US researchers have identified a link between chemicals found in non-stick cookware and heart disease.
But Australian experts have urged caution about the findings, which suggested increasing levels of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in the blood were associated with cardiovascular disease.
PFOAs are found in products including lubricants, polishes, food packaging and non-stick cookware.
But people can also be exposed to the chemicals in drinking water and the air, a study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine said.
The study reviewed the levels of the chemical in 1216 people with heart problems.
The findings were independent of other factors including age, sex, smoking, weight, and diabetes.
The authors from the West Virginia University School of Public Health said the results contributed to the data emerging on the health effects of perfluoroalkyl chemicals.
But the study could not conclude that the chemicals actually caused heart problems, the authors said.
Chair of Water Quality Research Australia Professor Michael Moore said ubiquitous exposure to PFOA, although at low levels, in non-stick cookware, could cause considerable anxiety.
He said the chemical was also found in coatings on clothing and carpets and in plumbing tape.
Prof Moore said although the authors had tried to remove other lifestyle factors from the equation, there was still a possibility the PFOA levels were caused by other exposures.
“The key point is that there are numerous established contenders for cardiovascular disease risk factors – smoking, lifestyle, exercise, diet – all of which may contribute more to cardiovascular disease than PFOA exposure,” Prof Moore said.
http://bigpondnews.com/articles/Health/2012/09/04/Chemical_link_to_heart_disease_791276.html
• Asbestos Horror
PEOPLE exposed to asbestos as children in a Western Australia mining town are developing cancers and dying sooner than the general population.
An Australian study, published in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine, is the first to look at the long-term health effects of children from Wittenoom in WA, which closed eventually after the deadly blue-asbestos mine shut in 1966.
The study found girls up to the age of 15 who lived in Wittenoom had higher death rates and were more likely to develop the asbestos-related disease mesothelioma, ovarian and brain cancers.
Boys who lived in the town between 1943 to 1966 when the mine was in operation had higher rates of mesothelioma, leukaemia, prostate, brain and colorectal cancer.
They also had circulatory and nervous system diseases and excessive death rates, the study found.
The Western Australian Institute for Medical Research (WAIMR) study found that 2460 Wittenoom children had been exposed to the asbestos before the age of 15, with the median age of exposure being three years of age.
By the end of 2007, 228 of them had died from a range of causes. There were 215 cases of cancer in 207 individuals at the end of 2009.
Breast cancer was the most common cancer among women, with 28 diagnoses, followed by mesothelioma with 13 cases.
Mesothelioma was the most common cancer in men, with 29 affected, followed by skin cancer which affected 17.
Wittenoom girls had a 20 to 47 per cent greater risk of dying from any cause while the risk for boys was 50 to 83 per cent higher than the general Western Australian population.
The township of Wittenoom was originally just 1.6km from the mine but it was moved 12km away in 1947 as the population grew.
Most of the children left the town before the age of 16, so were they were exposed to asbestos only in childhood.
http://www.news.com.au/national/cancer-cases-linked-to-wa-mining-town-of-wittenoom/story-fndo4eg9-1226464354454
• Dr Alison Bleaney OBE MB ChB FACRRM:
I came across an article in The Australian 6 Sept 2012 on the new dental scheme, and it says we in Tas already have one of the highest expenditures for public dental health but our outcome is ‘crap’.
Why would this be when Tas was one of the first to introduce fluoride to the drinking water?
Could it be that adding this toxic chemical to our water simply doesn’t deliver what our public health officials insist it does in the way of protecting our dental health? So who is reviewing this costly exercise….costly in $, costly in adverse effects…..who is looking at the outcomes gained (or not) and the costs of adding fluoride to drinking water?
