Bottled Drinking Water Contaminated With Potent Estrogen—and this can effect especially women with PMS like symptoms!!

I don’t eat soy because it has lots of estrogen. I also don’t eat conventional veggies in part because pesticides too contain xenoestrogens.

I’ve also known for a long time that plastic bottles leach estrogens but I have NOT cut out plastic bottles of water. It’s time I do. Lifestyle changes take time and this has got to be the next step!!

We have a water filter fitted under our sink now so all I have to do is get some non-plastic bottles for transport and cut the plastic OUT.

Estrogen also messes with anyone with endometriosis, like me and I know a few other readers here too.

It’s a great destabilizer for women who have mental health issues in general and it’s really bad for young girls. One of the reasons it’s believed girls are mensruating earlier and earlier is from all the estrogen they are ingesting from all the plastic bottles they drink from. This includes soda and other drinks as well…NOT JUST WATER.

From Medical News Today:

Plastic packaging is not without its downsides, and if you thought mineral water was ‘clean’, it may be time to think again. According to Martin Wagner and Jörg Oehlmann from the Department of Aquatic Ecotoxicology at the Goethe University in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, plastic mineral water bottles contaminate drinking water with estrogenic chemicals. In an analysis1 of commercially available mineral waters, the researchers found evidence of estrogenic compounds leaching out of the plastic packaging into the water. What’s more, these chemicals are potent in vivo and result in an increased development of embryos in the New Zealand mud snail. These findings, which show for the first time that substances leaching out of plastic food packaging materials act as functional estrogens, are published in Springer’s journal Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

Wagner and Oehlmann looked at whether the migration of substances from packaging material into foodstuffs contributes to human exposure to man-made hormones. They analyzed 20 brands of mineral water available in Germany – nine bottled in glass, nine bottled in plastic and two bottled in composite packaging (paperboard boxes coated with an inner plastic film). The researchers took water samples from the bottles and tested them for the presence of estrogenic chemicals in vitro. They then carried out a reproduction test with the New Zealand mud snail to determine the source and potency of the xenoestrogens.

They detected estrogen contamination in 60% of the samples (12 of the 20 brands) analyzed. Mineral waters in glass bottles were less estrogenic than waters in plastic bottles. Specifically, 33% of all mineral waters bottled in glass compared with 78% of waters in plastic bottles and both waters bottled in composite packaging showed significant hormonal activity.

And let’s not forget…we have to lose the plastic for the sake of the planet too. Seriously…that’s really a even more important reason. No planet, no life. It doesn’t get more compelling than that.

About Monica Cassani

Author/Editor Beyond Meds: Everything Matters

11 Responses

  1. Sloopy

    i figure it must be bad for men too… one of the chief culprits for messing with female sex hormones is a chemical called bisphenol-A (BPA)… there is a dedicated website about this dangerous stuff. The makers apparently knew it was dangerous way back in the 1930s.

    BPA is a component used today in many types of plastic. It is often used as a flame-retardant in the polystyrene trays used to hold microwaveable ready-meals. Yet another reason to prepare meals using only raw ingredients and safe cookware – e.g. vessels preferably made of glass, cast iron, or earthenware, avoiding aluminium vessels and those with non-stick surfaces.

    I’ve heard BPA being called the Gender Bender plastic because it can apparently change the sex of fish when dumped in the rivers. No doubt the chemical industry will claim that BPA is perfectly safe for humans. They typically slur anyone who doubts the safety of their products as a mad conspiracy theorist who also thinks the moon is made of cheese.

    Fish are very different creatures, they will claim. They have fins and gills while we have arms, legs and teeth. So BPA can’t possibly have the same deleterious effect on us as it has on fish. In the simplistic but profoundly corrupt world of the industrial chemist, it’s obvious, isn’t it?!

    The European Commission supposedly operates to something called the “Precautionary Principle”.. If there is evidence which casts doubt on the safety of a product sold in the EU then the Precautionary Principle should apply. The product should be withdrawn, or should be sold only with a warning statement.. The Precautionary Principle is often cited in law suits, especially concerning microwave radiation from cellphones, but I’ve yet to see it used at the consumer level..

    It’s about time someone applied the famous Precaution Principle to BPA, and to the host of other noxious chemicals that screw us up in an untold number of ways..

    It’s funny, I was chatting along these lines to someone a few days ago… I was saying how dangerous naive I was a child.. I always grew up thinking the government was there to protect us..

    And on that basis, I figured it was A-Okay to chew pen lids, and other man-made objects, because the government would never let dangerous plastics onto the market… The government is there to protect us, right?! Bzzzzzzzzt!

    Like

  2. Sloopy

    Credit to you, Gianna, for providing the stimulus! Many of us know these things are noxious but wouldn’t otherwise find the motivation to comment, if it wasn’t for you and your blog!

    I have an uncle who was an industrial chemist. He was surprisingly paranoid about the chemicals he handled. So often people become deluded by their own profession,, psychiatrists being the prime example. However, not my uncle. He remained a cynic throughout his career. I’ve never asked him about BPA but my mum often recounts the time he warned her never to use cooking pans coated with Teflon (PTFE). “That stuff is lethal”, he said, and he gave her a mind-boggling explanation of how it could kill her (and us!). These days, poor old uncle is virtually bed-bound at 61 years old and needs full time nursing care. I hate to think what nasty substances he was exposed to over his working life that have contributed to his ill-health today.

    Like

  3. Sloopy

    Yeah, I would want to replace the pans if I didn’t know what the something was on them..

    This got me thinking about the minuscule amounts of nasty chemicals in our foodstuffs, and the question of what is minuscule?

    500 micrograms of Haldol is physically minuscule, but it’s still enough to sedate a child!

    Yet that amount of Haldol placed on a digital scale pan – without the bulking agent of the tablet – and you will scarcely see it, and even less measure it.

    Using a digital scale for drug tapering has given me an appreciation of the frightening power of psychiatric drugs, and of other environmental chemicals.

    It seems like an over-used cliche, but we really are what we eat. And what might seem like an impossibly small amount of environmental toxin could have a massive impact on our general well-being.

    The government’s talk about the “safe amount” of chemical X or the “maximum recommended daily intake” of Chemical Y is dangerous..

    In fact, the entire scientific language used to describe environmental toxins is dangerous, designed to downplay the risks, to the industry’s advantage. Why, for example, is tartrazine, a notoriously dangerous artificial food colourant, described as anything other than a neurotoxin?

    Since ingesting minuscule amounts of tartrazine leaves kids (and adults) in a disturbed mental state, with agitation, aggression and sleeplessness, it is a neurotoxin.

    Here’s a labelling proposal for the goons in the Ministry of Food: “WARNING: This product contains a known neurotoxin that can damage your brain”

    Like

  4. Sloopy,

    The problem is that the government doesn’t protect us, because they’ve become partners with business…not their role. They are there to be watchdogs of busines….anyway…

    I have a simple question:
    Why can’t we use glass bottles instead of plastic.
    They can be used again, and again….They are made with heated sand…Don’t require manufacturing process that can’t be good for people to work around….Imagine breathing the stuff that comes from those plants all day long? That just can’t be good….

    There is so much opportunity out there for private industry – tons of it….Our buildings are full of formaldehyde, carpet, “lumber” that is nothing more than pressed board between tons of glues, resins, and dyes…..We can begin to manufacture material for green buildings…It would help the economy, give people some much-needed jobs, and clean up our indoor environments (which is where most of us spend the greater part of our days)….

    And, as far as plastic bottles – start using glass bottles again – no brainer.

    Duane

    Like

  5. Sloopy,

    I agree with Gianna – You are a the “typing Encyclopedia Brittanica”, and you are a joy to read, my British friend!

    I always learn something new from you!

    Duane

    Like

  6. Sloopy

    You say some very kind things, Duane! Though I think I am more often a boring nerd!

    What you highlight over the dangers from the chemicals used in carpets is interesting. Scotchgard is the famous carpet treatment. It used as a stain repellent. I just followed a wikipedia link to an article in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

    Apparently, Scotchgard was slightly re-formulated after safety fears were raised. However, in its new formula or not, it is still no safer today, and still has a half life of many years. Scotchgard (both old and new formula) causes many of the same problems as its sister compound – BPA – hormonal disruption, as well as cancer, childhood obesity, and even sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).

    A famous British TV celebrity, Anne Diamond, the first anchor on breakfast TV, lost her child to SIDS or “cot death” as it was called back then. She spearheaded a very vocal campaign to highlight the evidence that her son was killed by the flame retardants used in the mattress he slept on. In retaliation, the chemical industry swelled itself up like a venomous snake and lashed out at the poor woman. She was castigated as crazy. She ended up losing not only her child but was forced out of her job too. I don’t think she has had a profile media slot since then.

    How does that quote from Gandhi go?

    “First they ignore you. Then they mock you. Then they fight you. Then you win…”

    I reckon Anne Diamond has beaten the gangsters in the chemical industry, hands down!

    Like

  7. Bonnie

    While you’re on this topic, take a look at the products you may be using for your oral hygiene. Nearly all commercial toothpastes found on the shelf at your local grocer, and discount drug store, contain whitening and foaming agents which are made from pesticides and antifreeze. The idea that our alcohol laden mouthwashes are somehow helping to decrease the bacteria in our mouths is totally bogus, the drying and tissue damaging effects are immense. If you’ve ever had dental work done and just didn’t seem to heal properly, look up dental “cavitation”. Definitely an eye-opener. There are some brands of toothpaste such as Jason’s and Tom’s of Maine that are made from safe ingredients and fairly readily available. The cosmetic/hygiene industry in general is a huge source of chemical pollution both personally and environmentally.
    Bonnie

    Like

  8. The following is from the front page of today’s Daily Mail, a popular national newspaper in Britain…

    Gender-bending chemical timebomb…

    By David Derbyshire
    Last updated at 2:16 PM on 13th May 2009

    Chemicals in food, cosmetics and cleaning products are ‘feminising’ unborn boys and raising their risk of cancer and infertility later in life, an expert warns today.

    Professor Richard Sharpe, one of Britain’s leading reproductive biologists, says everyday substances are linked to soaring rates of birth defects and testicular cancer, and to falling sperm counts.

    The government adviser’s report published today is the most detailed yet into the threat posed to baby boys by chemicals that block the action of the male sex hormone testosterone, or mimic the female sex hormone oestrogen.

    Professor Sharpe says many could be harmless on their own – but warned that their cumulative effect could be devastating for developing foetuses and warned women trying for a child to avoid them.

    ‘You can’t do anything about chemicals in the environment but you can control what you expose a baby to through your lifestyle choices,’ he said.

    ‘Because we don’t know the complete list of chemicals that may be hormone disrupters, and we don’t know how they interact, we can’t point a finger at an individual chemical.

    ‘The message is to avoid them, just as you should avoid alcohol and drugs.’

    Doctors are concerned about rising levels of birth defects……

    The Mail’s article in full is here where there is also a list of chemicals to avoid….. Bisphenol A is just one of many so-called gender-bending poisons in our environment…

    Like

Comments are closed.