Friday, May 28, 2010

Bill Gates funds covert vaccine nanotechnology

Bill Gates funds covert vaccine nanotechnology

natural health

Bill Gates funds covert vaccine nanotechnology

Friday, May 28, 2010
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...)
NaturalNews) The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is gaining a reputation for funding technologies designed to roll out mass sterilization and vaccination programs around the world. One of the programs recently funded by the foundation is a sterilization program that would use sharp blasts of ultrasound directed against a man's scrotum to render him infertile for six months. It might accurately be called a "temporary castration" technology. Read more about it here: http://www.naturalnews.com/028853_u...

Now, the foundation has funded a new "sweat-triggered vaccine delivery" program based on nanoparticles penetrating human skin. The technology is describes as a way to "...develop nanoparticles that penetrate the skin through hair follicles and burst upon contact with human sweat to release vaccines."

The research grant money is going to Carlos Alberto Guzman of the Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research in Germany and Claus-Michael Lehr and Steffi Hansen of the Helmholtz-Institute for Pharmaceutical Research.

These are both part of the Gates Foundation's involvement in the "Grand Challenges Explorations" program which claims to be working to "achieve major breakthroughs in global health."

...breakthroughs like mass sterilization and nanoparticle vaccines that could be covertly administered even without your knowledge, it turns out. These nanoparticles could be used in a spray mist that's sprayed on to every person who walks through an airport security checkpoint, for example. Or it could be unleashed through the ventilation systems of corporate office buildings or public schools to vaccinate the masses. You wouldn't even know you were being vaccinated.

This technology is potentially very dangerous to your health freedom. Using it, governments or drug companies (which are all the same thing these days) could create a vaccine skin cream that's handed out and described as "sunscreen." But when you put it on, you're actually vaccinating yourself as the nanoparticles burrow underneath your skin and burst, releasing foreign DNA inside your body.

A history of covert mass medication

But why would the government medicate people without their knowledge or consent, you ask? They already do it with water fluoridation. Fluoride is a drug, and regional and national governments all over the world are using the water supply as a way to deliver the fluoride drug to people whether they need it or not -- and without any proper medical diagnosis or prescription.

So if governments are already covertly medicating people with fluoride in the water supply, they've set the stage mass-vaccinating people through similar channels, such as the air supply in buildings. And thanks to Bill Gates, this nanotechnology needed to pull this off is now being funded.

Is this really a "major breakthrough in global health?"

I suppose it is if you believe in covert medicine where you dose people with drugs or vaccines without their knowledge. Western medicine is so offensive to rational people that it can't even operate out in the open. That's why it resorts to covert contamination of the water supply in order to force the public to swallow its drugs.

Fluoride and covert medicine

Oh, by the way, to anyone who argues that fluoride is not a drug, remember this: According to the FDA, any chemical substance that has a biological effect on the human body is, by definition, a drug. Therefore fluoride is a drug, too.

Even more, fluoride is promoted with outlandish claims about "preventing cavities" by swallowing it, making it an "unapproved drug" according to the FDA. So how is it that this unapproved drug can be dripped into the water supply and forced upon hundreds of millions of people without a single diagnosis of fluoride deficiency or even a single prescription from a doctor?

The answer is that western medicine is so arrogant that it does not believe it needs to follow any rules, regulations or laws. It is a system of "bully" medicine where drugs are shoved down your throat by being covertly dripped into the water supply without your consent. So why should we believe vaccines will be any different? If mainstream medicine can find a way to force every person to unknowingly be injected with vaccines, make no mistake they will pursue it!

And such efforts will no doubt have the continued financial support of Bill Gates.

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Be Your Own Doctor, Part II (Opinion)

Be Your Own Doctor, Part II (Opinion)
To be our own doctor, we must see that our undesirable eating habits as well as our generally poor health habits due to ignorance, confusion and conditioning deprive our bodies of their strength and vitality. This tends to provoke a mental and spiritual drain as well.

Nature is capable of eliminating body poisoning or putrefaction from itself, regardless of whether the cause of the problem is physical, mental or spiritual. All that's required is giving Nature the help it needs by living a rational life and developing desirable habits of good health.

Most all disease is one disease - toxemia (body poisoning). It is a different name in different parts of the body, but actually the cause of most all disease is the same - self pollution and vitality drain.

Unless a body part has been destroyed by chronic self-pollution, most all disease can be healed by the body itself. Chemical imbalance starts with an irritation that becomes inflamed. Then, self-pollution of the blood stream's circulatory system degenerates into chronic putrefaction of the entire "plumbing" system.

Our minds have been intensively indoctrinated into accepting efficient treatment of disease; we have the trite assumption that the treating of a symptom is not only adequate, but also the only medically acceptable method of treatment. Talk about "theater of the absurd"!

The fact that a medically trained doctor, sworn to uphold the Hippocratic Oath, continues to haphazardly over-drug, promiscuously mutilates with a scalpel, senselessly over-stabs with the needle, poisons with chemicals and overkills live cells with x-ray is abominable. Yet, the unsuspecting public has been taught to respect, honor and obey the physician as a father figure, licensed for manslaughter, equal to God.

Labeled as "curing the patient", the medical world makes the mistake of treating effects (symptoms) believing them to be the cause of bodily disturbance. For example: a vital organ develops a symptom. The doctor hurriedly removes the organ by surgery. The result: Cure! Yet, the real problem, toxemia poisoning, is still there.

Because the members of the American Medical Profession lack training in nutrition and biological hygiene training, removal of the part seems to justify the whole. Given the proper conditions, nutrition and adequate elimination, the human body will eliminate its own wastes and impurities by the process of autolysis (self-dissolving) if given the chance.

Again, most all disease is one disease - body pollution and poisoning. Yet, we accept incompetent medical training as perfectly normal even if the treatment proves fatal. All symptoms of disease, regardless of their label by medical science, are all diagnosed in the same senseless manner - ignorance of the cause.

Is the question ever asked, "Can the tissue or organ be restored to normalcy"? Why hasn't medical science discovered the reason the human body fails to function normally? Could it be that they are too busy in the mad pursuit of "miracle drugs"? Why is such a preponderance of surgery necessary today, when people can be taught how to live healthy lives to avoid chronic illness and needless operations?

Our medical profession, along with the medical-hospital-Big Pharma-health insurance industry complex, is the largest licensed pusher of drugs in the world. The wanton maiming and destruction of human life due to premeditated, irresponsible, over-prescribed poison drugs are unbelievable. Drugs have never cured the sick and the relief they are supposed to give is questionable and temporary. Millions are dead from the over-prescription of drugs by the legal drug pushers (doctors) and the side effects of the drugs are much worse than the symptoms they are supposed to relieve.

Aloha!

Be Your Own Doctor, Part I (Opinion)

Be Your Own Doctor, Part I (Opinion)
Regarding health, you are your own worst enemy. There are no miracle cures. There are no pills that will make you well overnight. Good health takes discipline. To be your own doctor you do not have to go to medical school. You just have to know your body and tune into it.

There is a way to live so as not to develop a diseased body by creating toxic conditions. There is also a way to detoxify your body of all toxic matter allowing Mother Nature's healing power to restore vibrant health.

It is well known that Mother Nature is uncompromising and a strict disciplinarian. This is especially true for those persons who will not make the effort to reform, revitalize, and renew their bodies through proper disciplinary actions of good health, which would guarantee perfect health.

Today, the procedures of biological hygiene (the science of natural healing) have been developed to the high level of being able to eliminate most disease from the human body. Mankind yearns for a cure. Little do they realize that each is his or her own answer and that there are no other cures. Human beings develop their own diseases. Therefore, they should be their own doctors.

The medical profession, from the beginning of time, has not brought about a single cure nor added, in any way, to the saving of the suffering of mankind in the elimination of the causes of innumerable agonizing diseases.

We slowly poison our bodies by putrefaction (excessive food poisoning) and then finally murder ourselves by involuntary suicide. Killing ourselves with toxemia is just as thorough as by a knife or a gun. It is a much more lingering, slow-suffering way to die and much more painful.

This involuntary suicide of human beings is being aided and abetted by a money-hungry, incompetent medical profession: A medical profession of which over 80% of its physicians are either guilty of overcharge, care little for their patients, are unknowledgeable about true healing, incompetent or fraudulent, perform unnecessary operations, cannot be reached for emergencies, treat people like cattle in production-line medical factories, are a party to needless infection, crippling and untold suffering, over-prescribe drugs and generally help cause diseases which they have taken an oath to cure.

How can we, the American public, be blamed for our confusion concerning health matters? Our self-imposed Gods, the American Medical Profession, have brainwashed us for ages into believing that "drugs and the knife" are next to godliness. They confuse, they bewilder, and they add insult to injury by performing the role of public executioner, all within the law.

How can doctors cure the human body when they know so little about it? Our physicians' trade is in relief, not in the elimination of disease. Treating symptoms endlessly with needles, x-rays, surgery, drugs and chemicals has never brought about a cure, let alone addressed a cause. The American people are getting more and more disenchanted with this kind of treatment and are beginning to demand that the cause of disease finally be addressed and eliminated.

Many medical doctors would be confounded by good health if they, by chance, ever met anyone who had it. Claiming a healing if a symptom "runs its course" is illusionary. In truth, the body healed itself by reducing its putrefaction and toxemia level to an endurable condition. Then, tolerable health returned temporarily until another crisis appears due to the fact that the toxemia had not been eliminated. It's an endless dilemma.

Stay tuned for Part 2

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Environmental Health Perspectives: Exploring a Potential Link between BPA and Heart Disease

Environmental Health Perspectives: Exploring a Potential Link between BPA and Heart Disease

Most people in the United States are exposed to the plastic monomer bisphenol A (BPA), whether in plastic linings in food cans, containers made of hard plastic, or other plastics and foods containing BPA. Exposure to this suspected endocrine disruptor is illustrated by urine samples collected for NHANES (the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey), for which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention surveys thousands of adults and children. A new analysis of NHANES data published 13 January 2010 in PLoS ONE adds more evidence for an association between heart disease and higher exposures to BPA, even at the relatively low levels seen in the general population.

David Melzer, an epidemiologist at the University of Exeter, United Kingdom, and his colleagues first looked at NHANES data collected from 2003 and 2004; their results, published in the 17 September 2008 issue of JAMA, were the first to show an association between higher levels of BPA metabolites in urine and adverse adult health outcomes, including heart disease. The current analysis considered NHANES data from 2005 and 2006. Although the BPA levels in urine samples from this new group of people were lower by almost a third, the association remained between coronary heart disease and higher urinary BPA.

While this study may help inform future research, such cross-sectional studies “should not be used to demonstrate that a particular chemical can cause a particular effect,” said Steven G. Hentges of the Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group of the American Chemistry Council in a 13 January 2010 press release. And indeed, Melzer and his colleagues emphasize that because this study is cross-sectional—a snapshot in time instead of a long-term observational investigation—they cannot say whether BPA contributes to heart disease or if heart disease changes the exposure to or metabolism of BPA in adults. “What would really help is if industry and regulators could support independent studies [to examine] whether high BPA levels are present before any disease started,” Melzer says.

“Chasing human [data] is the way forward,” says Richard Sharpe, an endocrinologist from The Queen’s Medical Research Institute in Edinburgh who did not participate in the research. NHANES provides a robust data set, he says, and the repeatability of the association with a second survey group is positive. However, that replication is somewhat incomplete because not all of the associations found with BPA in the first study were found in the second.

“The more logical interpretation of the results as they stand at the moment is that they are looking at two variables that are associated with something else,” Sharpe says. Diet, for instance, is a major contributor to heart disease in the United States and also a major source of BPA exposure. “We should remember that heart disease develops over a long period of time,” Sharpe says, “so if BPA is involved causally, a cross-sectional study such as this [PLoS ONE report] cannot show this.”

Scott Belcher, a scientist at the University of Cincinnati, says the association in humans is “not super surprising in light of our animal studies and because we already know estrogens are related to various cardiovascular end points.” Belcher’s team reported at the June 2009 Endocrine Society annual meeting that BPA exposure in vitro in muscle cells and in whole hearts from female rodents leads to arrhythmias, and they recently received American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds from the NIEHS to conduct further research on BPA in mice. Meanwhile, pending the release of an updated toxicology review for BPA, the Food and Drug Administration announced in January 2010 it is “taking reasonable steps to reduce human exposure to BPA in the food supply.”

Environmental Health Perspectives: Drugs in the Environment: Do Pharmaceutical Take-Back Programs Make a Difference?

Environmental Health Perspectives: Drugs in the Environment: Do Pharmaceutical Take-Back Programs Make a Difference?

Drugs in the Environment: Do Pharmaceutical Take-Back Programs Make a Difference?

Naomi Lubick

Naomi Lubick is a freelance science writer based in Zürich, Switzerland, and Folsom, CA. She has written for Environmental Science & Technology, Nature, and Earth.

The state of Maine experimented with drugs last year. The state had already tested several methods
for collecting unused pharmaceuticals, with varying degrees of success. After tracking surprisingly high concentrations of pharmaceuticals in landfill leachate —raising the potential for eventual ground and surface water contamination—the state decided to pursue a new tool to keep drugs out of the waste stream. Maine wanted to establish statewide collection programs, mandated 
by legislation and paid for by manufacturers, that would intercept unwanted pharmaceutical products before they got to the trash.

Although the state legislation bogged down earlier this year, other states have introduced bills similar to Maine’s, with some success. Meanwhile, Europe and Canada have had systems for pharmaceutical take-back programs in place for a decade or so. At the same time, an increasing number of reports from across the world have tracked active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) in surface waters and even tap water, leading environmental scientists and water utilities to look for ways to limit the amount of drugs entering the environment.

The bulk of human pharmaceuticals found in waterways most likely got there by way of sewage. Taking unused pharmaceuticals out of landfills may make only a small difference in the concentrations of APIs found in water, say critics and supporters alike of such programs. But take-back programs may help prevent leftover pharmaceuticals from being misused. For that reason and others, utilities and local governments are moving forward with a variety of pharmaceutical take-back efforts in the absence of regulations—or data indicating such programs actually work.

Digging into the Trash Top

The most damning evidence yet of human drugs’ impacts on wildlife comes from studies of fish. A study by Karen Kidd et al., in the 22 May 2007 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, showed the collapse of a population of fish in an isolated lake spiked with relatively high levels of the synthetic estrogen 17α-ethinylestradiol. Other studies on aquatic populations in a waste-impacted stream in Boulder, Colorado, showed reproductive effects from estrogenic wastewater effluent, according to Alan M. Vajda et al., writing in the 1 May 2008 issue of Environmental Science & Technology.

thumbnail

Save a Flush

Only certain drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration should be flushed down the toilet or drain. These include drugs deemed to be "especially harmful to a child, pet, or anyone else if taken accidentally," according to the agency’s "Information for Consumers (Drugs)" webpage. Once APIs reach the bacteria that clean up wastewater in treatment plants, drugs may degrade into daughter compounds that may be more or less toxic than the parent drug, or they may even return to their original forms. Some will flush out with treated effluent into streams, and some will be captured in biosolids—the sludge left over after water treatment—that might end up incinerated, spread over agricultural lands, or placed in landfills. A study by Dana Kolpin and colleagues in the 15 March 2008 issue of Environmental Science & Technology found that earthworms from fields where biosolids had been spread as fertilizer had measurable amounts of pharmaceuticals in their bodies. Pharmaceuticals flushed into septic systems may pose even more of a threat to waterways than those put into municiple systems, according to some of the few studies on the topic. Conversely, study findings published in the February 2010 issue of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry suggest that septic tanks may remove organic contaminants as effectively as wastewater treatment plants, although there are no data yet on specific drugs.

© Images.com/Corbis

Aside from any environmental implications, discarded pharmaceuticals pose the threat of misuse. “People will go to great lengths to reclaim a drug,” says Christian Daughton of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. He cites reports of “pee labs,” where a dealer might reclaim methamphetamine from a user’s urine and reconstitute it for resale. But it’s not only drug users who go through the garbage for pharmaceuticals, says Ann Pistell, an environmental specialist at the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP): “It’s accidental poisonings by children, pets, or wildlife who pluck them out.”

In January 2010, the Maine DEP measured the concentrations of drugs in samples of leachate collected at three landfills, selected because they were receiving only household waste and not biosolids that might contain human-excreted drugs. DEP scientists were surprised to find what could amount to yearly leachate emissions of hundreds of pounds of APIs from over-the-counter and prescription drugs. “The fact that we found pharmaceuticals wasn’t a huge surprise, but the high levels were,” says Pistell. The pain reliever acetaminophen, for example, was present in samples from one landfill at concentrations of 117,000 ng/L, the highest level of any drug measured in the study.

The prescription antibiotic ciprofloxacin was present at concentrations of 269 ng/L, and lab tests even found cocaine—at 57 ng/L—in one landfill, according to the DEP’s unpublished findings. Other drugs found in all three landfills included low concentrations of estrone (from hormone replacement therapy), albuterol (an asthma drug), and the antibiotic penicillin in the range of tens to hundreds parts per billion.

The findings led the DEP to decide that disposing of unused pharmaceutical products in landfills—the current recommendation of U.S. industry and government to consumers wanting to clean out their medicine cabinets—is not a prudent or sustainable method of disposal.

According to the SMARxT Disposal™ partnership, however, landfills are fine for disposal of pharmaceuticals. This partnership of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the American Pharmacists Association, and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America recommends that medications be crushed and/or dissolved, mixed with kitty litter or other unappealing material (to discourage consumption), then enclosed in a container or sealable baggie before disposal in the trash. The U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy, in its 2009 “Proper Disposal of Prescription Drugs” factsheet, agrees with this advice where take-back programs are not available. Unused controlled drugs collected by law enforcement typically are incinerated—considered the most effective way to destroy APIs—through licensed medical waste collectors.

Susan Boehme, who studies contaminated coastal sediments with the Illinois–Indiana Sea Grant program, says life-cycle analyses of drug disposal methods are not yet complete. As someone who spends a lot of time helping communities set up and operate pharmaceutical take-back programs, Boehme says she cautions stakeholders that the impacts of a local take-back program on pollution prevention often will be unclear and that such programs are “definitely a precautionary approach.”

Few studies have been conducted on pharmaceuticals in landfills and leachate, says Dana Kolpin of the U.S. Geological Survey, lead author of a landmark paper published 15 March 2002 in Environmental Science & Technology that showed the widespread presence of pharmaceuticals in U.S. surface waters. Kolpin and his colleagues previously examined pharmaceuticals present in groundwater leachate plumes, and the team currently is attempting to organize a national survey of landfill leachate to better understand the levels of pharmaceuticals that may be present. Many landfill operations actually collect leachate for further treatment at a wastewater treatment plant, which may make this a slower pathway for drugs to travel into the environment, Kolpin says, “but it’s still a potential pathway.”

Kolpin adds, “At some point, somebody has to look and find the mass balance, so to speak.” How much of the pharmaceuticals in the environment, whether excreted or unused, come from residential waste versus hospitals versus farms? What sources are the biggest contributors? Not many answers exist to these questions at the moment, most researchers say.

Filling in the Blanks Top

Currently, says Ilene Ruhoy of Touro University Nevada, take-back programs are “not standardized in any way.” Data collection from people turning in drugs may differ from event to event, as might methods used to classify them by type and measure the amount of drugs collected—for example, whether that amount reflects the mass of the medication in its packaging, the mass of the complete formulated product (APIs plus excipients), or the mass of just the APIs. These differences make extrapolating data from an event to figure out its impact “really complicated,” she says, without even adding the complexities of the potential ecological effects of each drug.

Duane Huggett of the University of North Texas hopes to fill in some of the blanks on the exact benefits of take-back programs. For the City of Denton’s collection in late April 2010, Huggett and his colleagues established a protocol for collecting drugs while logging statistically valid data for later evaluation. They hope to repeat this pilot program at future events across the United States.

As more states roll out take-back legislation and programs, the country could end up with 50 different state programs, Huggett says, and standardization, at least in data collection, would certainly help in assessing the impacts of these programs, if not their establishment and implementation. Moreover, without regulation, some of these programs may not even be legal, according to Jen Jackson of East Bay Municipal Utility District, the public utility serving San Francisco’s East Bay. For example, she says, until California set up its own guidance for water utilities and pharmacies to collect unused pharmaceuticals, the state’s many take-back programs were operating in a legal gray zone.

That’s in large part because pharmaceutical take-back programs are subject to the same rules that are meant to keep controlled substances from reentering the supply chain either legally or illegally: under the federal Controlled Substances Act, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration requires controlled substances to be turned in to the proper law enforcement officials. Any collection program must be carefully monitored by law enforcement, Jackson says, so nothing is diverted from a collection box, for example. The additional monitoring needed for these events can increase event expenses.

Jackson says pharmacies must be very careful to involve as few hands as possible in take-back programs. For instance, in California the public can deposit unused pharmaceuticals in one-way bins with two-key systems. Collections of full bins might take place with a licensed medical waste hauler and a pharmacist present as witnesses to ensure drugs in high demand on the street (such as the neurostimulant Ritalin and the analgesic Vicodin) are not diverted from their path to destruction.

LD 821, the Maine bill introduced in March 2009 by Representative Anne Perry, would have required industry to assist in establishing take-back programs for unused pharmaceuticals in that state. The bill called for manufacturers to demonstrate to the Maine DEP that they were taking part in or running their own take-back programs, with proper disposal of their products through hazardous waste incinerators. The bill also called for pharmacies to provide prepaid envelopes so customers could mail unused pharmaceuticals back to the manufacturer. The bill passed Maine’s House of Representatives by a wide margin but was tabled in the state Senate in March 2010.

In contrast to the United States, Europe has widespread standardized take-back programs. In the 2010 report Pharmaceuticals in the Environment: Results of an EEA Workshop, the European Environment Agency (EEA) stated most countries there collect unused drugs separately from household waste, usually at pharmacies (a handful also have separate collection sites alongside pharmacies). But even in Europe, not all unused pharmaceuticals are diverted from the waste stream. A survey from Germany’s Management Strategies for Pharmaceutical Residues in Drinking Water (start) research program showed that consumers discarded 23% of liquid pharmaceuticals prescribed and 7% of tablets. While some went into household trash, the proportion that went down the drain amounted to 364 tons of APIs flushed away every year. Only about a third of the population surveyed by the start program reported always returning their drugs to a pharmacy.

End of the Line Top

Daughton and Ruhoy have developed a methodology that could be used to quantify unused pharmaceuticals that end up in the waste stream in the United States, using coroners’ records and other data sources. In the 15 December 2007 issue of Science of the Total Environment, they note that medical investigators from coroners’ offices routinely search decedents’ homes for drugs in case they played a role in a death, and the coroner often maintains detailed records of the pharmaceuticals found and their method of disposal. Creating a unified network of coroners’ databases from around the country could yield valuable insight into the types and amounts of pharmaceuticals consumers tend to accumulate.

Researchers have also examined how to diminish environmental impacts of pharmaceuticals using the principles of green chemistry: Ruhoy says more manufacturers have found ways to use less water or solvents and thereby lessen the environmental impacts of pharmaceutical production. Still, few have rolled out products that might easily biodegrade in the environment. In the May 2003 issue of EHP, Daughton suggested expanding the use of “optically pure chiral drugs” to reduce by half—or sometimes more—the amount of API required in a medication. A chiral (or “handed”) molecule may have mirror-image configurations that are not quite identical; one form may be more effective by fitting into certain receptors, whereas another may be ineffective or even harmful because of its different form. Focusing on the optimal configuration of a molecule selects for materials that can be used more efficiently by the human body while cutting down on pharmaceutical bulk.

Another possibility for reducing the impact of APIs in the environment involves advising medical professionals about drugs that are less environmentally harmful. In Sweden the pharmaceutical industry has assisted the government in putting together a database of the possible environmental effects of various medications. A patient could select a less environmentally persistent painkiller, for example, by avoiding off-label use of the anticonvulsant carbamazepine. Europe is currently examining how to expand this Swedish Environmental Classification of Pharmaceuticals database to the international level.

Daughton points out that reduced usage, lower dosages for personalized medicines tailored to an individual’s genome, and other approaches could cut down on human excretion of drugs to the environment—and the need to dispose of unused pharmaceuticals—while perhaps achieving better health care outcomes. “One of the downsides of focusing on drug disposal is that it serves to distract from the issues that could potentially have much more impact on the occurrence of APIs in the environment,” he comments. “This is especially true given that we don’t even know the relative contributions of APIs in the environment that result from disposal versus intended usage.”

Although the question of whether pharmaceutical take-back programs make a difference does not yet have a clear answer, Kolpin remains optimistic about the possibilities for keeping pharmaceuticals out of the environment, observing that “more and more people [are] working on the issue . . . and providing results that advance the science.” He says that although it may be unrealistic to eliminate every contaminant from waste, perhaps researchers and regulators could focus on the “bad actors,” those compounds known to be the most common or most harmful. Some argue that consumers could have the most impact on the amount of pharmaceuticals in the environment, for example in choosing to buy fewer or “greener” pharmaceuticals.

Meanwhile, Maine’s LD 821 bill may yet see another day. Pistell says the bill will be reintroduced in January 2011 by a new sponsor, and that it will go to a natural resources committee—which is more familiar with product stewardship issues—instead of one on public health. The state already has refined the bill after hearing legislators’ concerns, according to Pistell, who explains, “lots of bills take several years to get through.” She adds, “Those who have greatest influence over a product—usually manufacturers—certainly should have a role in dealing responsibly with a product at the end of its life.”

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Ayurveda and Aloe Vera


Aloe Vera is often referred to as a "miracle plant" in Ayurveda.  Aloe Vera is a succulent, and it's leaves contain a liquid that is made up of 96% water and the rest is a combination of amazing healing ingredients like Vitamins A, B, C, E, calcium, amino acids and enzymes.  The Aloe Vera gel can be applied to the skin to help heal cuts, insects ites, bruises, and skin conditions such as eczema and poison ivy.  Aloe Vera has both antibacterial and antifungal properties.  It can help the skin manufacture collagen, and it is absorbed into the skin four times faster than water making it extremely moisturizing.  Aloe Vera can also be taken internally.  Drinking Aloe Vera juice aids digestion and the absorption of nutrients.  It can also helps to control blood sugar, increase energy, improve heart and liver health and boost the immune system.  Children under the age of five and women who are pregnant should not take Aloe Vera internally.

Friday, May 21, 2010

Protecting Children’s Health : A New Project is Underway to Draw the Connections between Toxins and Children’s Health (By Brita Belli)

Protecting Children’s Health : A New Project is Underway to Draw the Connections between Toxins and Children’s Health (By Brita Belli)

Protecting Children’s Health

A New Project is Underway to Draw the Connections between Toxins and Children’s Health


By Brita Belli

Dr. Philip Landrigan is leading a new project at Mt. Sinai that will look at the long-term effects of toxins on children’s health and development.
The relationship between children’s health and environmental toxins is finally getting the long-term look it deserves. A recent fundraiser at the Greenwich Country Club in Connecticut featured Dr. Philip Landrigan of the Mt. Sinai Children’s Environmental Health Center, who despite the celebrities in attendance (including Laurie David and Mary Richardson Kennedy) took to the podium with all the fanfare of a rock star. In health circles, he is. By connecting lead exposure with lowered IQ in children, Landrigan’s work helped end lead components in gasoline and paint—and resulted in an 88% drop in lead levels in American kids by 2005. Now Landrigan is behind The Autism and Learning Disabilities Discovery and Prevention Project just launched at Mt. Sinai which will take a comprehensive look at how environmental toxins affect children’s health up to adulthood. “If there are a few chemicals we can prove cause autism,” said Landrigan, “it opens the possibility that there are others.”

He listed some of the known chemical causes of autism—including Thalidomide (used during the ‘50s and ‘60s to combat morning sickness), Misoprostol (used to induce labor) and Valproic acid (an anticonvulsant, mood-stabilizing drug). As part of their new project, the Mt. Sinai team will be building a “biobank,” so that babies’ cord blood—collected with permission at the hospital—will be analyzed for some 200 chemicals of concern, and will undergo genetic and epigenetic analyses.

The project is a perfect complement to the National Children’s Study already underway across the U.S. That study—with a consortium of partners that includes the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—was launched in January 2010 and has set out to enroll 100,000 pregnant women in 105 counties and track the babies’ development until age 21. They’re collecting hair, blood and urine samples from pregnant women, testing household dust, water and carpeting and analyzing the samples for chemicals, for genetic makeup and for infections.

It’s a mammoth undertaking, but one that researchers hope can begin to answer questions about multiple chemical impacts happening across a lifetime of exposure, rather than examining—and banning—such chemicals one by one.

“Banning chemicals can work,” Dr. Landrigan told the well-heeled attendees at the fundraiser (which netted $300,000 for his center), “but after they’re already in widespread use...it’s hugely disruptive.” What would work better, he said, was a complete overhaul—mandated testing of all old and new chemicals as has been proposed in New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg’s bill, The Kid-Safe Chemical Act. It’s a bill, that, according to Sen. Lautenberg’s website: “would ensure for the first time that all the chemicals used in baby bottles, children’s toys and other products are proven to be safe before they are put on the market.” Added Dr. Landrigan: “New science is needed, too.”

RESOURCES: The National Children’s Study; Mt. Sinai Children’s Environmental Health Center

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

The Hidden Hazards Of Microwave Cooking

The Hidden Hazards Of Microwave Cooking

Why did the Russians Ban an Appliance Found in 90% of American Homes?

Posted by Dr. Mercola | May 18 2010 | 60,927 views

microwaveBy now, you probably know that what you eat has a profound impact on your health. The mantra, “You are what you eat” is really true.

But you need to consider not only WHAT you buy, but how you cook it.

Eating most of your food raw is ideal. But most of us are not going to be able to accomplish a completely raw diet, and we’ll end up cooking some percentage of our food.

Smart food preparation starts with high quality foods and food preparation and that means saying sayonara to your microwave oven. Need to sterilize a dishcloth? Use your microwave. But zapping your casserole is a BAD idea if you are interested in preparing healthy food.

Why the no nukes policy?

When it comes to microwave ovens, the price for convenience is to compromise your health. In this article, I will review what we know about the effects microwaves on your food and on your body.

Sad State of Our Soils

Over the past century, the quality of fresh food has declined due to soil depletion, unsustainable farming practices, overproduction of crops, and the use of pesticides and herbicides. You can no longer assume you’re getting all of the vitamins, minerals, enzymes, and phytonutrients you need by eating a multitude of fresh produce—even if you’re eating organically.

Not surprisingly, a calorie today will provide you less nutrition than a calorie from 100, or even 50 years ago.

Three recent studies of historical food composition have shown 5 to 40 percent declines in some of the minerals in fresh produce, and another study found a similar decline in our protein sources.[1]

So now, more than ever, you must be careful to maximize the “bang for your buck” when it comes to the foods you eat.

Research shows that your microwave oven will NOT help you in these efforts—and in fact will threaten your health by violently ripping the molecules in your food apart, rendering some nutrients inert, at best, and carcinogenic at its worst.

Convenience Comes at Significant Toxic Threat to You and Your Family

Microwaves heat food by causing water molecules in it to resonate at very high frequencies and eventually turn to steam which heats your food. While this can rapidly heat your food, what most people fail to realize is that it also causes a change in your food’s chemical structure.

There are numerous issues that have emerged since microwave ovens were first introduced to consumers more than 40 years ago, besides depleting your food’s nutritional value, which will be addressed a bit later.

The first thing you probably noticed when you began microwaving food was how uneven the heating is.

“Hot spots” in microwaved food can be hot enough to cause burns—or build up to a “steam explosion.” This has resulted in admonitions to new mothers about NOT using the microwave to heat up baby bottles, since babies have been burned by super-heated formula that went undetected.

Another problem with microwave ovens is that carcinogenic toxins can leach out of your plastic and paper containers/covers, and into your food.

The January/February 1990 issue of Nutrition Action Newsletter reported the leakage of numerous toxic chemicals from the packaging of common microwavable foods, including pizzas, chips and popcorn. Chemicals included polyethylene terpthalate (PET), benzene, toluene, and xylene. Microwaving fatty foods in plastic containers leads to the release of dioxins (known carcinogens) and other toxins into your food. [8] [2]

One of the worst contaminants is BPA, or bisphenol A, an estrogen-like compound used widely in plastic products. In fact, dishes made specifically for the microwave often contain BPA, but many other plastic products contain it as well.

Microwaving distorts and deforms the molecules of whatever food or other substance you subject to it. An example of this is blood products.

Blood is normally warmed before being transfused into a person. Now we know that microwaving blood products damages the blood components. In fact, one woman died after receiving a transfusion of microwaved blood in 1991 , which resulted in a well-publicized lawsuit.

Microwave Radiation Leakage

You may have heard that there is some danger of microwaves escaping from your microwave while it’s operating. This was more of a risk with earlier models than with recent ones, which undergo more rigorous testing.

Theoretically, there are very small amounts of radiation leakage through the viewing glass, but the FDA reports these levels are “insignificant” and “well below the level known to harm people.”

The FDA has been regulating microwave ovens since 1971 through its electronic product radiation control program, which is mandated by the Electronic Product Radiation Control provisions of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act[3] .

The FDA limits the amount of microwaves that can leak from an oven throughout its lifetime to 5 milliwatts (mW) per square centimeter at approximately 2 inches from the oven surface. Because microwave energy decreases dramatically as you move away from the source of the radiation, a measurement made 20 inches from your oven would be approximately one-hundredth of the value measured at 2 inches.[2]

The federal standard also requires all ovens to have “two independent interlock systems that stop the production of microwaves the moment the latch is released or the door is opened.”

And a monitoring system is also required, which stops the operation if one or both interlock systems fail.

You would think, with all these tests and regulations, that you’d be safe. However, according to Powerwatch, a non-profit independent organization with a central role in the microwave radiation debate:

“Even when the microwave oven is working correctly, the microwave levels within the kitchen are likely to be significantly higher than those from any nearby cellular phone base-stations. Remember also that microwaves will travel through walls if the microwave oven is against an inside wall.”

Powerwatch also states that we don’t really know if the current regulations about leakage are truly safe and recommends ovens be checked at least annually, since microwave emissions can change with normal use.

You might also consider purchasing a $20 testing device that allows you to check the radiation in your home.

Make sure that, if you are going to use your microwave for cleaning sponges or for any use at all, regularly examine the door and hinges to make sure they are sealing properly. If the door doesn’t close correctly, or if it’s warped, bent, or otherwise damaged, don’t use it at all!

Since your eyes are known to be particularly susceptible to microwave radiation (high microwave exposures are known to cause cataracts), I recommend stepping away from your microwave while it’s in use.

New Study Confirms Microwaves Affect Your Heart

A recent study examining the effects 2.4 GHz radiation (which is the frequency of radiation emitted by Wifi routers and microwave ovens) on the heart was just completed. The study found “unequivocal evidence” that microwave frequency radiation affects the heart at non-thermal levels that are well below federal safety guidelines, according to Dr. Magda Havas of Trent University[4] .

Dr. Havas says:

“This is the first study that documents immediate and dramatic changes in both heart rate and heart rate variability caused by an approved device that generates microwaves at levels well below (0.3 percent) federal guidelines in both Canada and the United States.”

No longer can skeptics claim that microwaves produce no immediate biological effects at ordinary household levels!

The study will be appearing in a peer-reviewed journal sometime during the summer of 2010. If you are experiencing rapid or irregular heartbeat, pain or pressure in your chest, you will want to visit your physician and share this video with him or her (second video on this page).

There is also evidence that this same frequency of radiation causes blood sugar to spike in susceptible individuals and may actually be the cause of one type of diabetes. For details about this, watch the first video below.

Microwaving Also Zaps the Nutrients Right Out of Your Food

There has been surprisingly little research on how microwaves affect organic molecules, or how the human body responds to consuming microwaved food.

Wouldn’t you expect that a product that sits in more than 90 percent of kitchens, as well as practically every break room in the country, would have been thoroughly investigated for safety?

The handful of studies that have been done generally agree, for the most part, that microwaving food damages its nutritional value. Your microwave turns your beautiful, organic veggies, for which you’ve paid such a premium in money or labor, into “dead” food that can cause disease!

Heating food, in and of itself, can result in some nutrient loss, but using microwaves to heat food introduces the additional problem of the “microwave effect,” a phenomenon that will be discussed in detail later.

The majority of studies on microwaves and nutrition were conducted prior to 2000, I suspect because the focus of radiation research of late has shifted toward a more ominous threat: environmental radiation from electromagnetic devices, such as cell phones and computers, which has mushroomed into a gigantic cloud of electrosmog worldwide over the past decade.

Nevertheless, some excellent scientific data has been gathered regarding the detrimental effects of microwaves on the nutrients in your food:

  • A study published in the November 2003 issue of The Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture[5] found that broccoli "zapped" in the microwave with a little water lost up to 97 percent of its beneficial antioxidants. By comparison, steamed broccoli lost 11 percent or fewer of its antioxidants. There were also reductions in phenolic compounds and glucosinolates, but mineral levels remained intact.
  • A 1999 Scandinavian study of the cooking of asparagus spears found that microwaving caused a reduction in vitamin C[6] .
  • In a study of garlic, as little as 60 seconds of microwave heating was enough to inactivate its allinase, garlic’s principle active ingredient against cancer[7] .
  • A Japanese study by Watanabe showed that just 6 minutes of microwave heating turned 30-40 percent of the B12 in milk into an inert (dead) form[8] . This study has been cited by Dr. Andrew Weil as evidence supporting his concerns about the effects of microwaving. Dr. Weil wrote:
  • There may be dangers associated with microwaving food... there is a question as to whether microwaving alters protein chemistry in ways that might be harmful."
  • A recent Australian study[9] showed that microwaves cause a higher degree of “protein unfolding” than conventional heating.
  • Microwaving can destroy the essential disease-fighting agents in breast milk that offer protection for your baby. In 1992, Quan found that microwaved breast milk lost lysozyme activity, antibodies, and fostered the growth of more potentially pathogenic bacteria[10] .

Quan stated that more damage was done to the milk by microwaving than by other methods of heating, concluding: “Microwaving appears to be contraindicated at high-temperatures, and questions regarding its safety exist even at low temperatures.

  • Another study about breast milk/infant formula by Lee in 1989[11] found vitamin content becomes depleted by microwaving, and certain amino acids are converted into other substances that are biologically inactive. Some altered amino acids are poisons to the nervous system and kidneys. (Numerous authors mention this study, yet I was unable to find the original article/study, so I cannot personally validate.)

    Although many of the above studies are not new, there is certainly ample evidence that microwaving is NOT good for your food.

How Your Microwave Actually Heats Your Food

Microwaves are a form of electromagnetic radiation—waves of electrical and magnetic energy moving together through space. EM radiation ranges from very high energy (gamma rays and x-rays) on one end of the spectrum to very low energy (radio waves) on the other end of the spectrum.

Microwaves are on the low energy end of the spectrum, second only to radio waves. They have a wavelength of about 4.8 inches—about the width of your head.

Microwaves are generated by something called a magnetron (a term derived from the words “magnet” and “electron”), which is also what enabled airborne radar use during WWII. Hence the early name for microwave ovens: radar ranges.

A magnetron is a tube in which electrons are subjected to both magnetic and electrical fields, producing an electromagnetic field with a microwave frequency of about 2,450 megaHertz (MHz), which is 2.4 gigaHertz (GHz).

Microwaves cause dielectric heating. They bounce around the inside of your oven and are absorbed by the food you put in it. Since water molecules are bipolar, having a positive end and negative end, they rotate rapidly in the alternating electric field. The water molecules in the food vibrate violently at extremely high frequencies—like millions of times per second—creating molecular friction, which heats up the food.

If the food or object place in the microwave had no water it would not be able to have this resonance heating type effect and would remain cool. Or, as investigative journalist William Thomas[12] calls it, “electrical whiplash.”

Structures of the water molecules are torn apart and forcefully deformed. This is different than conventional heating of food, whereby heat is transferred convectionally from the outside, inward. Microwave cooking begins within the molecules where water is present.

Contrary to popular belief, microwaved foods don’t cook “from the inside out.” When thicker foods are cooked, microwaves heat the outer layers, and the inner layers are cooked mostly by the conduction of heat from the hot outer layers, inward.

Since not all areas contain the same amount of water, the heating is uneven.

Additionally, microwaving creates new compounds that are not found in humans or in nature, called radiolytic compounds. We don’t yet know what these compounds are doing to your body.

In addition to the violent frictional heat effects, called thermic effects, there are also athermic effects, which are poorly understood because they are not as easily measured. It is these athermic effects that are suspected to be responsible for much of the deformation and degradation of cells and molecules. [13]

As an example, microwaves are used in the field of gene altering technology to weaken cell membranes. Scientists use microwaves to actually break cells apart. Impaired cells then become easy prey for viruses, fungi and other microorganisms.8

Another word for these athermic effects is the “microwave effect,” a subject of controversy that I’ll get into a bit later.

Microwave Sickness

When your tissues are directly exposed to microwaves, the same violent deformations occur and can cause “microwave sickness.”

People who have been exposed to high levels of microwave radiation experience a variety of symptoms, including:

  • Insomnia, night sweats, and various sleep disturbances
  • Headaches and dizziness
  • Swollen lymph nodes and a weakened immune system
  • Impaired cognition
  • Depression and irritability
  • Nausea and appetite loss
  • Vision and eye problems
  • Frequent urination and extreme thirst

There is a good amount of data emerging that people are suffering, to various degrees, these kinds of symptoms from living next to cell phone towers and other high-frequency radiation emitting antennas, which emit microwaves around the clock.

According to Professor Franz Adelkofer, a leading scientist in the area of biological effects of EMF fields:

"There is real evidence that hyperfrequency electromagnetic fields can have geno-toxic effects. And this damaged DNA is always the cause of cancer.

We’ve found these damaging effects on the genes at levels well below the safety limits. That’s why we think it’s urgent to base our safety limits on the biological effects, not the thermic ones.

They should be based on biology, not on physics.”

Twenty Years of Russian Research Supports Microwave Concerns

The Nazis are credited with inventing the first microwave-cooking device to provide mobile food support to their troops during their invasion of the Soviet Union in World War II[14] . These first microwave ovens were experimental. After the war, the US War Department was assigned the task of researching the safety of microwave ovens.

But it was the Russians who really took the bull by the horns.

After the war, the Russians had retrieved some of these microwave ovens and conducted thorough research on their biological effects. Alarmed by what they learned, the Russians banned microwave ovens in 1976, later lifting the ban during Perestroika.

Twenty years of Russian research (and German studies as far back as 1942 Berlin) make a strong argument against the safety of microwave cooking.

Their findings led the Russian government to issue an international warning about possible biological and environmental damage associated with the use of microwave ovens and other similar frequency electronic devices (e.g. mobile phones).

I was not able to personally evaluate any of these older bodies of research, since those documents are now difficult to track down, so I can’t attest to their methodology or conclusions. All you can do is weigh their findings appropriately, as best you can.

The Powerwatch article cited above summarizes the Russian research quite well, which I will duplicate below.

  • Russian investigators found that carcinogens were formed from the microwaving of nearly all foods tested.
  • The microwaving of milk and grains converted some of the amino acids into carcinogenic substances.
  • Microwaving prepared meats caused the formation of the cancer-causing agents d-Nitrosodienthanolamines.
  • Thawing frozen fruits by microwave converted their glucoside and galactoside fractions into carcinogenic substances.
  • Extremely short exposure of raw, cooked or frozen vegetables converted their plant alkaloids into carcinogens.
  • Carcinogenic free radicals were formed in microwaved plants—especially root vegetables.
  • Structural degradation leading to decreased food value was found to be 60 to 90 percent overall for all foods tested, with significant decreases in bioavailability of B complex vitamins, vitamins C and E, essential minerals, and lipotropics (substances that prevent abnormal accumulation of fat).

I might add that this finding is supported by the 1998 Japanese study by Watanabe7 about vitamin B12 in milk, cited above.

The Swiss Clinical Study: Hans Hertel

Some fairly compelling evidence supporting the destructive effects of microwaves comes from a highly cited study by a Swiss food scientist named Hans Hertel. Dr. Hertel was the first scientist to study the effects of microwaved foods on the blood and physiology of human beings.

His small study, coauthored by Dr. Bernard Blanc of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and the University Institute for Biochemistry, revealed the degenerative forces produced by microwave ovens on the foods they cooked.

Dr. Hertel concluded that microwave cooking changed the nutrients in the food, and that changes took place in the blood that could cause negative health effects.

Hertel’s conclusions were that microwaving food resulted in:

  • Increased cholesterol levels
  • Decreased numbers of leukocytes (white blood cells), which can suggest poisoning
  • Decreased numbers of red blood cells
  • Production of radiolytic compounds
  • Decreased hemoglobin levels, which could indicate anemia

Not surprisingly, Dr. Hertel's study was met with great resistance from those with much to lose.

A gag order against Dr. Hertel was issued by a Swiss trade organization in 1992, which was later removed in 1998. But an American journalist, Tom Valentine, published the results of Hertel’s study in Search for Health in the spring of 1992[15] .

The study was not without its shortcomings. It involved only eight participants, of which Hertel was one. As compelling as his findings were, his methodology did not stand up to the scientific rigors of the field.

In spite of Hertel’s methodological shortcomings, his findings do raise concerns about what this form of radiation is doing to your food and should be taken as a launching point to larger, more robust studies in the future.

Hertel wrote:

“There are no atoms, molecules, or cells of any organic system able to withstand such a violent, destructive power for any period of time. This will happen even given the microwave oven’s low power range of milliwatts.”

And then there is the issue of biophotons.

Possible Microwave Effects on Your Biophotons

Biophotonics is the study, research, and applications of photons in their interactions within and on biological systems. Much of the work in the area of biophotons was done in Germany. Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt discusses biophotons in our 2008 interview.

Biophotons are the smallest physical units of light that are stored in and used by all biological organisms—including you. Vital sun energy finds its way into your cells via the food you eat, in the form of these biophotons.

Biophotons contain important bio-information and are very important to many vital processes in your body. They are partly responsible for your feeling of vitality and well-being. You gain biophotons by eating foods rich in them, such as naturally grown fresh vegetables and sun-ripened fruits, which are rich in light energy.

The more light energy a food is able to store, the more nutritious it is.

If the “microwave effect” exists (as you shall see, there is a huge amount of evidence that it does), then microwaves can potentially destroy biophotons in the same way that it alters other structures, rendering your food dead and lifeless.

It seems quite plausible that microwaves could disrupt or destroy biophotons, since they are capable of breaking apart DNA bonds!

As far as I can find, there haven’t been any studies of the direct effects of microwave radiation on biophotons, but it seems like an important angle of investigation for the future.

Long-Term Effects of Exposure to Non-Ionizing Radiation

One of the basic controversies about the effects of microwaves centers on whether or not microwaves exert some sort of force beyond heat, commonly called “microwave effect” or “athermic effect.”

It is first necessary that you understand the difference between ionizing radiation and non-ionizing radiation.

There are two basic forms of radiation: ionizing and non-ionizing[16] :

  1. Ionizing Radiation: Creates charged ions by displacing electrons in atoms, even without heat. Examples are radiation emitted from radioactive substances in rocks and soil, cosmic rays of the sun, and radiation from man-made technology such as x-rays machines, power stations, and nuclear reactors.
  2. Non-ionizing Radiation: Can change the position of atoms but not alter their structure, composition, and properties. Examples are visible light, ultraviolet and infrared waves, waves from radio or television, cellular phones, microwaves, and electric blankets.

Despite not being able to break atoms apart, non-ionizing radiation (such as microwaves) CAN cause physical alterations.

For example, sunlight can damage your skin and eyes. Overexposure to radiation can affect tissues by causing molecular damage, DNA mutations, and other changes that can lead to cancer.

The serious concern is, with all of this radiation surrounding us from cell and cordless phones, radio towers, satellites, broadcast antennas, military and aviation radar, home electronic devices, computers and Internet, we are all part of an involuntary mass epidemiological experiment, on a scale never before seen in the history of the human race.

And the truth is that we don’t really KNOW what long term, low-level (but persistent) radiation does to us—even the non-ionizing type.

But here are some of the things we DO KNOW:[17]

  • Effects at low levels can be more noticeable than at higher levels. There is something called a “window effect,” meaning an effect occurring only at specific frequencies or power densities, but not occurring just above or below them. A number of studies demonstrate effects of microwave radiation on blood cells via this phenomenon.
  • For a complete discussion of this, you can read Microwaving Our Planet, written by Arthur Firstenberg, president of the Cellular Phone Taskforce.
  • Cindy Sage of Sage Associates, an environmental consulting firm, has compiled a comprehensive list of studies[18] showing biological effects at radiofrequency exposure levels far below what would be explainable as “thermic effects” and well within the range you are commonly exposed to every day.
  • Resonance intensifies biological effect. Resonance occurs when a form of radiation has a similar frequency as a body part. For example, microwave frequencies are similar to the frequencies of your brain!
  • Studies are typically done for short exposure periods, at higher intensities. Scientists claim that duration of exposure is equally important to intensity of exposure, but is often NOT studied, and that long-term, low-level exposure can have effects equivalent to short-term, more intense exposure.
  • The effects of radiation are cumulative. Your body becomes more sensitive to it over time.
  • There are no longer any control groups, since human beings are all now exposed to such pervasive radiation. Lack of a control group makes it even more challenging to conduct meaningful studies.

The point is, standing in your kitchen while your microwave is zapping your dinner, night after night, will not make you glow in the dark. But over the months and years, what is the cumulative effect on your body and health?

Why expose yourself to these potential dangers when there are safer alternatives for cooking available?

Is Microwaving Food Any More Dangerous than Heating it with a Conventional Oven?

Some experts claim that the effects microwaves have on molecules can all be explained simply as the “thermic effect” of heating—in other words, microwave cooking is no more detrimental to food than conventional heating.

They argue that, since microwaves are non-ionizing radiation, then it’s impossible for them to damage your blood cells, or eradicate the folic acid in your spinach.

Others have proposed there is some sort of “microwave effect” that causes changes in the molecules in a way that conventional heating does not. For many years, the party line was that “microwave effect” is a myth.

However, study after study has resulted in evidence to the contrary, showing effects that cannot be explained away as simple thermal effects.

In a letter entitled “DNA and the Microwave Effect”[19] (sourced as Penn State University, 2001), the author reviews the history of the controversy surrounding the microwave effect and the research findings to date. He explains that, although fundamentals of thermodynamics and physics would tell you the microwave effect is impossible, studies keep turning up evidence of its existence.

Some of the main points made in the letter are the following:

  • Microwave heating and conventional heating may appear identical on a “macro” level, but the two appear very different on a molecular level.
  • Microwaves are effective for sterilization, which has been studied for several decades. There is controversy, however, is about whether it’s the heat they generate or if it’s something else altogether.
  • One scientist (Kakita 1995[20] ) was successful in demonstrating that microwaves are capable of extensively fragmenting and destroying viral DNA, something that cannot be accomplished by heating alone.
  • Multiple studies offer evidence that there are multiple mechanisms for breaking apart DNA without ionizing radiation, but no theory currently exists to explain this phenomenon.

Some scientists are taking advantage of the microwave effect and using microwaves in the laboratory to greatly accelerate chemical reactions, sometimes by a factor of a thousand, resulting in the completion of reactions in minutes that formerly took days or months and a lot of toxic chemicals[21] .

This newly found interest in “microwave chemistry” has spurred skeptic scientists into taking another look at what microwaves actually do and how they do it.

Sometimes common sense trumps empirical evidence.

The Penn State letter/article said it best:

“...It would seem there is reason to believe that the microwave effect does indeed exist, even if it cannot yet be adequately explained. What we know at present is somewhat limited, but there may be enough information already available to form a viable hypothesis.

The possibility that electromagnetic radiation in the non-ionizing frequency range can cause genetic damage may have profound implications on the current controversy involving EM antennae, power lines, and cell phones.”

Breaking Free of Your Microwave: A Few Basic Tips

Am I asking you to toss your microwave oven into the nearest dumpster?

Not necessarily. It can be a useful tool for cleaning. But if real estate in your kitchen is at a premium, it should probably be the first thing to go.

You really CAN survive sans microwave—people are living quite happily without one, believe it or not. You just have to make a few small lifestyle adjustments, such as:

  • Plan ahead. Take your dinner out of the freezer that morning or the night before so you don’t end up having to scramble to defrost a 5-pound chunk of beef two hours before dinnertime.
  • Make soups and stews in bulk, and then freeze them in gallon-sized freezer bags or other containers. An hour before meal time, just take one out and defrost it in a sink of water until it’s thawed enough to slip into a pot, then reheat it on the stove.
  • A toaster oven makes a GREAT faux-microwave for heating up leftovers! Keep it at a low temperature — like 200-250 degrees F — and gently warm a plate of food over the course of 20-30 minutes. Another great alternative is a convection oven. They can be built in or purchased as a relatively inexpensive and quick safe way to heat foods
  • Prepare your meals in advance so that you always have a good meal available on those days when you’re too busy or too tired to cook.
  • Try eating more organic raw foods. This is the best way to and improve your health over the long run.

References: