(NaturalNews) The journal Lancet Infectious Diseases recently published a sobering piece about how antibiotics are becoming wholly ineffective as treatments for infection. According to the report, even the most powerful antibiotics available are largely inadequate at tackling the emerging forms of new and powerful "super" bacteria.

Antibiotic overuse has become a pandemic problem. They are used in animal feed to make animals grow more quickly and they are handed out like candy by many doctors to people with almost any ailment. And they are simply not working anymore to fight infection.

Published by Professor Tim Walsh and his colleagues, the paper explains how a new gene called NDM 1 is changing the way infectious bacteria survive. The NDM 1 gene passes among bacteria like E. Coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae and makes them resistant to antibiotics. Even carbapenems, the most powerful antibiotics available, are no match for these new bacteria.

"This is potentially the end. There are no antibiotics in the pipeline that have activity against NDM 1-producing enterobacteriaceae. We have a bleak window of maybe ten years where we are going to have to use the antibiotics we have very wisely, but also grapple with the reality that we have nothing to treat these infections with," explained Walsh in a recent Guardian piece.

According to Dr. Livermore, director of the antibiotic resistance monitoring and reference laboratory at the U.K. Health Protection Agency, the entirety of modern medicine could collapse as a result of antibiotics becoming useless.

"A lot of modern medicine would become impossible if we lost our ability to treat infections," he emphasized.

Sources for this story include:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2...

(NaturalNews) More than 80 percent of male bass in the Potomac River on the U.S. Atlantic coast are producing eggs or showing other female traits, the nonprofit Potomac Conservancy has warned, in a call for more research into the causes of intersex fish.

In a recent U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) report, intersex fish were found in a third of all 111 sites tested across the United States, including in major waterways such as the Mississippi River and the Rio Grande. The phenomenon occurred in 16 different species, but was most common in male smallmouth and largemouth bass.

Researchers agree that the phenomenon is almost certainly caused by the presence of pollutants in the water, including endocrine- (hormone) disrupting chemicals and the residue of pharmaceutical products.

"We have not been able to identify one particular chemical or one particular source," said USGS biologist Vicki Blazer. "We are still trying to get a handle on what chemicals are important."

Among the chemicals likely to be contributing to the problem, Blazer cited birth control pills and other hormone-containing drugs, antibacterial products including tissues, personal care products (especially those containing fragrances), flame retardants, pesticides and fertilizers.

"In fertilizer [and pesticides] there's natural estrogen and testosterone and other things ... so if we can hopefully pinpoint some of those mixtures or individual chemicals that then perhaps we could manage better," Blazer said.

It has been hard to narrow down the list of major contributors, however. For example, Blazer tested fish up- and downstream of sewage treatment plants to see if the factories might be major sources of endocrine-disrupting pollutants. She found no difference in rates of sexual abnormalities.

The Potomac Conservancy has called for more research into the problem.

"We've got to figure out what the heck is going on here," said the group's president, Hedrick Belin. "And we've got to figure it out sooner rather than later because it's clear the longer this mystery continues it's only going to lead to bad things yet to be discovered."

Because the hormonal systems of all vertebrates are strikingly similar, anything that has an impact on fish living in water is likely to have an effect on humans drinking it, as well. Yet figuring out the specific effects of tainted water on people may prove difficult.

"Because fish, of course, are in the water all the time," Blazer said. "But what's in your drinking water, what you might be exposed to through skin and food and everything else, is another issue for people."

Even if researchers eventually figure out which chemicals are the major contributors to sexual deformity in fish, that may shed little light on the question.

"It's going to be a lot harder to get to how these chemicals affect people because of course you can't experiment on people," Blazer said.

Approximately 4.5 million residents of the Washington D.C. area get their drinking water from the Potomac.

According to the Potomac Conservancy, individuals can help reduce watershed pollution in part by making more careful purchasing decisions. Consumers should reduce their use of toxic chemicals such as pesticides, and look for more natural cosmetics and other products.

"The chemicals that are in personal care products such as some of the antimicrobials, fragrances, are endocrine disruptors," said Blazer. "So being smart about the kinds of products you're buying -- because they are available in things that are fragrance-free, antimicrobial-free, things like that -- are things that individuals can do."

Conservancy supporter Rep. James P. Moran of Virginia has urged people to always take old or unused drugs back to a pharmacy for disposal.

"Don't flush pharmaceuticals down the toilet," he said. "They don't disappear when you flush them."

The Potomac Conservancy is also working on a campaign to get pharmaceutical technologies to dispose of drugs more safely, and calling for better water filtration technology.

"We need to get these toxins out of our river water," Belin said.

Sources for this story include: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme... http://www.wvpubcast.org/newsarticl... http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/l... http://sundaygazettemail.com/News/2....

08 September 2010

Doctors often ask for an x-ray scan if they are worried about the health of a fetus, but they are also increasing the chances of the child developing cancer, researchers warn this week. Doctors usually recommend a CT scan if they are worried that the child is not developing properly, or if there is a health concern, but scientists suggest that a safer diagnostic tool should be used instead. Although the risk from the scans is low, the researchers reckon that it increase the chances of childhood cancer 1.8 times. They stress that there is no risk with the standard ultrasound scan, a favourite of most parents who want to see images of their developing child on a screen. (Source: PLoS Medicine, 2010; 7: e1000337).


Breast cancer: x-ray link
The high rate of breast cancer in the US is caused by liberal use of medical x-rays, a leading expert has claimed.

Many women were given high doses of x-rays by doctors before the carcinogenic effects of radiation were appreciated. Probably 75 per cent of all the 182,000 cases of breast cancer reported in the US every year are due to medical x-rays, he says.

The claims are made by John Gofman, professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California, after he studied medical research going as far back as 1910.

But Gofman's conclusion has not impressed many cancer experts, who fear that many women may be frightened off from having mammograms, which supposedly detect early cancers.
Since preparing his book, Preventing Breast Cancer, Gofman has increased his estimates of cancers caused by x-rays to 90 per cent.

He points out that x-ray therapy was once very prevalent, used to to treat a range of conditions from pneumonia to acne and hair removal. Gofman estimates that women's breasts receive 0.4 rad of medical x-rays a year for each year of life; then, comparing that dosage with the levels suffered by Japanese atomic bomb survivors, he reckoned that 114,000 women, or 62 per cent of those diagnosed every year with breast cancer, could blame x-rays as the cause. But, he added, as he had built in so many caveats, he increased the figure to 75 per cent to give a fairer indication.

(Preventing Breast Cancer, by Dr John Gofman, published by the Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, Inc., San Francisco, California).

A recent study doesn't go along with Gofman's findings. The National Cancer Institute has assessed the breast cancer risk among radiologic technicians, and found that their work was not a contributory factor (JAMA, August 2, 1995).

a. Commercially-Raised Animal Products:
b. Plastics & Canned Goods (many have plastic lining)
c. Personal Care Products (makeup, lotion, & perfumes)
d. Oral Contraceptives
e. Pharmaceutical medications
f. Food Additives & preservatives
g. Styrofoam products
h. Laundry & Dishwashing detergents
i. Household cleaners & air fresheners
j. Pesticides & Herbicides