Unnecessary chemical exposures?

[Margaret Diann]

shared by a friend,

"Your page at http://www.valdezlink.com/ban.htm reminded me of situations told me by a Vietnam War veteran by the name of Mr. Jacobs who lives in central Illinois.

He served in the US Navy, I think in a destroyer off the coast of North Vietnam while they were shelling enemy shore batteries.

He related to me how they used Xylene and Xylol along with toluene for gun and machine degreasers which apparently made the crewmen rather sick most everytime they used the stuff. The illnesses always worsened when they had to clean the .50 cal and 20 mm guns as they had to handle smaller parts without protective gloves. The gloves would slow them down during combat conditions when time was crucial. Thus, solvents would be absorbed through the skin directly into the bloodstream which of course taxed the liver which labored to cleanse the blood of these organic compounds.

Mr. Jacobs did a 2 year duty there, but was able to finish his tour of duty back in California, which saved him from further longterm exposure to those nasty chemicals.

Many many sailors who served with Mr. Jacobs reported longterm effects from using those solvents, but to no avail. From what I gathered from a few vets, the VA and Pentagon essentially ignored these complaints to the hilt.

Trouble is, Mr. Jacobs has suffered effects from the war until the 1980s which may have included low sperm count plus very poor sperm motility, so low and poor that he and his wife were not able to have children.

Their personal doctor was the one who advanced a personal theory that Mr. Jacobs had suffered longterm problems from those solvents, but never went ahead with tests to confirm this. I have no idea why.

Anyway, the bottom line is: the VA has a long history of igoring significant health problems apparently birthed of military procedures which are probably preventable which is sad.

These problems appear from the smallest bases to the fabled area fifty-one.

One cannot therefore be one bit surprised by the gov't's position regarding 2-(2-butoxy)ethanol!

Best regards" - Mike



Here is an example of tuolene exposure
Web pages should open, if not 'click' twice

Here's a very good reason NOT to DRINK

[HARDCORE]

Dear Maggie et al:

"Unfortunate but true!"

The Pentagon and the Military almost always attempt to subvert the truth as concerns exposure to damaging elements and even experimentation! (DAIG-IN 21-75, COS MEMO 385, Church Senate Reports of 1977 etc)

I assume that this is done to avoid world condemnation, culpability, embarrassment, immediately dismissal from the good life, and maybe even a little jail time! "Alas, the lie has replaces honor in far too many of the higher circles!"

I find it disturbing to ponder the thought that these moral cretins embrace any god, as even though their self-serving, self-deifying, self aggrandizing agendas may serve them well here among the equally loathsome, those who prosper through me-ism and the gleeful infliction of pain, will someday learn that their foul deeds have rendered them naught but the mark of Cain and a one way, ever-lasting vacation in Hell!

So laugh away now ye fools, for there is little humor to be found in Hades! And anyone, no matter how powerful or well placed, who engages in these domestic atrocities, may very well find themselves sitting astride other beasts who reasoned themselves to be above the laws of common decency and God! (opinion)

VERITAS

[Seascamp]

Tip if the iceberg me thinks. No doubt the Gunners would have had some super strength solvents and cleaners but more or less the same stuff found in industry and places like auto repair shops. For ages auto shops had hot tank de greasers all filled up with carbon tetra chloride and once that was found to be so devastating, it was gone and outlawed for industrial use. These days a citrus-based solvent is used.
During WWII there was a factory making radium dial aviators watches, so all the Gals that were painting on the radium got sick and died due to various forms of cancer.

These days I think we are a lot more careful about introducing new chems and or processes but I think there is a painful learning curve behind the mistakes that were marketed without sufficient testing and analysis. And for obvious reasons, not a lot is said about the mistakes.
I recall the great ?Whiteout Purge? where that product was found to have carbon tetra chloride in the formula and as a result, Whiteout was instantly eliminated from work desk tops and drawers across the land.

Scamp

[Margaret Diann]

Well said

When the full story is in on what 2-butoxyethanol does to people (Pretty much 'gulf war syndrome' symptoms) I think this chemical will be banned from use altogether.

But of course, it has to get the 'credit' in the first place (which is NOT the case)

Accurate diagnosis on the blood damage etc. will help (that happens first) Restated this post

And then a study of the people groups harmed by it. Forget about the rats; they don't live long enough to show what the cumulative effect is of exposure - harm to the organism, not bioaccumulation, I've been told, is what is happening here: the more exposure, the more you are harmed.

That's why I suggest no drinking to Gulf War vets. Even a mild form of this chemical can add to your chemical overload ... and let's stop short of cancers, if we can!

Another thought to be minor exposure is the ethyl alcohol in DAWN. I would think that the component in DAWN is fairly mild ... except that one Gulf War vet described to me that they were 'washing' trucks/equipment that came back from the Saudi Arabia and that the whole group of them got sick after about 10 days of continous 'duty' She said they wore no protective gear (WHY should they? ... it's only soap)

So, what I would have otherwise expected to be a minor chemical to be concern with is NOT when you have too much exposure to it.

[Hawk]

Maggie, Perhaps its time to reconsider your position that drinking is bad for you?
Consider this article on the subject;
--------------------------------------------
Study: 1 or 2 alcoholic drinks can help even men with high blood pressure
(Boston-AP) March 23, 2004 - Even men with high blood pressure apparently benefit from a few drinks now and then. Until now, doctors advised them against drinking, because alcohol increases blood pressure.

But, researchers at Brigham and Women's Hospital and the Veterans Affairs hospital in Boston have found that moderate amounts of alcohol increase "good cholesterol" and reduce heart attack risk even for men with hypertension.

It's the first study to expand on what earlier studies found in the general population.

Lead researcher Doctor Michael Gaziano says the benefits are seen with a half-glass to one or two glasses of an alcoholic beverage per day. More than that, he says, brings blood pressure and cancer risks that "offset the good things the alcohol is doing," and begins "to wash away the benefits."

posted 11:44am by Chris Rees
--------------------------------------------

There are numerous studies on the effects of alchol, that either claim it helps or hinders a persons health. Perhaps it is best to leave the decision to drink or not to drink up to individuals and their physicians?

Hawk

[Hawk]

yet another article on the benifits of drinking in moderation. Kind of makes you want to reconsider your earlier position or perhaps you where only encouraging people not to consume denatured alcohol

Doctor discusses benefits of moderate drinking
Monday, March 22, 2004
From Vine to Wine by David Falchek

The father of what has become known as the ?French Paradox? preached to more than 500 members of the wine industry last week about the health benefits of moderate alcohol consumption.

In a talk that was part scientific presentation, part revival, Dr. R. Curtis Ellison summarized studies, now in the hundreds, that connect moderate alcohol consumption with better overall health and lower risk of disease. His pithy report often brought the audience of wine industry representatives to cheers.

The Boston College epidemiologist best known for a 1991 appearance on ?60 Minutes? to discuss the French Paradox, was the keynote speaker Monday in Lancaster, Pa., at Wineries Unlimited, a tradeshow and convention that attracted many wine industry representatives from the Finger Lakes.

?60 Minutes? host Morley Safer noted that the French do everything wrong in terms of their health: they eat a high-fat diet, they don?t jog and they smoke, yet they have much lower heart disease rates than Americans. That became known as the French Paradox.

?The key to understanding the French Paradox is to realize that it?s not that they drink more, but that they drink regularly,? he said. ?Many of the protective effects of alcohol are short-lived, 24 to 36 hours or less. So never go more than a day without a drink.?

Ellison said that despite the overwhelming scientific evidence, the federal government and physicians fail to present fair and balanced information on alcohol and health.

?It is no longer reasonable for physicians to fail to discuss alcohol consumption with patients for fear that encouragement to consume alcohol moderately might possibly lead them to abuse alcohol,? he said. ?There is no question that moderate drinkers have less heart disease.?

He cited the England?s Ministry of Health?s official stance on alcohol, endorsing moderate consumption as a component of a healthy lifestyle.

Ellison cited research connecting moderate alcohol consumption with everything from decreased risk of obesity and Alzheimer?s disease to increased bone density. Alcohol also increases HDL ? or ?good cholesterol? ? even more than vigorous exercise, he said.

He derided what he called the ?political science? of alcohol research in the United States and described how officials at the National Institute for Health in 1974 suppressed results from the Framingham Heart Study that reported abstinence from alcohol as a risk factor for coronary heart disease.

Ellison did his best to balance his pro-alcohol presentation. Alcohol abuse leads to increased violence and accidents, increased incidence of cancers of liver and gastro-intestinal tract, even brain disorders. Binge drinking, which he defined as five to six drinks at one sitting, is unhealthy, he added.

And at least one study, suggested that moderate consumption of alcohol increased the incidence of breast cancer 5 percent for women. He said the connection merits more scrutiny and said the potential 5 percent increased risk for breast cancer should be considered against the well-established 70 percent decrease in coronary heart disease.

Ellison listed five guidelines for a living a healthy lifestyle:

? Avoid obesity.

? Eat a diet high in fiber and unsaturated fat and low in trans fat and glycemic load.

? Engage in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity for at least two hours a day.

? Don?t smoke.

? Consume a minimum of one-half to two typical alcoholic beverages a day.

?So many of the rules for health are ?don?t,? ?don?t? and ?don?t,?? he said. ?We know that moderate consumption of alcohol is one thing we can do that can help increase health and longevity.?

Ellison is a professor of medicine and public health at the Boston University School of Medicine. He is also director of the Institute for Lifestyle and Health and a senior researcher in the Framingham Heart Study.
--------------------------------------------

The French Paradox...hmm??

Hawk

[Hawk]

in reply to your statement, "Actually, I would think that the component in DAWN is fairly mild ... except that one Gulf War vet described to me that they were 'washing' trucks/equipment that came back from the Saudi Arabia and that the whole group of them got sick after about 10 days of continous 'duty' She said they wore no protective gear (WHY should they? ... it's only soap)"
one question comes to mind as a possible cause for their illness, they were washing trucks/equipment that had been used during the gulf war, what about the possibility something they washed off the trucks/equipment making them ill. after all the trucks/equipment had been driven through and exposed to the same toxins present during the gulf war, DU, nerve agents, ect..
the very act of washing the trucks/equipment of could have increased their exposure.
Just a thought
Hawk

[Margaret Diann]

Good points, all!

Thank you.

If all was in moderation ... there wouldn't be too much chemical exposure to be worried about anyway.

[Boats]

Hey Maggie,

Lot's of things in the service can kill ya other than the bullets or the bombs. Only trouble is they don't tell you until much later in your life.

[Margaret Diann]

I'm getting that picture ... and it shouldn't be so

Just think of what we thought the casualties were in the first Gulf War ... only a few hundred killed in action & some as wounded

Weren't there a few hundred thousand with the 'gulf war syndrome'? Many of whom are dead now?

Isn't that likely to be the case again today?

I'm very concerned that we are poisoning our own troops on a large scale with a commonly used solvent/pesticide/poison. Probably in weapons' cleaning; maybe jet fuel ... and a few things they think

The USA has been duped by the real villans, the chemical companies!