 
Clear and Plastic Danger  
The Alien in your Kitchen

By Chaplain David Lefavor, D.Min, BCC

Published by Chaplain David Lefavor at Smashwords

Copyright 2014 by Chaplain David Lefavor

**Disclaimer:** The views expressed in this presentation are solely those of the author in his private capacity and do not in any way represent the views of the Department of Veteran Affairs, or any other components, or departments of the U.S. Federal Government. This work is intended for informational purposes only and is not to be construed as medical or health care advice, nor should it be used to diagnose or treat any patients.

**Narrative information and picture usage:** While every precaution has been taken to ensure the reliability and accuracy of the narrative information and facts, neither the author nor the publisher assumes any responsibility for the use or misuse of information contained in this presentation. The pictures were all acquired from non-commercial, public domain internet web sites, and have been digitally enhanced to illustrate the narrative information presented in the publication.

**Acknowledgments:** A special thanks goes out to my daughter Maryanne for her tireless efforts in proofreading this work. I also wish to thank my wife Rosemary who believed in me about the dangers of plastic ware in our kitchen. A warm thank you goes to Marcie Roe for her art work support, and to the outstanding Ebook formating by Katrina Joyner, at ebookcovers4u.wordpress.com.

Clear and Plastic Danger  
The Alien in your Kitchen

By  
Chaplain David Lefavor, D.Min, BCC

Clear and Plastic Danger  
The Alien in your Kitchen

Chapter One: The All Too Common: Plastics in Our Lives

Chapter Two: The Alien in the Kitchen: Bisphenol-A (BPA)

Chapter Three: A Toxic Marriage: Plastic Food Containers and Chemicals

Chapter Four Got Receipt: Get BPA

Chapter Five: Alien Assault: The Attack of the Endocrine Disruptors - BPA and Phthalates

Chapter Six: Bottled Water: A Clear Biochemical Cocktail

Chapter Seven Recycle Codes: Confusion by the Numbers

Chapter Eight BPA Free: The Regrettable Substitution

Chapter Nine From the Sea: The Great Pacific Garbage Patch

Chapter Ten Banishing BPA: Banning Plastic Bags

Chapter Eleven Informed Consent: Living with Plastics

Chapter Twelve Final Thoughts: Epilogue and Working Bibliography

Epilogue

Working Bibliography:

Other books from the Lefavor team:

# Chapter One:  
The All Too Common: Plastics in Our Lives

Plastics are in our lives to stay, they play an important role in almost every aspect of our lives. Look around you and you'll see that you are surrounded by things that are made with plastic: Furniture, Soda bottles, cell phones, cups and glasses, computers, credit cards, door knobs, car parts, toothbrushes, hair combs, pens, TVs and VCRs, CDs and DVDs. Every time you buy something at a store you get a plastic bag. Last year the U.S. produced over 100 billion plastic bags, and sold over 30 billion bottles of "spring water". Most of them have ended up in landfills and will not decompose until, maybe, sometime in the next century.

Of all the plastic items around U.S. today, there are common items that we drink out of: plastic bottles, drinking cups, baby bottles, sippy cups. The list is long, and these objects that we so easily put up to our mouths are quite ubiquitous. We certainly take for granted, the unspoken assumption that all these items are safe for our use. We know we should recycle them, but most the time, they go out with the trash. According to Green Cup Challenge we go through 2.5 million plastic bottles every hour and only 1 out of 4 is recycled. Enough plastic bottles are thrown away each year to circle the earth four times. Additionally, we spent over 11.8 billion dollars on bottled water last year.

America has been obsessed with plastics for over 50 years and just about everything that we treasure has plastic in it. The rapid proliferation of plastics, the utter universality of it in our lives, suggests a deep and enduring relationship. But our feelings toward plastic are a complicated mix of dependence and distrust. I do not know what we would do if we did not have plastic. If it is man-made and you are not absolutely sure that it is metal, wood/paper, or glass/ceramic, then it is probably plastic. This includes many things that look like metal, wood, or paper, and includes synthetic cloth fabrics. Amazingly, this is all new in the last 40 or so years. At the end of the 1950's, about the only plastic in a home were nylon stockings and vinyl records. Our beverages came in glass or waxed cardboard. Cars were made of metal, our furniture was made of wood, cloths were made of cotton and wool, toys were made of metal and wood, and our food containers were cast iron, or some type of metal.

Today it is very different, most of what we use in our life is made of plastic. Most of today's major plastic producers, such as Dow Chemical, DuPont, ExxonMobil, BASF, and Total Petrochemical, grew up when petroleum and chemical industries began in the 1950s. These now huge giants in the plastics industry were the first to conduct the research and development of polymers. Standard Oil was the first to figure it out how to isolate the hydrocarbons in crude oil petroleum rather than burning off the ethylene gas byproduct. That innovation helped give rise to the modern petrochemical companies that produce the raw, unprocessed polymers known as resins which are now the building blocks of today's plastic industry which employs over a million American workers. But at what cost to our health and well-being, and to our environment?

Most plastics are made from oil. Plastics are man-made materials. They are a useful invention because they are waterproof, easy to shape and tough. They have taken the place of traditional materials like wood and metal in many products. Today's Plastics can be divided into two major categories: Thermosetting and Thermoplastics.

Thermosetting plastics: Thermosetting is a type of plastic made from polymer resins that becomes liquid when heated to around 230F degrees and can be molded into shape then when it cools the plastic will not change shape. Thermoset materials are usually liquid, or malleable, prior to curing and designed to be molded into their final form, or used as adhesives. Once cooled and hardened, these plastics retain their shapes and cannot return to their original form. They are hard and durable. Others are solids like that of the molding compound used in semiconductors and integrated electrical circuits. Once hardened, a thermoset resin cannot be reheated and melted back to a liquid form.

Thermosetting plastics are generally strong and resistant to heat, but they melt the first time they are heated to a high enough temperature and harden (set) permanently when cooled. They can never be melted or reshaped again. They are used in situations where resistance to heat is important such as kitchen work surfaces, good-quality plastic cups, saucepan handles and plug casings. Thermosets can be used for auto parts, aircraft parts and tires. Examples include polyurethanes, polyesters, epoxy resins and phenolic resins. There are five types of Thermosetting plastics:

Bakelite: Named after the Belgian inventor, Leo Baeleland. It is a brand name for any of a series of thermosetting plastics prepared by heating phenol or cresol with formaldehyde resin and ammonia under pressure: used for radio cabinets, telephone receivers, electric insulators, electrical insulators and plasticware, cameras, rods, water tubes, machine and instrument housings, bottle closures, and many machine and electrical components.

Epoxy: A high-strength adhesive, often made of two different epoxides materials that must be mixed together just prior to use. Epoxy is used chiefly in adhesives, coatings, electrical insulation, solder mix, and castings, as well as surfboards and other things that need to stand extreme forces.

Melamine resin: Made from melamine and formaldehyde by a process called polymerization this is a hard, thermosetting plastic material. Melamine resin is often used in kitchen utensils and plates (such as Melmac). Melamine resin utensils and bowls are not microwave safe. Melamine resin is often used to saturate decorative paper that is laminated under heat and pressure and then pasted onto particle board; the resulting panel is often called melamine and commonly used in ready-to-assemble furniture and kitchen cabinets. It is also manufactured under a trade name of Formica and used in counter tops and decorative wood coverings.

Polyimide: Made by Dupont, polyimide materials are lightweight, flexible, and have a strong resistance to heat and chemicals. It can withstand temperatures from -200F to well over 500F degrees They are used in the electronics industry for flexible cables, as an insulating film on magnet wire and for medical tubing. For example, in a laptop computer, the cable that connects the main logic board to the is often a polyimide base with copper conductors. Used in the space program, making solar panels, and aircraft industry. It is normally an orange/yellow color.

Urea-formaldehyde: This is used in the production of composite panel products such as medium density fiberboard (MDF) and particleboard. It is high tensile strength, flexural modulus and heat distortion temperature, has low water absorption, high surface hardness, elongation at break, and volume resistance.

Thermoplastics: Less rigid than thermosets, thermoplastics can soften upon heating and return to their original form. A thermoplastic (sometimes written as thermo plastic) is a type of plastic made from polymer resins that becomes a homogenized liquid when heated and hard when cooled. Thermoplastics have been around for a long time, but are a huge component of everyday life today. Thermoplastics are usually softer than thermosetting plastics and usually melt at lower temperatures, so are not as suitable for casings on electrical equipment. They are easily molded and extruded into films, fibers and packaging. Examples include polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC).

For example, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) is a type of thermoplastic used to manufacture sports equipment, toys (i.e., LEGO® blocks), and various automobile parts. Polycarbonate is used to make compact discs (CDs), drinking bottles, food storage containers, and eyeglass lenses, among other things. Polyethylene is likely the most normally found thermoplastic and is used to make shampoo bottles, plastic grocery bags, and even bullet proof vests.

Most household plastic packaging is made from polyethylene. It comes in over a 1,000 different grades. Some of the most common household items are plastic film, bottles, sandwich bags, and even types of piping. Polyethylene can also be found in some fabrics and in mylar film as well.

Polystyrene can form a harder, impact resistant plastic that is used for cabinets, computer monitors, TVs, utensils, and glasses. If it is heated and air is added to the mixture, it turns into what is called EPS (Expanded Polystyrene) also known by the Dow Chemical trade name, Styrofoam. This is a lightweight rigid foam that is used for insulation and for packaging.

Teflon was invented in 1938 by Dr. Roy Plunkett and was developed by DuPont into what it is today. The benefits of it are that it is almost frictionless on the surface and it is a stable, durable, and is a heat-resistant type of plastic. It is most commonly used in products like bearings, film, plumbing tape, cookware, and tubing, as well as waterproof coatings and films.

Polyvinyl Chloride or PVC is durable, non-corrosive, as well as affordable. This is why it is used for pipes and plumbing. It does have one downfall, however, and that is the fact that a plasticizer has to be added to make it soft and moldable and this substance may leach out of it over a long period of time, which makes it brittle and subject to breaking.

You may think that plastic is just plastic, but there are actually about forty-five different families of plastics. In addition, each of these families can be made with hundreds of different adaptations. By changing different molecular factors of the plastic, they can be made with numerous properties, including flexibility, transparency, and durability.

# Chapter Two:  
The Alien in the Kitchen: Bisphenol-A (BPA)

With the plethora of plastics being manufactured today, there is one common ingredient that is used to make polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins in most plastics. It is called Bisphenol-A, or BPA as it is more familiarly known. BPA is a carbon-based synthetic compound used in the making of clear, hard plastics that has been in use by the plastic industry for over 50 years. First synthesized in 1891 and developed in the 1930s as a synthetic form of estrogen, Bisphenol-A has been widely used in commercial products including plastic bottles, compact discs and dental sealants. BPA usage has become the accepted process almost worldwide. BPA makes plastic shatter resistant, visual clear, with high heat and electrical resistance. BPA is widely used in polycarbonate plastics that are found in an enormous range of products, including eyeglass lenses, CDs and DVDs, personal computers, appliances, power tools, sports equipment, medical devices, and food and drink containers. Epoxy resins are easily formed and withstand chemicals, which makes them useful in products such as printed circuit boards, paints and adhesives, dental sealants, and coatings for the inside of metal cans.

BPA has become the plastic's industry miracle compound. It only has one problem; BPA does not behave itself well in the kitchen around food. While BPA has been regarded as safe for decades, recent research using sophisticated analytic techniques suggests that accumulated and prolonged exposure to the compound can interfere with our endocrine system and cause a range of ill health consequences, including reproductive problems and cancer. For most people, the primary source of exposure to BPA is through their diet. When BPA is used in plastic products that come in contact with humans, foods, cookware, dishes, and baby bottles, a transfer of chemistry occurs. These chemicals act upon our human bodies in a convoluted and complicated way. The BPA leaches into our food and begins to negatively affect our hormones, and they interfere with the endocrine system, which is the network of glands that orchestrate growth and development. The problem with BPA is that when it gets into our bodies, over time, it initiates estrogenic activity in our cells. When BPA gets inside our system, it seems to act like an estrogen in our human endocrine system. From all the independent studies, BPA is shown to mimic the hormone estrogen, it has been linked to cancer, heart disease, diabetes and lower semen quality. BPA has also been linked to childhood developmental problems. A study led by the Harvard School of Public Health found that more than 90 percent of pregnant women had detectable levels of BPA.

What is most worrying is that BPA is present in so many consumer products, including plastic bottles, canned goods, CDs, sunglasses, dental devices and fillings, household electronics and cigarettes. Researchers from the University of Missouri said that more than 8 billion pounds of BPA are used every year to manufacture consumer goods. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) first studied and evaluated BPA in 2008 as it relates to human exposure through use in food contact materials. The FDA made public their assessment, on 8/14/2008, of all the scientific evidence for the toxicity of BPA. The FDA said "no problem". Here is an excerpt from the executive summary from their draft report:

FDA estimates that BPA exposure from use in food contact materials in infants and adults is 2.42 µg/kg bw/day and 0.185 µg/kg bw/day, respectively. FDA has determined the appropriate no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) for its assessment of BPA to be the NOAEL for systemic toxicity of 5 mg/kg bw/day (5000 µg/kg bw/day) derived from two multigenerational rodent studies. This NOAEL results in adequate margins of safety of approximately 2,000 and 27,000 for infants and adults, respectively. The data reviewed on highlighted endpoints, such as the prostate gland and developmental neural and behavioral toxicity, were insufficient to provide a basis to alter the NOAEL used to calculate the margins of safety. FDA has concluded that an adequate margin of safety exists for BPA at current levels of exposure from food contact uses.

Following the release of the FDA report, another government group, called the National Toxicology Program (NTP) most strongly disagreed with the FDA and released its own report on 9/13/08. The NTP is an interagency program established in 1978 that spans across the Department of Health and Human Services. One of its goals is to provide information to the public as well as health regulatory agencies and the scientific community on toxicology research and potential toxic chemicals.

The NTP strongly disagreed with the FDA, and believed that scientific studies showing that BPA can have hormone-like effects in the human body (specifically mimicking the action of estrogen) should be given more weight. Reviewing the same data, they came to a slightly different conclusion. NTP Associate Director John Bucher, Ph.D. summarized their findings in a National Institutes of Health (NIH) press release:

"There remains considerable uncertainty whether the changes seen in the animal studies are directly applicable to humans, and whether they would result in clear adverse health effects. But we have concluded that the possibility that BPA may affect human development cannot be dismissed."

That report by the NIH was released in September of 2008. Now days, BPA is among the highest-volume chemicals manufactured around the world. BPA chemicals are so prevalent in the environment that 95 percent of men, women, and children have detectable levels of BPA in their bloodstreams. The CDC recently conducted testing of over 2,500 participants and found BPA in nearly all of the subject's urine samples. BPA has come under heavy scrutiny by health officials and the media in recent years due to concerns about its use in some food and beverage packaging that can leach into the food items. It is also found in some medical devices and water supply pipes. The concern is that when BPA enters the kitchen and thereby gets inside our bodies, those chemical compounds can act like a hormone which may alter normal hormone levels, especially in small children.

BPA tricks estrogen receptors into a state of inappropriate activation. Although we think of estrogen as female hormones, estrogen receptors are located throughout the bodies of men, women, and children. Estrogens play many important roles in the body, in both sexes. Our human cellular receptors for estrogen are especially dense in nervous system tissues, and the tissues of the reproductive system. Animal studies suggest that disturbing the interplay between natural estrogens and their cellular receptors is likely to have an impact not only on individuals, but on their offspring, as well, even if those descendants are not directly exposed to BPA. So not only may BPA affect you—it could have other serious effects for generations down the road, such as your children. Studies also find a potential link between high levels of BPA exposure in adults and heart problems in adults. Animal studies point to a possible increased risk of cancer in later years with high BPA exposure.

According to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, "Bisphenol-A can migrate into food from the protective internal epoxy resin coatings of canned foods and from consumer products such as polycarbonate tableware, food storage containers, water bottles, and baby bottles." The degree to which BPA leaches from polycarbonate bottles into liquid may depend more on the temperature of the liquid or bottle, than the age of the container. BPA has been shown to affect the reproductive systems of laboratory animals. Some animal studies suggest that infants and children may be the most vulnerable to the effects of BPA.

A number of packaging manufacturers now offer products that are labeled as being free of BPA. Several other suggestions for minimizing exposure include utilizing glass, porcelain or stainless steel containers, particularly for hot food or liquids and to not microwave polycarbonate plastic food containers.

BPA and Babies

When it comes to giving babies, toddlers, and children food and beverages, plastics are wonderful ubiquitous serving vessels. Both in hard and soft forms and most recyclable, plastics are lightweight and convenient. Today's plastic baby bottles, sippy cups, and plates are easy to clean, long-lasting, convenient, lightweight and are practically indestructible. But are they really safe for use with children?

Exactly how BPA affects us and our children, and how serious its effects are, are still very much up for debate. The federal government generally advocates caution and more research, but agencies have issued a range of hesitant warnings. The National Toxicology Program, a division of the National Institutes of Health, says it has "some concern" about potential BPA exposures to the brains and prostate glands of fetuses, infants, and children. Other agencies say they have lingering, unresolved "questions" about the chemical. In 2008, the FDA boldly declared BPA safe. Yet, in 2010 the FDA shifted their stance and expressed, "some concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children." Finally in 2012 the FDA banned BPA from use in baby bottles and sippy cups. The official ban had no real effect, since due to consumer pressure, no baby bottle or baby cup manufacturer was using BPA at the time.

But, it may be a surprise to many that concerns about plastic leaking chemicals into food and drinks didn't end with the broad adoption of BPA-Free plastic formulations. Some recent studies suggest that even the BPA-Free plastics may pose a health risk to babies:

Those questions largely group around how persistent exposure to the chemical in childhood or adulthood could affect reproduction and growth; how low-dose exposure at sensitive developmental stages could affect children and babies later in life; and how parental exposure could affect the next generation. Studies have shown links between BPA and cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and a host of other illnesses.

Until scientists come up with more definitive answers, responsible mothers should follow the old advice of not putting those baby bottles and other plastic products in dishwashers or microwaves. Additionally, be cautioned to avoid extreme heat and cooling of plastic food containers to discard scratched and worn plastics

# Chapter Three:  
A Toxic Marriage: Plastic Food Containers and Chemicals

I'm not sure what we would do without plastic food containers, but there is a problem. They do contain many chemicals, some of which have been identified as potentially harmful. You should avoid two chemicals in particular: BPA and Phthalates. Both of these chemicals have been shown to interfere with human hormones. Although plastic food containers are an inevitable fact of life, you should be informed about which ones are the least risk to your health. The most serious concern about BPA is that it disrupts the endocrine system. Endocrine disruptors are insidious, interfering with normal, often very fine-tuned and subtle interactions among our bodies' natural hormones, hormone receptors, and the physiological processes they regulate. If fetuses, infants, or children are exposed to persistent doses of an endocrine disruptor, they may experience developmental ramifications, such as abnormal growth patterns. In 2012, the Food and Drug Administration halted BPA use in baby bottles, sippy cups and plastic formula packaging. The FDA claimed to have made the decision based on market demand, not safety. Plastic manufacturers insist only high levels of BPA will cause endocrine disruption. Independent scientists say any amount is too much.

Are you safe if you choose packaging or products that are labeled "BPA-free"? Perhaps not. Many BPA-free products are indeed free of BPA. However, Bisphenol S is a common substitute, and that compound may be just as toxic. And Bisphenols may only be the tip of the iceberg when it comes to unsafe chemicals in plastic. Phthalates are not only used to soften plastic, but are also one of the oily substances used in cosmetics, perfumes, and many beauty products are labeled on common household products as "fragrance." That new-car smell, or new-shower curtain smell is the pungent odor of the release of Phthalates into the air. Phthalates are even more pervasive in plastics than Bisphenols and have been linked to asthma, breast cancer, diabetes, obesity and more. Phthalates, or their chemical components, are commonly found in human urine. The Centers for Disease Control reports that Phthalates are present in the bodies of most North Americans.

Because of the prevalence of plastic, taking complete control of your BPA consumption will be almost impossible, but reducing your exposure is certainly achievable. Eat fresh local foods when you can. Many independent grocery stores sell produce without plastic packaging around it, and you can then transport your fresh food in a reusable cloth bag. Buy food packaged in glass containers as often as possible, and use glass, porcelain, or stainless steel containers to store and reheat food. You can also drink from a BPA-free stainless steel bottle. These health habits will help lower the levels of Bisphenols and Phthalates in your body, in spite of their pervasiveness in our plastic-packed world.

In the first months of 2008 the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) petitioned the FDC regulate the use of BPA in human food and food packaging. The FDA ignored the request and sat on the petition for more than 41 months. Tired of waiting and frustrated the NRDC council brought a federal lawsuit against the FDA to get some form of action. On Friday, March 30, 2012, the FDA announced a response to that suit. In a quiet press release, the FDA simply denied the National Resources Defense Council's petition asking it to prohibit the use of BPA human food and food packaging.

Natural Resources Defense Council is a 1.4 million members strong non-profit international environmental advocacy group, with offices in Washington, D.C., San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Beijing. Founded in 1970, today NRDC has online activists nationwide and a staff of more than 400 lawyers, scientists and other policy experts. Their response was outspokenly negative against the FDA, saying that "BPA is a toxic chemical that has no place in our food supply". The NRDC went on the blast the FDA saying the "FDA is out of step with scientific and medical research" The strong language of the NRDC indicated that the FDA had failed to protect our health and safety in the face of scientific studies that continue to raise disturbing questions about the long-term effects of BPA exposures, especially in fetuses, babies and young children

Do it by the numbers

Take-out containers have come a long way from the bulky white Styrofoam boxes of years past. In recent years, the demand for a new and improved travel food container has graced us with a variety of sizes, shapes, and uses. Today, take-out containers are more well-designed, functional, and sturdier, and some note that they can be used for reheating the food they carry.

With the advancements of the take-out container, as well as high quality plastic food containers from store-bought products such as yogurt and tubs of butter, many people have decided to utilize them beyond their original function; to wash and reuse them multiple times. While this can save you money on buying permanent containers, such as Rubbermaid or Ziploc; not all take-out containers are made to be reusable. The following are some helpful hints on determining whether your containers are meant for one-time use, or can be used over and over again. If you want to reuse your plastic containers, look for the recycling number on the bottom of the container. This little number says a great deal about the type of plastic it is, what chemicals it is comprised of and how safe it is for use as a food container.

#1 (PET or PETE – Polyethylene TerePhthalate)

This type of plastic is most commonly used for water and soda bottles as well as foods like peanut butter or cooking oil. While they are considered safe for one-time use, it is not recommended to wash and reuse these bottles multiple times. They are designed and made for a one time use only and then to be recycled. Plastic water bottles are unsafe when left in the sun for long periods of time. The heat and UV breaks down the PET and cause it to escape into the liquid that it holds.

#2 (HDPE – High-Density Polyethylene)

This type of plastic is most commonly used for milk and water jugs as well as laundry detergent, shampoo bottles and toys, among other things. This type of plastic is considered safe to wash and reuse multiple times.

#3 (PVC – Polyvinyl Chloride)

While PVC is linked to many heath issues, including cancer, it can still be found in plastic bibs, mattress covers and even cling wrap for food. It is advised to avoid plastics with PVC altogether, and is especially considered unsafe to reuse. Do not microwave.

#4 (LDPE – Low-Density Polyethylene)

This type of plastic is mostly used in grocery, garbage and dry cleaning bags as well as plastic wrap. It is considered unsafe for reuse. Do not microwave.

#5 (PP – Polypropylene)

This type of plastic is often used in hard, durable ice cream and yogurt containers, as well as drinking straws, salad bar containers, and even diapers. It is considered unsafe for reuse. Do not microwave.

#6 (PS – Polystyrene)

This is often found in plastic utensils as well as styrofoam take-out containers and coffee cups. This chemical is known to leach Styrene, a neurotoxin, and is not considered safe for reuse. Do not microwave.

#7 ("other" chemicals, including Polycarbonate, Nylon and Acrylic)

This type of plastic can be found in baby bottles, clear plastic silverware, sports bottles and the inside linings of cans of food. The problem with this number is that it can have anything from Polycarbonate (which is a source of BPA) or newer greener plant-based plastics. It is best to avoid #7 plastics unless they specifically state that they are made with the newer plant-based resources.

To-go containers (styrofoam)

Styrofoam is still a favorite option for restaurant to-go containers (because it's cheap) but is made from the cancer-causing chemical styrene. This chemical has a large body of science showing health concerns including, links to leukemia, lymphoma, respiratory harm, gastrointestinal damage, and neurological impairments. Think of what happens when you put hot food and liquid in styrofoam containers, you're getting a sprinkling of toxic chemicals with your meal.

# Chapter Four  
Got Receipt: Get BPA

It happens millions of times each day, you go to the store, you pick out your items, you pay your money and you get a date/time stamped printed receipt that you stuff away in your wallet or purse. You do this because you might want to bring something back, and the returns clerk might say "do you have your receipt". When that happens, there is a good chance that you will have the receipt. However, there is a 100 percent chance that harmful chemical agents were 'used to produce the thermal paper that your receipt is printed on. Does that receipt feel kind of powdery? Yep, its our old enemy BPA again. Practically all cash registers use thermal paper. The use of BPA in receipts is widespread. In a 2011 study, researchers analyzed about 200 samples of thermal receipts, mailing envelopes and printing paper collected from cities in the United States, Japan, South Korea and Vietnam, and found BPA in 94 percent of the receipts tested. All of the receipts collected in the United States contained BPA — even some that were marketed as "BPA-free".

Food is the most common source of BPA exposure simply because so much of what we eat and drink comes packaged in BPA-containing plastic containers or cans (BPA is in the linings). But the form of BPA used in food containers is chemically bound, while the type used in all thermal paper receipts easily rubs off on our hand and is absorbed into our body.

"There's more BPA in a single thermal paper receipt than the total amount that would seep out from a polycarbonate water bottle used for many years," said John Warner, Ph.D., president of the Warner Babcock Institute for Green Chemistry. Research has linked BPA to an increased risk of breast and prostate cancers, cardiovascular disease, and reproductive and brain development abnormalities.

In the 2013 study, published in Journal of the American Medical Association, researchers measured the amount of BPA in the urine of 24 volunteers before and after they spent two hours of handling thermal paper cash register receipts. About a week later, half of the volunteers returned to perform the experiment again, but this time they wore nitrile gloves (the type commonly used in doctor's offices and hospitals). In the first group, BPA levels taken four hours after handling receipts were three times higher than they were at baseline; eight hours later, BPA levels were five times higher. But there was no significant increase in the group that wore gloves.

"We now have several hundred studies—including more than 50 in humans—showing health effects from BPA at exposure levels we experience in everyday life, indicating the need for strong safety guidelines to protect public health," said Laura Vandenberg, Ph.D., assistant professor of environmental science at University of Massachusetts Amherst School of Public Health and Health Sciences, who was the lead author of a recent report analyzing more than 450 studies on the effects of low-level BPA exposure.

"A larger study is needed to confirm our findings, but the results suggest that skin absorption of BPA may be of particular concern to people who handle receipts frequently, such as cashiers," said the JAMA study's lead author, Shelley Ehrlich, M.D., of Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center. Even if you're not a cashier, you still may be getting more BPA exposure than you realize because thermal paper is also used in airline boarding passes and luggage tags, tickets for trains, movies, sporting events and amusement parks, labels on prescription bottles or packaged supermarket items such as deli meats and cheeses, fax paper, and yes, lottery tickets. A quick test can tell you if the paper you're handling is of the thermal type. Scratch the printed side of the paper. If you see a dark mark, the paper is thermal.

Some manufacturers make "BPA free" thermal paper, but it's often coated with a chemical called BPS. According to a 2014 report from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the chemical BPS may pose similar health hazards to BPA because the two chemicals are structurally alike and BPS is also easily transferred to skin.

Because thermal cash-register receipts are the norm now, and just about all of them are coated with high levels of BPA, and bps, the New York State Department of Health commissioned a 6 month study in 2012. Researchers of this project, published in the May 2012 issue of Journal Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, found BPA, and BPS transferred from paper the skin after handling a receipt for just a few seconds. And the longer the hands went unwashed afterwards, the more researchers say was absorbed through the skin into the body. (Two hours after handing a receipt, nearly 75 percent of the BPA, and BPS on the skin was gone, leading researchers to believe it was absorbed. The BPA, and BPS transferred from the receipts to skin was 10 times higher. Additionally, using an alcohol-based hand sanitizer increased absorption into the skin, so it's not a good idea to use that to clean the chemical off after handling receipts. Just good old fashion soap and water hand washing is what does the trick.

What's in your wallet?

On November 1, 2011 the New Your Times printed a lengthy article, by Rachel Nuwer, called "Check Your Receipt: It May Be Tainted". The newspaper exposé cited a report from The Federal National Toxicology Program which conducted a study of retail cashiers to measure levels of the chemical in their bloodstream before and after their work shifts. Previous studies have shown that 27 percent of the BPA that finds its way to skin surfaces penetrates and reaches the bloodstream within two hours. The study analyzed 103 thermal receipts collected from cities in the United States, Japan, South Korea and Vietnam in 2010 and 2011.

The New York Times article included an interview with Sonya Lunder, a senior analyst for the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based advocacy organization. "This is a very different kind of toxicological exposure," Ms. Lunder said. "BPA is going right into the bloodstream in a free, unmetabolized and more active state, which is different than consuming it through diet." Recent studies have found that individual thermal receipts from retailers and restaurants can contain a mass of BPA that is 250 to 1,000 times greater than the amount in a can of food.

Other studies have shown that the powered BPA can account for up to 3 percent of a receipt's weight. It is estimated that thermal receipts contribute about 33.5 tons BPA into the environment each year in the United States and Canada combined. A typical employee at any large retailer who runs the register could handle hundreds of the contaminated receipts in a single day at work. People who work a cash register all day are most likely absorbing a potentially toxic chemical from the receipts they handle. Researchers discovered that people working a two-hour shift at a cash register saw their BPA levels increase three to five times from handling the receipts, according to the research letter published in the Feb. 26, 2014 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

In early July of 2010, The Environmental Working Group collected 36 receipts from retailers in seven states and the District of Columbia and had them tested by the University of Missouri Division of Biological Sciences laboratory. It says the lab's wipe tests, which easily removed BPA, indicate the chemical could rub off on someone's hands but adds that scientists have yet to determine how much is absorbed into the body. BPA can be absorbed quickly into the skin from a receipt because it rubs off easily. It can easily be transferred to your food, your eyes, and your mouth.

Another study by The Washington Toxics Coalition (part of National Institutes of Health) showed that BPA usage in thermal paper receipts was wide spread through the retail industry. The alarming aspect of this is, the study showed that the BPA compound was not chemically bound by elements, such as in plastics, was in powder form totally free to rub off the paper quickly to be easily absorbed into your skin. The BPA would be then quickly transferred into your bloodstream.

BPA is one of the most widely produced chemicals in history - about 6 billion pounds yearly. Research over the past decade has shown exposure to BPA can lead to increased risk of cancer, reproductive issues, early puberty and altered brain development, and chemotherapy resistance.

In a July 27, 2010 press release the Appleton Paper Company, the nation's largest manufacturer of thermal paper, announced that it no longer used BPA in the manufacture of thermal paper. The press release stated that Appleton did this out of growing concerns about the safety of the chemical, after reviewing toxicology reports and available studies we concluded removing BPA from our thermal products was the responsible thing to do. The announcement preceded the distribution of their new "BPA Free" thermal paper. What really happened was that Appleton just switched to a new, cheaper, chemical compound called 4-hydroxyphenyl sulfone which was really Bisphenol-S, or BPS.

Now the product trigger word is "BPA Free". According to an Environmental Science and Technology press release dated 7/7/2012, Bisphenol-S (BPS) is actually of a "comparable potency" to BPA. Also, it is "less biodegradable, and more heat-stable and photo-resistant" than its predecessor BPA. What does this mean? Well, it has the same estrogen-mimicking qualities and it doesn't degrade as quickly as BPA, so it can stick around in your body for longer periods of time.

Plastic manufacturers know that the information about BPS is still in an infancy stage. They know they can get a few good years off of this "BPA-free" label craze before science catches up with them. So, in the meantime, they will keep selling you their new supposedly-safer products and probably even sell them at a higher price!

The all new BPA free thermal paper incorporates tiny biodegradable red rayon fibers imbedded into its stock. Look closely on the back of the receipt, little red hairs, resembling tiny red eyelashes; they're visible only on the paper's back, uncoated side – that means "BPA Free". What it really means is BPS, and more easily absorbed into your skin.

A New Alien in Town: Bisphenol-S (BPS)

According to an article published today in the U.S. News and World Report, chemical substitute BPS, an endocrine disrupting hormone with traits very similar to BPA, is present in BPA-Free products and is inside paper money, cash register receipts and most plastic consumer products much like its predecessor. Widespread human exposure to BPS was confirmed in a 2012 analysis of urine samples taken in the U.S., Japan, China and five other Asian countries.

According to a study by University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) at Galveston researchers, BPS also resembles BPA in a more problematic way. Like BPA, the study found, BPS disrupts cellular responses to the hormone estrogen, changing patterns of cell growth and death and hormone release. Also like BPA, BPS disrupts even at extremely low levels of exposure. "Our studies show that BPS is active in the range of parts per trillion to quadrillion," said UTMB professor Cheryl Watson, senior author of a paper on the study now online in the advance publications section of Environmental Health Perspectives. "Those are levels likely to be produced by BPS leaching from containers into their contents." BPS has some of the same estrogen-mimicking effects of BPA, and that people may now be absorbing 19 times more BPS through their skin than when BPA was used to coat paper.

Not only does BPS appear to have similar hormone-mimicking characteristics to BPA, but research suggests it is actually significantly less biodegradable, and more heat-stable and photo-resistant, than BPA. GreenMedInfo reports: "while regulators wait for manufacturers who promote their products with "BPA-Free!" stickers at the same moment that they infuse them with BPS to voluntarily reformulate, there is evidence now that BPS may actually have worse effects to environmental and human health, alike." BPS' relative inability to biodegrade indicates 2 things: First, once it is absorbed into the human body, it may accumulate there for longer periods of time. Secondly, it is more likely to persist in the environment, making external exposures to it, and its many metabolites, much more likely than the faster degrading BPA. In other words, its potential to do harm will worsen along the axis of time, not lessen, which the common argument is made for the purported "safety" of BPA. It certainly seems that BPS is more harmful that BPA is most respects.

# Chapter Five:  
Alien Assault: The Attack of the Endocrine Disruptors - BPA and Phthalates

With the current awareness of the health dangers associated with BPA, along with the FBA ban in BPA in baby products many people have been downsizing their plastic arsenal of plastic food containers. Additionally, just about major food line distributer is touting the phrase "BPA Free" on their package containers. But don't head back into the water yet, the "Jaws music" is still playing its ominous tones. Just how safe are we from the attack of the endocrine disruptors?

The current reports say most plastic food containers release estrogenic chemicals even the products that are labeled "BPA Free". Most plastic products, from baby bottles, sippy cups, to food wraps, can release chemicals that act like the sex hormone estrogen, according to a study published in Environmental Health Perspectives, a journal produced by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The study found these chemicals even in products that didn't contain BPA, a compound in certain plastics that's been widely criticized because it mimics estrogen. In the study, the researchers bought more than 450 plastic items from stores including Walmart and Whole Foods. They chose products designed to come in contact with food. They bought all kinds if food containers, and things like baby bottles, deli packaging, and flexible bags. They sent them to an independent test laboratory for a detailed examination of the elements. The analysis clearly showed that more than 70 percent of the products released chemicals that acted like estrogen. And that was before they exposed the food containers to real-world kitchen conditions: simulated sunlight, freezing, dishwashing, and microwaving. Ominously enough, after the food containers, including the "BPA Free" were exposed to the stressors of heat, sunlight, freezing, microwaving, and dishwashing, more than 95 percent of the products tested positive for chemicals having estrogenic activity.

Exactly how endocrine disruptors affects humans, and how serious its effects are, are still very much up for debate. The U.S. Government generally advocates caution and more research, but agencies have issued a range of hesitant warnings. The National Toxicology Program, a division of the National Institutes of Health, says it has "some concern" about potential estrogenic exposures to the brains and prostate glands of fetuses, infants and children. Other agencies say that they have lingering, unresolved "questions" about how our body processes compounds and chemicals that mimic estrogen, and what damage these chemicals really cause.

Much of those questions largely circle around how prolonged exposure to the estrogenic chemicals in childhood or adulthood could affect reproduction and growth; how low-dose exposure at sensitive developmental stages could affect children and babies later in life; and how parental exposure could affect the next generation. Studies have shown links between BPA, BPS, and Phthalates and cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and a host of other illnesses.

In Hollywood's 1967 classic film "The Graduate," starring Dustin Hoffman and Anne Bancroft, Ben Braddock a recent law school graduate, wonders what to do with his life when a family friend offers him a surefire career tip: "I want to say one word to you–plastics." While Braddock doesn't follow that advice, it was indeed solid counsel for that era.

In 2008, however, plastics faced a far more troubled future. The crux of the problem? Endocrine disruption. The chemicals that have been called Endocrine disrupters are chemicals found in all kinds of widely used products. They resemble human hormones in their inorganic structure, leading many researchers to believe that the body treats them as hormones, too. Once inside us, endocrine disrupters interfere with normal hormonal processes, causing genetic damage, especially in developing fetuses and children. Among other things, the chemicals throw sexual development off course, make reproductive systems go haywire, and cause hormone-related cancers. While the only proof of harm comes from animal testing, the threat appears to extend to humans as well.

Endocrine disruption blazed again as a hot topic in 1996, sparked by the book "Our Stolen Future" by zoologist Theo Colborn. By tying some alarming research to some just-as-alarming human trends, Theo Colborn demonstrated that major impacts from endocrine disrupters might already be affecting the human population. For instance, the authors suggested that breast cancer rates, which have risen sharply since the mid-20th century, might be related to the widespread use of pesticides and herbicides that contain hormone-mimicking chemicals. A foreword from then Vice President Al Gore increased the book's visibility. The book's widespread publication ultimately influenced government policy through congressional hearings and helped foster the development of a research and regulation initiative within the EPA. Thousands of scientific articles have since been published on endocrine disruption, demonstrating the availability of grant money for research on the hypothesis raised by Our Stolen Future. Studies at the Strang Cornell Cancer Research Laboratory showed that the chemicals appear to push estrogen metabolism in a course that severely increases a person's risk for cancer.

In the 12 years since Theo Colborn published "Our Stolen Future", it seems that the Federal Government has responded to research-based questions about endocrine disrupters mainly by protecting corporations that profit from them. Yet evidence that Colborn and her co-authors were right continues to mount, by the hundreds of other studies that show the same results.

For a microcosm of what's been happening with endocrine disrupters in the United States, consider the case of the widely used chemical BPA. Industry loves BPA because it makes polycarbonate plastic clear and nearly unbreakable. An extensive body of literature supports the view that this chemical, originally developed as a synthetic estrogen, can cause hormonal chaos. "We're talking about hundreds of studies with large sample sizes by the world's premier scientists in endocrinology, neurobiology, and developmental biology-published in the major journals in the world," says University of Missouri-Columbia neurobiologist Fred vom Saal, a pioneer in BPA research. But the FDA has so far declared BPA safe, citing instead two tiny studies. Those studies, unlike the independent research that counters them, were funded by the chemical industry.

The federal government has also failed to act against Phthalates–chemicals used mainly to make polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic soft and pliable-despite disturbing research that points to estrogen-related damage in both animals and people, including shrunken penises and impaired testes. As usual with profitable substances, the government claims that regulation is unwarranted until someone proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that Phthalates cause harm. Relying on the same research available to U.S. agencies, however, the European Union began enforcing a ban against Phthalates in toys in 1999.

Fortunately, consumer health groups are already protesting the use of BPA and Phthalates. If people join boycotts that could soon turn these industrial staples into worthless toxic waste. But until these chemicals get banned, you need to know where they lurk in your household, how they affect your health, and what you can do to protect you and your family right now.

Estrogen Gone Wild

To understand how widely Phthalates pervade your life, imagine doing without the following: Soft vinyl toys; baby's teething rings; your car's dashboard (that "new car smell" is the Phthalates off-gassing); perfume; makeup; nail polish; pomade; adhesives; PVC flooring; certain pesticides; various building materials and wire sheathing; medical tubing and IV bags; garden hoses; paints; raincoats and other plastic clothing; shower curtains; and footwear.

Additionally, BPA is found in, and leaches out of, the linings of all canned foods and soft drinks, including canned infant formula, clear plastic baby bottles and sippy cups, refillable water bottles, food storage containers, and dental sealants. And, yes, even out of those composite dental fillings you chose in order to avoid exposure to mercury. As much as you might like to banish these chemicals from your life, you'll quickly see it's nearly impossible. BPA, the alien in the kitchen, is here to stay.

With products like these in such common use, nearly every one of us carries a significant load of endocrine disrupters in our bodies, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Women and children have the highest levels of both Phthalates and BPA. (The main reason that women's bodies show higher levels of the chemicals than men's? Their indulgence in Phthalate-laden cosmetics.)

"When (fetuses and children) are exposed during critical windows of development, the effects are permanent," says vom Saal. Women's BPA and Phthalate levels worry scientists as well, because these chemicals pass through the placenta to the fetus during pregnancy or through breast milk. Scientists worry less about men because, as vom Saal notes, "In adults, it's like taking a birth-control pill." In other words, when a woman takes the Pill, her hormonal activity is affected while the chemicals are in her body. Once she goes off the Pill, her hormonal activity eventually returns to normal. So it is with endocrine disrupters: If adults end their exposure to the chemicals, they also end the effects.

The theory about how damage from endocrine disrupters become apparent goes like this: The cells in babies and children depend upon signals from hormones to determine how they should mature. The wrong signals produce the wrong result. Because both BPA and Phthalates resemble human estrogen, they can mimic or block estrogenic effects in the body. Females exposed to messed-up estrogen-like signals early in life may develop breast and other reproductive system cancers later, research suggests. If males are exposed at crucial developmental stages, they may develop female characteristics and/or have poorly developed male ones. Other possible consequences include testicular cancer, reduced sperm counts, smaller penises, and undescended testes. The plastic industry, and its allies the chemical companies, argue that no one has ever proved Phthalates and BPA do harm humans. While technically true, human tests have never been done. However, not many mothers would want to bet their baby's life of the claims of the plastic industry, especially given the overwhelming amount of research pointing toward serious human risk. For instance, when rodents are exposed to Phthalates before birth, males often emerge with a shortened distance between their anus and genitals–a sign of feminization caused by too much estrogen.

There have been three important studies on the effects of Phthalates in food by the University of Rochester. The results of one particular study was named paper of the year for 2009 by the EPA. Dr. Shanna Swan is Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and of Environmental Medicine, at the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, where she is also Director of the Center for Reproductive Epidemiology. The EPA's Paper of the Year recognition honors the Environmental Health Perspectives EHP article with the highest number of citations in the literature over the previous five years. In her presentation, researcher Dr. Shanna Swan found that baby boys born to women with high Phthalate levels tended to have shorter ano-genital distances, just like the rodents, as well as malformed genitals. In 2006, an expert panel suggested that BPA may factor in such known human trends as increases in abnormal penises and urethras in males, early female puberty, decreased sperm counts, prostate and breast cancers, attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, obesity, and type-2 diabetes. BPA led to all those conditions in rats.

In a sense, one large-scale human study of estrogen mimics has already been conducted–and the results were not very pleasant. From about 1941-71, millions of American women were given a synthetic estrogen called DES to prevent miscarriages. Their babies seemed healthy at birth, later as teenagers, the girls started developing uterine cancers that had never been seen in women under the age of 50. Now as adults, these same girls hyper rates of breast cancer

The Cosmetic Industry's Dilemma

How did the endocrine disrupter situation get so out of hand? The U.S. was the first nation to aggressively regulate chemical pollution in the 1960s, '70s, and '80s. But as other industrialized nations began following our lead, an anti-regulatory backlash–fueled by corporate lobbyists and their political allies–took over at home. The Environmental Protection Agency hasn't banned a single chemical in 17 years and has only banned five, including dioxins and PCBs, in its entire history. In fact, the EPA has permitted 95 percent of chemicals to be used with no testing whatsoever.

Meanwhile, in areas like the European Union (EU), Canada, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and even China now set the pace in protecting their citizens from chemical harm, so much so that the United States is now the dumping ground for products considered unsafe in these other nations. Why is the EU more protective of its citizens than the United States? Part of the difference is philosophical, says investigative journalist Mark Schapiro, author of "Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products and what's at Stake for American Power" The EU operates under the "precautionary principle," he explains, meaning that even incomplete data that strongly suggests harm to humans inspires governments to act. "In other words, the risks of not acting are seen as outweighing the risks of acting, even in the face of scientific uncertainty."

The United States, in contrast, considers chemicals innocent until proven guilty, journalist Mark Schapiro says, and then demands a level of proof that many scientists consider impossible to attain. For instance, even when animal studies and observational studies done by Dr. Shanna Swan's seem to denounce a chemical as harmful, industry will protest, often most effectively, that harm to rats isn't the same as harm to people. Therefore, as a matter of policy, the FDA does not ban those chemicals. The researchers argue that human Phthalate studies are out of the range of possibilities. You can't give Phthalates in a randomized manner to pregnant women and see what happens the way you can to a mouse. Scientists test chemicals on rats with genetic and molecular systems that respond like their human counterparts. They then look for similar effects in humans exposed to the same chemicals in their daily lives.

Gaming the System

In 1996, the United States did make what first appeared to be a serious attempt to evaluate the risk in endocrine disrupters. In the wake of Theo Colborn's book, "Our Stolen Future", Congress passed a law ordering the EPA to create animal tests that assessed whether pesticide chemicals were having a hormonal-like effect in people. The law also empowered the EPA to test chemicals in consumer products. Although the law mandated that testing begin by 1999, the EPA has yet to even decide on which research methods to use. It has even proposed testing on a breed of rats known to be unresponsive to low doses of estrogen, which would rig the results in industry's favor. The EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances acknowledges that some scientists have raised concerns about the rat testing, but claims its own information shows that the breed responds appropriately.

Another controversy in the government's approach to testing concerns the amount of estrogenic chemical that it considered harmful. Government agencies use methods drawn from the science of toxicology, otherwise known as "the dose makes the poison" camp. The FDA toxicologists look at the highest dose you can administer without causing a harmful effect. They use adult animals and type indicators like body weight, organ weight, and litter size. Private researchers like Theo Colborn are quick to point out that hormone disrupters work differently. Their greatest damage occurs at dose levels thousands of times less than what the government would term poisonous. To EPA toxicologists, an animal getting a "safe" dose may look fine. But an endocrinologist sees the damage lurking below the surface in the form of genetic time bombs.

Perhaps the most obvious difference is that a toxic chemical kills cells, an endocrine-disrupting chemical alters gene function. And when it does that during early childhood development, it leads to cancers and kills the organism later on in life. That simple, and truthful, rational scares the plastics industry because the only way to prevent the estrogenic effects of BPA and Phthalates is to ban them from use involving foods.

The good news: At least some consumer protection is in sight. On the regulatory front, California passed a ban on Phthalates for children under 3 years of age in 2007 and Washington passed an even tougher ban which better protects children over 3 in 2008. A total of 10 states have similar bills in their legislative pipeline. Meanwhile, Canada became the first nation to regulate BPA when it banned it in baby bottles in April. On Capitol Hill, a bill has been introduced into the Senate to get the BPA ball rolling here. In addition, corporate influence on chemical regulation, including the FDA's reliance on those industry-funded BPA studies mentioned above, is now the subject of two separate Congressional investigations. Market forces in the global economy are also pushing things in a positive direction. Major U.S. companies such as Mattel, Hasbro, and Toys R Us that sell to the EU have removed Phthalates from their toys for young children to meet EU standards. REI, Nalgene, Wal-Mart, and Playtex announced they were going BPA-free even before Canada's ban went into effect, hoping to avoid the wrath of their Canadian customers.

Perhaps the main contention for scientists is the challenge of drawing conclusions from hundreds of studies, each using different animals (mice and rats among them), doses, and methods of exposure. As the Environmental Protection Agency has noted, "there is controversy about whether effects seen at lower doses in animals are significant and relevant to humans." And scientists have also wondered whether rodents are more sensitive to the estrogenic chemicals than humans because they metabolize compounds differently. Additionally, very few studies have examined the extent to which plastic food containers that presumably do not contain BPA release other chemicals having detectable estrogenic activity.

Among the list of Endocrine disruptors, BPA, BPS, and Phthalates are the big three that are associated with plastic food containers, and are currently the ones to contact avoid with. The chemical Phthalate was banned in February 2009 by the Federal Government for use in children's toys. Phthalate was popular with manufactures because it made the toys soft, but the kids would put them in their mouths and get sick. Some early studies had linked Phthalates to subtle changes in the reproductive organs of infant boys.

Back in the 1980s, some baby rattles, soft squeeze toys, teethers and pacifiers made from PVC plastic contained a type of Phthalate called DEHP, which has been shown to cause cancer in rodents when exposed to high doses. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) banned PVC from baby toys. The baby toy industry responded by softening toys with a Phthalate called DINP, which appeared less likely to cause problems in rats and mice. However, in the late 1990s, some scientists found evidence that DINP could cause liver problems in rodents. The CPSC did not take action because they said the risk was minor because the babies did not chew on the toys long enough for the exposure to be a problem. As the independent reports disagreeing with the CPSC began to filter up to Congressional Representatives, they took action. In early 2009 Congress passed the ban on PVC and all Phthalates after concluding that the chemicals posed a risk to children who chew on their toys. This act of Congress came despite advice not to enact the ban from scientists at the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which regulates toys.

Studies about the effects of BPA have been conflicting. The Federal Government studies say BPA is OK, because the exposure is too low to be a health hazard to humans. However, animal studies have suggested a link between BPA and effects on the brain, behavior and the prostate gland. Other studies raised concerns about the effects of exposure on the developing fetus and young children. Some independent studies have linked BPA to reproductive abnormalities and a heightened risk of breast and prostate cancers, diabetes, and heart disease.

Unfortunately for us, BPA is just about everywhere where food is, especially in our canned foods. Just about all metal food cans have plastic liners to protect food and use a common epoxy-based material contain BPA. In January 2010, Consumer Reports produced the results of 2009 study on BPA in canned food. The study looked at hundreds of canned goods from the major grocery stores. They sampled soups, juice, meat, fruits, tuna, and green beans, and found that almost all of the 19 name-brand foods contain BPA. Surprisingly, the canned organic foods that they tested did not always have lower BPA levels than nonorganic brands of similar foods analyzed. Additionally, they even found the BPA in many cans that were labeled "BPA-free."

There is a strong and growing trend in America of doubting the Federal Government reports about BPA, BPS, and Phthalates exposure hazards in favor of the independent reports that strongly indicate prolonged exposure to them can abnormally interfere with our endocrine system and thereby cause a whole range of negative health effects.

On October 14, 2010, Leona Aglukkaq, Canada's Health Minister announced that the Nation of Canada was declaring BPA a "toxic chemical" and banning it from all usage in food containers, food can liners, and cash registers receipts. Canada became the first country to dump BPA. This action was in response to the public outcry over a four-year study that found that 91 percent of Canadians tested positive for BPA. In a prepared statement released on behalf of the Canadian Government Mr. Aglukkaq said "Our science indicated that BPA may be harmful to both human health and the environment and we were the first country to take bold action in the interest of Canadians,"

As a result of Canada's action, France and Denmark joined Canada in banning BPA from baby bottles in 2010, and the European Commission voted that same year to ban European Union countries from making and selling baby bottles with BPA, In December 2012, the French parliament voted to ban BPA from all baby food packaging in 2013 and from all food containers in 2015. "Looser move on!" Currently, the FDA has not taken action to declare BPA toxic. In the war against BPA Connecticut became the leader in 2009. The state was one of the first states to ban the chemical from baby bottles and other children's products. Last year, it became the first state to ban BPA from cash register tape. In 2013, California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) added Bisphenol-A, more commonly known as BPA, to the list of chemicals known to the State of California to cause reproductive toxicity for purposes of California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65).

# Chapter Six:  
Bottled Water: A Clear Biochemical Cocktail

It is a very good bet that in 1950, you would be hard pressed to find a bottle of water for sale. Today, bottled water makes up a large portion of the beverage industry Americans drank over 10 million gallons of bottled water in 2013. Major brand names like Aquafina, Fiji, Dasani, and Evian have become household names and the bottled water has firmly established itself in our society. As reported in Statiska, our annual spending on bottled water amounted to $11.8 billion, with a total number of bottles sold annually of over 50 billion. The global sales revenue from bottled water is reported at about $60 billion. That is a lot of plastic bottles.

Mostly, people buy water bottles out of convenience. But also because there usually is no other option for getting a drink of water. It has become a challenge to find a water fountain these days, even in areas like schools and sports arenas. However, much of the motivation behind buying bottled water is a general mistrust in the safety our local municipal water system. Overall tap water is safe to drink, and the majority tap water in the U.S. is of very high quality. Water treatment plants across America do a very good job of storing, cleaning and distributing water to our homes. But that doesn't mean it is without problems. Due to concerns over pharmaceutical, pesticide or toxin contamination in municipal water, many people choose bottled water over tap water. But bottled water isn't perfect. According the to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) website, "Drinking water, including bottled water, may reasonably be expected to contain at least small amounts of some contaminants. The presence of contaminants does not necessarily indicate that water poses a health risk."

It takes 1.5 million barrels of oil to produce the plastic water bottles we use each year. Additionally, trucks release more pollutants and use gasoline when they transport bottled water to stores. Over 50 billion plastic bottles are made each year. That equals 40 million tons of plastic. Unfortunately, most end up in garbage dumps rather than recycling centers. It takes hundreds of years for a plastic bottle to decompose – to dissolve into the soil. The bottles that are in the garbage dumps today will be with us for the next 80 years.

The bottled water industry has spent enormous amounts of money to make their product as visible as possible. This type of advertising has saturated into American culture the need for a sense of personalization. The longer this trend is drawn out, the more people will want everything disposable. People don't to have to wash or take care of what they use. Just use it and toss it away.

In 2013, researchers from Goethe University Frankfurt and the German Federal Institute of Hydrology conducted a research study on all available bottle water companies. What they found was interesting and alarming. The report published in the journal PLOS ONE, on August 28, 2013, detailed the discovery of endocrine disrupting chemicals in just about every sample of commercialized bottled water they tested. But a new study has found that thousands of other chemicals are present in plastic and are leaching into food and beverages. Not only BPA, but another endocrine-disrupting chemical (EDC) known as DEHF (di-ethylhexyl fumarate). The chemical of the most concern to health is DEHF, an unregulated plasticizer that makes plastic bottles more flexible. The main finding included BPA and other man-made compounds that are commonly used in many plastics. These compounds have been found to interfere with the hormonal systems of several organisms, predominantly reproductive systems. Additionally, they found antiestrogens and antiandrogens present in the majority of bottled water products. Antiestrogens are hormonal agents that impede and obstruct Estrogen, and antiandrogens are also hormonal agents that encumber androgen, a male hormone. Both are classified as endocrine disruptors.

Using advanced measuring technology, the Goethe University researchers found 24,520 different chemicals present in the tested water. 13 of the 18 bottled water products tested exhibited "significant" anti-estrogenic activity, while 16 of the 18 samples were found to inhibit the body's androgen receptors by an astounding 90 percent. Of all the 24,520 chemicals identified in the water, DEHF was the most likely cause of the anti-estrogenic activity.

The main manufacturing component of plastic water bottles and food containers is BPA. More than six billion pounds of BPA are created each year in the manufacturing of plastic bottles and food containers. At high temperatures, such as in a hot car, microwave, or dishwasher, the compound can leak from the plastic, potentially contaminating food and drink that is put in it later. The in the 2009 documentary film by directors Stephanie Soechtig and Jason Lindsey called "Tapped", the filmmakers focused on industry giants such as PepsiCo and Nestlé Waters, visiting a town containing a Nestlé factory as well as running tests on the bottles the company uses for its products. Their results came back showing "several potentially harmful chemicals, some known carcinogens. Tapped also showed how many of the water bottles bought off shelves at the grocery store are left in the trunk of carrier trucks for one week on average. Tapped also focused on the small amount of bottles that are recycled, stating that every day we throw away 30 million plastic water bottles into landfills. It also noted that "Forty percent of bottled water is really just filtered tap water. None of the claims in Tapped have been disputed and the film won the "Best Documentary" award by the Eugene International Film Festival in 2009, and the Los Angeles Times praised the film, stating that the film was "persuasive" and a "compact, clear-headed documentary.

This awareness about high temperatures has also increased concern over baby bottles since the highest daily intake of BPA in the population occurs in infants and children (U.S. National Toxicology Program 2008). The current levels of exposure to BPA in early life may have negative long-term health consequences. The degree to which BPA leaches from polycarbonate bottles into liquid may depend more on the temperature of the liquid or bottle, than the age of the container.

Another type of chemical found in many plastic bottles and food containers that should be of concern is a group of plastic softeners called Phthalates. When a reused water bottle becomes brittle over time it is because the Phthalates have leaked out of it. Phthalates are cancer-causing agents that can also cause adverse reproductive effects.

America will certainly continue to buy bottled water. Why they will buy is indeed explained, at least in part, by the triumph of advertising and marketing. Bottled water has become the indispensable and freely available attribute of those wishing to demonstrate their health and sophistication. Evian, for example, has long used the slogan "Live Young," which, according to the company, is the demonstration of Evian brand values. The connotations of immortality are never far away from a brand that suggests its "naturally pure and mineral-balanced water supports your body's youth."

We all seem to forget that it does take a lot of resources to produce plastic bottles. One group reports that 1.5 million barrels of oil per year, which is enough to fuel 100,000 cars a year, are required to satisfy Americans' demand for bottled water. That's because PET, or Polyethylene Tereththalate, the plastic used in most water bottles, is derived from crude oil. There is enormous amount of energy is wasted transporting bottled water when we have access to clean water from our kitchen faucets.

# Chapter Seven  
Recycle Codes: Confusion by the Numbers

Go ahead, try this: Hold that plastic food container, or plastic water bottle in your hand and turn it over and look what is stamped, or molded, on the bottom. It will most certainly have one of 6 codes as shown above.

Many people assume that the chasing arrows is a recycle code, it's not, it is called by the plastics industry as the "resin identification code" (RIC). They indicate the type of plastic that the item was made from and are used to help consumers know whether and how the item is to be recycled. The resin identification code was developed by the Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI) in 1988 to help materials recovery facilities (MRFs) better identify and sort the resins of plastics containers. The Resin Identification Code was an industry development that was carried through many state legislatures in the late 1980s during a time of increased attention on the proliferation of plastics and increased awareness over the need for recycling plastics.

Surprisingly to most consumers, the recycling symbol on a product, the one with a little number inside of the chasing arrows, doesn't mean that the product can be recycled. The RIC system has used a "chasing arrows" symbol surrounding a numeral from 1 to 7 that defines the resin used in the product's packaging. In June 2013, new RIC marking symbols were established by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). The plastics industry pushed for, and got, the ASTM to replace the chasing arrows graphic with an equilateral triangle. ASTM said it was done to "bring focus back to the system's core mission: resin identification and quality control prior to recycling."

The change seems incredibly confusing, but all the symbol does is to indicate what kind of plastic (i.e. PET, PP, PS, HPDE, LDPE, PVC, etc.) the product is made from. And not all plastic products are required by law to have the symbol. Only containers that hold more than 8 ounces and only in certain states. Currently, that symbol, formally known as the Resin Identification Code, has been under fire from packaging companies and recyclers for years. The RIC codes were changed.

It is not know why the industry has decided to change the chasing arrows to triangles, maybe they think it will eliminate some consumer confusion. Perhaps it will take many years for shoppers to start realizing that the new solid triangle doesn't translate to recyclable. The chasing arrows compared to a solid triangle don't look all that different in the eyes of a fast-moving consumer. Here is what the current resin identification codes (RIC) look like and mean for you today:

Type 1: PETE Polyethylene TeraPhthalate - Do not reuse

You commonly find Type 1 plastic in bottles for juices, salad dressing, water, vegetable oil and mouthwash. Peanut butter and pickle jars often contain type 1 plastic as well. Polyethylene teraPhthalate is light-weight, clear and smooth; its manufacturers intend it for a single use only.

While it does not contain Bisphenol-A or Phthalates, it does contain antimony, a possible human carcinogen. Also, harmful bacteria can build up in it as you reuse it. Polyethylene teraPhthalate containers may have the symbol "PET" on them. The American Chemistry Council cautions that products made with PET be used only as indicated by the manufacturer. For example, the microwavable trays are only to be used one time and not to store or prepare foods other than those for which they are intended.

Recent studies have shown that reusing bottles made of PET can in fact be dangerous. PET was found to break down over time and leach into the beverage when the bottles were reused. The toxin DEHA also appeared in the water sample from reused water bottles. DEHA has been shown to cause liver problems, other possible reproductive difficulties, and is suspected to cause cancer in humans. Therefore, it's best to recycle these bottles without reusing them.

Type 2: HDPE High-Density Polyethylene - Generally safe

Milk containers, detergent bottles, freezer bags and plastic grocery bags often contain high-density polyethylene, a relatively stiff plastic. Type 2 plastic neither contains Bisphenols A nor Phthalates. It is not known to contain other harmful chemicals. High-density polyethylene containers may have the symbol "HDPE" on them.

Type 3: V Polyvinyl Chloride – General not safe, contains Phthalates

Polyvinyl chloride contains Phthalates that can cause reproductive problems in animals and humans. Type 3 plastic can be plasticized or unplasticized; the former is clear and flexible, the latter is more rigid. Food containers commonly made with polyvinyl chloride include fruit juice bottles, cooking oil bottles and clear food packaging. Plasticized PVC pipes and siding contain Phthalates as well. Polyvinyl chloride containers may have the symbol "V" on them.

There are claims that PVC poses serious environmental health threats. According to the Center for Health, Environment, and Justice, the production of PVC requires chemicals like the "highly polluting chlorine," the "cancer-causing" vinyl chloride monomer (VCM), and ethylene dichloride (EDC). They also claim that PVC plastic requires large amounts of toxic additives to make it stable and usable. These additives are released during use and disposal, resulting in "elevated human exposures to Phthalates, lead, cadmium, tin, and other toxic chemicals." In 2000, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed national standards to limit air toxic emissions from polyvinyl chloride production plants.

Type 4: LDPE Low-Density Polyethylene - Generally safe

Frozen foods packaging and condiment squeeze bottles often contain Type 4 plastic because it is flexible and resistant to solvents. Type 4 plastic does not contain any known harmful chemicals. Low-density polyethylene containers may have the symbol "LDPE" on them. Do not reuse, do not microwave.

Type 5: PP Polypropylene – Generally safe

Polypropylene containers do not leach harmful chemicals into foods or liquids. They commonly contain yogurt, medicine, drinks, ketchup and medicines. Type 5 plastic is flexible, hard and semi-transparent and has high resistance to solvents. Polypropylene containers may have the symbol "PP" on them. Do not reuse, do not microwave.

Type 6: PS Polystyrene - Generally safe

Type 6 plastic is clear, rigid and glassy. It does not resist fats or solvents well. However, it does not contain BPA, Phthalates. There is one major problem with Polystyrene, when it is exposed it any kind of heat, or sunlight, it will leach Styrene into the food or drink that it contains. You can find polystyrene in most to-go food containers, dairy containers, vending cups, meat trays, and over-the-counter medical bottles. A well-known polystyrene brand is Styrofoam. Polystyrene containers may have the symbol "PS" on them. Do not reuse, do not microwave.

Type 7: OTHER Polycarbonate and others - General not safe

You should avoid type 7 plastic containers because they contain BPA that leaches into their contents. Type 7 plastics often have the symbol "PC" or "Other" on them. You will find polycarbonate plastics in 3- and 5-gallon water-cooler bottles; hard, plastic reusable water bottles; and to-go coffee mugs. Manufacturers use polycarbonate for these purposes because it is virtually shatter-proof.

Required to Recycle: Mandatory Recycling

Some cities and states, such as Seattle, have created mandatory recycling laws for both commercial entities, as well as citizens by charging fines to those who throw away recyclable materials. Minnesota is also implementing recycling laws that are getting stricter for commercial entities such as businesses and sporting facilities. CalRecycle is working to encourage increased recycling in California's commercial sector by creating a mandatory commercial recycling law. In countries outside of the U.S., mandatory recycling has become the standard by which people live their lives. In all the 28 countries of the European Union, all paper, plastic, metals, and glass are prohibited from being placed in garbage. There is stick enforcement of the required recycle laws, and overall recycle rates for municipal trash have risen to almost 40 percent. Currently, Austria boasts a rate of 63 percent while the U.S. reports a 34 percent recycle rate. This means that we threw away, into landfills, over 161 million tons of recyclables. The U.S. recycling industry is thought to employ over a million workers and generates over $236 billion in annual revenue. We could do more.

Back to the Bottle Deposit

A number of U.S. states, including California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Oregon, and Vermont have passed laws that establish deposits or refund values by encouraging reusing and recycling of beverage containers. This is known as a Bottle bill or container deposit law. Most states refund five cents per can or bottle, but some can refund up to 10 cents.

When it comes to laws and regulations governing many different types of recycling, the United States is a patchwork of ordinances with varying degrees of requirements and toughness. As there is no federal law that mandates recycling of materials. While some state, county and city governments choose not to regulate recycling, there are lots of legislatures that do just the opposite. Here are a few of U.S. cities and states that have enacted the most stringent recycling regulations in the nation:

San Francisco, CA – With some of the leading environmental laws in the nation, it likely comes as little surprise that San Francisco is a leader when it comes to recycling too. In fact, the city's current zero waste recycling law, which was enacted in 2009, is often referred to as the strictest recycling law in the nation. After the city met the state-mandated landfill diversion of 50 percent by 2000, city officials decided to aim higher and set a goal of 75 percent diversion by 2010 and, even more impressively, zero waste by 2020. The city now diverts 80 percent of waste from landfills. The program relies heavily on simple sorting into color coded containers, educational outreach to citizens, wide acceptance of a variety of materials – including food scraps – and enforcement of the policies in place. Fines are even an option for offenders who don't change their recycling behavior after warnings from the city.

Seattle, WA – Not to be outdone by their California counterparts, the City of Seattle maintains their own strict set of recycling regulations for residents and businesses. Since 2005, residential customers have been required to recycle plastic, glass, aluminum and tin, resulting in 71 percent of total residential waste being recycled. For Seattle businesses, it is mandatory to recycle cardboard and paper, but that list of required recyclables could soon grow longer. A Seattle councilwoman recently introduced legislation that would require businesses to recycle the same materials that residents do. If passed, the law would take effect in July 2014, and it's estimated that it could prevent 6,000 tons of recyclables per year from ending up in landfills.

Pittsburgh, PA – Although Pittsburgh might not be the first place you would think of as eco-friendly, the city has recently undergone a green renaissance. That's why it's not surprising that the city has recycling laws that are as tough as its nickname of The Steel City. Every Pittsburgh resident, institution and business is required to participate in curbside recycling programs. Like San Francisco, the City of Pittsburgh will even fine recycling law offenders after multiple infractions. The state recently toughened these laws by refusing to accept electronic equipment for curbside waste pick up, so Pittsburgh residential and commercial customers must now also participate in electronic recycling.

# Chapter Eight  
BPA Free: The Regrettable Substitution

While the U.S. has done very little, BPA has been banned by Canadian Government, and many other European countries due to the world-wide health concerns. With BPA being run out of town, there is a whole class of chemicals are related to BPA and just as dangerous to humans. This chemical family is called simply "the Bisphenols". They are identified pseudo-alphabetically, spanning letters A-Z: Bisphenol-A, Bisphenol AB, Bisphenol AF, Bisphenol B, Bisphenol BP, Bisphenol C, Bisphenol E, Bisphenol F, Bisphenol G, Bisphenol M, Bisphenol S, Bisphenol P, Bisphenol PH, Bisphenol TMC, Bisphenol Z.

Despite the many plastics industry public affairs spokespersons and chemical industry-funded scientists claiming that BPA does not possess estrogenic properties of any biological significance that is simply not true. Long, long ago, BPA was first recognized and frequently used as an artificial estrogen in the early 1930's, where it was used both to fatten poultry and cattle, as well as a form of human estrogen replacement therapy in women in the mid-1930's. Only later, in the 1940's, did Bayer and General Electric research and develop BPA to harden polycarbonate plastics and make epoxy resin. Today BPA is the industry standard for plastic resin and used to line nearly the entire world's supply of food and beverage containers.

**Meet the Bisphenols** ,

Here is their family picture. They are a pernicious clan of chemicals that are capable of inflecting great harm to both humanity and the environment. When they arrive into the kitchen, and make contact with our food, they become insidious killers. The Bisphenols are a pervasive alien family of Endocrine Disruptors. Be on the lookout for them.

BPA analogs: A dangerous shell game

In the United States and abroad, in response to laws banning BPA, and growing consumer concerns over the safety of BPA, manufacturers have been rapidly substituting Bisphenol S (and possibly other Bisphenol analogues) in its place. Despite the industry-wide move away from BPA towards BPS, they both exhibit similar harmful estrogen-like properties.

The National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, has investigated whether five compounds resembling Bisphenol-A can be used as alternatives. Denmark's National Food Institute (NFI) has said it considers it 'unwise' to replace ... The NFI Technical University of Denmark looked at five possible alternatives ... It turns out that the compounds tested have the potential to have the same harmful effects as Bisphenol-A, and the National Food Institute cautions against using them. All test compounds caused the same qualitative effects on estrogen receptor and androgen receptor activities, and most of the alternatives exhibited potencies within the same range as BPA

In a 2012, a New York State Department of Health study was conducted by the Wadsworth Center and published in the May 25, 2012 edition of Environmental Science & Technology. The New York State researchers gathered samples of thermal paper receipts, paper currencies, flyers, magazines, and newspapers from around the country and found high levels of BPS. In that same journal, an addition study was done by the Wadsworth Center and reported the results from urine samples of 315 people in the same areas where the first study was done. All of the urine samples came back with high levels of BPA, as well as BPS.

There is now strong conclusive evidence showing from additional research specifying that Bisphenol S is an endocrine disruptor with strong estrogenic properties and has a carcinogenic potential. A 2012 study published in the journal Toxicology In Vitro discussed the industry-wide shift from using BPA in plastic baby bottles to BPS after the European Commission imposed a restriction on BPA use in 2011. The researchers found that "By using two highly standardized transactivation assays, we could demonstrate that the estrogenic activity of Bisphenol-A and Bisphenol-S is of a comparable potency."

The problem is that BPS, as well as all the other BPA replacements, is that they are "new guys in town" and we don't know anything about them. Right now BPS is being studied, but BPS is less well-known and researched than BPA for its potential adverse effects. While regulators wait for manufacturers who promote their products with "BPA-Free!" stickers at the same moment that they infuse them with BPS to voluntarily reformulate, there is evidence now that BPS may actually have worse effects to environmental and human health, alike. It's a dangerous shell game that the plastics industry is playing on us.

The Bisphenol family does not play well with the environment

Just about all of the Bisphenols (F - Z) do not disintegrate in their composition when placed in landfills, and seawater. Specifically, BPS was found not amenable to biodegradation and might be persistent and become an ecological burden. This information was available back in 2009 when studies were done and published in the April 2009 edition of the International Journal of Environmental Research & Public Health

The "BPA free" alternatives strongly show a relative inability to biodegrade. This finding is a major health warning because it indicates two problems for us. (1) Once BPA substitutes are absorbed into the human body, they may accumulate there for longer periods of time. (2) BPA alternatives are more likely to persist in the environment, making external exposures to it, and its many metabolites, much more likely than the faster degrading BPA. In other words, the potential of the Bisphenol family to do harm will worsen along the axis of time, not lessen, which a common argument is made for the world wide movement to be "BPA free".

Would you like to spin the Bisphenol Wheel of Misfortune?

# Chapter Nine  
From the Sea: The Great Pacific Garbage Patch

Perhaps many people have read stories on the internet about large areas of the Pacific Ocean that have large patches of floating garbage and plastic. Some internet reports claim that these oceanic garbage piles are so dense that you can walk on them and are as large as several football fields, some web sites claim they are as big a states and can be seen from space. Thankfully, few of these statements in internet reports depict the truth of this area. These were catch phrases and photos often used by the media to get people's interest in this problem and to try and offer an imaginable scale of the size. That's the good news, the bad news is that, despite the absence of floating masses of large plastic pieces, the garbage patch actually exists but is more like a garbage soup. There is a significant amount of obvious floating surface debris, but much of the plastic are what's termed as microplastics (below 5mm) and normally float on and just below the surface of the ocean.

Despite the absence of floating masses of trash, and large plastic pieces, the garbage patch actually exists but is more like a garbage soup. There is a significant amount of obvious floating sub-surface debris but much of the plastic is below the surface of the ocean. The garbage patch size cannot be easily estimated as the gyres are in a constant state of movement. The Eastern & Western garbage patches in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre also have what is called a convergence zone where currents can merge the borders of these 2 garbage patches together.

A gyre is simply a natural oceanic phenomenon of slow moving circular currents. There are actually 5 gyres worldwide, found in each of the oceans. They are the North Pacific, South Pacific, North Atlantic, South Atlantic and Indian subtropical gyres. The gyres of the earth are large swirling bodies of water that are often on the scale of a whole ocean basin or hundreds to thousands of miles across. Ocean gyres dominate the open ocean and represent the long-term average pattern of ocean surface currents. Ocean gyres in the Northern hemisphere rotate clockwise and gyres in the Southern hemisphere rotate counter-clockwise due to the Coriolis effect, which is a natural reaction to the rotation of the earth. The North Pacific garbage patch was discovered by Captain Charles Moore in 1997. After sailing through the area he noticed increasing amounts of floating plastic. He founded the Algalita Research Institute and returned with a exploration vessel over subsequent years to study and get international exposure of the North Pacific garbage patches.

Research into plastic debris accumulation in all 5 oceanic gyres has been undertaken by U.S. Based 5 Gyres Institute whilst a score of other scientific explorations have focused heavily on the North Pacific gyre.

Plastic debris has been entering the oceans through accidental and purposeful dumping for more than 50 years. The waste enters via streams, rivers, drainage outflow, thru wind particles from landfills, overfull rubbish bins, general littering, shoreline activities, from marine vessels, fishing, pleasure craft and cargo ships. Floating plastic debris accumulates in all the oceanic gyres through actions of winds and currents, moving plastic from shorelines throughout the world or from dumping sites within the ocean. Over time the plastic breaks down into smaller pieces through sunlight degradation and wave churning action.

What is alarming is the sheer scale of microplastics and floating debris accumulating in the oceans. Unconfirmed reports make estimates of 13,000 to over 18,000 pieces of plastic floating in every square mile in the oceans. Of course not all plastics float, it is estimated that 70 percent of plastics sink to the bottom. Plastic pollution is not just found in the oceanic gyres but throughout the oceans from the Arctic to Antarctica. Therefore it is extremely difficult to estimate how much plastic is already in the ocean and how much plastic is within an ocean gyre.

In 2001, it was estimated by Capt Charles Moore that plastic particles outnumbered plankton by a factor of 6. This means that in some parts of the Pacific gyre for every pound of plankton there were 6 pounds of plastic fragments. To make things worse, the microplastics are being consumed by night feeding fish. One NOAA research study revealed more than a third of the fish sampled had plastic ingestion.

In a June 17, 2004 broadcast of NPR's "All things Considered", Melissa Block reported that over 75 percent of all the trash in the ocean is made of plastic. The report went on to say that while plastic may break down into smaller and smaller pieces, some as small as grains of sand, these plastic pieces are never truly become biodegradable. The plastic bits, some small enough that they're called microplastics, end up being eaten by the marine life and sea birds. As the plastic pieces float in the water, the fish and birds scoop up because it look like food. On Midway Island in the Pacific Ocean the carcasses of many thousands of birds are found each year with their stomachs full of plastic.

During the recent massive search for the missing Malaysian 777, thousands of square miles of the ocean were examined by satellite imagery. Unfortunately, every one of satellite pictures suspected of being floating aircraft wreckage, which became instant news, turned out to be garbage and huge patches of floating plastic. Time after time, the hopeful images of the missing jet plane were just large areas of floating plastic trash.

# Chapter Ten  
Banishing BPA: Banning Plastic Bags

It has been estimated that the worldwide yearly consumption of plastic bags is over one trillion. According to an article in China Trade news, China uses over 3 billion every day. Throughout our world, plastic bags are everywhere. Here are some quick facts about the over 1 million plastic bags that are used every minute of every day:

• A single plastic bag can take up to 1,000 years to degrade.

• More than 3.5 million tons of plastic bags, sacks and wraps were discarded in 2013.

• Only 1 in 200 plastic bags in the UK are recycled (BBC).

• The U.S. goes through 100 billion single-use plastic bags. This costs retailers about $4 billion a year.

• Plastic bags are the second-most common type of ocean refuse, after cigarette butts (2012)

• Plastic bags remain toxic even after they break down.

• Every square mile of ocean has about 46,000 pieces of plastic floating in it

If the all the plastic bags were placed end-to-end, they could circle the equator over 20 times. In response to the world wide plastic bag pandemic, as much of the plastic produced ends up in landfills, or in the ocean; there is widespread legal action against the use of plastic bags by a lot countries. The following countries have invoked outright bans on the use of plastic bags: Germany South Africa, Italy, Australia, India, Mumbai, Somalia, Botswana, Philippines, Uganda, Kenya, Japan, Turkey, Zanzibar, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Belgium, South Korea, Singapore, Sweden Bhutan, Malta, and China. Domestically, there is a growing list of U.S. cities that have done the same thing in order to banish plastic bags from the marketplaces. With 100 billion plastic bags passing through the hands of American consumers every year, communities, cities, and soon states are banning the bags. California has come close to introducing a statewide ban on plastic bags, but well-funded industry lobbyists have hindered the law. A new state anti-plastic bag bill will likely go up for a vote later in 2014 with the support of the California Grocers Association.

While now almost ubiquitous in our society, the infamous plastic bag has a relatively short history. Invented in Sweden in 1962, the single-use plastic shopping bag was first popularized by Mobil Oil in the 1970s in an attempt to increase its market for polyethylene. Many American customers disliked the plastic bag when it was introduced in 1976, disgusted by the checkout clerks having to lick their fingers when pulling the bags from the rack and infuriated when a bag full of groceries would break or spill over. But retailers continued to push for plastic because they could replace the brown paper bags and "save trees". Actually plastic bags were a much better deal for retailers, they were cheaper, and took up less space than paper, and now a generation of people can hardly conceive of shopping without being offered a plastic bag at the checkout counter.

The popularity of plastic grocery bags stems from their light weight and their perceived low cost, but it is these very merits that make them unpleasant, difficult, and expensive to manage. Over one third of all plastic production is for packaging, designed for short-term use. Plastic bags are made from natural gas or petroleum that formed over millions of years, yet they are often used for mere minutes before being discarded to make their way to a dump or incinerator—if they don't blow away and end up as litter first.

A growing number of state governments have considered proposals for anti-plastic bag legislation, but not one has successfully applied a statewide surcharge or banned the bags. Hawaii has a virtual state prohibition, as its four populated counties have banned the use of plastic bags at grocery stores, with the last one beginning enforcement in July 2015. Florida, another state renowned for its pristine beaches, legally preempts cities from ratifying anti-bag legislation. The latest attempt to remove this barrier was scrapped in April 2014, although Tallahassee legislators say they will revisit the proposal later in the year.

Disapproval of plastic bags has developed in Texas, despite the state accounting for 44 percent of the U.S. plastics market and serving as the home to several important bag manufacturers, including America's largest company Superbag based in Houston. Eight cities and towns in Texas have active plastic bag bans, and others, like San Antonio, are considering the moratorium. The smaller cities of Fort Stockton and Kermit barred plastic bags in 2011 and 2013, respectively, after cattle ranchers complained that their livestock had died from ingesting plastic bags. The city of Austin excluded plastic bags in 2013, hoping to reduce the more than $2,300 it was spending each day to deal with plastic bag trash and litter. Plastic pollution in the Trinity River Basin, which provides water to over half of all Texans, was a compelling reason for Dallas to pass a 5ȼ fee on plastic bags that will go into effect in 2015. Plastic bags have also been known to contaminate cotton fields, getting caught up in balers and harming the quality of the final product.

The city of Washington, D.C. was the first in the nation to require food and alcohol retailers to charge customers 5ȼ for each plastic or paper bag. Part of the revenue from this goes to the stores to help them with the costs of implementation, and part is designated for cleanup of the Anacostia River. Accordingly, most D.C. shoppers now routinely bring their own reusable bags on outings. One survey found that 80 percent of consumers were using fewer bags and that over 90 percent of businesses were in favor of the ban.

Maryland's Montgomery County followed Washington's example and passed a 5ȼ charge for bags in 2011. A recent study that compared shoppers in this county with those in neighboring Prince George's County, where anti-bag legislation has not gone through, found that reusable bags were seven times more popular in Montgomery County stores. When plastic bags were no longer free, shoppers thought about whether the bag was worth the extra nickel and, quickly got into the habit of bringing their own bags.

BPA Push back

In response to the declining demand for its products, the plastic industry is working hard to derail state and local anti-plastic initiatives. The U.S. plastics industry employs nearly 900,000 American workers and provides more than $373 billion in annual shipments. The Plastics Industry Trade Association is the main market alliance representing one of the largest manufacturing industries in the United States. The plastic industry is, right now, devoting a lot of resources to try and to change public perception of plastic bags by promoting recycling, setting up internet blogs about the safety issues of reusable cloth bags, and lobbing state and local governments. They have deep pockets and spend lots of money sponsoring research studies, conducting interviews, and donating money to recycling causes.

The U.S. manufactures of all plastic products, represented by the large Plastics Industry Trade Association, is very bound loosely by the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which Congress passed in 1976. TSCA granted the government the authority to track industrial chemicals and to place restrictions on any that proved harmful to humans or the environment. The plastic industry has spent extravagantly to preserve these lax standards. Since 1996, the industry has contributed $47 million to federal election campaigns, and it pays about $30 million each year to lobbyists in Washington. Unfortunately, in the 38 years that TSCA has been around, 95 percent of all chemicals in circulation have never undergone any testing their impact on the environment, and risk to humans. The extent to which TSCA has failed to regulate hazardous chemicals is now evident in the hundreds of "non-governmental" bio-monitoring studies that are coming into the focus of the American public, and giving energy to movement to ban BPA, DEHP, and Phthalates from food containers.

Perhaps another driving force behind the desire to ban plastic bags is that they are virtually useless after they come home from the grocery store. Oh sure, a few are used as tote bags for a while, but most of the plastic bags, 97 percent or more in some locations, never make it to the recycling bin. Even when users have good intentions, bags blow out of outdoor collection bins at grocery stores or off of recycling trucks. The bags that reach recycling facilities are the relentless nuisance to all recycling companies. When plastic bags mix in with other recyclables, they jam and damage sorting machines, which are very costly to repair. In San Jose, California, where fewer than 4 percent of plastic bags are recycled, repairs to bag-jammed equipment have cost the city about $1 million a year before the plastic bag ban went into effect in 2012.

In their less than 60 years of existence, plastic bags have had widespread acceptance and dependence. Enforcing legislation to limit their use challenges the throwaway consumerism that has become pervasive in a environment of artificially cheap energy. As U.S. natural gas production has surged and prices have fallen, the plastics industry is seeking to increase domestic production. Yet using this fossil fuel endowment to make something so short-lived, which can blow away at the slightest breeze and pollutes indefinitely, is irrational, and wasteful, particularly when there is a ready alternative: the reusable bag.

# Chapter Eleven  
Informed Consent: Living with Plastics

Everyone who practices medicine follows the golden rule before treating a patient. That preemptive imperative is called "informed consent". Basically, what that means is doctors must give you all the available information about a particular treatment or test in order for you to decide whether or not you wish to undergo such treatment or test. This process of understanding the risks and benefits of treatment is the foundation that all medical treatment is based upon. It is established on the moral and legal premise of patient autonomy: You as the patient have the right to make decisions about your own health and medical conditions. The only exception to this rule is the emergency situation for which medical care is needed immediately to prevent serious or irreversible harm. Therefore, you must voluntarily give your informed consent for treatment, and for most medical tests and procedures. The legal term for failing to obtain informed consent before performing a test or procedure on a patient is called battery - a form of assault.

At the end of the day, we have some personal choices we can make to reduce our exposure to the toxic chemicals in food packaging. Plastics are in our lives to stay, and the alien is always going to be in our kitchens, threating our health. Our lives are molded, packaged, and sealed in plastic dependency. Look around you at your computers, phones, water bottles, and credit cards. Plastic components inundate everything in our houses, workplaces, and recreational areas. Our children play with plastic toys while we rip the cellophane wrappers off our prepackaged dinners.

The downside to plastics is certainly no secret. For starters, everything plastic is undeniably a non-biodegradable, petroleum-derived product. Factor in the proven threats to human health, wildlife endangerment and difficult recycling, and the plastic industry has quite a public relations problem on its hands. In 1960, plastics made up less than one percent of U.S. municipal solid waste. In 2103, we tossed 32 million tons of plastic in the garbage, now it is almost 13 percent of our landfills. While recycling efforts have come a long way since the sixties, only nine percent of total plastic waste generated in 2013 was actually recycled. Look at what ends up on the roadsides. And that's only in the U.S. The plastic industry says that the "Bisphenal family" of chemicals is safe in your kitchen; the question is "are you willing to bet your life on that?"

The chemicals in plastics percolate the entire fabric of our complex society. The plastic industry is certainly one of humanity's greatest achievements. It is evidence of our uncanny ability to reshape the natural order. The word plastic is derived from the Greek πλαστικός (plastikos) meaning capable of being shaped or molded, from πλαστός (plastos) meaning molded. When it comes to living with plastics, we are the ones who have been molded. Accordingly, our very way life is molded, fashioned, and accommodated by the chemicals in our plastics.

I suppose it would be practically impossible to live a plastic free life. Unfortunately, plastics are an omnipresent dilemma that we must live with. So live with it! Live with plastics. But, by all means, follow the guiding principle of medical informed consent. Responsibly living with plastic includes personal awareness, consciousness, and mindfulness about what comes in contact with your food and drink products and the all risks associated with plastics.

After studying about the shocking effects of plastic pollution on the environment and human health, Oakland, CA accountant Beth Terry began an experiment to see if she could live without buying any new plastic. Following that, she has reduced her plastic waste to less than 2 percent of the national average. Her experience developed into a very popular internet blog called "MyPlasticFreeLife.com". She also wrote a best-selling book entitled: "Plastic-Free: How I Kicked the Plastic Habit and How You Can Too". Beth Terry is a founding member of the "Plastic Pollution Coalition", and gives presentations on plastic-free living and why, despite what some critics assert, our personal actions do make a difference. Her work and life have been profiled in the award-winning film "Bag It", as well as Susan Freinkel's book, "Plastic: A Toxic Love Story" and Captain Charles Moore's "Plastic Ocean"

Our use of plastics isn't just a global problem, its personal issue, and we can certainly learn all about the health effects of the chemicals we are absorbing from plastics. Additionally, our actions affect not only our own health but the health and well-being of those we love. There are three R's involved in living responsively with plastics: **Realize, Reduce, and Recycle.**

**Realize:** Know and understand the risks associated with modern plastics as they encapsulate all our food and drink products.

Be especially watchful when it comes to the microwaving, dishwashing, reusing, and freezing of plastic food containers. Realize because of the pervasiveness of plastics into our everyday lives, chemicals such as BPA, DEHP, and Phthalates are in such ordinary products as makeup, toothpaste, toothbrushs, chewing gum, dental fillings, false teeth, all tattoo ink, most household cleaners, sunscreens, air fresheners, scented candles, dryer anti-cling sheets, all canned foods, all bottled water, shampoos, cleaners, detergents, polishes, all cash register receipts, eyeglass lenses, shaving cream, shower curtains, tub and tile cleaner, laundry detergent, bar soap, hair conditioner, facial cleanser, body lotions, furniture polish, and most auto products. Yikes oh my gosh, just about everything. See for yourself, Google these products along with the 3 letters BPA and realize how much of our lives are enmeshed, encircled, blanketed and enveloped by BPA laced plastics. Realize!

The wide publication of scientific research has given us a lot of good reasons to think carefully about how we use plastics. The main concern with several types of plastic is that they contain endocrine disruptors. When these chemicals are taken into our bodies, alter normal hormonal function. Over the past several years, scientists and the media have struggled to find answers to mysteries such as precocious puberty, declining fertility rates in otherwise healthy adults, hyperactivity in kids, the fattening of America, and the persistent scourges of prostate cancer and breast cancer. Although multiple factors play a role in all of these conditions, one recurrent theme is the brew of endocrine disruptors infiltrating our lives.

Unfortunately, because BPA is so pervasive, we all have it in our systems. One investigation, by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, found BPA in 95 percent of urine samples. It's also present in blood, amniotic fluid, fetal tissues, ovarian fluid, and breast milk. Infants and small children take in more BPA than adults because they simply breathe, drink and eat more, put everything within reach into their mouths, and don't process the chemical from their bodies as fast as adults.

Currently, all of the evidence on the potential dangers of BPA comes mostly from animal research. In lab rats and mice, even low doses during early development alter the reproductive hormone cycles in males and females. Specifically, females have earlier puberty, increased mammary (breast) development, prolonged estrous cycles (the equivalent of menstrual cycles), chromosomal abnormalities in their eggs, and other fertility problems. Males have decreased testosterone levels, fewer and less motile sperm, more abnormal sperm, increased prostate size, and changes reflecting a heightened risk for prostate cancer. In some studies, both males and females tend to weigh more and have more body fat. Exposure during fetal development can alter brain structure and function, and lead to subsequent behavioral changes, such as increased aggressiveness, impaired motor activity, anxious behavior, and impaired learning.

While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration maintains current levels of BPA are safe for humans; Many foreign countries such as Canada, France, as well all the nations of the European Union have banned its use in plastics that come in contact with food.

Reduce: Cut back on your use of plastics in the kitchen

There is no hiding the clear cut evidence that plastics are made from petroleum and that they contain harmful chemicals like BPA, DEHP, and Phthalates. There is no question that these substances are transferred to our food and drinks from the plastic containers that we use. There is also no doubt that chemicals compounds found in our food and drink containers can get into our endocrine system and negatively interfere with the synthesis, secretion, transport, binding, action, or elimination of our body's natural hormones. Finally, there is no dispute that endocrine disruptors may be associated with the development of learning disabilities, severe attention deficit disorder, cognitive and brain development problems, deformations of the body, breast cancer, prostate cancer, thyroid and other cancers, along with various sexual development problems.

The national debate regarding harmful chemicals in our plastic food containers is between two large groups that are diametrically opposed in their conclusions. In one corner you have the plastics industry which is currently being championed by the U.S. government regulatory agency called the FDA. In the other corner you have hundreds of unassociated consumer health safety groups, hundreds of food and drug researchers, thousands angry bloggers, and millions of concerned soccer moms.

The main issue of contention in this whole battle centers around just what is a safe level of BPA, DEHP, and Phthalates that we can ingest and whether these known endocrine disrupters should be in contact with food. Federal guidelines currently put the daily upper limit of safe exposure at 50 micrograms of BPA per kilogram of body weight. But that level is based on experiments done in the 1980s rather than hundreds of more recent animal and laboratory studies indicating that serious health risks could result from much lower doses of BPA, DEHP, and Phthalates. How much is enough to disrupt our bodies and lead to unthinkable diseases that are being reported on the internet.

If we can't live without plastics, then we must therefore live with them and try and limit ourselves to the many adverse chemicals that they are made with. Reduce your exposure to BPA, DEHP, and Phthalates by making informed choices in what you buy at the store. Here is some conventional wisdom in reducing you contact with plastics in what you eat, drink, inhale, and touch:

Control your consumption of canned food by eating fresh or frozen produce, or buy processed food in "brick" cartons, pouches, or glass. Never, buy canned tomatoes, the malic acid breaks down the plastic can linings and the BPA leaches out. Go glass.

Limit your consumption of canned soda and beer - where possible choose glass as an alternative. Go Glass. Restrain using plastic food containers, or just stop altogether. Use glass, porcelain, and stainless-steel containers, particularly for hot foods and liquids. Especially when microwaving foods.

Give up bottled water. By drinking your water from a glass jar or a reusable bottle, you can help reduce the environmental costs associated with producing bottled water and save money while you're at it. If you are worried about your tap water, then get a "reverse osmosis" water filter.

Try Tetra Paks, they are a packaging alternative to aluminum or steel cans. Tetra Pak is made of 70 percent paperboard combined with thin layers of LDPE (low density polyethylene) and aluminum foil. Tetra Paks are used widely throughout Europe and have been utilized in the United States for juice, soups, liquid dairy products, and even wine.

Change your shower curtain. Conventional shower curtains are often made of PVC vinyl plastic, and can off-gas into the bathroom environment. Alternative green products are available, and made from cloth, or other, much safer vinyl plastics including ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA). These plastics do not contain chloride, and so do not pose the same risks to your health or the environment.

Make sure your personal care products are Phthalate-free. Phthalates, which are plasticizers, have become industry standard as additives to scented products because they help fragrances last longer. But research has shown reasons to be concerned about the impact of Phthalates on our health.

Say no to plastic bags. You know why, just ban the flimsy little polluter from your life. Get a set of cloth grocery bags and wash them often.

Choose milk in returnable glass bottles, or cardboard cartons. Many communities have local dairies that provide milk in returnable glass bottles rather than plastic or plastic-coated cardboard. All cardboard milk containers are coated inside and out with plastic, not wax. Check out local dairies in your area to see if this is offered. Go Glass. Here are 10 reasons to move from plastic food containers to those made from glass:

1. Glass is free of toxic chemicals and won't leach into your food

2. Glass is dishwasher safe; plastic on the other hand degrades each time it's washed and heated

3. Glass preserves the quality and flavor of the food

4. Glass won't absorb smells or stains like plastic does

5. Glass is actually a lot more economical, even if plastic is cheap, plastic will eventually break down but glass can last a life time

6. Glass is multipurpose; besides storing food, glass can be used to cook, bake, heat, and freeze foods safely

7. Glass is 100 percent recyclable, it will always be raw material for more glass

8. Glass production is less taxing on the environment (less pollution, less use of natural resources)

9. Glass is perfect for storing anything; from leftovers, to dry bulk items, to fermented drinks

10. Glass is way better looking than plastic. Glass jars and containers are all the rage now, and with good reason! Go Glass!

If you can't somehow get rid of all your plastic food containers, then please don't wash any plastic items in the dishwasher, which can cause the endocrine disrupters to leach onto other items. Wash plastic ware in warm, soapy water instead. By all means, recycle scratched or hazy-looking plastic containers, which are more prone to leaching the harmful chemicals from which they were made from.

Take a good look are your coffee maker. Is it plastic? Why not make coffee or tea some other way than running hot water through a plastic appliance. They do make all stainless steel coffee makers for about the same price as the fancy plastic ones. Search the chemical content of all baby toys at www.healthytoys.org. PVC content is listed (Phthalates are not), but toys made with PVC generally include Phthalates.

Although food is the most common source of BPA exposure, simply because of the chemicals in plastic containers and lining of the cans, there is more BPA in a single thermal paper receipt than the total amount you might get otherwise from food containers and cans. Avoid all thermal paper receipts like the poison they are. If you are a cashier and your job requires frequent contact with thermal paper receipts, wear nitrile gloves. Decline paper receipts at gas pumps, ATMs, or retail cash registers. If you must keep receipts, use a sealed plastic bag to store receipts you need to keep rather than carrying them loose in your wallet, purse or shopping bag. The coating can just as easily rub off on other items and when you handle those, you'll be picking up the BPA. Wash your hands. Avoid handling thermal paper if you are pregnant and keep it out of children's hands too. Studies suggest prenatal and early life exposure to BPA poses the greatest potential health risks.

Finally, know you resin numbers when it comes to plastic containers that your food comes in. These are relatively and generally safe, if not reused, or microwaved:

•#2 HDPE (high density polyethylene)

•#4 LDPE (low density polyethylene)

•#5 PP (polypropylene)

The following are risky plastics, and generally accepted as "Not Safe for Food and Drink" because they may leach chemicals or have hazardous ingredients.

•#3 PVC (polyvinyl chloride) produces carcinogens during manufacture and incineration, also contains Phthalates.

•#6 PS (polystyrene) possible carcinogen

•#7 other (usually polycarbonate, sometimes labeled PC) may leach BPA (Bisphenol-A)

Recycle

If it's plastic, don't throw it in your trash can; put it in a recycle bin for collection. Recycle, do not reuse: Use the plastic food container product only for what it was intended for. Do not reuse plastic water bottles or microwave food trays. Recycling also means taking on the task of separating, collecting, processing, marketing, and ultimately using a material that would have been thrown away. This morning's newspaper can be recycled for another morning's news or other paper products. Cans and bottles can be crafted for other uses. Quality products and packaging are being made from recovered materials. We can all help create markets for recyclable by buying and using these products.

Why Should We Recycle?

Recycling reduces our reliance on landfills and incinerators.

Recycling protects our health and environment when harmful substances are removed from the waste stream.

Recycling conserves our natural resources because it reduces the need for raw materials.

What Can We Recycle?

Each local recycling program is designed to handle specific materials.

Commonly recycled materials include:

Paper - Newspaper, office paper, cardboard, and other paper types.

Yard trimmings - Grass, leaves, and shrub and tree clippings are recycled by composting.

Glass - Bottles and jars (clear, green, and amber).

Aluminum - Beverage containers.

Other metals - Steel cans, auto bodies, refrigerators, stoves, and batteries.

Used motor oil - Vehicle crankcase oil.

Plastics - Soda bottles, milk jugs, bags, and detergent containers.

Recycling has a variety of economic impacts. For the companies that buy used goods, recycle them and resell new products, recycling is the source of all their income. For cities in densely populated areas that have to pay by the ton for their landfill usage, recycling can shave millions of dollars off municipal budgets. The recycling industry can have an even broader impact. Economic analysis shows that recycling can sometimes generate three times as much revenue per ton as landfill disposal and almost six times as many jobs.

Question of the day now: Paper or plastic?

In the mid-1980's, many supermarkets switched from using paper bags to plastic since the plastic (polyethylene) bags are less expensive. People felt good about it as they were saving the forests. Over the years because many customers complained, some grocery stores brought the paper bags back and gave a choice saying would you like "paper or plastic? When the shoppers made their choice at the checkout counter: Paper or plastic: it was usually understood to be based on which was less harmful to the environment. Now with all concerns over BPA, DEHP, Phthalates, and a host of other hazardous chemicals in plastic bags, the current rational might now be which is safer for the customer. So think about it, which would you rather risk harming, the environment, or your body? Therefore, be informed, realize, reduce, and recycle.

# Chapter Twelve  
Final Thoughts: Epilogue and Working Bibliography

Ok, go ahead; make a wish for your dream vacation spot. The yearning that you might have is for a beautiful seaside resort where you can relax and enjoy the warm sunset and refreshing cool breeze. It's the perfect place, uncluttered by the distractions and demands of a busy life. Just image, lounging by the ocean, taking in the gentle sounds of the waves and sea birds. Vacations are an important aspect of American family life. According to a 2013 American Express survey, people spend about $1,200 per person on vacations, or roughly $4,000 for a family of four. If you're wondering what $1,200 might get you, your choices would include a seven-day stay in Huatulco, Mexico, or, for slightly less ($1,099), a seven-night stay in Samana, Dominican Republic, according to the Apple Vacations website. So would you be interested in a beautiful Caribbean beach setting, perhaps like the one above – not! What's wrong with this picture?

Every year, billions of dollars are spent of keeping our public recreational areas clean and litter free. On NOAA's blog site, dated 5/21/2014, they reported that last year over 650 thousand volunteers picked up a total of 12,329,332 pounds of trash on 13, thousand miles of American's beaches. Much of that trash was made of plastic. Americans are generating more plastic trash than ever, and very little of it gets recycled. Plastics and their byproducts are littering our cities, oceans, and waterways, and contributing to health problems in humans and animals. The United States accounts for over one-third of the world's waste. Most of that trash ends up in landfills. In the United States, one ton of waste per person ends up in landfills each year. Also, about seventy percent of U.S. municipal waste is buried in landfills, with the majority of that trash being made of plastic.

There is no doubt about the fact that the single biggest source of pollution in this country is Single Use Plastics. Approximately 100,000,000,000 tons of plastic is manufactured every year with the average American throwing away approximately 4 ½ pounds of plastic trash a day. Regrettably, only 7 percent of all the plastic manufactured is being recycled. As for the other 93 percent. Most of it ends up in landfills, but approximately 4.7 billion tons of plastic finds its way to the ocean. The buildup of plastic in the sea is a problem far worse than any oil spill in human history because these are long-term persistent deadly toxic chemicals that do not degrade in days, weeks, or months, but rather over decades, centuries, or even millennia. Each and every piece of plastic ever manufactured still exists today, whether it's in your house, in a landfill, in the open environment, or in the ocean. Plastic is made of polymers, and the chemicals of their composition never go away.

As technology has developed and evolved, we have been surrogated from a spiritual knowledge possessed by the ancients, that saw their divine connection with the cosmos. What we've lost is the spiritual knowledge and understanding that life is passing through us from the past into the future and have replaced this knowledge with the distorted ideology of materialism and consumption and the idea that we only live one life and disappear. This mindset, firmly in place, has created a society that is established on an egocentric mentality of grabbing everything we can in our short time here with little regard for the environment.

As mentioned in chapter nine, Captain Charles Moore, made an astonishing and heartbreaking discovery while returning to California from Hawaii in 1997. What he discovered was a tremendous aggregation of plastic trash floating in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. What is now known as the North Pacific Gyre, or more specifically the "North Pacific Garbage Patch," is a convergence of plastic trash over an area half the size of the U.S. or twice the size of the U.S. depending on the size of the particulates being measured. It was this discovery that led to an entirely new perspective on our use of plastic and its detrimental effects on the planet's ecosystems. Plastics in our oceans have created an entirely new crisis with respect to the use of "single use" plastics.

There are some internet pictures of ocean trash gathering together and forming some kind of island of plastic debris with items that pile up collectively. To the contrary! Although there are aggregates where fishing nets and garbage have collected, it's more like a slimy, gelatinous, plastic soup, where the plastic has dissolved in the water to the extent that it is now a chemically toxic film that floats near the surface with particulates of plastic of various sizes in it. This mass of plastic constitutes approximately 50 percent of the trash that has converged here. The other 50 percent sinks and is at the bottom of the ocean.

Let's go to the Beach – Not!

The alien is also at your favorite beach. The consequence of all the plastic refuse in the ocean is devastating to aquatic life and represents a greater biohazard than even the worst oil spills that have occurred. The hazardous nature of plastic is because the decomposition of plastic, depending on the type, can take between hundreds of years for its physical composition to decompose into the individual micro-polymers it is made up of. Complicating the issue is the way plastic decomposes. Plastic is not biodegradable and as mentioned earlier, it never goes away. Instead, it undergoes photo-degradation, a process in which the absorption of light, or more specifically, photons of light cause a chain or matrix of molecules to break apart releasing bio-toxic and hazardous chemicals such as dioxins, mercury, and Polychlorinated Biphenyls, or PCB's.

The plastic never dissolves, even worse, as it begins to degrade into smaller and smaller polymers, it becomes "neustronic," meaning it is now "bio-available" to sea animals, small enough to be ingested, and can enter the digestive tract of sea animals that eat it.

These particulates, known as "micro-plastic," can be found without exception on every shoreline worldwide and are so small that they are almost identical from the particles of sand themselves. By simply taking a handful of sand and dumping it into a bucket of water, one will see the sand sink to the bottom and the tiny pieces of plastic confetti rise to the surface and float.

That is what's happening to the external environment as a result of the dramatic proliferation of plastic products into every facet of our daily lives. The effect upon the internal environment of our bodies is a topic that is hotly debated on a world wide scale. The insidious harmful chemicals, classified as endocrine disruptors, in plastics are relentless in their attack upon our human systems and interfere with normal cell development in the body. The greater the distance that we can put between ourselves and plastics, the healthier we will remain. The generation that is at the greatest health risk are those still unborn and the very young whose bodies are in the process of growing up and developing into adults. Perhaps, the generation that is 65 or older might hopefully outlive the negative effects of plastics. With those folks, staying away from plastics, and getting as much plastic as possible out of your life is the only way to avoid the harmful cumulative of the alien in the kitchen.

It has been said that "denial is more than a 4,132 mile river in Africa", denial can kill you when it comes to menacing and destructive substances that currently prevail upon bodies from the effects of exposure to plastics. Become aware of how bad the situation has become and move away from the scene of danger, and fight to get the insidious alien out of your food kitchen. Don't wait another day, start doing it now!

# Epilogue

BPA battles in Europe

The European Commission represents the interests of the EU as a whole. It proposes new legislation to the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, and it ensures that EU law is correctly applied by member countries. In a press release dated June 27, 2014, in its continuous strive to improve the safety of toys the European Commission has decided recently to set a strict limit of 0.1 mg/l for BPA in toys for children up to the age of 3 years and in any toys intended to be placed in the mouth. This has contributed to keeping the exposure of children to BPA from toys low in comparison to other non-food contributors such as cosmetics or dust, and far lower than the exposure from BPA in the diet according to the related report of the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA). The complicated health effects of BPA, including endocrine disrupting effects, are still under scientific assessment at the EFSA and in other scientific discussions.

BPA battles in the United States

On June 10, 2014, the governor of Vermont signed into law (S.239), a bill targeting toxic substances in children's products. Additionally, Vermont has identified 66 specific chemical substances as substances of high concern to children. Several types of Phthalates and BPA are on this list. The law affects children's products, and allows that new substances can be added to the list in the future. Information about children's products will be posted to a website run by the state.

As reported on June 29, 2014, by the St Louis Post Dispatch. BPA makes male turtles develop more like females A pilot study conducted at the University of Missouri showed that the synthetic chemical BPA can alter a turtle's reproductive system after exposure in the egg. Turtles are perfect creatures for this type of study, because their sex is determined by the temperature of the environment during their development in the egg.

As reported on saferstates.com, the following state legislatures have a bill waiting to be passed into state law for 2014:

Arizona - SB 1376: Bans BPA from formula and baby food containers, requires it be replaced with the least toxic alternative.

Connecticut - SB 316: Requires food packaging containing BPA to be clearly labelled as such.

Delaware - HB 109: Extends BPA ban to cover all reusable food and drink containers, and all children's food packaging. Identifies chemicals that cannot be substituted for BPA, and requires labeling.

Hawaii - SB 2573: Bans BPA and Phthalates in children's products. Requires use of safer replacement chemicals or materials. Bans product packaging containing heavy metals lead, cadmium, mercury, or hexavalent chromium. Bans vinyl intravenous solution bags and tubing in state hospitals. HB 396: Bans BPA from children's reusable food and drink containers. SB 383: Bans BPA and Phthalates in children's products. Requires use of least toxic replacement chemicals or materials. SB 384: Bans BPA and Phthalates in children's food and drink containers.

Kentucky - HB 147: Bans BPA in reusable food or beverage containers, infant formula or baby food containers, prohibits replacement of Bisphenol-A with carcinogens, or reproductive toxicants.

Massachusetts - SB 400 / HB 1992: Bans BPA in children's products. Prohibits use of replacement chemicals that are linked to cancer or reproductive health problems.

Nebraska - LB 696: Bans BPA from reusable food and beverage containers, bans BPA in children's food packaging, and requires food packaging with BPA to be labeled. Requires it not be replaced with a carcinogen or reproductive toxicant.

New Jersey - A 1821 / S 1401: Bans BPA in food and beverage packaging, and reusable ACR 109: Urges Congress to ban Phthalates and Bisphenol-A from children's products. S 1925: Bans BPA in hard plastic beverage containers, specifies it be replaced with the least toxic alternative.

New York - AB 5978: Bans BPA in food and beverages in containers containing Bisphenol-A. Requires manufacturers to use least toxic replacement chemicals. AB 1654 / SB 3513: Bans BPA in cash register and other retail receipts. SB 3533 / AB 6107: Bans BPA in toys and children's food and beverage containers. Requires use of least toxic replacement chemicals. SB 3608 / AB 6230: Bans BPA in cash register and other retail receipts. AB 8454 / SB 4709: Bans BPA all thermal paper receipts. AB 5883: Bans BPA in hot beverage lids. Bans Phthalates in hot beverage lids. AB 8912: Bans BPA and Phthalates from toys and child care products.

North Carolina - HB 848: Bans toxic flame retardant TDCPP, BPA, and Phthalates in children's products. Requires state to identify chemicals that are a concern for children's health. Requires makers of children's products to disclose presence of chemicals in products and requires alternative assessment.

Pennsylvania - HB 377 / SB 490: Bans BPA in children's products. HB 951: Bans BPA in food and beverage containers. Requires manufacturers to use least toxic replacement chemicals.

Tennessee - HB 242 / SB 698: Bans BPA in certain food and drink containers. Requires labeling of certain food and drinks sold in packages containing BPA.

Washington - HB 2779: Bans Phthalates and BPA from kids' food packaging and sports bottles, specifies they not be replaced with other toxic chemicals, requires labeling on adult food packaging.

West Virginia - HB 2305: Bans BPA from baby food/formula containers, and reusable food and beverage containers.

Wisconsin - AB 607: Prohibits BPA in food and beverage packaging unless labeled as such.

Just wishing for fewer plastics in your life is not enough to make it happen. You need to take action, you can make a difference in your family. Our control of plastics in our own lives is a personal issue, and we can defiantly learn about the health effects of the chemicals we are absorbing from plastics. The decisions that we make about the alien in our kitchen will not only affect our own health, but the health and well-being of our children and grandchildren.

# Working Bibliography:

http://www.babygearlab.com/a/11078/Are-Plastics-Safe-for-Baby-Bottles-and-Sippy-Cups

Green Cup Challenge: A national high school organization that works to raise awareness about recycling and waste reduction.

http://greencupchallenge.net/about.html

Most Plastic Products Release Estrogenic Chemicals: A Potential Health Problem That Can Be Solved, Environmental Health Perspectives, Jul 2011 (study funded by a grant from the NIH)

What Is Bisphenol-A and How Is It Used?" Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group, July 2007.

Calafat, A. M., and others. "Exposure of the U.S. Population to Bisphenol-A and 4-Tertiary-Octylphenol: 2003-2004." Environmental Health Perspectives (January 2008), 39-44.

Vandenberg, L. N., and others. "Human Exposure to Bisphenol-A (BPA)." Reproductive Toxicology (August-September 2007), 139-77.

Vom Saal, F. S., and others. "Chapel Hill Bisphenol-A Expert Panel Consensus Statement: Integration of Mechanisms, Effects in Animals and Potential to Impact Human Health at Current Levels of Exposure." Reproductive Toxicology (August-September 2007), 131-38.

"Bisphenol-A (BPA)." U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

"Bisphenol-A Facts." Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group of the American Chemistry Council, PlasticsEurope, and the Japan Chemical Industry Association.

Zandonella, Catherine. "The Bisphenol-A Debate: A Suspect Chemical in Plastic Bottles and Cans." Green Guide (May-June 2006).

Yang, C., Yaniger, S., et al. Most Plastic Products Release Estrogenic Chemicals: A Potential Health Problem that Can be Solved. Environmental Health Perspectives. July 2011

Yan, S., Chen, Y., et al. Bisphenol-A and 17B-Estradiol Promote Arrhythmia in the Female Heart via Alteration of Calcium Handling. PLOS One. September 2011. 6(9).

Li, D., Zhou, Z., et al. Relationship Between Urine Bisphenol-A Level and Declining Male sexual Function. Journal of Andrology. October 2010. 31(5).

Ye, L., Zhao, B., et al. Inhibition of Human and Rat Testicular Steroidogenic Enzyme activities by Bisphenol-A. Toxicology Letters. November 2011. 207(2), 137-142.

Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Environmental Health. Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. 2009. http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/pdf/FourthReport_ExecutiveSummary.pdf

Shankar, A., Teppala, S. Relationship Between Urinary Bisphenol-A Levels and Diabetes Mellitus. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. September 2011. Published Ahead of Print.

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/topics/preventing-waste-and-pollution/p2-pollution-prevention/reducing-toxicity/green-chemistry-and-design/green-chemistry-and-design-BPA-in-thermal-paper-project.html

Eastman Chemical Company (2008). "Endocrine disruption potential of monomers used in Eastman Tritan™ copolyester." Retrieved November 11, 2009.

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (September 2008). "Smart Plastics Guide: Healthier Food Uses of Plastics." Retrieved November 12, 2009.

International Plastics Task Force (2000). "High-Density (low-pressure) Polyethylene." Retrieved November 12, 2009.

Lyondell Basell Polymers (2009). "Bottles for Consumer Goods." Retrieved November 13, 2009.

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (September 2008). "Smart Plastics Guide: Healthier Food Uses of Plastics." Retrieved November 12, 2009 from .

Brenntag Canada Inc (2007). "Fiche Signaletique: Grilamid Polyamide Polymer." Retrieved November 13, 2009.

Plastics Technology (December 2001). "Keeping Up with Blow Molding Nylon Baby Bottles Can Replace Polycarbonate." Retrieved November 16, 2009.

Widespread Occurrence of Bisphenol-A in Paper and Paper Products: Implications for Human Exposure

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/check-your-receipt-it-may-be-tainted/

http://www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/projects/BPA/about.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222987/

http://bodybellysoul.com/2011/08/18/plastic-safe-vs-unsafe/

BPS http://www.greenmedinfo.com/article/Bisphenol-s-new-Bisphenol-analogue-paper-products-and-currency-bills-and-its

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/article/bps-not-amenable-biodegradation-and-might-be-persistent-and-become-ecological

Erler, C. & Novak, J. Bisphenol-A Exposure: Human Risk and Health Policy.

http://io9.com/5911969/lies-youve-been-told-about-the-pacific-garbage-patch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/oceanography/great-pacific-garbage-patch.htm

http://www.infowars.com/the-great-pacific-garbage-patch-we-are-literally-filling-up-the-pacific-ocean-with-plastic/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch#Estimates_of_size

http://www.reuseit.com/facts-and-myths/facts-about-the-plastic-bag-pandemic.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3404651/

**Key words:** Clear and plastic danger, Bisphenol-A, BPA, BPS, PFCs, Phthalates, Processed food, Thermal paper Recipes, Safer Chemicals, toxic chemicals, endocrine disruptor, endocrine-disrupting chemical, estrogen receptor binding, estrogenic activity, and toxic plastic, the alien in your kitchen

**Disclaimer:** The views expressed in this presentation are solely those of the author in his private capacity and do not in any way represent the views of the Department of Veteran Affairs, or any other components, or departments of the U.S. Federal Government. This work is intended for informational purposes only and is not to be construed as medical or health care advice, nor should it be used to diagnose or treat any patients.

# Other books from the Lefavor team:

With Malice Toward None  
by Chaplain David Lefavor, DMin, BCC

With a projected FY-2014 budget of over $152.7 billion and over 320,000 employees, the Department of Veteran Affairs is almost as big as the Department of Defense. From its humble beginnings, over 83 years ago, the VA has been the first source of quality healthcare for veterans. The VA provides world-class healthcare to approximately 21 million qualified veterans through 151 flagship medical centers and 827 community-based outpatient clinics.

In providing educational benefits of $10 billion annually to veterans and family members, the VA guarantees nearly 1.8 million home loans and insures the lives of over 6.7 million clients, including over 2 million active and reserve service members. The VA operates the country's largest cemetery system, honoring veterans and their families with final resting places. For the doctors, nurses, medical clinicians, social workers, chaplains, and health care professionals who work in the Department of Veterans Affairs, every day is Veterans Day.

Dedicated to those veterans who have answered the call to serve our country and those who shall have borne the battle.

Harbingers of Hope  
by Chaplain David Lefavor, DMin, BCC

Today, there are a little over 21.6 million veterans alive, who have served faithfully and honorable in our nations armed forces. They represent about only 7 percent of America's total population. Yet, they preserved 100 percent of our freedoms that we enjoy. This nation owes a great debt of gratitude to its veterans. In describing America's obligation to veterans, Theodore Roosevelt said, "A man who is good enough to shed his blood for his country is good enough to get a square deal afterward." If the over 21.6 million veterans were condensed down to 100 veterans, this would be their statistical percentages. Of 100 veterans, 6 are from WWII, 9 from the Korea War, 32 from the Vietnam War, and 53 are from the Persian Gulf wars. Harbingers of Hope is the story of American Veterans.

Foreword by General William Laprise:

Military veterans have been the harbingers of hope for this country since the American Revolution, and Chaplain Lefavor has captured the essence of that contribution in his most recent publication. Veterans are indeed the torch bearers of light into the darkness of tyranny and oppression that have come against the United States. Their willingness to answer the call to serve in our armed forces and give freely and unselfishly of themselves, even their lives, in defense of our democratic principles has given our great country the security we enjoy today. From Valley Forge to Afghanistan, through war and peace, valiant patriotic Americans have answered the call to arms, serving with honor and fidelity. To those who wear the uniform and those who go into harm's way we owe a great debt of gratitude. Having served 28 years in the U.S. Army in both active and reserve component status, I'm grateful for Chaplain Lefavor concise and descriptive narrative.

William A. Laprise  
Brigadier General, U.S. Army, (Retired)

Shadowed Warriors  
by Chaplain David Lefavor, DMin, BCC

Foreword by General Michael Diamond

They answered their country's call to duty, and call to arms. They all went to war with what they had. They had, of course, the good equipment, good training, good leadership, good physical stamina, their faith, certainly the support and appreciation of the United States of America. But in a moment of warfare, something went terribly wrong. Something of what they had, disastrously failed them. No battle plan is unblemished, and the fog of war is a relentless and powerful foe, not ever to be underestimated. Even more so, going to war is hazardous to warriors. We really do owe a great debt of appreciation to those who serve in the armed forces, those who go to war for us. There is no greater calling, and no grander HONOR than to serve our country in the military. Those that serve our country are members of a well-trained, competent organization that sustains the freedoms that we cherish today.

The men and women shown here in this combat ethics presentation did not join the military for infamy, nor did they choose to dishonor the uniform of our country. They simply made some tragic mistakes in the name of war, and many have paid a high price for their miscalculations, and bad judgments. There are many cases where the supervising leadership was lacking. There are instances where their leadership failed them altogether. "Shadowed warriors" is a discourse on the vulnerabilities of the modern American combatant. Those who go to war on behalf of our nation should not only know their enemy, but also have a thorough understanding of the laws of war and the rules of engagement. Leaders must command from the front, and conduct warfare decisively within the parameters of combat ethics. It is incumbent on leaders from the upper echelons to the front line to instill these guiding principles, policies, and precepts that should aid our defenders during their times of critical judgments. It is extremely tough to place ourselves in some of these critical situations to decide what one of us would do in similar circumstances.

"Shadowed Warriors" presents a very descriptive realization of what can happen and the eventual outcomes during the fog of war. We take many things for granted with respect to our service members and the burdens placed on them, especially in critical life and death situations for themselves and others. The actions or inactions of those depicted in "Shadowed Warriors" serves as a reminder to us for what can happen to those that lack the overall supervision and leadership required during wartimes. In every situation, our servicer members must remember that they represent our government and the people that comprise our great nation.

Michael J. Diamond, Major General, United States Army, Retired

Downrange in America  
by Chaplain David Lefavor, DMin, BCC

There are approximately 57,849 veterans who are without a place to live every night throughout the cities and towns of America. These are brave men and women who have served their country, and have fallen on difficult times. Of that number, 48,000 veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been identified as being currently homeless. Homelessness among veterans is the end result of a whole series of events that result in diminished capacity, loss of self-determination, most often loss of employment, isolation, poverty, loss of family, and lack of self-esteem; all leading to an inability to pay for housing. This book is a snap shot of the aspects of veteran homelessness, as well as what this country is doing to help them get off the streets.

Foreword by  
General William Laprise:

On any given night about 68,000 former service men and women are on the streets without a place to call home. Many of these people that we see on the street corners once proudly wore the uniform of our nation's military. Even though we see them, somehow they have become invisible in our consciousness as people who should get a job. The reports of homelessness which are prepared by the Veterans Administration show that over 1/3 of them are veterans of the Iraq / Afghanistan wars. Downrange in America shows the plight of homeless veterans in a different light, as the statistics, and cell phone pictures suggest some questions for us to consider. Is this a result of their combat service in Iraq or Afghanistan? What happened to them over there to cause such isolation and difficulty to readjust back to society? What is the government doing to help homeless veterans, and is there anything that I could do to assist? Thank you, Chaplain Lefavor for keeping this important moral issue alive in our national conscience.

William A. Laprise  
Brigadier General, U.S. Army, (Retired)

Cloudy with a Chance of Ambrosia  
By Chaplain David Lefavor, DMin, BCC

There are approximately 21.6 million veterans alive, who have served faithfully and honorable in our nations armed forces. Out of that total, there are over 300,000 veterans that are afflicted with PTSD. Additionally, it has been reported that 20% of the returning Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans suffer from PTSD. These are Americans who have served faithfully and honorable in our country's military. They have truly borne the battle into harm's way. They would always certainly wish to live without the effects of PTSD, but they can only live day by day with the terrible symptoms. Here are several of their stories, told from their standpoint in the style of Biblical parables. From WWII to the present day, conflicts in the Middle East, these parables will inform and educate what it's like to suffer from the debilitating effects of PTSD

Foreword by Chaplain Jerry Dickerson

For those who have endured the battle; wars, unlike fairy tales, rarely end happily-ever-after. For homecomings, victory speeches, and parades quickly fade and are replaced by the quotidian rhythms of life—rhythms consisting of conscious and unconscious memories that are simultaneously distant but ever-near. These are the memories that both reveal and hide the psychic, social, and spiritual wounds of war. Both the congressionally designated June 27th "National PTSD Awareness Day" and the National Center for PTSD's designation of June as "PTSD Awareness Month" are powerful and timely reminders of this reality. A thoughtful reading of this book will foster a clear and deeper understanding and appreciation for the all too tragic, but at times hidden, wounds afflicting the lives of over 20% of our Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, as well as the lingering trauma of nearly 31% of Vietnam veterans. Awareness and understanding constitute the first step toward healing. A reading of "Cloudy with a Chance of Ambrosia" is the best place to begin.

Chaplain Jerry L. Dickerson, Ph.D., D.Min. LCDR, CHC, USN, RET

Shredded Valor OTH  
by Chaplain David Lefavor, DMin, BCC

More than ever before in recent history, the Department of Defense (DoD) is punitively dismissing military personnel with Other Than Honorable discharges. It has been widely reported in the news media that a good number of these combat veterans that are being forced out, suffer dramatically from Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome (PTSD) and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). When they are kicked out of the military with this type of "bad discharge", they are not legally eligible for veterans' benefits and health care from the Department of Veteran Affairs.

Over the past 10 years, the DoD has administratively and involuntary forced out over 100,000 men and women from military service with an Other Than Honorable discharge (OTH). This is the story of the plight of many combat veterans that have received an OTH from the government that they fought for in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For the immediate future, the military will probably continue issuing OTH discharges because they are legally entitled to do so. They will however undoubtedly give more careful consideration to insure that the existing medical conditions of a service member are adequately addressed. PTSD and TBI are certainly the "signature wounds" of the Iraq/Afghanistan war. With more than 2.6 million living veterans, of that conflict, the Veteran Administration certainly has a long road ahead to travel, with miles to go before it can rest.

Dedicated to those veterans who have answered the call to serve our country and those who shall have borne the battle.

US Army Special Forces Small Unit Tactics Handbook  
By Paul Lefavor

This 458 page handbook, with 182 illustrations, is intended as a conceptual overview of all relevant topics of small unit tactics every Special Forces soldier ought to be familiar with in order to be effective on today's battlefield.

In the US Army Special Forces Small Unit Tactics Handbook, learn about: The heritage, lineage, and legacy of today's US Army Special Forces, US Army Special Forces doctrine, Leadership, Tactics, Combat and reconnaissance patrols, Planning, Close quarters battle, Counterinsurgency, Introduction to Special Forces missions, and Small arms.

Iron Sharpens Iron  
by Paul Lefavor

The purpose of this book is to promote the Christian values that made America great. Values such as biblical masculinity, biblical marriage and biblical family life, the God-honoring values that are directly under open and vile attack, to influence a generation of American men to live God-honoring lives worthy of the calling and appellation of "Christian" to demonstrate the importance of male servant leadership in the home, to demonstrate the imperative of Christian fellowship and discipleship, to encourage believers to persevere in their verbal witness in spite of ostracism and/or legal action against them, and above all to awaken Christian American men who are serving the nation to the realities of the conflict we are in, and what we stand to lose if we do nothing.

