From the February 22 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

Previously:

Limbaugh: "For The First Time In My Life I Am Ashamed Of My Country"

Limbaugh On Michelle Obama: She "Is Not Proud Of Her Country Unless She's Getting What She Wants From It"

Limbaugh Again Proudly Declares He Was The "One Person" Who Said "I Hope [Obama] Fails"

View the original article here

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) this week intensified its campaign to reduce exposure to radon by urging homeowners across America to test for the dangerous gas.

Exposure to radon is second only to smoking as the most common cause of lung cancer. The EPA estimates that one in 15 American homes has an elevated level of radon gas.

“Testing for radon is one of the easiest and smartest things people can do to protect their homes and families from this serious health risk,”  said Gina McCarthy, assistant administrator for the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, in a press release Monday. “Addressing high radon levels greatly reduces exposure.”

Dangerous levels of radon can occur within homes, schools and other buildings from the natural decaying of uranium in the soil and rocks beneath, seeping in through foundation cracks and causing serious health issues. The radioactive gas is both odorless and colorless, often going undetected.

There are approximately 225,000 people in the United States diagnosed annually with lung cancer, the leading cause of cancer death, according to the American Cancer Society.

Radon Threat Is Real

An estimated 80 percent of lung cancer deaths are attributed to smoking, while an exposure to radon gas and asbestos fibers rank second and third, respectively. The EPA estimates that 21,000 Americans die annually from radon-related lung cancer.

The risk from both radon and asbestos also is considerably higher for people who smoke. And studies have shown that the risk for lung cancer is higher in areas where there are natural uranium deposits, which can be almost anywhere.

Radon decays naturally into radioactive particles that can accumulate in homes and buildings, then become trapped in the lungs when they are unknowingly inhaled. They can damage lung tissues and lead to cancer. Unlike asbestos, radon is not considered dangerous outdoors, where it becomes less concentrated and dissipates quickly. It is most dangerous in the basement of homes.

The efforts by the EPA to dramatically reduce radon exposure are relatively new. The Federal Radon Action Plan was not introduced until 2011. Its goal was reducing radon risk in homes, schools and daycare facilities, along with encouraging radon-resistant new construction. It includes both new commitments for future actions, along with the current federal government actions.

In that Action Plan, the federal government hopes to provide economic incentives for businesses to test and support the risk reduction plans; build a demand for the radon services industry; and demonstrate to the public the value and feasibility of radon testing.

EPA Calling For Action

The EPA Monday used National Radon Action Month to encourage the public to take these steps:

Test: All buildings should be tested, with or without basements. Hardware and home-improvement stores offer affordable do-it-yourself test kits. The National Radon Program at Kansas State University offers discounted test kits online. Certified radon testers can be hired, too.Fix: Radon levels above 4 picoCuries per Liter (pCi/L) should be fixed by a qualified radon-reduction contractor.Save A Life: By addressing elevated levels of radon, you can prevent lung cancer while creating a healthier home and community.

The EPA has a national map on its website that details the areas where the greatest potential for radon exposure are.

The EPA was part of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) first call-to-action initiative in 2009 that brought considerable global attention to the problem of radon and lung cancer. The WHO estimated that 14 percent of the lung cancer cases worldwide were caused by radon.

A handbook was produced and designed to help countries expand or establish radon reduction programs, providing detailed recommendations and policy options. In part, it was aimed at the construction industry, helping them with ventilation and foundation tips that could prevent radon entry.

An award winning reporter and writer, Tim Povtak is a senior content writer for the Mesothelioma Center. He previously worked at the Orlando Sentinel and then at AOL. You can contact him directly tpovtak@asbestos.com with any story ideas or comments. Twitter Facebook Reddit Delicious Stumbleupon

View the original article here

This month’s issue of Critical Reviews in Toxicology features an article titled, “Health Risk of Chrysotile Revisited.”

Asbestos use in general is heavily controversial, but no singular aspect has been as hotly debated as the safety of chrysotile – or the lack thereof. Even now, more than 40 years after Denmark enacted the world’s first ban on asbestos products, we’re still discussing whether or not we can “safely” utilize chrysotile fibers.

A few organizations insist that chrysotile isn’t dangerous to human health. Some agencies maintain that it is hazardous, but on a less serious level than amphibole asbestos. Still others hold fast to the belief that all forms of asbestos are equally dangerous and should be banned across the board.

Naturally, the organizations most excited to debate it are those with links to the chrysotile industry.

This particular study was authored by Dr. D. M. Bernstein, a Swiss “consultant in toxicology.” Bernstein has repeatedly accepted funding from the Quebec Chrysotile Institute to publish studies that downplay the risks of the fibers.

This article was no exception.

Bernstein’s article provides an overview of recent research before reiterating the current generally accepted conclusion. “There is evidence that heavy and prolonged exposure to chrysotile can produce lung cancer,” he writes, “[but] low exposures to chrysotile do not present a detectable risk to health.”

The study began by discussing the unique ways that the different forms of asbestos break down once they are inside the body. Bernstein maintains that amphibole fibers maintain their original structure, while chrysotile fibers break down into smaller particles that are not as likely to trigger cancerous developments.

He also referenced  studies that illustrated the body’s ability to rid itself of chrysotile asbestos. The toxicity studies he chose demonstrated that when the lungs were not overloaded, the body was able to clear out the longest fibers (those over 20 micrometers in length) with relative ease. The research he cited also indicated that unlike amphibole asbestos, chrysotile fibers did not progress to the pleural cavity (where mesothelioma most commonly develops).

While it’s important to keep the spotlight on asbestos-related research, Bernstein’s article didn’t present any new information on the health risk of using chrysotile. In fact, it went against the widely accepted concept that any exposure to any form of asbestos can pose a health hazard.

Even if Bernstein’s skewed research was accurate in the sense that lower exposures are less dangerous, that doesn’t mean that it’s safe, either.

This makes health officials wonder: in 2013, why are we still having this discussion?

The International Labor Organization, National Cancer Institute, World Health Organization and World Trade Organization have all confirmed that chrysotile is indeed different from amphibole forms of asbestos like crocidolite in its chemical structure, but that it is still a serious carcinogen.

The asbestos industry will always use their influence (and funds) to produce studies in favor of ongoing chrysotile use. And so far, it’s working:  The Chrysotile Institute estimates that the United States consumes around 13,000 metric tons of chrysotile per year. That figure doesn’t even include the chrysotile-laden cement pipes and sheets that we import.

It’s hard to wrap your mind around this use in light of the easily available – and often highly sophisticated – alternatives.

Companies have access to ceramic foam, plastic flour and specialized forms of polyurethane foam that provide many of the same benefits of asbestos without the health hazards. True, they are more expensive, and choosing them over asbestos would cut down on profit margins. But even if there’s the slightest chance that chrysotile can cause cancer, shouldn’t that be enough to stop the arguments and start promoting alternatives?

Bernstein, D., Dunnigan, J., Hesterberg, T., Brown, R., Velasco, J. A., Barrera, R., Hoskins, J., & Gibbs, A. (2013). Health risk of chrysotile revisited. Critical Reviews in Toxicology; 43 (2). Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23346982 Smith, A. H., & Wright, C. C. (1996). Chrysotile asbestos is the main cause of pleural mesothelioma. American Journal of Industrial Medicine; 30 (3). Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8876792 Faith Franz is a content writer for the Mesothelioma Center. She joined the team in January 2011 to help mesothelioma patients empower themselves through knowledge about their diagnosis. Twitter Facebook Reddit Delicious Stumbleupon

View the original article here