Individuals born with spina bifida have an extremely high incidence of
latex allergy. According to the Spina Bifida Association of America
(SBAA), research has shown that up to 73% of children and adolescents with
spina bifida are latex sensitive. Latex sensitivity was determined by a
blood test or by history of an allergic reaction. You can access the SBAA
website at http://www.sbaa.org. (I’ve also included a link to the SBAA
list of non-latex alternative products in my top five recommended
websites.)
It’s theorized that the increased sensitization in this population is
related to early, frequent exposure to rubber products such as catheters
used in bladder programs. These children also tend to have frequent
surgeries and diagnostic tests, which increases their exposure to latex
gloves. (Frequent surgical intervention is a risk factor even in children
who do not have spina bifida; sensitivity to latex has been found in 34.1%
of children with a history of three or more surgical procedures.
Interestingly, this was not found to be true in adults without spina
bifida.)
There have been some advances in latex allergy research, in regard to
spina bifida. The specific latex proteins that are the primary allergens
for individuals with spina bifida have been isolated, and it’s been
discovered that they are not the same proteins that are the primary
allergens in healthcare workers who have occupational exposure to latex.
This may be explained by a difference in the routes of exposure between
the two groups. The allergens that cause reactions in individuals with
spina bifida are particle bound proteins that are less able to be
dissolved in water than some of the other latex proteins. Sensitization to
these particular proteins may be caused by repeated contact between the
latex and mucus membranes (such as repeated urinary catheterizations).
The SBAA recommends that all individuals with spina bifida should be
treated as though they are latex sensitive from birth, and they should
avoid all contact with latex products in all settings. This includes home,
school, day care, and camp, as well as medical facilities. The SBAA has
resources available to help parents work with their child’s school to
create a latex safe environment. Sample letters to school personnel are
available on the SBAA website. In addition, individuals who have had
allergic reactions to latex should wear a medic-alert bracelet
http://www.medicalert.org and should carry auto-injectable epinephrine,
non-latex gloves, and other non-latex equipment for emergency use.

Sobering news for rubber contraceptive users.
    
A German scientific research institute has warned that most condoms on the
market contain a cancer-causing chemical and has urged that their
manufacture be subjected to stringent quality control.
 
The Chemical and Veterinary Investigation Institute in Stuttgart said on
Friday it had found the carcinogen N-Nitrosamine in 29 of 32 types of
condoms it tested in simulated conditions.
 
The condoms, which were kept in a solution with artificial sweat, exuded
huge amounts of cancer-causing N-Nitrosamine from its rubber coating.
Researchers measured amounts of N-Nitrosamine, that were way above the
prescribed limits for other rubber products such as baby pacifiers.
 
"N-Nitrosamine is one of the most carcinogenic substances," the study's
authors said. "There is a pressing need for manufacturers to tackle this
problem."
 
The study said that the carcinogen is thought to be present in a substance
used to improve condom elasticity. When the rubber material comes in
contact with human bodily fluids, it can release traces of N-Nitrosamine.
 
No immediate health risk
 
But since there are no prescribed limits of N-Nitrosamine for condoms, the
study hasn't caused panic among manufacturers or mass-recalling of the
products from counters.
 
Local government officials said condom users should not stop using rubber
contraceptives based on the results of the study because N-Nitrosamine
does not present an immediate health risk.
 
The Baden-Würtemmberg Social Ministry said it didn't think "it posed a
risk." Authorities are also withholding the name of the affected
manufacturers for fear of litigation.
 
Manufacturers should use alternative substances
 
But Germany's Federal Institute for Risk Assessment said that daily condom
use exposed users to N-Nitrosamine levels up to three times higher than
levels naturally present in food.
 
Werner Altkofer, head of the Stuttgart-based Chemical and Veterinary
Investigation Institute said that though the production of rubber usually
uses chemicals that can exude N-Nitrosamine, condom manufacturers could
bypass it by using more expensive alternative substances available on the
market that didn't form the carcinogen.
 
"We believe that it's up to the manufacturers to use other production
processes so that no N-Nitrosamine is formed in condoms," Altkofer said.
 
He added that the latter was technically possible going by the fact that
products of some manufacturers didn't show traces of the carcinogen during
the testing.
 
Beate Uhse taking no chances
 
Germany's biggest erotica compnay Beate Uhse however, has decided to play
it safe.
 
Shortly after the results of the study were introduced on Friday, the
group banned chocolate-flavored condoms from its range. That was because
the study had show that condoms laced with a chocolate flavoring had
overwhelming high levels of N-Nitrosamine. 

http://www.families-first.com/features/ovariancancer.htm
One or more of the following characteristics puts you at above average
risk
of ovarian cancer:
Family history of ovarian cancer, breast cancer, colon cancer.
Personal history of breast cancer, endometrial cancer, colon cancer.
No pregnancies or no birth control use and infertility (uninterrupted
ovulation).
Exposure to talc or asbestos (industrial contamination, frequently used
douches, CONDOMS, dusting powder containing talc, used in the genital
area.
Increasing age.
Breast-Ovarian Cancer Syndrome(s)
Ashkenazi Jewish population.
Fertility drugs taken for more than three cycles has been linked to an
increased risk.
Why Don’t Condoms Stop HPV?
Human papillomavirus differs from other sexual disease in its method of
transmission; it is not spread from one person to another through
the exchange of bodily fluids. Rather, it spreads through skin-to-skin
contact. Since HPV is a regional, multicentric disease, it infects the
entire genital area: the penis, scrotum, vulva and surrounding areas.
Condoms do not cover the scrotum, nor most of the other areas that can be
infected with the virus. There also tends to be contact between the
anogenital skin of the partners before a condom can be correctly placed on
the penis. "No known effective barrier exists that will protect the vulva
or prevent vulvar transfer of the virus," according to Barbara S. M.D.,
M.S., clinical associate professor of family practice, University of
Michigan Medical School. Adds Mary E. Verdon, M.D., of the American
Academy of Family Physicians, "In the 1970s, it was demonstrated that a
single sexual contact with a person infected with external genital warts
carries about a 60 percent chance of transmission."
However, there are several different strains of HPV that do not cause
genital warts; therefore, transmission can occur without the presence of
any visible symptoms. These strains are more likely to be cancerous.
-o0o-
Are condoms safe?
Dr. Patrick Dixon
A spokesman from the London Rubber Company (Durex) admitted that if
incorrectly used, the failure rate of condoms could be anything from 25%
up to 100%, and there are real problems with teaching people how to use
them---not least because of illiteracy. Problems of illiteracy are so bad
in the United States (one in five adults) that the army printed manuals in
cartoon form for the Gulf War. In the United Kingdom, Durex instructions
now contain illustrations for the one in ten who cannot read.
The condom is the least reliable contraceptive in wide use---it's as bad
as the diaphragm or cap with spermicide. The only thing less reliable is
the sponge (up to 25% pregnant each year). Many violently disagree. They
say it is a superb contraceptive, it is people who are unreliable: they
put it on too late or inside out, tear it, forget it, let it fall off.
They say people are unreliable but the condom is reliable, if properly
used. Condoms may be too small for one in five men.
Recently there was an outcry about how dangerous three-wheeled invalid
vehicles were. `Unsafe,' people said. No one went on TV to say that the
vehicles were perfectly safe, it's just that people need to be careful
when driving them when going round corners.
On the contrary, I think most people saw that average drivers could very
easily have accidents through no fault of their own. It is easy to have an
accident with a condom. Condoms are unreliable compared to, for example,
the pill. That is why the pill is so popular---not just because it is a
more convenient method.
Things are worse than they appear from the pregnancy rates. Out of 100
couples, ten will have great difficulty in conceiving anyway. Five will
probably never be able to conceive for various reasons, including previous
infections with sexually-transmitted diseases.
After four months of trying to conceive, only about half of an average
group of women will succeed in becoming pregnant. If they used a perfectly
safe method two out of three times that they had intercourse, it would
take a year for half to become pregnant. If they used the method for ten
out of twelve months of the year, then twenty-five out of a hundred could
be expected to get pregnant in a year. If they had unprotected sex for one
month a year and used the method for eleven months, then it could be
expected that over twelve would become pregnant in a year.
What this means is that if condoms produce a failure rate of around twelve
in a hundred per year, then they must be leaking often. It is about the
same thing as having intercourse for a whole month without any protection
at all but taking the pill the rest of the year. Somehow or other
secretions from a man and a woman are very frequently meeting each other.
This conclusion is confirmed by a study of 2,000 acts of intercourse by
eighty heterosexual and seven homosexual couples, with fourteen types of
condoms. The overall failure rate from slippage or rupture was 11.3%, even
higher than the one in twelve (8.3%) theoretical rate predicted above.
Are Condoms Really Safe?
Fact: Latex condoms have tiny intrinsic holes called "voids." The AIDS
virus is 50 to 700 times smaller than these tiny holes which makes it easy
for the virus to pass through them (5), about as easy as a dime passing
through a basketball hoop.
References
(1) "Contraceptive Failure Rate in the U.S.: Estimates from the 1982
National Survey of Family Growth, " M.D. Hayward and J. Yogi, Family
Planning Perspectives, Sept/Oct. 1986, p. 204.
(2) "Contraceptive Failure Rate in the U.S.: Revised Estimates From the
1982 Natl. Survey of Family Growth," E.F. Jones and J.D. Forrest, Family
Planning Perspectives, May/June 1989, p. 103.
(3) "Condom 'Cure' Questioned by top AIDS researcher," Russell Shaw, Our
Sunday Visitor, 1/23/94.
(4) "Condoms: Experts Fear False Sense of Security," The New York Times,
8/18/87.
(5) Dr. C.M. Roland, Editor of Rubber Chemistry and Technology, Letter to
the Editor, The Washington Times, 4/22/92.
(6) Sources for STD statistics: The Alan Guttmacher Institute, New York
and the Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta.
-o0o-
Condoms have an annual contraceptive failure rate of 18.4 percent for
girls under age 18 (1). And among young, unmarried, minority women the
annual failure rate is 36.3 percent; among unmarried Hispanic women it is
as high as 44.5 percent (2).
(2) "Contraceptive Failure Rate in the U.S.: Revised Estimates From the
1982 Natl. Survey of Family Growth," E.F. Jones and J.D. Forrest, Family
Planning Perspectives, May/June 1989, p. 103.
1.Because syphilis can be spread through direct contact with infected
material, condoms may NOT be completely effective in preventing the
spread of syphilis.
From: - AIDS Project Los Angeles Web Site
http://www.apla.org/apla/ed/syphilis.html