IS your house killing you? Did anyone see it [Archive]

View Full Version : IS your house killing you? Did anyone see it

Notsquare

30th October 2007, 12:10 PM

I had been hoping to catch the series on SBS television about dangerous products in homes, e.g. dust, cca timber making people sick. Unfortunately I have missed both of the first couple of episodes, and I was hopeful someone might have seen it and can convey whether it is a beat up? Or are there a couple of scenarios which are relevant.

Master Splinter

31st October 2007, 03:13 AM

It's always worth taking anything 'health' related in the media with a rather large pinch of salt.

Have a read of www.badscience.net (http://www.badscience.net/)

pawnhead

31st October 2007, 03:38 AM

Looks like a bit of a beat up:
The intention is good here, given the importance of boosting our awareness of toxicity among household products, but as a television show it could do without the cheap dramatic tricks. It is a reality series that follows seven families' attempts, with alarmed experts, to detox their homes.
Tonight's first episode is about the Hatfields, who suffer from allergies they suspect are caused by toxins in their home. But here's the thing: Dad is a severe asthmatic and it makes sense his offspring would suffer from the same condition. Mum and the kids are in tears because unshaven, dishevelled Dad is depressed and their home is poisoned. Then we're told Dad, a commercial painter, has been using solvents and other nasties for years in his workshop beneath the house. Well, d'oh! No wonder they're all crook.
The alarmed experts tear up the place to rid it of toxins, including mould. The family's recovery, which shows smiling, freshly shaved Dad surrounded by his smiling, grateful family, is suitably predictable.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/tv-reviews/is-your-house-killing-you/2007/10/16/1192300754359.htmlNeedless to say, it doesn't look like you've missed much.

Pusser

31st October 2007, 10:36 AM

The interesting point in the episode was the fact that when he finished painting he took his mask off. The aerosol solvents had not dissapated even though his door was open. He also took no precautions against skin absorbtion. Hmmm never done that myself:C

Pusser

Matt88s

31st October 2007, 12:17 PM

Solvents are nasty little buggers. We used a lot in the shop, cleaning parts, tranny cases, valve bodies, cleaning paint guns, etc. I used to clean parts without any protection at all, you know, its such a pain to put on the gloves when it would only take a second or two to clean this part off, blah, blah.

After a while I got to where contact with the solvents would cause intense pain, it was the oddest thing, it was almost like a chemical burn. It would hurt like a bleep for a few seconds then it would go away.

I hate to think of all the toxins I absorbed. Some of those solvents will be absorbed into the bloodstream and hitting your kidneys within 30 seconds or so of contact, our skin gives almost no protection against them.

The moral of this story is use protection. I do now, it catches up with you quicker than you think if you don't. This applies to everything as well, hearing, eyesight, etc, wear your protective gear.

That said, most of what is on the news, TV, radio, it may all be true, but they present it in a very misleading and dishonest way, and they do so intentionally. News is a business anymore though, so you have to expect that. Its sad, but I don't trust anything on the news that I can't verify myself. I might watch it, I might listen to it, but I know there is a lot of scaremongering and bs going on. Its a pity I say, when the news has lost the publics trust.
:no:

Here's an interesting website concerning a household toxin. You might want to check it out.

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

Pretty nasty stuff isn't it? :C

:;

TassieKiwi

31st October 2007, 03:21 PM

Yep. If it smells chemically, it'll be poisoning you.

Gra

31st October 2007, 03:23 PM

Matt, that used to be part of my sig....

That dihydrogen Monoxide is dangerous stuff

pawnhead

31st October 2007, 08:52 PM

Matt, that used to be part of my sig....

That dihydrogen Monoxide is dangerous stuffI like this one:

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y266/holgerdanske/th_picphp.jpg (http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y266/holgerdanske/picphp.jpg)

SpiritFlutes

23rd August 2009, 07:41 PM

It's always worth taking anything 'health' related in the media with a rather large pinch of salt.

Have a read of www.badscience.net (http://www.badscience.net/)

I don't know where you are comming from with this comment. Dosen't sound like you have seen the Documentary. Your comment is not only extremely generalistic but blind cause you obviously havn't seen the film.

I agree to an extent that the media is very poor in informing people about thier health or information that empowers people with cold hard and real truth that could ultimatley empower them to be anything other than blind consumers but it's not always the fact. This documentary stands up very well to scientific scrutiny and common sense. There are ways we can make our homes safer places to live and this film empowers people to understand those present dangers and take positive action to change that. There is no doubt that that will ultimatley make childrens and adults lives more healthier. I didn't say healthy as we as a toxic consumer based humanity have a really long, long way to go.

We all should be asking ourselves why the cancer rate is so common and high statistically, higher than it has ever been. This relates directly to our immediate environments and the environments within our bodies that we create with our diets, thoughts and the polluted air we breathe. Not often do people stop to think about this. I applaud the telivision networks for showing this kind of film if for nothing else. It may be old but it is never too late to change our outlook.

It is a fact there are many bad science's, one of the worst is the chemical revolution that was started by the military industry complex at the end of the WWII since then a mega chemical industry has dominated manufacture, agriculture and so many aspects of our lives and planet. Begging the question: Are we better off for this? The statistics and results would return a strong NO. Quite obviously in 65 years we have raised the cancer rate tenfold and now have a planet where soil is biologically dead in non organic farms. There is no water ways on the planet that are not polluted, some are so caustic such as in china your skin would peel off if you were to take a swim. We are clearing precious rain forrests at a unequaled rate never seen before.

If you get an oportunity to see this film and others that deliver similar information that can help humanity make informed decisions in a healthy and sustainable direction I strongly suggest seing them or reading about them and making up your own mind before discounting them as whatever your mind can find to deny thier confronting nature that will destroy many peoples belief systems in a matter of minutes, that is if they are open to seing and realising thier mistakes.

Thank God for People Like David Suzuki

SpiritFlutes

Groggy

23rd August 2009, 07:55 PM

Master Splinter is likely to have forgotten by now since the post is over two years old. FWIW, I thought Matt88s' post was spot on.

SpiritFlutes

23rd August 2009, 08:25 PM

Master Splinter is likely to have forgotten by now since the post is over two years old. FWIW, I thought Matt88s' post was spot on.

OK, just felt a conviction to share my 2 cents worth. I totally agree with Matt88s too. No doubt my words will make a difference somewhere and to someone. I know it's not the main purpose of this great forum to speak about being conscious of our environment but it has to be spoken about not ignored. Crusify me or congratulate me I really don't mind, my concern is for the future or our planet and the future generations of humanity. It's about understanding why we should look at healthier choices in more ways than one that is the point I hoped to deliver. The responsibility lies with us. We either change or be changed. Something to ponder.

SpiritFlutes

Groggy

23rd August 2009, 08:43 PM

SpiritFlutes

23rd August 2009, 10:20 PM

I agree with the comments about the media. They are not doing anyone any favours by over dramatising everything for the sake of ratings. It inures people to the real problems, a modern day 'cry wolf' situation. A lot of what they portray is patently false, causing people to ignore the real issues.

Giving negative comments about the media should not be mistaken for a lack of concern for the environment.

IMO thats absolutley correct. And I see media and the environment as seperate issues just to make that clear. Appologies if me saying my feelings made you draw that conclusion that that was my belief. Certainly not!

Our commercial media is complete and absolute rubish, so is just about everything portrayed on TV with the exception of a few films like the one mentioned in this thread. I have long since lived without a TV. The internet is a great thing for creating a community while we all live in theis seperationist society, it allows freedom of speech and alternative news to be spread at the click of a button. Helping us to be informed earthlings. Sadly it may not be too much longer before it is a highly censored internet and they'll have great excuses as usual why you should give up your constitutional rights. And it'll be here we go again. Another story for the history books of how we all sheepishly gave in to the fear mongering.

On a totally seperate issue have a look at this, did you know about this?

http://www.counterpunch.org/darksideofthemoon08212009.html

Anone care to make a comment? Dont suppose you heard this story on the news or will.

SpiritFlutes

Master Splinter

25th August 2009, 01:38 AM

"I don't know where you are comming from with this comment. Dosen't sound like you have seen the Documentary. Your comment is not only extremely generalistic but blind cause you obviously havn't seen the film. "

The documentary was done with the usual amount of accuracy found in a TV lifestyle entertainment program - which is to say that there were enough scary words to worry the crystal/aura/chakra/feng shui brigade - basically, there was nothing particularly rigorous in its content.

"We all should be asking ourselves why the cancer rate is so common and high statistically, higher than it has ever been. "

This is generally a corollary of improved detection rates and a longer lifespan - people aren't dying as young as they used to, therefore other causes of death are becoming more prominent.

"It is a fact there are many bad science's, one of the worst is the chemical revolution that was started by the military industry complex at the end of the WWII since then a mega chemical industry has dominated manufacture, agriculture and so many aspects of our lives and planet. Begging the question: Are we better off for this? The statistics and results would return a strong NO."

I think that the billion (no exaggeration) or so people saved from starvation by the efforts of one single agronomist would say YES. See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug

"Quite obviously in 65 years we have raised the cancer rate tenfold"

That's funny - after a high in the 70 - 90's as detection methods improved, I could have sworn that the rate has been falling:

http://progressreport.cancer.gov/trends-glance.asp

You should probably tell the US National Institute of Health that they are wrong - they'd appreciate your expertise in the matter!

Master Splinter

25th August 2009, 02:44 AM

On a totally seperate issue have a look at this, did you know about this?

http://www.counterpunch.org/darksideofthemoon08212009.html

Anone care to make a comment? Dont suppose you heard this story on the news or will.

SpiritFlutes

I'll comment....

Ohhh, the Lunar Heavy Impactor - yes, I can see why some people might be concerned by this - to quote from that article:
"There should be a discussion, not only by the public, but also by oceans, weather patterns, plants, and all sorts of other living things"
I'm not sure what else concerns those people, but let me know when they get an answer from the Pacific Ocean or when the Arctic Oscillation says 'Hi!".

Personally, I think they should have a bit more concern for reality - specifically, how they relate to it!

But on to the serious business of a lump of man made junk hitting the moon at 40km/second...here's what you can do:

Go outside on a night when the moon is in the sky.

Point telescope at the moon.
Look at craters on the moon.
Wonder what caused these craters.
Hint - the craters have nothing whatsoever to do with fermenting cheese (despite google's earlier campaign to convince people otherwise).

It is just possible (stay with me here...I know this is stretching the imagination) - that these craters are what are known as impact craters; ie, they were caused when lumps of solar system junk (comet bits, meteors, leftover planetoid rubble, spaceships of little green men) thwacked into the moon.

Now, from the number and size of craters on the moon, you'd say that the moon has been hit by a truly astronomical (ha ha) number of 'things' over the last 3.9 billion years, at speeds up to 1,000km/second.

Therefore, you'd rightly assume that hitting the moon yet again - but in a controlled manner so you could watch the event closely - would have, to a first approximation, absolutely no effect whatsoever.

Mind you, I wouldn't want to be standing where it hit - it's expected to make a 20 meter diameter crater.

I particularly liked this bit from the article:
"Collectively, we can sabotage the bombing by imagining all manner of things going wrong, or encouraging the Moon to increase her own magnetic shields. Sing to her. Give her back just a tiny portion of all that she has done for us. We are all created from Moon dust."
Truth be told, the moon is thought to have been created by a Mars sized object walloping into the earth (http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=moon_making_010815_02.jpg&cap=24+Hours+of+Chaos%3A+Click+to+see+how+the+Moon+was+made.), so the moon is created from Earth dust.

To go one step further, the stuff that the Earth is made out of (with the exception of hydrogen and helium) comes from the remains of supernovas from the first generation of stars in the universe - so you can accurately say that we are all star stuff (or just as accurately - that we are all nuclear waste from some very, very big fusion mishaps).

Must go now - have to sing to the Moon to increase her magnetic shield!

Alastair

25th August 2009, 05:57 PM

MS

You are wasting your time tryiing to suggest something logical to those of this ilk.

They are immune to it.

Master Splinter

25th August 2009, 06:51 PM

Meh. Think of it as a lesson in critical thinking for anyone else who reads the thread.

I don't worry about the woo-woos, I know I'll need to be a fairy/white witch/dolphin/unicorn/message from other side to shift their viewpoints, but it means I can be a troll with a socially useful purpose!

(Interesting that the original program didn't pick up on the asbestos content of old carpet underlay that hit the news today...now that is investigative reporting)

glenn k

25th August 2009, 07:16 PM

SpiritFlutes

25th August 2009, 11:35 PM

"The documentary was done with the usual amount of accuracy found in a TV lifestyle entertainment program - which is to say that there were enough scary words to worry the crystal/aura/chakra/feng shui brigade - basically, there was nothing particularly rigorous in its content."

Well I thought it was a great eye opener with much factual information backed by scientific evidence. What is the most common media device today on the planet? Well it's the TV. Now just because a TV publication is created possibly in a way to be marketable to that form of medium does not necessarily mean it is not accurate. Your comment doesn’t go as far as to say that's the case but seems to imply that. Can you say it was not an eye opener that could lead people to make informed choices to change their patterns with the outcome of creating a healthier lifestyle for themselves and their dependants? If that’s the case that it could and I definitely believe so then I can not say anything negative about it, only applaud those who stepped out of their comfort zones to allow such a different program than is normal on the ATV channels to be shown. Maybe a small step but one in a better direction, as opposed to totally baseless rubbish that will ultimately make the sick sicker. I think there was enough truth and common sense to awaken any human being with mind open enough to see it.

It's not just very generalistic but also very in-accurate to single out any group of people disposed to any form of beliefs that you would consider differ to or oppose your own and then make assumptions as to how they took the information. Such comments serve to show the intolerance towards other people’s beliefs, lifestyles and practices. I don't think it matters what your type of beliefs are, if you use common sense then certainly a lot of that information in the film in question is very concerning. There are so many exposures to chemicals in our day to day lives now that any minimization can certainly not hurt.

If you are writing off this information on the basis of what you don't agree with can be conveniently labeled bad science then that would seem very flawed and foolish indeed. Did you look at all the information that led the scientists to come to such conclusions and make an informed opinion? Did not any of it occur as common sense either, even if you didn't like the way it was presented?

This is generally a corollary of improved detection rates and a longer lifespan - people aren't dying as young as they used to, therefore other causes of death are becoming more prominent.

Unfortunately we live in a world where any form of Natural or Alternative Cancer Treatment is illegal. Chemo, radiation, and surgery since the 1940's have been the only mainstream treatments offered to cancer patients. Their long term success rates are low and this is why criteria of what constitutes a successful recovery have been manipulated to hide the trends that these treatments sadly aren’t effective and destruct the body's mechanisms to fight disease which were already suppressed from bad lifestyle choices to get the disease in the first place. Yes early detection may have helped stopped cancers of various kinds from progressing to more advanced stages. Ultimately though so many things such as nutrition one of the main contributing factors in any ailment, deficiency or disease are overlooked and are not even taught in medical school. I recommend seeing food matters. If you can’t get a copy pm me and I'll loan you mine. Below is a link to a Youtube video of the intro.

<cite>www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXfarIbdaVA</cite> (http://www.woodworkforums.com/www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXfarIbdaVA)

That's funny - after a high in the 70 - 90's as detection methods improved, I could have sworn that the rate has been falling:
<o></o>
<o></o>There has been what would seem like a drop in death statistics due to the criteria being conveniently changed of what constitutes remission from disease and death from disease. This directly relates to the time frame for ones survival after treatment to constitute a recovery. They will never find a cure for cancer it’s too big an industry. The only cure already exists: It’s called a healthy lifestyle which constitutes all kinds of healthy behavior. Healthy thoughts, healthy diet, exercise, and spirituality; whatever that may be to you. You can have the genetic precursors to cancer but not be at risk when you use this approach. The human body was designed to heal itself but can only do so much when all other efforts of the person are going against this. Cancer doesn’t just fall out of the sky. People create it.

You should probably tell the US National Institute of Health that they are wrong - they'd appreciate your expertise in the matter!<o></o>

<o>A truly empowered and informed person looks at all the data, statistics, and information available. Not just from one group, source or authority and then makes up his/her own mind after testing, questioning and weighing up everything. Don’t think that because someone, a group, or even a so called authority says anything that it must constitute the ultimate truth. The only way you will find have ultimate truth is to find it yourself.

I think that the billion (no exaggeration) or so people saved from starvation by the efforts of one single agronomist would say YES.

Now this individual Norman Borlaug is certainly responsible for some achievements that directly correlate to many lives being saved but are we on the same subject here. I thought the subject was chemical agriculture and what are the benefits not genetic hybridization to create higher yielding crops. Such information as this does not in any way reinforce that YES the world benefits from chemical use and abuses through our food production or in any other way and I am talking about it sustaining and supporting quality of health and life not creating material goods that we think we need more of, it's has certainly supported that and I agree some of those things have been used for good purposes. Mostly I think the example of Borlaug serves to highlight is the potential that could be even greater in helping feed the starving nations if similar approaches as Borlaug's coupled with chemical free organic farming methods as at least they are sustainable and will provide security for the future of those farms. There is plenty or information to support how chemical agriculture depletes topsoil and eventually kills all the microbial life in the soil leaving a huge dependency on chemical fertilizers to produce any crop at all from it. They use more water also that is becoming a more and more precious resource due to the soil not being able to hold the water and the produce that they grow is seriously lacking in trace minerals because the big three are used only NPK, Nitrogen, Potassium, Phosphorus, which create vigorous growth in crops but leave them susceptible to disease creating the unnecessary need for chemical fungicides and pesticides. Who benefits from all this I ask you besides big chemical companies? Clearly chemical agriculture only serves to make our bodies toxic and suppress one of humanity's most important systems; the immune response. Also chemicals affect our Nervous system and every process in the body.

I would have to look into the information more though as I am not a fan of Genetic Engineering and where such approaches may save lives in the short term of some very large numbers of people (couldn't find evidence of 1 billion though) The question still remains as this technology has not proved itself in the long term that possibilities are that it can lead to extinction of many varieties of species destroying many thousands of years of genetic diversity, lead to extinction of species all together that could possibly contribute to massive famine causing death in the many millions not to mention the duration of life possibly diminishing from being sustained from produce that has detrimental effects due to such so called life saving technology. Quick fixes that are not in line with the natural balance and harmony of the Earth and creation should be looked upon with extreme skepticism. I want genetic diversity to be there for my children so this must be done with great care. We are already down the path having lost many thousands of species forever already. Sad fact.<o></o></o>
<o></o>
<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CEarth%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><style>  </style> So threes my viewpoints or my truth. My views are shared that they may allow those who are open to another’s point of view to benefit from that. No one is right or wrong but what one sees as their truth is right for them and I totally respect that. Our views are all subjective to our life’s experiences and the beauty of that is we are of different experiences therefore sharing helps to broaden our outlook at least if only about others even if we don't agree.

There is a big disease on the planet right now and it is symptomatic of the collective dysfunctional human ego. Sharing our views and having a forum on these issues without argument or ridicule is part of healing that disease and realizing our vulnerabilities as human beings.

<o></o>SpiritFlutes<o></o>
<o></o>

Master Splinter

27th August 2009, 01:27 AM

...Such comments serve to show the intolerance towards other people’s beliefs, lifestyles and practices....

People can believe whatever floats their boat, as long as they don't confuse their belief structures as being equivalent to facts.

...If you are writing off this information on the basis of what you don't agree with can be conveniently labeled bad science then that would seem very flawed and foolish indeed.

Did you look at all the information that led the scientists to come to such conclusions and make an informed opinion? Did not any of it occur as common sense either, even if you didn't like the way it was presented?

I'm writing it off as most of the issues raised in the program were blown out of proportion to their actual threat, and a bit of common sense (such as reading the instructions on an unflued gas heater that tells you to only use it with sufficient ventilation) solves most of these.

Others - like radon gas from granite kitchen counters - draws a very long bow and conflates the danger of living over a large granite formation (such as the Rocky Mountains in the US) into danger from a granite kitchen benchtop - basically, if you don't have a benchtop weighing several hundred thousand tonnes, you are not going to get exposed to anything over the normal background radiation levels. (in fact, the radiation levels at 'alternative' health springs such as Bad Gastein are higher than normal background levels...see http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/542317_2 )

...Unfortunately we live in a world where any form of Natural or Alternative Cancer Treatment is illegal...

Errrrrrr...I'm not sure what country you are living in, but here (Australia) you are quite welcome to go for whatever treatments you want, be it uropathy (http://users.erols.com/martinlara/), homeopathy (http://www.cancure.org/homeopathy.htm#Homeopathic%20Remedies%20for%20Cancer), chelation therapy and zapping (http://www.drclark.net/), the Hallelujah diet (http://www.hacres.com/home/home.asp), or just plain faith healing. Just don't expect medicare to pick up the tab for non-proven therapies, and be aware that they all have essentially the same success rate, which happens to match the success rate of placebo treatments/spontaneous remission.

But before trying any, you might like to read this - http://www.quackwatch.org/00AboutQuackwatch/altseek.html

[on manistream cancer therapies] ...Their long term success rates are low...

No, they're not. Citations please...or are the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organisation wrong in their statistics, too?? ( http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/cancerfall.html )

<o></o>There has been what would seem like a drop in death statistics due to the criteria being conveniently changed of what constitutes remission from disease and death from disease.

Citations please. What has changed in the ICD classifications since they were established 50 years ago?

<o>A truly empowered and informed person looks at all the data, statistics, and information available. Not just from one group, source or authority and then makes up his/her own mind after testing, questioning and weighing up everything.

Where are you getting your statistical information from, I would like to review the sources.....

(couldn't find evidence of 1 billion though) </o>

"In this regard, it is important to recall that Dr. Borlaug’s break-though achievements in the 20th Century are credited with saving a billion people from famine, and keeping an estimated one billion hectares of forest and rainforest from being cleared for agricultural production."
http://agriculture.senate.gov/Hearings/hearings.cfm?hearingid=1523&witnessId=4333

You might also like this quote of Dr Borlaug's:

"Even if you could use all the organic material that you have--the animal manures, the human waste, the plant residues--and get them back on the soil, you couldn't feed more than 4 billion people. In addition, if all agriculture were organic, you would have to increase cropland area dramatically, spreading out into marginal areas and cutting down millions of acres of forests.

"At the present time, approximately 80 million tons of nitrogen nutrients are utilized each year. If you tried to produce this nitrogen organically, you would require an additional 5 or 6 billion head of cattle to supply the manure. How much wild land would you have to sacrifice just to produce the forage for these cows? There's a lot of nonsense going on here.

"If people want to believe that the organic food has better nutritive value, it's up to them to make that foolish decision. But there's absolutely no research that shows that organic foods provide better nutrition.

"As far as plants are concerned, they can't tell whether that nitrate ion comes from artificial chemicals or from decomposed organic matter. If some consumers believe that it's better from the point of view of their health to have organic food, God bless them. Let them buy it. Let them pay a bit more. It's a free society.

"But don't tell the world that we can feed the present population without chemical fertilizer. That's when this misinformation becomes destructive..."
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/132479.html
<style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin:35.4pt; mso-footer-margin:35.4pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --</style>

Oh, and if the lunar impactor troubles you, what do you think of the Large Hadron Collider (http://www.sanescience.org/)?