possible intervention and treatment. It involves no radiation, discomfort or pain, and the entire thermography scan takes about 15 minutes.

What is the difference between a thermogram and mammogram?

Breast thermography plays a role in early detection and monitoring of abnormal physiology, including breast cancer, and is considered a screening device. Mammograms, on the other hand, are used to precisely locate an abnormal area and are considered a diagnostic tool. Breast thermography does not replace mammography. Rather, the two are considered complementary to each other.

Who can benefit from thermography?

All women can benefit from breast screening with thermography. It is especially appropriate for younger women (age 30-50) whose denser breast tissue makes it more difficult for mammograms to be effective. Thermography is also an ideal choice for women of any age who, for any number of reasons, are unable to undergo routine mammography. Thermography can provide a clinical marker to the doctor or mammographer, pinpointing a specific area of the breast that needs particularly close examination.

There are no conditions that make thermography inadvisable and it can be safely and effectively utilized by women who are pregnant, breastfeeding or have implants. It should be noted, however, that breasts are more highly vascularized, meaning they have more blood vessels during pregnancy and breastfeeding. Such vascularization can make baseline screening through thermography more difficult. Typically, thermography will only be used on a pregnant or breastfeeding woman suffering from a specific complaint such as a lump, discomfort or infection. Baseline routine screening should ideally be done 3 months after a woman has stopped breastfeeding.

What are the early breast cancer detection guidelines?

There is no single method for the early detection of breast cancer. Using a combination of methods will increase your chances of detecting cancer in an early stage. These methods include :

• Mammography for all women who are aged 40 or older.
• Regular breast thermography (DITI) screening for adult women of all ages.
• A regular breast examination by a health professional.
• Monthly breast self-examination.
• Personal awareness of changes in the breasts.
• Readiness to promptly discuss any such changes with a doctor.

These guidelines should be considered along with your background and medical history.

Can thermography detect breast cancer?

It takes years for a tumor to grow, thus the earliest possible indication of abnormality will allow for the earliest possible treatment and intervention. Thermography can play an important role in monitoring breast health and assisting in early detection.

Breast cancer tends to grow significantly faster in younger women:

AGE AVERAGE TUMOR DOUBLING TIME

• Under 50 years old 80 days
• 50 – 70 years old 157 days
• Over 70 years old 188 days

Source: Cancer 71:3547-3551, 1993

The faster a malignant tumor grows, the more infrared radiation it generates. For younger women in particular, results from thermography screening can lead to earlier detection and, ultimately, longer life.

Doctors do not yet know how to prevent breast cancer. However, you can increase your chances of detecting breast cancer in its earliest stages by understanding the need for and participating in an early detection program.

About 20% of biopsied breast lumps are cancerous. If you find a lump, act quickly–when cancer is found early there are choices for treatment, and with prompt treatment the outlook is good. In fact, most women treated for early breast cancer will be free from breast cancer for the rest of their lives. So be sure to maintain an early breast cancer detection regimen that includes annual mammograms and monthly self exams. And consider whether adding thermography to your regimen is the right choice for you.

Reference: Lauren Feder, M.D. specializes in homeopathy, pediatrics and primary care medicine. Known for her holistically minded approach and combining the ‘best of both worlds,’ Dr. Feder is a frequent lecturer for parents and professionals and is the author of Natural Baby and Childcare and The Parents’ Concise Guide to Childhood Vaccinations. www.drfeder.com.

SUNSCREENS…The good, the bad and the ugly

 

This article looks at some sunscreen agents commonly in use:

Octyl Methoxycinnamate and other cinnamates cause photo and contact allergy and do not effectively block UVA. We must ask, what is the point of using a sunscreen agent that causes allergy in the presence of sunlight?

Benzophenones/oxybenzone/benzoylmethanes do absorb some UVA radiation but have been found to cause photo/contact allergy and most significantly, they tend to imitate and therefore exacerbate existing skin disease (including acne).

Titanium dioxide effectively blocks out UVA radiation and therefore protects against skin cancer. Although this is also a photon scattering agent (UV reflector), it does absorb UV radiation which produces free radicals in the presence of water. Many manufacturers use different methods to “coat” the particles, making them less reactive.

Salicylates commonly cause photo allergy.

PABA (Paramino benzoic acid) is part of the B group of vitamins. Taken internally, it can help prevent UV damage. Used externally, it causes phototoxicity and sensitisation. PABA generates free radicals when exposed to sunlight, predisposing the skin to cancer. It does not effectively block UVA radiation.  It is banned as a sunscreen agent.

Zinc oxide effectively blocks out UVA radiation, has the benefit of being inert on the skin (it does not absorb UV radiation) and has skin healing properties. It does, however, contain large particles and can form a paste when applied to the skin. The finer the zinc particles, the less visible they are on the skin. Micronized superfine zinc is the best choice for minimizing the “paste-effect” without resorting to nanoparticles.

Iron oxide is found naturally in mineral clays.  Due to the large particle size, iron oxide also acts as a UV reflector and is inert in the sun (does not produce free radicals). Natural mineral clays also contain varying proportions of other UV protectors such as titania.

It must also be noted that this discussion of the active constituents in sunscreens is academic without paying respect to the ingredients in the carrier or base formulation. Do they cause free radical damage themselves and in particular, how well do they stand up to sun exposure?

There are instances of people using sunscreens who have reacted to the excipients (base materials/carriers) included in the formulation, such as preservatives, fragrances and emulsifiers, which have caused contact allergies. So there is cause for concern not only about the active ingredients in sunscreens, but about the inert ingredients as well. Ed note: I don’t know about anyone else but standard sunscreens make my eyes sting and water particularly after swimming in the surf. I worked out that for me, it is probably the product fragrance that is causing this effect. In any case, it has been a long time since I have used a conventional sunscreen as I prefer to stick to zinc oxide based products, including GOOD DAY SUNSHINE Sunscreen from Kasia Organics.

There are a number of base ingredients to look for such as antioxidant vitamins C and E at effective concentrations. Vitamins C and E (tocopherol) are known to protect against skin cancer, particularly when applied topically as they prevent free radical damage from UV radiation. Certified organic shea butter, sesame and avocado oils have natural UV protective qualities, primarily due to their vitamin A and E content. Shea butter also protects against burning (UVB radiation) and is an excellent emollient, softening the skin and preventing the formation of wrinkles. Aloe vera, a plant which has been shown to prevent DNA damage to the skin following sun exposure and its use in treating burns of all descriptions is well-known and an excellent inclusion as a base ingredient. Antioxidant medicinal strength herbal extracts of ginkgo biloba, green tea and pomegranate are also excellent for their ability to protect against DNA damage from UV radiation.

Reference: by Tess Dingle ND

Extracts from 'Toxic Beauty' Environmental or Genetic?

Environmental or Genetic?

Studies have shown that environmental factors play a huge part in the onset of cancer, with only around five per cent being genetically predisposed.³ Environmental factors from this perspective can incorporate anything that people are exposed to, such as substances consumed, smoking, natural and medical forms of radiation, including exposure to the sun, workplace exposures, drugs, social and economic factors and substances existing in the air, water and soil.⁴ In addition, aging, alcohol, infections, hormonal factors, pollution, lack of exercise, sexual behaviour that elevates exposure to particular viruses and consumer products are all implicated in various types of cancers, to different degrees.

Dr Epstein points out that carcinogens taken in by mouth are absorbed from the intestines and transported to the liver, where they can be detoxified to different degrees, depending on the substance, but carcinogens absorbed through the skin reach can enter the bloodstream without this prior protective detoxification by the liver.

(EU/UK based data)  Push to Ban Chemicals Linked to Breast Cancer

The evidence of Oestrogen

In the EU campaigners have urged MEPS to strengthen chemicals legislation, following a report suggesting that some chemicals may be associated with rising incidences of breast cancer. Professor Andreas Kortenkamp, head of the Centre for Toxicology at the University of London, has pointed to significant evidence that the rise in breast cancer is linked to environmental exposures to substances such as hormone disruptive chemicals that mimic oestrogen. In the report commissioned by the health and environmental alliance HEAL and Chem Trust, Professor Kortenkamp said,

“There is overwhelming evidence that oestrogens are strong determinants of breast cancer risks…Given that natural oestrogens and man-made oestrogens used as pharmaceuticals have a role in breast cancer, concerns arise about the potential contribution of industrial chemicals and pesticides with hormonal activity.”¹¹

Oestrogens are required for breast development but they also play a role in the development of breast cancer. Natural oestrogens act on the ‘end buds’ of the epithelial ducts in mammary glands to promote growth through elongation and branching of the duct system. This takes place initially during the foetal stage and then again at puberty and finally during pregnancy. It is this growth of the end buds that links oestrogens to breast cancer. Oestrogens cause an increase in cells that can be prone to cancerous growth. The breast is most susceptible to cancer causing influences during periods of growth, such as during puberty. In the womb, the mother’s oestrogen levels affect the number of end buds that develop in the foetus, with higher levels of oestrogen causing more end buds to grow, this effectively increases the cell pool from which cancer cells can be drawn.

Although Professor Kortenkamp acknowledges that numerous factors play a role in breast cancer, he continues, “There is a case for relinquishing the dominant view of breast cancer as a life-style and genetic disease and for reappraising the role of environmental factors, including chemical exposures. With UK breast cancer incidence at an all time high, risk reduction will not be achievable without considering preventable causes, particularly exposure to chemicals.”¹²

As well as prohibited industrial chemicals such as PCBs, still being detected in human tissues, there are a host of chemicals used in consumer products that have hormone disrupting properties, including phthalates, bisphenol A, UV filters, commonly used preservatives such as parabens, and numerous others. Many of these have been found to act in a similar way to the sex hormone oestradiol, although much higher concentrations are required to cause as pronounced effects. Environmental pollutants such as PCBS and certain pesticides do not act alone, but in combination with natural oestrogens and other hormonally active chemicals in a woman’s body, including chemicals released during the preparation of food, man-made chemicals including environmental pollutants (dioxins, pesticides, PCBs), synthetic cosmetic constituents (such as some synthetic fragrances, UV filters, antioxidants) and plant derived oestrogens present in some foods. Although the hormonal strength of these chemicals in much lower than natural or pharmaceutical oestrogens, research has shown that quite a significant number of chemicals can enhance the effects of natural oestrogens.¹³

Professor Kortenkamp presented evidence that whilst low levels of certain individual chemicals have no detectable impact on breast cancer, the combined additive effect of mixtures of these chemicals (even at low concentrations that would not usually present an observable effect), has a much greater impact. Testing a combination of 11 xenoestrogens (man-made chemicals that behave like oestrogen in the human body) on the actions of the hormone oestradiol, Professor Kortenkamp found that the combined effect of the xenoestrogens led to a dramatic enhancement of the hormone’s action, even when each agent was present at levels that do not individually generate measurable effects.¹⁴

Other research demonstrated than four organochlorines acted together to enhance the proliferation of human breast cancer cells, suggesting again that mixtures of certain chemicals produce a combined effect even when each agent is present at concentrations that individually produce insignificant effects. The combination effects of the mixture were stronger than the effects of the most potent individual component (thus the combined effects were synergistic).¹⁵

Many studies have found that the risk of cancer developing is elevated if exposure to carcinogens begins in infancy, rather than later on in life. Young children have a greater susceptibility to carcinogens because the cells rapidly divide during childhood and if they are rapidly dividing following exposure to a carcinogen, any genetic mutation that has occurred is more likely to be fixed.²³ There are various other reasons why babies, young infants and children are at greater risk. For instance, children take in more oxygen per kilogram of body weight than an adult and therefore more air pollutants, low molecular weight compounds can readily cross the placenta, newborn babies have more absorbative skin because it is not fully keratinised (therefore without one of the skin’s main protective barriers) until several days after the baby is born and various organs such as the lungs and brain are still developing. Children have different exposures, pathways of absorption, tissue distribution and responses to environmental exposures, and they also eliminate chemicals in different ways.²⁴ This all needs to be considered when looking at the potential adverse health effects of environmental exposures.

The U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), an interagency program that evaluates agents of public health concern, produce a report on carcinogens (ROC), which currently contains 246 listings of known and reasonably anticipated human carcinogens.²⁵ Our households and other external environments play host to a variety of known and potential carcinogens. Some of those listed substances we may commonly encounter that are known or suspected of causing cancer, according to the U.S. National Toxicology Program, include:

• Tobacco
• Red and preserved meats
• Salt
• Salt-preserved foods
• Alcoholic beverages
• UV radiation from the sun
• Sunlamps or tanning beds
• Viruses and bacteria
• Ionising radiation - from sources such as radon
• Radioactive substances - released by atomic bombs or nuclear weapons, and x-rays
• Pesticides - such as ethylene oxide, DDT, amitrole, hexachlorobenzene, lead acetate and lindane
• Medical drugs - such as cyclophosphamide and chlorambucil used to treat cancer
• Oestrogens - long-term users of combined oestrogen and progesterone oral contraceptives may have an increased risk of early-onset breast cancers and liver cancer; tamoxifen may also increase the risk of developing endometrial cancer
• Solvents - such as benzene, chloroform, methylene chloride and trichloroethylene
• Fibres
• Fine particles and dust - such as asbesto fibres, ceramic fibres, wood dust and silica dusts
• Dioxins
• Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
• Metals - such as arsenic, beryllium compounds, cadmium metal and cadmium compounds, chromium, lead and nickel
• Diesel exhaust particles
• Toxicants from fungi
• Vinyl chloride
• Benzidine.

Known and potentially carcinogenic ingredients in cosmetics include among other things:

• Acetaldehyde
• Acrylates
• Butylated Hydroxyanisole (BHA)
• Butylated Hydroxytoluene (BHT)
• Coal tar
• Hydroquinone
• Synthetic musks (used in fragranced consumer products)
• Teflon
• Organic solvents (e.g. toluene, formaldehyde, xylene)
• Phthalates
• UV filters in sunscreens (e.g. padimate O, para-aminbenzoic acid (PABA), oxybenzone, avobenzone).
• Cosmetic grade lanolin
• Hair dyes
• Parabens
• Talc
• Silica
• Diethanolamine (common ingredients containing diethanolamine (DEA) include: cocamide DEA, cocamide MEA, Lauramide DEA, Myristamide DEA, Oleamide DEA etc)
• Artificial colours

References and the rest of the article:  http://toxicbeauty.co.uk/blog/2009/07/21/toxic-beauty-extracts-cosmetics-and-cancer/

Hair coloring products linked to lymphatic cancer and Kassie's comments.

Hello, blooming Informed Beauty!

Unlike the unpredictable weather as of late, there is a solid and STEADY growing current of studies in the personal care/beauty industry that is now surfacing and being accepted.

This weekend I spent a couple hours reading a professional  forum on hair straighteners and which are safe in results of the "Brazillian Blowout" lie.  Believe it or not, there were 320 posts of stylists feeling sick, and desperately searching for alternatives.  Many are so fed up with the industry lies (much how they squeeze silent substitutes in quote "ammonia free color") and are purchasing instruments to measure the true chemicals at home/in salon.  WOW!

When I first started researching health in relation to the hair and skin booming industry, much  of the data was hidden, and highly controversial. I know that we are seeing more transparency and understanding  in our personal care due to the number of clients and friends that continually send feedback and emails sent to my email  inbox (ex: thank you Nancy, for the article posted in this newsletter!)

My suggestion is to always consider the source, the motive, and the end "action" of what you've read.  I am always here for further questions, as it my passion to always grow and learn in what our own revelations are in the choices we have.  Daily...moment by moment....and comfort isn't easy to break from.

Enjoy the following "blurb" and have a great one, Informed Beaute'

Hair coloring products linked to lymphatic cancer

Long-term use of hair dye promotes lymphatic cancer, says this new research from Yale University. The finding isn't surprising: the toxic ingredients used in hair dyes have long been known to be highly carcinogenic. It's yet another example of the health dangers of personal care products like deodorant, perfume, shampoo and soap: all of which contain toxic ingredients that are inevitably absorbed through the skin and enter the bloodstream.

The FDA openly allows personal care product manufacturers to use highly toxic ingredients by hiding behind the ridiculous position that such products are for external use only and, therefore, don't present a health hazard to the public. It wasn't too many years ago that most doctors and health researchers thought the skin was impermeable. But today, the FDA must certainly know that the skin is porous, since the agency has approved so many "patch" drugs that deliver chemicals to the bloodstream through the skin (such as the nicotine patch, for example).

Yet the FDA continues to allow personal care product manufacturers to use openly carcinogenic and toxic ingredients in their formulas, without any requirement whatsoever to even list those ingredients on the labels! An analysis of one popular perfume product, for example, showed it to contain more than forty toxic compounds known to cause liver cancer. None of the cancer-causing chemicals were listed on the label, and the FDA seems to be in no hurry to require such labeling. Can you imagine? "Poison: Yes, it's really poison."

That hair dyes have been linked to cancer is really no surprise to those familiar with the toxicity of personal care products. Practically every popular product contains at least one cancer-causing chemical, and hair dyes are near the top of the list.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/000922.html#ixzz1JKVeQsCe

99% of Pregnant Women in US Test Positive for Multiple Chemicals

99% of Pregnant Women in US Test Positive for Multiple Chemicals Including Banned Ones

ScienceDaily (Jan. 16, 2011) — The bodies of virtually all U.S. pregnant women carry multiple chemicals, including some banned since the 1970s and others used in common products such as non-stick cookware, processed foods and personal care products, according to a new study from UCSF. The study marks the first time that the number of chemicals to which pregnant women are exposed has been counted.

---

Analyzing data for 163 chemicals, researchers detected polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), organochlorine pesticides, perfluorinated compounds (PFCs), phenols, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), phthalates, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and perchlorate in 99 to 100 percent of pregnant women. Among the chemicals found in the study group were PBDEs, compounds used as flame retardants now banned in many states including California, and dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane ( DDT), an organochlorine pesticide banned in the United States in 1972.

Bisphenol A (BPA), which makes plastic hard and clear, and is found in epoxy resins that are used to line the inside of metal food and beverage cans, was identified in 96 percent of the women surveyed. Prenatal exposure to BPA has been linked to adverse health outcomes, affecting brain development and increasing susceptibility to cancer later in life, according to the researchers.

Findings will be published in Environmental Health Perspectives on Jan. 14.

The study was not designed to identify direct connections to adverse health outcomes.

"It was surprising and concerning to find so many chemicals in pregnant women without fully knowing the implications for pregnancy," said lead author Tracey Woodruff, PhD, MPH, director of the UCSF Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment.

"Several of these chemicals in pregnant women were at the same concentrations that have been associated with negative effects in children from other studies. In addition, exposure to multiple chemicals that can increase the risk of the same adverse health outcome can have a greater impact than exposure to just one chemical," said Woodruff, an associate professor in the UCSF Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences.

Exposure to chemicals during fetal development has been shown to increase the risk of adverse health consequences, including preterm birth and birth defects, childhood morbidity, and adult disease and mortality according to the research team. In addition, chemicals can cross the placenta and enter the fetus, and in other studies, a number of chemicals measured in maternal urine and serum have been found in amniotic fluid, cord blood and meconium, they state.

The researchers analyzed data for 268 pregnant women from the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey (NHANES) 2003-2004, a nationally representative sample of the U.S. population.

"Our findings indicate several courses of action. First, additional research is needed to identify dominant sources of exposure to chemicals and how they influence our health, especially in reproduction," said Woodruff. "Second, while individuals can take actions in their everyday lives to protect themselves from toxins, significant, long-lasting change only will result from a systemic approach that includes proactive government policies."

Co-authors of the study are Ami R. Zota and Jackie M. Schwartz of the Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, UCSF Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences.

Linalool, A Common Essential Oil Constituent, Shown to Have Anti-Cancer Effects

Much research has been published on the anti-tumorial & anti-cancer effects of essential oils. The research seems to have focused on a few oils with long histories of medicinal use: Frankincense, Myrrh and Lemongrass are examples. Research abstracts are available through Pub Med, at www.pubmed.gov -- a search for 'essential oil cancer' yields hundreds of results. Linalool, Found in Lavender and Other Oils, Decreases Liver Cancer Cell Viability

Linalool has been the subject of numerous studies investigating its anxiolytic (anti-stress) effects. Inhalation of Linalool, extracted from natural essential oils, leads to decreased aggressive behavior, lessens stress response (see Lavender: Nature's Anxiolytic), and improves sleep.

Now, in a study just released in the Journal of Chemico-biological Interactions, researchers at the American University of Beirut focused on a specific natural constituent of many common essential oils: Linalool. Linalool is the 'sweetness' of many oils; Lavender is perhaps the most popular linalool-containing oil, though it is found in many, many species of plants. One of the chemotypes of Thyme essential oil is called c.t. (for 'chemotype) linalool, meaning this particular variety of thyme has a high percentage of the linalool molecule.

Linalool Appears to Kill Cancer Cells at a Very Low Concentration

In this study, linalool derived from steam distilled Coriander essential oil was found to decrease the viability of the HepG2 cell line, cells of liver cancer used throughout the world for cancer research. Coriander was chosen as the spice is considered to have important medicinal qualities. Linalool inhibited these liver cancer cells from replicating. A concentration of 0.4 micromole inhibited 50% of the cells from replicating, a concentration of 2 micromol inhibited 100% of the cells from replicating, thereby destroying the cancer.

Now we don't claim to be high-tech researchers here, but we did take a bit of chemistry in college. It appears this is an exceptionally small amount of linalool -- 1 mole of Linalool is 154 grams. This appears to be .000308 grams of linalool per liter of solution the cell line was bathed in.

Given that most Lavender species produce an essential oil containing between 30 and 40% linalool, this is astounding. 25 drops of Lavender essential oil delivers in somewhere around .3 grams of linalool. This is easily absorbed when topically applied. Some medical aromatherapists consider Lavender safe to ingest in small amounts as well. This is the freely available abstract:

Study: Linalool decreases HepG2 viability by inhibiting mitochondrial complexes I and II, increasing reactive oxygen species and decreasing ATP and GSH levels.

Usta J, Kreydiyyeh S, Knio K, Barnabe P, Bou-Moughlabay Y, Dagher S. Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.

Coriander is used as an appetizer, a common food seasoning in Mediterranean dishes, and a remedy for many ailments. In this study we tested the biochemical effect of its essential oil components, in particular linalool, its main component. The oil extract was prepared by hydro-distillation of coriander seeds. The various components were identified by gas chromatography coupled to mass spectroscopy.

The effect of the various oil components on the viability of different cell lines (HepG2, Caco2, NIH3t3, MCF7 and Hek293) was examined using MTT assay. Linalool was the most potent and HepG2 cells the most sensitive. A 50% and 100% decrease in the viability of HepG2 was obtained at 0.4muM and 2muM linalool, respectively. Whereas none of the other components exerted a significant effect at concentrations lower than 50muM, myrcene and nerolidol, the structural analogues of linalool, were more potent at 100muM than the other components decreasing HepG2 viability to 26%.

The biochemical effect of linalool on mitochondria isolated from HepG2 showed a concentration-dependent inhibition in complexes I and II activities of the respiratory chain, and a time-dependent decrease in ATP level. In addition, a time-dependent decrease in glutathione (GSH) level and in the reduction of nitroblue tetrazolium was obtained, indicating increase in reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation. Pretreatment with the antioxidants: N-acetyl cysteine (2mM), Trolox (100muM) and different flavonoids (50muM) was partially protective against the linalool-induced cell death; the most effective response was that of rutin and apigenin which restored 91% of HepG2 viability.

We hereby report a decrease in cell viability of HepG2 cells by linalool and identify the mitochondria as one possible target for its site of action, inhibiting complexes I and II and decreasing ATP. In addition linalool increased ROS generation and decreased GSH level.

posted by Tarah Michelle Cech, ND

Could Your Hair Color Give You Liver Disease?

A recent study out of England has linked hair dye with progressive liver disease. Published in the international gastroenterology journal, aptly called Gut, British researchers revealed the findings of over 5,000 people who were surveyed about their risks for primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) -- an early form of liver cirrhosis and long-term progressive autoimmune disease. PBC is thought to be caused, at least in part, by certain environmental factors such as chemicals found in hair dye.

Of those surveyed, women who color their hair were 37% more likely to develop PBC than women who don't.

Respondents were not asked how often they dyed their hair, so it's not clear how much of a role this played in the liver disease, but the report states past research has shown a correlation between PBC and chemicals found in cosmetics, particularly octynoic acid, which is found in hair dye and nail polish.

Other factors, such as genetics, pre-existing autoimmune diseases, smoking and certain skin conditions were also found to increase the risk for PBC.

This is not the first time that our quest for beauty has been linked to possible harmful effects.

Did you know the average woman uses up to 20 different beauty products a day and ingests seven pounds of lipstick over her lifetime? Or how about the fact that a woman who uses makeup every day absorbs five pounds of chemicals into her body each year?

While many of the chemical ingredients in these items have not yet been tested and FDA approved, meaning the risks are still unknown, some have been linked to conditions ranging from minor skin irritations to cancer.

link!

http://www.stylelist.com/2010/05/13/could-your-hair-dye-give-you-liver-disease/

TAXING TOXIC TANNING: HEALTH CARE REFORM

Jennifer Wider, MD Society for Women's Health Research

The tanning industry came into focus recently during the national debate on health care. One of the changes included in the new health care reform legislation is a tax on tanning salons. Under the new law, tanning salons will start charging a 10 percent tax on all indoor tanning services. The tax is expected to generate roughly $2.7 billion dollars over ten years.

Not surprisingly, there are people upset by the new measure. According to Joseph Levy, the vice president of the International Smart Tan Network, tanning salon owners and industry professionals are working to have the taxes removed. He reports that businesses and customers have sent over 200,000 letters to Congress asking for a reconsideration and removal of the tax, which will be effective July 1, 2010.

And then there are many people who feel the tax is justified. The American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA) has long held the position that indoor tanning is dangerous and increases a person’s risk of skin cancer. Dr. William James, president of the Academy, believes that there should be a federal ban on the use and sale of tanning beds in this country. In written testimony to the government, James states that a proposed ban would be: “an important step toward reducing the incidence of skin cancer in the United States and building a greater public understanding of the dangers of UV exposure.”

Skin cancer cases are at an all-time high in the United States. According to the American Cancer Society, more than one million new cases of skin cancer will be diagnosed this year. Melanoma, which is the most dangerous type of skin cancer, has also become the most common cancer among women aged 25-29, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Ga. Bad sunburns that include blistering increase melanoma risk. Long-term exposure to the sun increases risk for melanoma and the two other less serious types of skin cancer, basal cell and squamous cell carcinoma. The use of tanning salons also has been linked to skin cancer.

According to Elizabeth C. Smith, MD, a dermatologist at Cohen Dermatology Associates in Fairfield, CT and member of the teaching faculty at The Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City, “In addition to escalating the risk of potentially fatal melanoma, a person who tans is 2.5 times more likely to develop squamous cell carcinoma and 1.5 times more likely to develop basal cell carcinoma than a person who does not. Multiple studies have shown the earlier a person begins to go to tanning salons, the greater the risk of skin cancer later in life.”

The dangers of indoor tanning have long been established, but health organizations have recently stepped up their warnings. “In 2009, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified tanning beds as an exposure that is “carcinogenic to humans,” says Dr. Smith. “The IARC went further, grouping tanning beds with other Group I carcinogens such as asbestos, arsenic and cigarettes. Given the well-documented and widely accepted danger of tanning beds, the government has an obligation to regulate the industry and to inform the public of the hazards associated with tanning.”

Despite the myriad of public service announcements and warnings, young people still frequent tanning salons in large numbers, especially young women. According to Smith, “Young women often report wanting “color” before a vacation or event, and some confess to tanning for relaxation.” Many don’t seem to understand the risks involved: “most young people do not fully understand the risk of ultraviolet exposure, partly due to the tanning industry’s confusing campaign touting the merits of tanning to raise Vitamin D levels (important for bone health). In fact, most tanning beds emit primarily UVA light, which does not efficiently convert Vitamin D to its active form.”

Many health professionals feel that the new tax on tanning salons will send a clear message to the public that indoor tanning has real risks and potentially lower the number of young people using them on a regular basis.