Toxin Toxout: Getting Harmful Chemicals Out of Our Bodies and Our World

[MachineGhost]

Since avoiding toxins is only half the battle, the authors of this book embarked on a mission to see what actually detoxes any of the 80,000+ synthetic chemicals out of the body.  I haven't read it yet, but from a short interview they say that chelation therapy and saunas are proven to work (nothing new there), but ionic footbaths and colon cleanses have no effectiveness.  I want to examine the details of the latter with a fine eye since I'm skeptical they know all the ins and outs, but will have to wait until the book gets here.  They were also supplement skeptics, but now like especially C but also A, D, E and K for detoxing as well as NAC.  Bazinga!

[quote=http://www.amazon.com/Toxin-Toxout-Gett ... 250068118/]In Toxin Toxout, Lourie and Smith give practical and often surprising advice for removing toxic chemicals from our bodies and homes. There are over 80,000 synthetic chemicals in commerce today, and the authors use their outrageous experiments (they and their brave volunteers are the guinea pigs) to prove how easily our bodies absorb these chemicals. With trademark humor, they give us the good news about what is in our control, the steps we can take to help our bodies remove our toxic burden -- and what we can do to avoid it in the first place. Furthermore, Lourie and Smith investigate the truth behind organic foods, which detox methods actually work, if indoor air quality is improving, how we dispose of waste (where do those chemicals go?), and the ins and outs of a greener economy. The result is nothing short of a prescription for a healthier life.[/quote]

[Benko]

Dissenting opinion  on the general concept of "detoxing":

If one has e.g. a mercury burden i.e. lots of mercury in ones body, one has to get rid of it.  There are other certain specific toxins that one would need to get rid of.  However the idea that we all carry around enough "toxins" to need to detoxify is horse doo doo (to put it politely).  I'd love to see any good i.e. double blind study showing otherwise.

[MachineGhost]

If one has e.g. a mercury burden i.e. lots of mercury in ones body, one has to get rid of it.  There are other certain specific toxins that one would need to get rid of.  However the idea that we all carry around enough "toxins" to need to detoxify is horse doo doo (to put it politely).  I'd love to see any good i.e. double blind study showing otherwise.

I'm not sure a double blind study makes any sense in terms of detecting chemicals in the body.  What, are you worried the placebo effect would automagically generate a chemical in someone's urine?

In a study led by Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, in collaboration with the Environmental Working Group and Commonweal, researchers at two major laboratories found 167 chemicals, pollutants, and pesticides in the blood and urine of nine adult Americans.  Study results appear in a recently-published edition of the journal Public Health Reports (Thornton, et al. 2002) – the first publicly available, comprehensive look at the chemical burden we carry in our bodies. None of the nine volunteers works with chemicals on the job. All lead healthy lives. Yet the subjects contained an average of 91 compounds each – most of which did not exist 75 years ago. Scientists have not studied the health risks of exposures to complex chemical mixtures, such as those found in this study. For two-thirds of the chemicals found, many of which are banned, researchers have partially studied the extent to which these chemicals can harm human health.  They have found that these 112 compounds can threaten nearly every organ in the body at every stage of life (Table 1).

In total, the nine subjects carried:

* 76 chemicals linked to cancer in humans or animals (average of 53),
* 94 chemicals that are toxic to the brain and nervous system (average of 62),
* 86 chemicals that interfere with the hormone system (average of 58),
* 79 chemicals associated with birth defects or abnormal development (average of 55),
* 77 chemicals toxic to the reproductive system (average of 55), and
* 77 chemicals toxic to the immune system (average of 53).

The blood and urine from the nine volunteers were tested for 210 chemicals that can be divided into seven basic groups (Table 2).  Of the chemical groups tested, the most prevalent were those contained in 24 classes of semivolatile and volatile chemicals, with 77 detected.  These classes include well-known industrial solvents and gasoline ingredients, such as xylene and ethyl benzene, that are used in a variety of common products like paints, glues, and fire retardants. The laboratory found 48 PCBs in the nine people tested. PCBs were banned in the United States in 1976 but are used in other countries and persist in the environment for decades.  Their most common use was as an insulating fluid in electrical capacitors and transformers, vacuum pumps, and gas-transmission turbines.  Lead was found in all 9 participants, and methylmercury was found in 8.

[Benko]

I'm not sure a double blind study makes any sense in terms of detecting chemicals in the body.

The issue is not detection, but WTF their being there does.  This is where placebo effect comes in. 


1.  We are all bathed in various types of electromagnetic radiation constantly (probably in increasing quantities), and inhale and ingest various types of chemicals on a daily basis.

2.  Where possible/easily doable it is likely safer to eat less chemicals than more e.g. eating organic, etc.

3.  Lets assume you have magic detox potion A, and there is data showing that if you take it and you have 132 chemicals in your body before hand, you will have 100 chemicals after.  How do you know you are actually significantly better off?  Are most people going to feel any different?  I doubt it (see placebo effect).  is there a 0.1% less chance that person has cancer long term?  Who knows.

4.  You can shorten the time your body has exposure to toxins in your food by drinking  more liquids and eating more fiber e.g. psyllium, flax seeds, etc.  So you'll have to have stuff that works better than that.  And just eating lots of veggies (which is a superb idea for zillions of reasons) also helps with this.  If you want to throw in some store bought mixture of green stuff or home made green drink e.g. spinach + other stuff in vita mix that would be great for lots of reasons.

5.  Most people would be vastly better off taking the time/money and energy and simply eating more veggies and doing other simple things that would impact their health more than any detox magic potion (again in absence of specific issue).  For example improving their diet, exercise more, taking more quiet time e.g. meditation, time in nature, etc.

[l82start]

if the compounds were found in the urine wouldn't that suggest the body was detoxifying? i sorta buy into the idea that doing some detoxifying stuff is harmless at the very least (unless it is cleaning out your wallet) and might do some good at best.
  i think i would would be far more alarmed by a study that showed large numbers of toxins in critical locations and none in the urine.

[MachineGhost]

I really don't think anyone would be bothering with detoxing if their diet, lifestyle, etc. wasn't already in order first.  You have to have the right mentality in the first place to be receptive to this kind of approach.  People that don't care about themselves are hardly going to detox, or at least not in any meaningful way long-term.  But it could also be the spark that gets them onto a healthy lifestyle.

Carcinogens form adducts with DNA.  Is that something you want occuring in your body?  Most of the evidence over the past couple of decades tantalizingly seem to be pointing towards these tens of thousands of uregulated chemicals as a root cause behind cancer, obesity, etc..  We can't say for sure because the science is not that advanced yet, but even the EPA admits that 1,000 approved chemicals are toxic.  What about the other 79,000?

Anyway, I'll report back after I'm done with the book, unless someone beats me to it first.

[Benko]

I really don't think anyone would be bothering with detoxing if their diet, lifestyle, etc. wasn't already in order first.

I respectully disagree.  Taking pills is much easier than not eating crap, exercising, etc.  This is precisely my point. 

[MachineGhost]

I really don't think anyone would be bothering with detoxing if their diet, lifestyle, etc. wasn't already in order first.

I respectully disagree.  Taking pills is much easier than not eating crap, exercising, etc.  This is precisely my point.

Okay, well people like that...  have cognitive dissonance.  That we can agree upon, yes?

[dualstow]

Is there a MachineGhost thread on benadryl and dementia?
If not, there should be. http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/comm ... 1501287667

[MachineGhost]

Is there a MachineGhost thread on benadryl and dementia?
If not, there should be. http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/comm ... 1501287667

Hah!

[MachineGhost]

Cliff's Notes version:

Switching to green personal care products dramatically decreases the residual toxin body burden up to the 54 hour mark.  No toxin residue with green products.

Organic food is backed by hard science and lowers toxin risk by 80-fold.

Latest generation of pesticides (neonicotinoids) is systemic and inside the vegetable/fruit; cannot be removed prior to eating.

Physicians are near reaching critical mass on the toxin issue.

Peter Sullivan has literally "done them all" in terms of testing hundreds of detox strategies past 10 years.  https://www.pinterest.com/petermsullivan/

Proper nutrition, hydration, exercise and adopting a non-toxic lifestyle are the backbone of good health.

From environmental medicine Dr. Stephen Genuis, detox effectiveness of:

Bile Acid Sequestrants: Proven
Chelation: Proven
Phlebotomy: Proven
Sauna Therapy: Proven
Exercise: Limited
Fasting: Limited
Hemodialysis: Limited
Herbal Supplements: Limited
Plasmapheresis: Limited
Probiotics & Prebiotics: Limited
Zeolites: Limited
Colon Cleansing: None
Food & Drink Cleanses: None
Hot Springs: None
Ionic Foot Baths: None
Leeching: None
Liver & Gall Bladder Flush: None
Massage: None

Adapted from: http://twcleansecommunity.com/wp-conten ... anBody.pdf

That's all for now.

[l82start]

interesting that sauna (surrounded by heat and steam) and hot spring (surrounded by heat and water) had two different results..  i wonder what the difference is? the amount of heat, the amount of sweating, or some other factor?

[MachineGhost]

interesting that sauna (surrounded by heat and steam) and hot spring (surrounded by heat and water) had two different results..  i wonder what the difference is? the amount of heat, the amount of sweating, or some other factor?

Wet saunas are way hotter than any hot spring that could be tolerated.  The key is to raise the body's core temperature to induce a controlled fever.  This looks like one domain the naturopathics were correct with their cold sheet treatment.

[l82start]

interesting that sauna (surrounded by heat and steam) and hot spring (surrounded by heat and water) had two different results..  i wonder what the difference is? the amount of heat, the amount of sweating, or some other factor?

Wet saunas are way hotter than any hot spring that could be tolerated.  The key is to raise the body's core temperature to induce a controlled fever.  This looks like one domain the naturopathics were correct with their cold sheet treatment.

OK so that got me wondering a bit more, so i did some googleing
Steam rooms are typically kept at around 100°F to 114°F
Saunas are typically kept at around 158 °F - 212 °F (dry heat or controlled humidity)
Hot tubs (and presumably hotsprings) are typically recommended to be at below 104°F
to prevent overheating (heat stroke)

which makes me think since all three could induce controlled fever (overheating) that that may not be the prime reason for the benefit/lack of benefit, or that the explanation needs to be more detailed to make sense.. i suspect quantity and quality of sweating + controlled fever may be the answer..

[MachineGhost]

which makes me think since all three could induce controlled fever (overheating) that that may not be the prime reason for the benefit/lack of benefit, or that the explanation needs to be more detailed to make sense.. i suspect quantity and quality of sweating + controlled fever may be the answer..

One of the marketing fictions about infrared saunas is that the melting point of body fat is only 120F or so.  Fat is pretty much where toxins are stored in the body and you can even make an argument that the obesity epidemic parallels the rise of estrogen-mimicking and estrogen-disrupting toxins.  So maybe it is that.

[l82start]

i have been trying to avoid scented soaps shampoos etc for a while now for a couple reasons, one is a mild allergic reaction i get to some common chemical that is used in the scenting process, something in many (candles, air fresheners,  laundry detergents, liquid body wash etc) gives me runny noses and eyes and small headaches, the second is to avoid estrogen-mimicking and estrogen-disrupting toxins. i have no idea how much it helps or if i am really avoiding enough to make any difference but it seemed like a good idea to minimize exposure.

a couple of the products that i like are canus goat milk soap, which can be found unscented or with very mild scents (and also washes hair just fine) and angel of mine baby room air freshener, which doesn't trigger the allergic reaction  ( it does have a talcum powder smell that i don't mind, but is probably a bit odd or out of place for most people) 

[MachineGhost]

a couple of the products that i like are canus goat milk soap, which can be found unscented or with very mild scents (and

Pretty interesting!  It's making me hungry.

Ever since Cleopatra filled her bathtub with it and jumped in, fresh goat’s milk has been revered for its superior moisturizing properties.

Little did she realize that the reason fresh goat’s milk left her skin feeling silky smooth and supple was because of its unique protein structure.

Today, the unique properties found in goat’s milk are acclaimed across the world.  Shorter protein strands allow for easy absorption by the skin, contributing to a deep and extended hydration.  A whole host of natural minerals and vitamins in fresh goat’s milk are absorbed right along with all that protein, helping to nourish healthy skin and give it back its suppleness and elasticity.

[MachineGhost]

Nothing more to report.  Chelation and infrared saunas are the creme de la creme, with some assist from a few supplements (electrolytes, Vitamin C, NAC, psyillium, etc.)  Certain toxins come out in sweat, others come out in the urine.  Compared to normal sweating, about 15% of sweat is composed of toxins via an infrared sauna vs 1%.

There is no documented medical evidence that infrared saunas are harmful, unlike infrared radiation (IR) from the sun (about 50% of the sun's energy is IR which penetrates the skin deeply down into the dermis).  However, what I can tell you is it is caveat emptor when shopping for infrared saunas.  The infrared spectrum is divided into three major sections and not all materials used in emitters are focused solely on the beneficial far infrared rays (IR-C) as opposed to near infrared harmful rays (IR-A).  As a rule, the lower the surface temperature of an emitter, the more it is focused on far infrared rays.  That pretty much rules out anything but carbon emitters, but since carbon emitters have poor radiance coverage compared to ceramic, a carbon/ceramic combo is the best of both worlds.

I'm not 100% convinced the ceramic element heaters used for the past two decades don't give off any IR-A despite being focused on far infrared, so I'm going to continue not using my sauna daily except after weightlifting and I'm also covering up all exposed skin.  The surface temperatures on those can get to 500F and I've burned myself accidentally a few times touching the protective metal screen.  It's also been hot enough to scorch black the back of the wooden "backrest".  If sweating is the goal, then I don't feel skin penetration is necessary unless it was a true far infrared emitter (which would not heat up the air, wood or anything but your body).

[Mountaineer]

Nothing more to report.  Chelation and infrared saunas are the creme de la creme, with some assist from a few supplements (electrolytes, Vitamin C, NAC, psyillium, etc.)  Certain toxins come out in sweat, others come out in the urine.  Compared to normal sweating, about 15% of sweat is composed of toxins via an infrared sauna vs 1%.

There is no documented medical evidence that infrared saunas are harmful, unlike infrared radiation (IR) from the sun (about 50% of the sun's energy is IR which penetrates the skin deeply down into the dermis).  However, what I can tell you is it is caveat emptor when shopping for infrared saunas.  The infrared spectrum is divided into three major sections and not all materials used in emitters are focused solely on the beneficial far infrared rays (IR-C) as opposed to near infrared harmful rays (IR-A).  As a rule, the lower the surface temperature of an emitter, the more it is focused on far infrared rays.  That pretty much rules out anything but carbon emitters, but since carbon emitters have poor radiance coverage compared to ceramic, a carbon/ceramic combo is the best of both worlds.

I'm not 100% convinced the ceramic element heaters used for the past two decades don't give off any IR-A despite being focused on far infrared, so I'm going to continue not using my sauna daily except after weightlifting and I'm also covering up all exposed skin.  The surface temperatures on those can get to 500F and I've burned myself accidentally a few times touching the protective metal screen.  It's also been hot enough to scorch black the back of the wooden "backrest".  If sweating is the goal, then I don't feel skin penetration is necessary unless it was a true far infrared emitter (which would not heat up the air, wood or anything but your body).

I may be really wrong on this, but I thought it was the ultraviolet, UV, radiation that was harmful (ionizing radiation).  I thought infrared (IR) just gave you red skin, made you feel hot, but was not damaging like UV.  At least that is what I remember from my schooling eons ago.

http://copublications.greenfacts.org/en ... e.htm  is one source.  There is much more available by googling.

... Mountaineer

[MachineGhost]

http://copublications.greenfacts.org/en ... e.htm  is one source.  There is much more available by googling.

It's only been recently that research has shown that non-ionizing IR photoages and damages the skin.  About 54% of IR reaches the skin (compared to 5-7% for UV), but a whopping 50% of it reaches the deepest skin layer (dermis), so its like an order of magnitude higher than UV in terms of sheer volume despite being relatively lower in proton energy.  And IR-A (short) is about 30% of total solar energy for deep skin penetration compared to IR-B (medium) and IR-C (far) that only penetrate the upper skin.  Note the conflation I did previously...  solar energy is not same as sunlight which is 95% UV-A and 5% UV-B.  So basically its a new source of radiation to worry about.

So is a ceramic emitter the same as solar energy?  I don't see why not if both generates the save wavelengths.