Swimming in chlorinated water increases your risk of cancer

[Thor]

Going for a swim may increase your risk of cancer if you use a chlorinated pool, according to a series of studies conducted by researchers from the Center for Research in Environmental Epidemiology in Barcelona, Spain, and published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

"Parents send their children to pools because they want to do something good for them," said toxicologist Alfred Bernard of the Catholic University of Louvain in Brussels, Belgium, who was not involved in the study. "But we actually don't know the long-term effects."

Prior studies have raised concerns that chlorine in pools can react chemically with sweat, skin cells and other organic material to produce chemicals linked with asthma and bladder cancer. In one of the new studies, researchers analyzed water from a public swimming pool and identified more than 100 such byproducts, including many toxins.

More here

Hmmm, interesting read. Maybe second hand smoke ISN'T the culprit after all??

[Doc]

Well.....over the years I've read thousands of scientific papers, studies, trials, and grant research, and I've noticed a few common threads.  Pretty much all of them are the result of some scholar attempting to justify his/her existence.  In the vast majority of cases, studies have been done, the grant money spent, and a few years later another "scholar" does a study that yields the exact opposite conclusion.

A few examples of such ludicrous efforts are saccharine as an artificial sweetener, banning DDT, and ditto with fluorocarbon aerosol propellants/refrigerants, and mercury-based batteries.  The reaction to these "studies" has cost untold billions of dollars, and countless lives.........all for nothing.  Yet these same scientific plutocrats expect us to now believe that AGW is real, secondhand smoke will kill you, and swimming pools will cause cancer.

Regarding these "studies":

......Some are financially motivated

......Some are politically motivated

......Some are ego motivated

And a very small fraction are actually motivated by the desire to do truly beneficial research.  The key to separating science from pseudoscience is to "follow the money".  The Latin expression is "cui bono"......Who benefits??

With the proper amount of funding, a small army of postdoc assistants, access to a big enough computer and lab equipment, I could write a scholarly treatise on the fact that Einstein was wrong, and the speed of light can be exceeded using common household appliances.......it doesn't make it true, but it will exist none the less, and academics around the world will tug on their collective goatees, murmur appropriate kudos, and move along to the next "project".

Particularly when one considers any "study" relating to human health, and its related environments, one must come to grips with the simple fact that........

Life itself is ultimately a "terminal disease"........we will all be much happier if we learn to enjoy what measure of it that we are given, as nothing we can do will alter the eventual outcome.........


doc

[Thor]

doc, while I agree with you on your premise, what bugs me is that the various "scientists" use studies to prove that second hand smoke causes cancer, asthma in children and a variety of other physical problems. While it MAY, (we don't really know due to your "cui bono" theory), I find this particular study interesting. How many folks have hot tubs, bathe in chlorinated water, use swimming pools, drink chlorinated & fluoridated water and have developed lung cancer, asthma, or suffered other respiratory problems and only ever been rarely exposed to second hand smoke?? What I think is that some of these studies are used to trample people's rights. Hell, people have been sued because their smoke has entered in through a window of a house next door.

However, you are right. We're here until it's our time to die, whenever that may be. I grew up in a house full of second hand smoke and it never bothered me. I was never more ill than the next child. I also grew up in a locale that was KNOWN to have its drinking water contaminated with creosote residue from the creosote factory and various chemicals from the Air Force base. Then, add in this particular study and it all comes together to make some sort of sense. It seems to me that many of the people, (a good 70% of this town's former residents that I know), I grew up with have some sort of major physical problem now.

[thundley4]

There are times that the chlorine in our water is so strong that you can not take a shower, but have to take a bath instead.  The mist from the shower is strong enough to make it hard to breathe. 

[Thor]

I think THAT'S more of the problem. Over-chlorinated water. Swimming pools are notorious for that, as are public hot tubs and many public water supplies. In my town, one can smell the chlorine right out of the tap. It shouldn't be that strong. And, there are many diseases that are associated with fluoridation. That's because they use stannous fluoride, a waste by-product, instead of natural fluoride. 

[TVDOC]

I think THAT'S more of the problem. Over-chlorinated water. Swimming pools are notorious for that, as are public hot tubs and many public water supplies. In my town, one can smell the chlorine right out of the tap. It shouldn't be that strong. And, there are many diseases that are associated with fluoridation. That's because they use stannous fluoride, a waste byproduct, instead of natural fluoride.  

With all of these naturally-ocurring chemicals/compounds, I suspect that it is a matter of degree. In the bolded part above, you realize that ANY fluoride compound is highly toxic at high enough dosages......hence the warning (in very fine print) on your toothpaste tube.  If I recall my basic toxins class, there is enough fluoride in a tube of toothpaste to kill a child or small adult........not that you'd want to eat an entire tube.

Many toxins including chlorine/chlorides have been used for centuries for medicinal purposes.........likewise "heavy metals" such as Arsenic/lead.  Were is not for toxic chemicals, chemotherapies would not exist.

I'm somewhat puzzled by the overchlorination of water that you report, as municipal water supplies have to meet EPA standards, and are frequently tested.  I know here I receive an analysis in the mail from our municipal water company every year, indicating the content and testing regimen.

doc

[thundley4]

Our high chlorine seems to happen after a period of heavy rainfall, or during very low rainfall levels.  The city gets the majority of water from a lake, but some is pumped from wells that flow into the lake.

[Thor]

DOC, there's a HUGE difference between the naturally occurring Sodium Fluoride & the Stannous Fluoride we've been subjected to. The water treatment people have been using Stannous Fluoride for a long while, as have the toothpaste vendors.

[TVDOC]

DOC, there's a HUGE difference between the naturally occurring Sodium Fluoride & the Stannous Fluoride we've been subjected to. The water treatment people have been using Stannous Fluoride for a long while, as have the toothpaste vendors.

I understand that the two chemical compounds are different.....HOWEVER, whether the fluorine is combined chemically with tin or chlorine it is still contains "Fluorine".....which is toxic. 

The fact that both are labelled "fluorides", indicates that were you to analyze the atomic structure of a single molecule of either chemical.......they would have the exact same amount of flourine.  The two may act differently in the body, but the toxicity of either, in the same amounts (by weight) would be equal.

doc

[LC EFA]

Makes me glad that I only ever really swim in naturally occurring water sources.  When I was a kid that involved a mile bike ride down to the nearest swimmin' hole.

The nice clear water on the reef off shore was pretty fine too - but that required adult assistance in gettin there.

[TVDOC]

Makes me glad that I only ever really swim in naturally occurring water sources.  When I was a kid that involved a mile bike ride down to the nearest swimmin' hole.

The nice clear water on the reef off shore was pretty fine too - but that required adult assistance in gettin there.

Well, there is that, however, I've been in and out of swimming pools all my life (and I'm not what you'd call young), also drank water that was both chlorinated and flourinated for the same period, and I'm still kicking.......and as an added benefit, I still have all my own teeth.......

doc

[formerlurker]

Regarding these "studies":

......Some are financially motivated

......Some are politically motivated

......Some are ego motivated

And a very small fraction are actually motivated by the desire to do truly beneficial research.  The key to separating science from pseudoscience is to "follow the money".  The Latin expression is "cui bono"......Who benefits??

With the proper amount of funding, a small army of postdoc assistants, access to a big enough computer and lab equipment, I could write a scholarly treatise on the fact that Einstein was wrong, and the speed of light can be exceeded using common household appliances.......it doesn't make it true, but it will exist none the less, and academics around the world will tug on their collective goatees, murmur appropriate kudos, and move along to the next "project".

Particularly when one considers any "study" relating to human health, and its related environments, one must come to grips with the simple fact that........

Life itself is ultimately a "terminal disease"........we will all be much happier if we learn to enjoy what measure of it that we are given, as nothing we can do will alter the eventual outcome.........


doc

I agree -- especially the studies related to vaccines, which are usually funded by a pharmaceutical company.   

[TVDOC]

I agree -- especially the studies related to vaccines, which are usually funded by a pharmaceutical company.    

Well....I'm aware that there is an ongoing debate regarding vaccines.  Based on what I've read, most of the anti-vaccine argument is emotional hyperbole.  However......any competent biochemist will tell you that any chemical that is inserted into the body will have both good and bad effects (associated risk)......the trick is to develop drugs that provide the best upside, and the most innocuous downside.  It's always a balance.

I certainly don't see the abnormal risk in the eradication of smallpox, polio, bubonic and pneumonic plague, yellow fever, et al, as a bad thing.  And I'm also not willing to allow my grandchildren to play or attend school with children whose parents refuse to have them vaccinated against these serious illnesses (were there to be a risk)

Along the way, we all have a duty to act responsibly to our fellow humans, and it is fine should you choose to shun vaccines, just confine yourself and your progeny to a secluded area, please.

[/threadjack]

doc

[Thor]

DOC, actually it's the preservatives or additives in the vaccinations that seem to be called into question, at least that is MY understanding. Some have thimerosal, a relative of the old fashioned mercurochrome, a mercury compound,  and others have "squalene". Both have been called into question.

Thimerosal pdf file

Conclusion:
This study provides strong epidemiological
evidence for a link between
increasing mercury from thimerosalcontaining
childhood vaccines and
neurodevelopment disorders and heart
disease. In light of voluminous literature
supporting the biologic mechanisms for
mercury-induced adverse reactions, the
presence of amounts of mercury in
thimerosal-containing childhood vaccines
exceeding Federal Safety Guidelines for
the oral ingestion of mercury, and previous
epidemiological studies showing adverse
reactions from such vaccines, a causal
relationship between thimerosalcontaining
childhood vaccines and
neurodevelopment disorders and heart
disease appears to be confirmed. It is to be
hoped that complete removal of thimerosal
from all childhood vaccines will help to
stem the tragic, apparently iatrogenic
epidemic of autism and speech disorders
that the United States is now facing.

Squalene

[formerlurker]

Well....I'm aware that there is an ongoing debate regarding vaccines.  Based on what I've read, most of the anti-vaccine argument is emotional hyperbole.  However......any competent biochemist will tell you that any chemical that is inserted into the body will have both good and bad effects (associated risk)......the trick is to develop drugs that provide the best upside, and the most innocuous downside.  It's always a balance.

I certainly don't see the abnormal risk in the eradication of smallpox, polio, bubonic and pneumonic plague, yellow fever, et al, as a bad thing.  And I'm also not willing to allow my grandchildren to play or attend school with children whose parents refuse to have them vaccinated against these serious illnesses (were there to be a risk)

Along the way, we all have a duty to act responsibly to our fellow humans, and it is fine should you choose to shun vaccines, just confine yourself and your progeny to a secluded area, please.

[/threadjack]

doc

LOL, well then, I guess you only refer these comments to  those studies you don't agree with then:

Regarding these "studies":

......Some are financially motivated

......Some are politically motivated

......Some are ego motivated

And a very small fraction are actually motivated by the desire to do truly beneficial research.  The key to separating science from pseudoscience is to "follow the money".  The Latin expression is "cui bono"......Who benefits??

With the proper amount of funding, a small army of postdoc assistants, access to a big enough computer and lab equipment, I could write a scholarly treatise on the fact that Einstein was wrong, and the speed of light can be exceeded using common household appliances.......it doesn't make it true, but it will exist none the less, and academics around the world will tug on their collective goatees, murmur appropriate kudos, and move along to the next "project".

My children are vaccinated -- however, if you and yours are vaccinated then you should have no worries about the children or adults (??) who are not, correct?

I have been following this for years -- about 6 or so years now actually.    The jury is out for me, and it is not on the vaccine itself, but the amount children receive.   There has not been a study to date (although NIH is commissioning for one this upcoming year) on how vaccines affect children who are neurologically compromised.    

I don't trust the CDC at all, not even a little.   There are a great deal of blogs, sites, and medical doctors who are far more intelligent than I, and have spent countless hours reviewing materials and studies.   They have doubts.    This article posted on this blog is a good one (note -- I just googled the article and grabbed the first place it was posted, I have no information about this blogger at all), and while the entire article is worth reading, I will excerpt this section:

Dr. Johnson seems to be impressed by the findings as well. He says on page 199, " This association leads me to favor a recommendation that infants up to two-years-old not be immunized with thimerosal containing vaccines if suitable alternative preparations are available ."

Incredibly, he quickly adds, " I do not believe the diagnosis justified compensation in the Vaccine Compensation Program at this point ." It is interesting to note that one of our experts in attendance is Dr. Vito Caserta, the Chief Officer for the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

At this point, Dr. Johnson tells the group about his concerns for his own grandchild. On page 200, he says, "Forgive this personal comment, but I got called out at 8:00 for an emergency call and my daughter-in-law delivered a son by c-section. Our first male in the line of the next generation and I do not want that grandson to get a Thimerosal containing vaccine until we know better what is going on . It will probably take a long time. In the meantime, and I know there are probably implications for this internationally, but in the meanwhile I think I want that grandson to only be given Thimerosal-free vaccines."

So, we have a scientist sitting on this panel who will eventually make policy concerning all of the children in this country, as well as other countries, who is terrified about his new grandson getting a thimerosal-containing vaccine, but is not concerned enough about your children to speak out and try to stop this insanity. He allows a cover up to take place after this meeting adjourns and remains silent.

It is also interesting to note, although he feels the answers will be a long time coming, in the meantime, his grandson will be protected.

Nevertheless, the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Family Practice, AMA, CDC and every other organization will endorse these vaccines and proclaim them to be safe as spring water, but Dr. Johnson and some of the others will keep their silence .

http://consumercide.com/js/index.php/sickness-disease-industry/vaccination/55-the-truth-behind-the-vaccine-coverup-by-russell-l-blaylock-md.html


My twins got their vaccines spaced out instead of all at once.  Their pediatrician agreed this is probably best practice, as did my older son's neurologist (Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School grad -- no slouch).    While the medical community believes in the importance of vaccines, as I do, some are uneasy about the amount and timing of giving them.

Has there been research? sure.  Those studies have been paid for by major pharmaceuticals for the most part.   Conflict make a difference?  I don't know.   But more research needs to be done for sure.

[TVDOC]

LOL, well then, I guess you only refer these comments to those studies you don't agree with then:

My children are vaccinated -- however, if you and yours are vaccinated then you should have no worries about the children or adults (??) who are not, correct?

Actually no......as a scientist, I'm skeptical of ALL studies until I see all of the underlying data, rationale, and determine the objective in commissioning the study to begin with. 

Vaccines are not perfect, and viruses mutate, so yes, I am concerned about those who do not vaccinate, as should a disease morph into a variation that our vaccines offer little or no protection from due to failure on the part of individuals to immunize, it can lead to catastrophic results.

Perhaps the most apt metaphor that I can draw regarding those who refuse to vaccinate is that of someone jumping out of an airplane without a parachute, because a study determined that .001% of the time they have been proven to fail to function.

 
I have been following this for years -- about 6 or so years now actually.   The jury is out for me, and it is not on the vaccine itself, but the amount children receive.   There has not been a study to date (although NIH is commissioning for one this upcoming year) on how vaccines affect children who are neurologically compromised.    

I don't trust the CDC at all, not even a little.   There are a great deal of blogs, sites, and medical doctors who are far more intelligent than I, and have spent countless hours reviewing materials and studies.   They have doubts.   This article posted on this blog is a good one (note -- I just googled the article and grabbed the first place it was posted, I have no information about this blogger at all), and while the entire article is worth reading, I will excerpt this section:

Don't get me wrong.....I'm not saying that there is no credence to those that maintain that harmful effects are possible from vaccines in some patients.......what I CAN unequivocally state is that they have saved literally millions of lives, and for the most part, as a scientist I accept the fact that there will always be incidents where someone is administered a vaccine, and suffers neurological damage, even death as a result.  It is the price that must be paid for the overall gain.  Admittedly not much consolation for the family of the isolated individual who suffered such an event, but purely from a scientific perspective, it is relatively unimportant.  Nothing in medicine is either perfect, or guaranteed.

My field is not medicine, but it differs little from any other scientific discipline, inasmuch as knowledge is constantly evolving, and will continue likely forever.  The vast majority of the vaccines that are in common use today are very old drugs, demonstratively proven for decades if not centuries, with minor improvements, and for the most part they are effective therapies.

doc

[Thor]

While we're on vaccines, the VA talked me into a Pneumonia vaccination. The next five years, I had pneumonia. I took it one other year after the initial one. Since 2003, I haven't had any pneumonia. I quit taking the flu vaccine about then (when they had the second shortage) and I haven't had the flu. Now that I'm thinking about it, my body didn't start malfunctioning too badly until after the second pneumonia vaccine. I THINK I've had a tetanus vaccine during that time frame, too.

[formerlurker]

While we're on vaccines, the VA talked me into a Pneumonia vaccination. The next five years, I had pneumonia. I took it one other year after the initial one. Since 2003, I haven't had any pneumonia. I quit taking the flu vaccine about then (when they had the second shortage) and I haven't had the flu. Now that I'm thinking about it, my body didn't start malfunctioning too badly until after the second pneumonia vaccine. I THINK I've had a tetanus vaccine during that time frame, too.

I honestly think the flu shot is the biggest scam on the pharmaceutical market.  The strain you get this year, is the flu virus from last year.   That is helping you how exactly? 

[JohnnyReb]

If the stagnant mudholes with the floating cow chips we swam in as kids didn't kill us, chlorine in the water ain't going to do it.

[TVDOC]

I honestly think the flu shot is the biggest scam on the pharmaceutical market.  The strain you get this year, is the flu virus from last year.  That is helping you how exactly? 

I think you are right......they are always seeming to "guess" what strain will be prevalent each year.......last year when the N1H1 scare hit, we didn't bother.  Mrs. D and I don't spend a lot of time in public areas, so our exposure is pretty limited. 

Thor mentioned the pneumonia vaccine.......we've had that one twice now, and Mrs. D ended up in the hospital last November with pneumonia, so I suspect that one is of marginal use.  There are, however, several forms of the disease, and the vaccine only (I think) immunizes you from the viral form, which doesn't respond to antibiotics.



doc

[IassaFTots]

Last time I got the flu was in the Mid-70's.  I got the Hong Kong Flu.  Got to stay at home and watch tv for a week.     Knock wood, haven't had the flu in my adult years, and have not had the vaccine.  I just got the new tetanus shot.  I was due, and now they are combining it with whooping cough vaccine.  Apparently, it is making a comeback. 

[Chris_]

Hong Kong Fluey

I got knocked on my butt once in 1996 for a couple days.  The room was spinning, but turning off the light and lying there in the dark just made it worse.

[Thor]

Hong Kong Fluey

I got knocked on my butt once in 1996 for a couple days.  The room was spinning, but turning off the light and lying there in the dark just made it worse.

That sounds more like alcohol intoxication vs the flu......... 

[Gratiot]

That sounds more like alcohol intoxication Saturday vs the flu......... 

[HarveyF]

I have asthma and definitely notice the difference in my breathing in a chlorinated pool and natural waters like at a lake. I used to swim competitively in high school but had to stop because of my asthma. I've heard that there is a larger concentration of chlorine gases right at the surface where competitive swimmers breathe. I have been in a couple pools that don't use chlorine to clean the water but use some type of electrolysis and I notice quite a difference. Chlorine also dries my skin out and makes it itchy especially when the pool is over-chlorinated.