Tuesday 30 October 2007

Official: U.S. forced Pakistan to allow Bhutto back

Former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto, left, visiting the families of victims of an Oct. 18 suicide attack, consoles a family member of slain supporter Nizam Samoo in Larkana on Sunday.
By Zahid Hussein, Reuters
Former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto, left, visiting the families of victims of an Oct. 18 suicide attack, consoles a family member of slain supporter Nizam Samoo in Larkana on Sunday.
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — The United States pressured Pakistan to allow former prime minister Benazir Bhutto to return from exile, promoting her as a moderate influence in a country facing a growing threat from Islamic extremists, a Pakistani government spokesman said.

"She says what America wants to hear," Deputy Information Minister Tariq Azim Khan said in a weekend interview with USA TODAY. He said the U.S. government forced a reluctant Pakistan to allow her to return after eight years of self-imposed exile: "You twisted our arm."

After months of negotiations with the military government of President Pervez Musharraf, Bhutto returned to Pakistan on Oct. 18 to lead her Pakistan Peoples Party in parliamentary elections, due in January. Her triumphant homecoming was shattered when bomb blasts killed 145 people in a crowd of tens of thousands gathered to welcome her back in Karachi.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said the Bush administration is encouraging Musharraf to work with moderates and hold the elections, but other U.S. officials have denied meddling.

State Department spokesman Tom Casey said Oct. 11 that he "would certainly take exception to the idea that the United States is somehow stage-managing, guiding or otherwise telling Pakistanis how to run their own internal affairs."

For months, though, Pakistan's news media and political commentators have contended that the Bush administration is pressuring bitter enemies Musharraf and Bhutto to agree to a shotgun political marriage. Such a deal would leave Pakistan's nuclear arsenal under the control of a trusted ally, Musharraf, and would unite two voices that have consistently opposed Islamic militants.

It also would boost Musharraf's democratic credentials after eight years in which he marginalized political opponents and ruled largely as a military strongman.

Khan said the decision to let Bhutto return from eight years of self-imposed exile was foisted on Pakistan. "America has this notion they are the best judge," he said. "They might as well hold the election in Washington."

Khan said Washington was enticed by Bhutto's assurances that she would let U.S. troops hunt al-Qaeda and other extremists in Pakistan and allow United Nations inspectors to question rogue scientist A.Q. Khan, who developed Pakistan's atomic bomb but gave nuclear secrets to Iran and North Korea.

He said Bhutto's willingness to cooperate with the United States in ways that Musharraf has not would hurt her with a Pakistani electorate. A.Q. Khan, who has been under house arrest for years, is considered a national hero, and many Pakistanis are deeply skeptical about the U.S.-led war on terrorism.

Musharraf, the army chief who seized power in a 1999 coup, has been reeling from a series of pro-democracy demonstrations and terrorist attacks by Islamic militants. Bringing back Bhutto was supposed to stabilize his regime.

He dropped corruption charges against Bhutto and let her return. In return, she and her supporters agreed not to fight his Oct. 6 re-election to another five-year term as president by a panel of national and provincial lawmakers.

The deal set the stage for a power-sharing arrangement — Musharraf as president, Bhutto as prime minister if her party does well in the upcoming elections.

Former Bhutto adviser Husain Haqqani, now director of Boston University's Center for International Relations, said the two share a secular outlook and opposition to the religious extremists who have seized power along the lawless northwestern frontier. Even so, the alliance looks rocky, because:

•Bhutto has traded insults with leaders of Musharraf's ruling party over the bomb blasts. Bhutto says ruling party figures conspired to kill her; the party blames her for coming home despite security threats.

•Popular former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, overthrown by Musharraf eight years ago, vows to return from exile for the elections and could play the spoiler.

Sharif, who is close to Pakistan's hard-line Islamist parties, tried to return Sept. 10 but was deported within hours. "Sharif's popularity is growing day-by-day," says Mirza Rian Baig Raj, a columnist for the Urdu-language newspaper Nawa-i-waqt. "The anti-Benazir vote has no place else to go."

Having allowed Bhutto's return, Musharraf probably will have to let Sharif return home, too, Khan said.

•Bhutto's dealings with Pakistan's military government have dented her popularity. Her approval ratings plunged to 36% last month from 54% in June, according to a poll conducted in late August and early September by the International Republican Institute, the democracy-promoting arm of the U.S. Republican Party.

Pakistan's Supreme Court, which is reviewing Musharraf's re-election and the amnesty deal he offered Bhutto, could create chaos by nullifying them.

Meantime, terrorist attacks — especially the Karachi bombings — have put the country on edge, as has intensified fighting in border areas between Pakistani troops and Islamic militants.

All of it could be too much for Musharraf. Naseer Ullah Babar, a retired major general and former Bhutto interior minister, predicts that Musharraf will "find some pretext" to postpone elections.

"Never underestimate the difficulties and cruelties of Pakistani politics," says Mathew Schmalz, a South Asia specialist at the College of Holy Cross in Worcester, Mass. "Musharraf could declare martial law. If so, all bets are off."

Contributing: Zafar M. Sheikh and wire reports

Full story/Permalink

Saudi king accuses UK of ignoring tip-off which could have stopped London bombings

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has attacked Britain's record on terrorism - and accused the Government of ignoring a tip-off which may have averted the 2005 London bombings.

In an astonishing attack, the monarch claimed his country had passed on information that could have stopped the atrocity but it was ignored.

The King's outspoken comments were made in a BBC interview ahead of a state visit to the UK this week.

Controversy: King Abdullah has attacked the UK's record on terrorism

His presence in the country is already mired in controversy with protestors planning mass demonstrations and Liberal Democrat leader Vince Cable boycotting an official function.

In a scathing critique of the ongoing battle against terrorism, King Abdullah said the fight needed much more effort by countries such as Britain and that al Qaida continued to be a big problem for his country.

"We have sent information to Great Britain before the terrorist attacks in Britain but unfortunately no action was taken. And it may have been able to maybe avert the tragedy," he said, speaking through an interpreter.

Liberal Democrat acting leader Vince Cable yesterday took the highly unusual step of announcing that he would be boycotting a visit which, he said, should not be taking place.

It also emerged today that Foreign Secretary David Miliband has pulled out of a meeting with Saudi foreign minister Prince Saud.

But his decision was nothing to do with the controversial visit as he has gone on leave after he and his wife Louise adopted a new baby.

7/7

Carnage: The Saudi king has claimed 7/7 might have been avoided

A mass demonstration is planned outside the Saudi embassy in London later in the week in protest at the kingdom's human rights record.

Mr Cable said that he was boycotting the visit - which begins formally tomorrow - in protest at the corruption scandal over the infamous Al Yamamah arms deal.

In a letter to the Saudi ambassador, he said: "I have introduced three debates in Parliament this year expressing serious concerns over the Al Yamamah contract and the corruption allegedly involved.

"I have, in my arguments, also been very critical of members of the Saudi royal family and the Saudi record on human rights, including its maltreatment of British citizens.

"In my opinion, it is quite wrong for the British Government to have proposed a state visit at this time."

It is normal practice for opposition party leaders to be invited to attend the main events involved in a state visit, including the state banquet hosted by the Queen at Buckingham Palace.

Lib Dem leadership candidate Chris Huhne backed Mr Cable's boycott, saying: "The accolade of a full state visit is quite wrong. We are feting the reactionary leader of a society that discriminates against women, tortures prisoners, conducts public executions, amputates limbs as a punishment, and bans freedom of expression, assembly and religion. Saudi Arabia's human rights record is atrocious.

"Our intimate relationship with this regime is also corrupting our own institutions. It was Saudi pressure that forced the abandonment by the Serious Fraud Office of the criminal inquiry into bribery over the al-Yamamah contract, the biggest arms deal in history.

"A report by the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons has even been suppressed, which has never happened before.

"Gordon Brown and the Labour Government have come a shamefully long way from the brave morning in 1997 when Robin Cook as Labour's first foreign secretary promised an ethical dimension to our foreign policy."

Mr Cable's decision follows the controversy which erupted last year when Tony Blair halted a long-running Serious Fraud Office inquiry into the £40 billion Al Yamamah deal signed by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s.

Mr Blair argued that Saudi security co-operation in the fight against international terrorism could be jeopardised if the investigation continued.

Critics however claimed that he was more concerned that Britain could lose out on a fresh £20 billion contract to supply the Saudis with 72 Eurofighters.

The Conservatives branded Mr Cable's boycott as "juvenile gesture politics", while the Foreign Office said only that it was a matter for the Lib Dem acting leader.

Boycott: Vince Cable

A Foreign Office spokeswoman said that the decision to invite King Abdullah now reflected the "long-standing friendship" between the two nations.

She said that British and Saudi interests were "intertwined and inseparable" across a range of issues from counter-terrorism to ensuring stability in the Middle East.

King Abdullah faces further controversy later in the week. Left-wing Labour MP John McDonnell said that protesters would be staging a mass demonstration outside the Saudi Embassy on Wednesday.

"The British people will be aghast at the Government entertaining on a state visit one of the most prominent anti-democratic and human rights- abusing leaders in the world," he said.

"Why is it that in the same breath the Prime Minister condemns the lack of democracy in Burma and the abuse of human rights in Zimbabwe but remains silent when it comes to the Saudi dictatorship?"

Full story/Permalink

Monday 15 October 2007

Brits resort to pulling own teeth

Some English people have resorted to pulling out their own teeth because they cannot find -- or cannot afford -- a dentist, a major study has revealed.
art.dentist.gi.jpg

Six percent of those surveyed in an English study said they had resorted to dental "self-treatment."

Six percent of those questioned in a survey of 5,000 patients admitted they had resorted to self-treatment using pliers and glue, the UK's Press Association reported.

England has a two-tier dental care system with some dentists offering publicly subsidized treatment through the National Health Service and others performing more expensive private work.

But more than three-quarters of those polled said they had been forced to pay for private treatment because they had been unable to find an NHS dentist. Almost a fifth said they had refused dental treatment because of the cost.

One respondent in Lancashire, northern England, claimed to have extracted 14 of their own teeth with a pair of pliers. In Liverpool, one of those collecting data for the survey interviewed three people who had pulled out their own teeth in one morning.

"I took most of my teeth out in the shed with pliers. I have one to go," another respondent wrote.

Others said they had fixed broken crowns using glue to avoid costly dental work.

Valerie Halsworth, 64, told British television's GMTV she had removed seven of her own teeth using her husband's pliers when her toothache became unbearable and she was unable to find an NHS dentist willing to treat her.

Halsworth admitted that the first extraction had been "excruciatingly painful." But she added: "It got that painful that I just had to do something... When you have taken a tooth out... the pain has gone."

Sharon Grant, chair of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health, which commissioned the survey, said: "These findings indicate that the NHS dental system is letting many patients down very badly.

"Where NHS dental services are available, people are happy with the quality of treatment provided but many find the NHS fee system confusing and expensive, with some patients taking out loans to pay for treatment or more worryingly taking matters into their own hands." Full story/Permalink

Iran may join Caspian naval force

Moscow has proposed setting up a joint naval force of Caspian Sea countries.
Iran is slated to join a Russian-proposed joint naval task force in the Caspian region should the legal status of the sea be clarified.

The CasFor proposal is a joint effort among the five littoral states - Iran, Russia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan - to combat terrorism, drug-trafficking, smuggling, and to conduct joint sea rescue operations.

"It is necessary to determine the legal status of the Caspian Sea before successfully implementing the CasFor project," said Abbas Maleki, head of the International Institute for Caspian Studies in Tehran.

Leaders of the five Caspian states are expected to gather for a summit in Tehran on October 16th to discuss how to divide the oil-rich sea bed.

The Iranian analyst said in case of the sea's territorial division, Iran would no longer share a border with Russia and a joint military grouping would be meaningless for Tehran.

Maleki ruled out the participation of other countries in the grouping but said the project could be implemented within the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) or other existing security structures in Central Asia.

CS/HGH/RA
Full story/Permalink

Friday 12 October 2007

Mysterious transmissions assaulting Israeli satellite TV broadcasts

JERUSALEM: Israeli satellite TV viewers have for the past month had their favorite programs disrupted by electronic snowstorms, variously said to be caused by the radar of U.N. patrol boats, Russian spy ships or Israel's military. On Wednesday the satellite TV company was said to be near collapse.

The interference began on Sept. 6, the day Israeli warplanes slipped past Syria's Russian-made air defense systems, attacked a military target deep inside the country and escaped unchallenged. Israeli has maintained an almost total official silence over the strike, which Syria said hit an unused military installation.

Since then, desperate viewers of "Desperate Housewives," frustrated followers of "The Bold and the Beautiful" and other TV lovers have been bombarding the switchboard of Israeli satellite broadcaster "Yes" and have launched a 122 million shekel ($30 million, €21.37 million) class action suit against the company, for failing to deliver the goods.

The interruptions have led to canceled subscriptions and forced Yes to seek to pacify its half-million subscribers with free movies. The competing commercial TV distributor, "Hot," uses cables and has not been affected.

The Haaretz newspaper on Wednesday quoted an unnamed Yes executive as saying the Yes company would collapse if the interference continues another month. The paper said Yes has enlisted the Israeli military to trace the source of the problem. The army had no immediate comment, and the Yes spokeswoman could not be reached.

The prime suspect at the moment appears to be the United Nations peacekeeping force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, which has ships at sea, just north of Israel.

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said technical experts from the ministry and the U.N. were in contact over the possibility that UNIFIL was the source of the transmissions, and the United Nations was ready to cooperate if it was proven responsible.

In Lebanon, senior UNIFIL official Milos Strugar said both Lebanese and Israeli authorities had told the force of electronic problems and the reports were being investigated.

"At the moment it is not clear what is causing the interference," he said.

The Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot on Tuesday pointed to Moscow as another possible culprit, quoting an unnamed Israeli security official as saying Moscow was suspected of beaming signals at Israel to try to probe its military electronic capability in the wake of the Sept. 6 raid on Syria and as an expression of its anger at Israel for making Syria's Russian radar appear impotent.

"I believe that they sent ships to the region equipped with electronic warfare systems...to try and examine Israel's capabilities in electronic warfare and also to give trouble to those who gave them trouble," the official said, according to the paper. "The Russians have an entire fleet of electronic warfare ships that are disguised as merchant ships."

The Russian defense ministry refused to comment on the allegations.

Another Yediot Ahronot story, by the paper's diplomatic correspondent, quoted an unnamed government official as saying that the answer to the riddle could lie in Israel itself, with the emissions coming from military radar.

Full story/Permalink

Tuesday 9 October 2007

Britain 'on board' for US strikes on Iran

Britain 'on board' for US strikes on Iran - Telegraph
By Tim Shipman in Washington


British defence officials have held talks with their Pentagon counterparts about how they could help out if America chose to bomb Iran.

  • Gordon Brown 'will back air strikes on Iran'
  • The man who stands between US and new war
  • Michael Burleigh: Drum beaters for Iran war should think again
  • Washington sources say that America has shelved plans for an all-out assault, drawn up to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities and take out the Islamist regime.

    Iran's Revolutionary Guards
    The US is planning a strike on Iran's Revolutionary Guards

    The Sunday Telegraph has learned that President Bush's White House national security council is discussing instead a plan to launch pinpoint attacks on bases operated by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds force, blamed for training Iraqi militants.

    Pentagon officials have revealed that President Bush won an understanding with Gordon Brown in July that Britain would support air strikes if they could be justified as a counter-terrorist operation.

    Since then discussions about what Britain might contribute militarily, to combat Iranian retaliation that would follow US air strikes, have been held between ministers and officials in the Pentagon and the Ministry of Defence.

    Vincent Cannistraro — who served as intelligence chief on Ronald Reagan's National Security Council and then as head of operations for the CIA's counter-terrorist centre — said: "What's on the table right now is tactical strikes."

    Last night, Downing Street declined to comment on the suggestion. But Mr Cannistraro has talked about the preparations to senior Pentagon officials and with military and intelligence contacts in the UK.

    He said: "The British Government is in accord with plans to launch limited strikes on facilities inside Iran, on the basis of counter-terrorism." While the US Air Force and naval jets could carry out raids without help from the RAF, the Pentagon is keen to have the Royal Navy's cooperation in the event of an attack, to prevent Iran from sowing mines in the Gulf to block oil exports in retaliation.

    Mr Cannistraro said: "The British have to be a major auxiliary to this plan. It's not just for political reasons: the US doesn't have a lot of mine clearing capability in the Gulf. The Dutch and the British do.

    "There will be renewed discussions with British defence officials about what role Britain would perform in the naval sphere. If there was a retaliatory response by the Iranians, they might close the Straits of Hormuz and that would affect the entire West."

    The White House and Downing Street would justify such an attack as a defensive move to protect allied troops in Iraq. But moderates in the US government are concerned that the counter-terrorist argument may be used by hawks as a figleaf for military action that could escalate into all out war with Iran.

    A US intelligence source said that Revolutionary Guard bases, supply depots and command and control facilities "have been programmed" into military computers but stressed that President Bush has not given any "execute order" for military action.

    Further details of the US plans for Iran were divulged to Seymour Hersh, the investigative reporter with the New Yorker magazine who has unveiled Pentagon secrets for more than three decades.

    American officials told the New Yorker: "During a secure video conference earlier this summer, the President told Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador to Iraq, that he was thinking of hitting Iranian targets across the border and that the British 'were on board'."

    The magazine added: "The bombing plan has had its most positive reception from the new government of Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown."

    A recently retired American four-star general, told the magazine last week that the bombing campaign would only attract support from the Prime Minister "if it's in response to an Iranian attack" like the kidnapping of British sailors in March.

    The general said the US officials want to strike "if the Iranians stage a cross-border attack inside Iraq" of a significant kind, for example the one that produced "10 dead American soldiers and four burned trucks".

    Britain and America have complained for months about Iranian support for Iraqi militants but Pentagon officials claim that Iran has been told that a line has now been drawn in the sand — a move that has actually helped to stabilise the situation. Details of the US plans were passed to Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iranian diplomats by Mr Crocker and Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, during bilateral talks this summer.

    Since then, US officials say there appears to have been a reduction in some of the arms shipments and support to militia elements in Iraq.

    Some British military and intelligence figures fear that any endorsement of US plans, however hypothetical, will only embolden the White House faction, led by Vice-President Dick Cheney, which wants major bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities.

    Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser to former President Carter, said last week the Bush plan was to depict any air strike on Iran as "responding to what is an intolerable situation. This time, unlike the attack in Iraq, we're going to play the victim."

    Full story/Permalink

    Saturday 6 October 2007

    Car-azy,The Car That Can Turn On A Sixpence,

    Nissan has unveiled a futuristic battery-powered concept car, the Pivo 2, which can turn its cabin 360 degrees and its wheels 90 degrees, which it says makes parking a doddle.
    I can just imagine our American friends rushing
    out to buy the V8 model. Full story/Permalink

    Seized At Gunpoint For Looking At Cops

    Seized At Gunpoint For Looking At Cops
    Two disabled men from Bournemouth, England were seized from a pub at gunpoint by police under the terrorism act, taken to the local police station and questioned for 45 minutes after one of them opened his mail and the other looked at a police officer.

    The Bournemouth Daily Echo reports that Bob Hamlen, 47, and Michael Burbidge, 31 were dumbfounded when approached by officers in a beer garden overlooking the security checkpoint at the entrance to the Highcliff Marriott Hotel where top British politicians are currently staying for the annual Labour Party conference.

    Mr Hamlen told reporters:

    "We were treated like terrorist suspects.... It was so over the top, there were about eight officers around us asking questions which was very frightening.

    "We told them we lived round the corner and this was our local pub. But, while an armed officer pointed his gun at us from the other side of the street, they made us empty our pockets and put all our possessions on the table. Then they checked all our credit cards and documents.

    "I was carrying my disabled bus pass but it didn't make any difference. I needed to go to the toilet and an officer went with me in case I escaped. After radioing through the information, they asked us to accompany them, in separate police cars, to the police station."

    Mr Hamlen also made it clear that he has arthritis and brittle bone disease and has been registered disabled for five years, while Mr Burbidge has been paralysed all his life and relies on a wheelchair and crutches to get around.

    The two men hardly fit the description of hardcore Al Qaeda terror suspects, but then that does not matter because everyone is now a suspect under the 2000 terrorism act.

    Mr Hamlen continued:

    "They said the reason I was being taken to the police station was because I had been seen passing a white envelope.

    "But all I did was take my post out of my jacket pocket and open an electricity bill.
    "On Michael's stop and search form they said they wanted to speak to him, under the Terrorism Act, because he had been looking at a police officer.

    "That area of town is saturated with police officers and, from where we were sitting, it would have been impossible not to be watching one."
    The men were then taken to the police station and questioned for 45 minutes. After this the police asked the two men to take them to their flat so they could search it. When the search turned up nothing out of the ordinary police decided the two men posed no threat and returned them to the pub.

    Mr Hamlen and Mr Burbidge, who have lived in the area for many years, say they feel violated and are demanding an official apology.

    Though the two were not arrested or charged they were issued with stop and search records which will be placed on the UK stop and search database and kept there indefinitely, as per standard procedure.

    Under section 44 of the terrorism act of 2000, police were granted the power to stop and search anyone without the need to show that they have "reasonable suspicion" an offence is being committed, providing the stop takes place in an area designated as a potential terrorist target.

    Currently, however, the whole of London is covered by the powers, meaning the stops can happen anywhere in the city.

    Furthermore section 45 states:

    45. - (1) The power conferred by an authorisation under section 44(1) or (2)-(a) may be exercised only for the purpose of searching for articles of a kind which could be used in connection with terrorism, and
    (b) may be exercised whether or not the constable has grounds for suspecting the presence of articles of that kind.
    Under the rules, officers have been told to avoid “racial profiling” and “not to focus on specific groups”. The advice adds: “Be aware that there is no specific racial, ethnic, sexual or religious profile for terrorists.”

    Christopher Gill, chairman of the Freedom Association, has previously commented: "These laws are terrifyingly wide ranging, and fail even to demand suspicion in order to stop someone and thus list them for life.

    "They are being over-used, and innocent people are having their records marked as a result. The police are supposed to protect the innocent from the guilty, not smear their records arbitrarily."

    Incidents of Stop and search have risen dramatically recently in the UK, so much so that senior police officials are now questioning the validity of the law.

    Last December the UK's senior counter terrorism police officer questioned the value of stop and search powers, noting that very few arrests or charges arise from searches.

    In February, Met Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair vowed to review the use of terror stop and search powers after a Metropolitan Police Authority report said it was causing "untold damage" to certain communities.

    Police even refused to accept enhancements to stop and search powers earlier this year, declaring them "unnecessary" and arguing that such measures were counter-productive as they erode public trust. Such enhancements would have given police the power to ask an individual who they are and where they are going. Under the proposed legislation, withholding such information would be an offense punishable with a £5,000 fine.

    Even the United Nations has warned that it fears the Counter-terrorism laws are rapidly turning the United Kingdom into a police state.

    The case of Bob Hamlen and Michael Burbidge, just one of thousands, clearly demonstrates that terrorism laws are being grossly misused by police in the UK. If there really were such a huge concern over terrorism we would see an effort to protect our freedoms and enhance our open society, rather than the all out attack on civil liberties and the erosion of rights that we continue to face.

    YOUR RIGHTS UNDER SECTION 44 (Courtesy Liberty):

    • The police can only give you a pat down, remove outer clothes (eg jacket, hat), search your bags and have you empty your pockets
    • You do not have to give your name and address
    • You do not have to explain why you are there
    • You are not allowed to flee the search, but you are not required to be actively compliant. You are allowed to 'go limp' as passive resistance during the search if you wish not to comply
    • There is no permission to collect DNA data during the search
    • You do not have to comply with any attempt to photograph or record you
    • Women cannot be touched by male police during these searches
    • Make notes about the officers searching you - name, number and police force
    • Note the time and the events preceding the search
    • Note the specific wording used by the police to explain their authority to search you
    • Ask the police for the reason that they are searching you. Specifically, are they searching for terrorists or are they simply trying to deter, delay or inconvenience you?
    Full story/Permalink

    Friday 5 October 2007

    Is your make-up killing you?

    Is your make-up killing you? | the Daily Mail

    Cosmetics contain many different kinds of chemicals, but of particular concern are a group of preservatives called parabens, which by some estimates are found in 99per cent of all 'leave on' cosmetics, and 77per cent of 'rinse off' cosmetics.

    These are known hormone disruptors: evidence suggests they can mimic the female hormone oestrogen, and a lifetime of increased exposure to oestrogen is linked to a heightened risk of breast cancer.

    One study found parabens present in 18 out of 20 breast cancer tissue samples (though it is important to note that the study did not prove they'd actually caused the breast cancer).

    Parabens are also thought to adversely affect male reproductive functions.

    Another troubling chemical is the antibacterial agent and pesticide triclosan, which is used in toothpastes, soaps, household cleaning products and body washes.

    It belongs to the chlorophenol class of chemicals, which are suspected of causing cancer in humans and taken internally, even in small amounts, can cause cold sweats, circulatory problems and - in extreme cases - coma.

    Also of concern are phthalates, a substance that gives our lotions that silky, creamy, texture, but which are also a 'plasticiser' used to make plastics flexible.

    Certain phthalates are known carcinogens, and studies have suggested they damage the liver, kidneys, lungs and the reproductive system, as well as affecting the development of unborn baby boys.

    The list goes on. Sodium laureth sulphate, a frequent ingredient in shower gels and shampoos, is a skin irritant; Propylene glycol, found in soap, blushers and make-up remover, has been shown in large quantities to depress the central nervous system to make it function less effectively, and aluminum in deodorants is linked to breast cancer by medical research.

    And did you know that certain eye shadows contain arsenic?

    One thing is for sure: few of us would want to rub any of these chemicals into our eyes, far less ingest them in liquids by drinking them.

    Yet, every day, we rub them into our skin, and allow them to enter our bodies.

    Given the facts, it's hardly surprising that a growing number of experts believe these substances have a cumulative effect on our bodies.

    They think the 'chemical cocktail' inside us is contributing to the increased frequency of a host of illnesses ranging from eczema to cancers as well as developmental problems such as autism and dyslexia.

    "It's difficult to see the link between chemicals in cosmetics and damage to health unless you stand back and look at the wider picture," says Dr Paula Baillie-Hamilton, author of Toxic Overload and supporter of the campaign group Chemical Safe Skincare.

    "Man-made chemicals first emerged 100years ago, and every decade since, the overall production of these synthetic chemicals has doubled.

    "We are surrounded by chemicals: in the air, in our food, in our water and especially in our cosmetics, and the fact is that our bodies can't break many of these substances down.

    "Our systems are becoming more polluted and we are beginning to see the results of that in terms of increased illnesses and even birth defects, especially in boys.

    "There is no doubt that one of the ways we are exposing ourselves to these chemicals is through our cosmetics."

    Dr Baillie-Hamilton also thinks that absorbing chemicals through our skin is more dangerous than swallowing them.

    "At least if you ingest chemicals through your mouth, your digestive system can do something towards dealing with them," she says.

    "If they go through your skin they hit your blood stream immediately and are then transported to vital organs such as kidney and liver, where they may be stored for many years."

    Full story/Permalink

    Wednesday 3 October 2007