Category: Your Health Matters

(NaturalNews) The $825 billion stimulus package rolled out by congressional Democrats last week contains billions of dollars in government spending that is being added in to supposedly create jobs and stimulate the economy. It`s interesting to note that the stimulus package contains a number of items that these congressional leaders don`t often mention.

The stimulus proposal was drafted by Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.), the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. The “American Recovery and Reinvestment Bill” asserts that without this federal spending; America will certainly face “economic chaos.”

“Without this package, we are warned that unemployment could explode to near 12 percent,” Obey warns in a statement that accompanied the bill`s release. “With passage of this package, we will face a large deficit for years to come. Without it, those deficits would be devastating and we face the risk of economic chaos.”

“Tough choices have been made in this legislation and fiscal discipline will demand more tough choices in years to come,” the statement contends.

The bill has promised $275 billion in tax cuts and $550 billion in “thoughtful, targeted investments.”

The statement also says: “This package is the crucial first step in a concerted effort to create and save 3 to 4 million jobs, jumpstart our economy, and begin the process of transforming it for the 21st century with $275 billion in economic recovery tax cuts and $550 billion in thoughtful and carefully targeted priority investments.”

Some “priority investments” include:

— $650 million to assist Americans in upgrading to digital cable after the February 17, 2009, official transition to digital television. $2 billion to provide day care services to 300,000 additional low-income children. $1.2 billion to create approximately 1 million summer jobs for young people. $6.2 billion to improve the homes of low-income families to make them more energy efficient. $1.5 billion to build “Community Health Centers.” $20 billion to provide “nutrition assistance” for middle-income families and to loosen restrictions for the length of time people can receive food stamps. An undetermined amount to “provide 100 percent federal funding through 2010 for optional State Medicaid coverage of individuals (and their dependents) that are receiving unemployment benefits or have exhausted those benefits.”

$44 million to make repairs and improvements to the headquarters of the Department of Agriculture located in Washington, D.C. $276 million to upgrade information technology at the State Department. $400 million in repairs to various “national treasures.” 200 million for work on the National Mall, $150 for maintenance performed at the Smithsonian Institution and $50 million to supplement a “lack of philanthropic support for the arts.”

$3.1 billion for “infrastructure project” funding on federal land. This includes $1.8 billion for the National Park Service, $650 million for the U.S. Forest Service and $300 million for the National Fish Hatcheries. $209 million for maintenance at the federal Agricultural Research Service`s research facilities located across the nation. $2.5 billion to improve government-owned housing with new insulation, windows, and furnaces.

$600 million for NASA to fund projects like satellite sensors used to measure solar radiation for understanding climate changes. $1.9 billion for the Department of Energy for “basic research into the physical sciences.” This includes topics like nuclear physics and fusion energy. $850 million for “wild land fire management.” This includes $550 million to states for “volunteer fire assistance,” “city forest enhancements” and “wood to energy” research. $400 million for “habitat restoration” projects. These will be administered by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. $2.4 billion for projects involved in carbon-capture technology.

$2.7 billion for “rural water and waste disposal” grant programs. The purpose for these loans is to finance digging wells and to extend municipal water services in rural areas. $600 million to “prepare our country for universal health care.” This will be achieved by training more doctors, dentists, and nurses.

Source: http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=42138

About the author
Jo Hartley
Wife, Mother of 8, and Grandmother of 2
Jo is a 41 year old home educator who has always gravitated toward a natural approach to life. She enjoys learning as much as possible about just about anything!
http://loftymatters.com – Current Events
http://winemaiden.com – Simply Abundant Living

(NaturalNews) The Associated Press (AP) estimates that hospitals and long-term medical care institutions across the United States are dumping 250 million pounds of pharmacologically active drugs directly into public sewer systems each year.

Because the government does not require health institutions to keep records on their disposal of pharmaceutical products, there are no definitive numbers on the volume of drugs going into the water supply. In order to construct an estimate, AP investigators extrapolated from a survey of 14 urban and rural Minnesota hospitals.

Minnesota’s state government strongly encourages health care facilities to keep records of drug disposal.

After adjusting for Minnesota’s relatively low rate of prescription drug use and doubling the number to account for the greater waste typically produced by long-term care facilities, the AP concluded that at least 250 million pounds of drug waste and drug-contaminated packaging are thrown away each year. This includes expired or spoiled drugs, leftovers from too-large prescriptions, drugs that are prescribed but not needed, drugs that patients refuse to take or that are halted due to negative side effects, or drugs left over when patients die.

The researchers could not determine what proportion of the 250 million pounds consists of packaging, but experts estimate that it may be roughly half.

The vast majority of this waste is disposed of by flushing it down sinks or toilets, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A 2006 survey by a water company of 45 long-term care centers found that roughly two-thirds of drug waste was disposed of through the sewer system.

“Obviously, we’re flushing them – which is not ideal,” said Mary Ludlow of White Oak Pharmacy, a company that works with nursing homes and assisted-living facilities.

This pharmacological waste is much more potent than the drugs that patients flush down their own home toilets, including not only stronger versions of over-the-counter drugs but also highly toxic chemicals like cancer treatments. Tests of hospital sewers in Oslo and Paris have revealed high concentrations of antibiotics, heart drugs, hormones, painkillers skin medication — in addition to the well-known high concentrations of bacteria, viruses and other pathogens.

Dumping drugs into water is far from harmless, although the exact nature of the danger remains poorly understood. But scientists agree that drugs remain pharmacologically active even after disposal, and can have severe effects on humans and wildlife. Studies of wastewater near hospitals in Europe and the United States have found higher concentrations of antibiotic resistant bacteria and of organisms with genetic mutations similar to those that can cause cancer in humans. Another study on antibiotics in the fluoroquinolone family, including best-seller ciproflaxin, found that these drugs could cause changes to bacterial DNA.

Even worse, hospitals and long-term care facilities are only two sources of the drugs that, all across the country, are being dumped in large quantities into the water supply. Vast quantities of unprocessed drugs are excreted by people’s bodies into the sewage system, while other institutions such as small medical and veterinary practices and hospitals at facilities such as prisons are also flushing unmetabolized drugs. According to Linda Peterson, a nurse at a prison in Oak Park Heights, Minn., her prison throws out approximately 12,000 pills per year, including antibiotics, heart drugs and narcotics.

“We flush it and flush it and flush it – until we can’t see any more pills,” Peterson said. “So what are [other] facilities doing, if we’re throwing away about 700 to 1,000 pills a month?”

Even after highly diluted with thousands of gallons of water, such drugs remain biologically active. Early research into the problem suggests that in concentrations equivalent to those found in drinking water across the country – according to AP, a minimum of 46 million people are exposed to such water, with most water still untested – drug residue can cause harm to aquatic species like fish and amphibians. Laboratory tests confirm that such concentrations also disrupt healthy growth of human cells.

According to pharmacist and researcher Boris Jilibois from the Compiegne Medical Center, there’s enough proof of risk to justify immediate action.

“Something should be done now,” he said. “It’s just common sense.”

The scale of the problem is so large that the EPA has classified pharmaceutical products as “major pollutants of concern.”

“Treating the toilet as a trash can isn’t a good option,” said Ben Grumbles, the agency’s head water administrator.

But the agency has stopped short of imposing regulations on the disposal of such products or their contaminated packaging.

“It’s strange that we have rules about the oil from your car; you’re not allowed to simply flush it down the sewer,” said U.S. Rep. Tim Murphy. “So why do we let these drugs, without any kind of regulation, continue to be flushed away in the water supply?”

According to Grumbles, the EPA should decide whether to impose some sort of regulations by the end of next year. One measure that has been suggested is requiring pharmaceutical companies to pay for proper disposal of their products, as financial considerations are a major factor influencing hospitals into simply dumping drugs down the drain. Incinerating a pound of drugs in a hazardous waste incinerator, for example, costs about $2, compared to 35 cents in a normal trash incinerator.

No one seems to agree, however, what a favorable method of drug disposal would be. While drugs leach more slowly out of landfills, they do still infiltrate the groundwater over time. Incinerators destroy drugs more thoroughly, but contribute significantly to air pollution and can even eject trace amounts of pharmaceuticals into the air.

“I don’t think we’re encouraging incineration of anything,” Stephen DiZio of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control said. “The public outcry would be so great.”

Sources for this story include: www.usatoday.com.

(5 stars)
This is a first-rate piece of magazine journalism – a strong example of how journalists can educate readers about the importance and difficulties of scientific research.

(1 star)
A 6-minute segment almost completely devoid of evidence and data, riding the single personal anecdote of the network’s medical editor.  Disease-mongering.  Incomplete story on heart CT scans.

(3 stars)
Not serious health journalism. Pure infotainment with more "tainment" than info. It probably won’t lead any reader to do anything stupid or dangerous – a low bar to pass over, but there it is.

(3 stars)
An engaging piece, detailing some of the behind the scenes work to uncover a new use for a generic medication.  But not enough information about the magnitude of benefits or harms with this drug. 

(0 stars)
For the 2nd time in a month ABC devoted a big chunk of airtime to promote one man’s experience and his new book. But again they failed to evaluate the evidence in what felt like an infomercial. 

(4 stars)
Good job presenting the findings of a significant study, describing the results accurately and with sufficient details. But no discussion of costs and no independent expert quoted.

(4 stars)
What a refreshing experience that this paper reported that a magic bullet may be losing its magic! Kudos for not simply reporting the study du jour, but for painting a broader big picture context.   

(5 stars)
Solid job balancing positive study findings with negative ones, providing opportunity for a skeptic to air concerns. Good to see a newspaper devote more than 1,000 words to a story these days!

(2 stars)
This story medicalizes a normal state of health – a few additional pounds or inches. The story lacked evidence and data from the alleged 50,000 who’ve had it – an astoundingly poor use of air time.

(2 stars)
11 patients?  Would this story have been reported so prominently if it weren’t the week between Christmas and New Year’s? No costs, no harms, no independent analysis, classic disease-mongering.