Food Holds the Ultimate Leverage, Part II (Opinion)
In Part 1 we learned that controlling the food supply equates to having enormous leverage over the masses. During the Great Depression days, Americans were kept alive because of their ties to the rural farming communities. Families could grow food or rely upon their relatives to help sustain them. But in this world where we are clueless about where our food comes from or how to produce it, we have become extremely vulnerable. And, as food prices rise many will have little choice other that to shift to a diet of cheap, fatty, mass-produced foods loaded with sugar, salt, and synthetic chemicals, already a staple of the nation's poor.
Junk food, already a major contributor to obesity, diabetes and heart disease, is often the only food available to those living in the inner cities because decent supermarkets and decent foods are beyond their reach both geographically and financially. And as this blight continues and our economy deteriorates even more, the middle class will soon join their ranks.
When you walk down the street, look at people. What you will see are people wasting their bodies just like we waste our land. You will see bodies that are fat, weak, unhappy, sickly and gross - basically, the cash crop for the manufacturers of the pharmaceuticals. Our bodies have become nothing more than a shipping carton used to transport our brains and our few employable muscles back and forth to work.
The people will eat what the corporations decide what they should eat. They will become detached from what really provides life; they will become the slaves of the producers, and mindless zombies. The concept of the new model farms is to turn us all into machines. How can you mechanize production without mechanizing consumption?
So, the first step is to have the communities take back local food production and in the process, reclaim our lives which have been subjugated by corporate culture and brainwashing. We need to go back to the values that sustain a community. We need to re-connect with nature and life and to realize that our existence relies upon our relationship with God and each other. We need to realize that we all have the same Father making us all brothers and sisters in the truest sense of the words. It is this realization that will save us.
If not, then we will continue in an economy that focuses on technology, weapons, bling, and drugs. We will continue to be deprived of clothing, food, shelter and water. We will continue to fight wars just to acquire resources that we never owned anyway. If we adopt the consciousness that we are caretakers and not owners why would there be a need for war? The resources were here long before we got here and will be here long after we are gone. That makes God the true owner.
So, if a nation has a resource we don't have and we have a resource they don't have and we trade, this will bring harmony, peace and abundance and no need for wars. The problem is that no one can exploit anyone for money in a culture like this. The horror!
Aloha
Showing posts with label cancer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cancer. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
Food Holds the Ultimate Leverage, Part I (Opinion)
Food Holds the Ultimate Leverage, Part I (Opinion)
He who controls the food supply can and will have leverage and control over the people. If we take back our agriculture and can buy and raise produce locally, we can begin to break the grip of the corporations that control a food system that is fragile, unsafe and destined for collapse just like our financial system.
If we continue to allow the corporations to decide what we eat and how food is raised, harvested and distributed, then we will bear the burden of high prices and shortages and become dependent on cheap, mass produced food loaded with sugar, fat and salt. We will open the door to more obesity, diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure.
Already the effects of climate change, droughts and rising fossil fuel costs have wreaked havoc on the environments of millions. One sixth of the world's population, or approximately one billion people, subsist on less than $1 per day. And out of this number, about 160 million people get by on less than 50 cents a day. How would you like to be in a situation where 60% of your income was spent on food?
Food riots have brought about food rationing; 33 million Americans ( one in nine) are on food stamps and in 20 states, as many as one in eight are on food stamps. With an average monthly food stamp benefit of $113.87 per person, many, many people are without adequate food. Even more depressing is the fact that Congress allocated $54 billion for food stamps in the current fiscal year, up from $39 billion, but in the new fiscal year, costs are estimated at $60 billion.
The large factory farms have wiped out the small farmers. Our soil has been poisoned with enormous quantities of pesticides, and contaminated animals in overcrowded stockyards are fed a flowing and endless supply of antibiotics, steroids, and growth hormones. The garbage that has been pumped into the water systems has caused algae build up and mass dying of fish in the rivers and streams.
Because of the blight of changing weather patterns and chemical pollution, crop yields in the Northeast are rapidly becoming less and less. And the Food Modernization Act, another gift from the Washington politicians that serve the big corporations and not the people, means that the small farms will soon be a thing of the past.
The entire economy built around food is unsafe and unethical and it is the food that is the greatest place for communities to start taking back power. Look at reality. The national food system is collapsing. The Central Valley of California produces more than 50% of what we eat. So what happens when gasoline hits $5 a gallon or a heavy drought blankets the cropland? Chaos happens! This unstable system of food production must be replaced with small, diverse sources that will provide a greater food security.
There was a study done by Cornell University to determine whether or not New York state could feed itself. What they found was even if all agricultural land was used and food distribution was optimized to minimize the total distance that the food needed to travel, New York state could only meet 34% of their total food needs.
What's even worse is that New York City, that relied upon New Jersey for food supplies, now has to face the fact that the, if you will pardon the expression, "Garden State" has had their farms give way to housing developments. Adding insult to injury is the fact that the upstate farming communities in New York have been gutted by industrial farming.
Stay tuned for Part 2
He who controls the food supply can and will have leverage and control over the people. If we take back our agriculture and can buy and raise produce locally, we can begin to break the grip of the corporations that control a food system that is fragile, unsafe and destined for collapse just like our financial system.
If we continue to allow the corporations to decide what we eat and how food is raised, harvested and distributed, then we will bear the burden of high prices and shortages and become dependent on cheap, mass produced food loaded with sugar, fat and salt. We will open the door to more obesity, diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure.
Already the effects of climate change, droughts and rising fossil fuel costs have wreaked havoc on the environments of millions. One sixth of the world's population, or approximately one billion people, subsist on less than $1 per day. And out of this number, about 160 million people get by on less than 50 cents a day. How would you like to be in a situation where 60% of your income was spent on food?
Food riots have brought about food rationing; 33 million Americans ( one in nine) are on food stamps and in 20 states, as many as one in eight are on food stamps. With an average monthly food stamp benefit of $113.87 per person, many, many people are without adequate food. Even more depressing is the fact that Congress allocated $54 billion for food stamps in the current fiscal year, up from $39 billion, but in the new fiscal year, costs are estimated at $60 billion.
The large factory farms have wiped out the small farmers. Our soil has been poisoned with enormous quantities of pesticides, and contaminated animals in overcrowded stockyards are fed a flowing and endless supply of antibiotics, steroids, and growth hormones. The garbage that has been pumped into the water systems has caused algae build up and mass dying of fish in the rivers and streams.
Because of the blight of changing weather patterns and chemical pollution, crop yields in the Northeast are rapidly becoming less and less. And the Food Modernization Act, another gift from the Washington politicians that serve the big corporations and not the people, means that the small farms will soon be a thing of the past.
The entire economy built around food is unsafe and unethical and it is the food that is the greatest place for communities to start taking back power. Look at reality. The national food system is collapsing. The Central Valley of California produces more than 50% of what we eat. So what happens when gasoline hits $5 a gallon or a heavy drought blankets the cropland? Chaos happens! This unstable system of food production must be replaced with small, diverse sources that will provide a greater food security.
There was a study done by Cornell University to determine whether or not New York state could feed itself. What they found was even if all agricultural land was used and food distribution was optimized to minimize the total distance that the food needed to travel, New York state could only meet 34% of their total food needs.
What's even worse is that New York City, that relied upon New Jersey for food supplies, now has to face the fact that the, if you will pardon the expression, "Garden State" has had their farms give way to housing developments. Adding insult to injury is the fact that the upstate farming communities in New York have been gutted by industrial farming.
Stay tuned for Part 2
Thursday, June 03, 2010
Consuming Chemicals : Rethinking What We Heat, Serve and Eat (By Sarah (Steve) Mosko, Ph.D.)
Consuming Chemicals : Rethinking What We Heat, Serve and Eat (By Sarah (Steve) Mosko, Ph.D.)
What do breast milk, food cans, microwave popcorn, and fast-food French fry boxes have in common with meat, fish and dairy products? They’re all avenues of human ingestion of potentially harmful chemicals associated with everyday plastics.
Although the jury is still out on what levels of exposure are unsafe, it is indisputable that we all consume chemicals from plastics on a daily basis.
What do breast milk, food cans, microwave popcorn, and fast-food French fry boxes have in common with meat, fish and dairy products? They’re all avenues of human ingestion of potentially harmful chemicals associated with everyday plastics.
 |
| BPA is a key ingredient of the epoxy resin that lines metal food cans and jar lids. |
Biomonitoring projects like Environmental Working Group’s 2005 BodyBurden study of cord blood in neonates and the Mind, Disrupted investigation of blood and urine in adults representing the learning and developmental disabilities community published in February 2010—consistently find neurotoxic and endocrine-disrupting chemicals used in common plastics among the substances routinely tainting human tissues. Although diet is not the only route of exposure, it is a major one.
Given that developing fetuses and young children are most vulnerable to environmental toxins, understanding how exposure occurs through ordinary diets, and how to avoid it, has become a growing societal concern.
Three constituents of common plastics that find their way into food or drinks are described below, all linked to ill health effects in humans and lab animals. In the Mind, Disrupted study, the subjects universally tested positive for all three: bisphenol-A, brominated flame retardants, and perfluorinated compounds. The variety of avenues into the human diet is surprising.
Bisphenol-A
Originally synthesized a century ago as a synthetic estrogen, bisphenol-A (BPA) was utilized instead to make baby bottles, reusable water bottles, and food storage containers upon discovery that polymerization produced clear, shatter-proof plastics dubbed polycarbonates. It’s also a key ingredient of the epoxy resin that lines metal food cans and jar lids, including infant formula.
Over 90% of Americans have BPA in their urine, according to the 2003–2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) of the U.S. population. Young children generally have the highest levels because they lack an enzyme that breaks down BPA. Leaching of BPA from containers into food and beverages is thought to be the main route of exposure.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set a now outdated safe exposure standard of <50ug/kg/day>
Responding to the newer findings, the National Toxicology Program Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction released a monograph in September 2008 admitting “some concern” that current levels of exposure in fetuses, infants and children may result in developmental changes in the brain, prostate and behavior. In January 2010, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration posted its support for voluntary moves by industry to both stop selling BPA-containing baby bottles and feeding cups and develop alternatives to BPA-lined infant formula cans, but it stopped short of recommending bans on BPA or that parents change use of infant formula or foods.
Only Connecticut, Minnesota and Wisconsin have passed laws banning BPA in children’s foodware and drinkware.
Brominated Flame Retardants
Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) are a family of flame retardants in widespread use in consumer products, including plastics for electronics and electrical devices. Because PBDEs are not permanently bonded to the plastic polymers, they migrate out into the environment.
Properties of PBDEs include resistance to biodegradation and affinity for fats, allowing them to persist in the environment and bioaccumulate in the food web. PBDEs were found in nearly 100% of blood samples in the 2003-2004 NHANES survey. Consumption of meat, fish and dairy products is thought to be a primary route of exposure.
However, it was the discovery of infant exposure to PBDEs via rising levels in human breast milk in the United States and Europe that set off a chorus of alarm about health risks to humans.
PBDEs have been marketed in the United States in three commercial mixtures, so-called penta, octa and deca formulations. Because of animal data linking penta and octa to serious health impairments—including liver, thyroid and reproductive toxicity and especially developmental neurotoxicity—domestic manufacture of penta and octa was voluntarily phased out in 2004. However, levels of penta and octa in humans continue to rise, attributable in part to widespread use of deca which can break down into other forms.
In December 2009, the EPA outlined an action plan to reduce human exposure to PBDEs which recommended only a voluntary phase out of deca in lieu of a federal restriction. California is among 11 states that have enacted bans on penta and octa.
However, even public health-advocacy organizations that support phase-out of all PBDEs, like Environmental Working Group, do not recommend that parents stop breastfeeding because of breastfeeding’s positive impact on other measures of infant well-being.
Perfluorinated Compounds
Perfluorinated Compounds (PFCs) are synthetic polymers that find their way into food applications because they repel oils and water. They are the key ingredient of grease/water-resistant coatings on non-stick cookware (e.g. Teflon®), pizza boxes, microwave popcorn, and fast-food wrappers.
The most studied PFCs are PFOA (perfluorooctanoate) and PFOS (perfluorooctanesulfonate) which are known to persist seemingly indefinitely once released into the environment and consequently build up in the food web. They also persist in human tissues: The half-life of PFOA and PFOS in human blood is roughly four to five years, according to a 2007 study of retirees of a PFC manufacturing facility.
Ninety-eight percent of the blood samples in the 2003-2004 NHANES project contained PFOA and PFOS. Breast milk contaminated with PFOA and PFOS was detected in 98% of Massachusetts women participating in a 2004 study. Dietary intake of meat, fish and dairy products is thought to be a major route of exposure along with consumption of foods contaminated through contact with grease/water-resistant packaging (e.g. fast foods).
Non-stick cookware, when heated to high temperatures, has also been shown to release substances that might taint foods per tests performed by Environmental Working Group.
The list of potential health effects linked to PFCs in human and animals studies is long and includes cancers, high cholesterol, liver and developmental toxicity, thyroid hormone disruption and infertility.
No U.S. jurisdiction has yet limited the used of PFOA or PFOS in food contact substances.
CONTACT: Mind, Disrupted.
SARAH (STEVE) MOSKO, PH.D., is an environmental writer living in California who blogs at Boogie Green
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
Safely Avoid and Remove Dangerous Man-Made Fluoride, Part II
Safely Avoid and Remove Dangerous Man-Made Fluoride, Part II
Removing Fluoride from our Bodies:
The use of liver cleanses can be very effective in eliminating fluorides and other toxins. There are two basic types of liver cleanse protocols, both of which can be performed easily at home in one to two weeks. One protocol focuses primarily on the liver itself, while the second type of protocol also cleanses the gall bladder. The gall bladder is connected directly with liver function. Instructions for both kinds of liver cleansing, as well as liver cleanse products and kits, can be found online with simple searches.
Boron is a good fluoride remover and it has been proven effective in studies around the world. An easy and inexpensive source of boron can be found in common borax, which is available at most supermarkets. Borax has a history of anecdotal success for detoxing sodium fluoride.
Borax should be taken in very small quantities in pure water. As little as 1/32 to 1/4 of a teaspoon of borax in one liter of water consumed in small quantities throughout the day has been found to be safe and effective. About 1/8 of a teaspoon with a pinch of sea salt has been found to be particularly effective. Food grade sodium borate may be substituted for common borax.
Iodine has been clinically proven to increase the removal of fluoride from the body via the urine. Notably, most diets are deficient in this vital mineral. Seaweed foods and iodine supplements that combine iodine and potassium iodide are recommended most. Eliminating fluoride with iodine depletes calcium, thus it is recommended that one also take an effective calcium/magnesium supplement. Lecithin is recommended as an adjunct to using iodine.
The pulp, bark, and leaves from the tamarind tree can be used to make teas, extracts and tinctures that will help eliminate fluorides through the urine. Tamarind was originally indigenous to Africa but migrated into India and southeast Asia, and it has been used medicinally in Ayurvedic Medicine.
Fluoride stored in fatty tissues can be released and eliminated with the help of dry saunas. Since they can be strong enough to cause some side effects or an occasional healing crisis, it is advisable to keep water intake high and drink some chickweed tea to protect the kidneys. As is the case with iodine, it is also advisable to take a highly absorbable calcium/magnesium supplement and add lecithin.
Vitamin C in abundance is a great addition to any fluoride removal program. Natural sources of vitamin C are much better than ascorbic acid. Consume as much as you can tolerate along with a couple of tablespoons of lecithin daily.
Though it has not been proven conclusively, many believe that melatonin helps remove fluoride by increasing decalcification of the pineal gland. In addition to melatonin supplementation, plenty of daytime physical activity and/or exercise, a healthy diet, not overeating and meditation/relaxation exercises all contribute to higher melatonin production from the pineal gland.
Apple pectin is yet another effective item to use to eliminate fluoride. Other useful items include zeolite minerals, turmeric, cayenne, parsley, chlorella and cilantro.
Thus, even though dangerous man-made fluoride is exceedingly difficult to avoid entirely, by making the right choices and taking simple steps we can all greatly reduce our exposure to fluoride and eliminate much of what we do have in our bodies.
Sources included:
http://www.greaterthings.com/Lexico...
http://www.disease.com/news/10/0316...
http://www.ecomall.com/greenshoppin...
http://www.curezone.com/forums/fm.a...
http://www.curezone.com/forums/fm.a...
http://fluoridedangers.blogspot.com...
Removing Fluoride from our Bodies:
The use of liver cleanses can be very effective in eliminating fluorides and other toxins. There are two basic types of liver cleanse protocols, both of which can be performed easily at home in one to two weeks. One protocol focuses primarily on the liver itself, while the second type of protocol also cleanses the gall bladder. The gall bladder is connected directly with liver function. Instructions for both kinds of liver cleansing, as well as liver cleanse products and kits, can be found online with simple searches.
Boron is a good fluoride remover and it has been proven effective in studies around the world. An easy and inexpensive source of boron can be found in common borax, which is available at most supermarkets. Borax has a history of anecdotal success for detoxing sodium fluoride.
Borax should be taken in very small quantities in pure water. As little as 1/32 to 1/4 of a teaspoon of borax in one liter of water consumed in small quantities throughout the day has been found to be safe and effective. About 1/8 of a teaspoon with a pinch of sea salt has been found to be particularly effective. Food grade sodium borate may be substituted for common borax.
Iodine has been clinically proven to increase the removal of fluoride from the body via the urine. Notably, most diets are deficient in this vital mineral. Seaweed foods and iodine supplements that combine iodine and potassium iodide are recommended most. Eliminating fluoride with iodine depletes calcium, thus it is recommended that one also take an effective calcium/magnesium supplement. Lecithin is recommended as an adjunct to using iodine.
The pulp, bark, and leaves from the tamarind tree can be used to make teas, extracts and tinctures that will help eliminate fluorides through the urine. Tamarind was originally indigenous to Africa but migrated into India and southeast Asia, and it has been used medicinally in Ayurvedic Medicine.
Fluoride stored in fatty tissues can be released and eliminated with the help of dry saunas. Since they can be strong enough to cause some side effects or an occasional healing crisis, it is advisable to keep water intake high and drink some chickweed tea to protect the kidneys. As is the case with iodine, it is also advisable to take a highly absorbable calcium/magnesium supplement and add lecithin.
Vitamin C in abundance is a great addition to any fluoride removal program. Natural sources of vitamin C are much better than ascorbic acid. Consume as much as you can tolerate along with a couple of tablespoons of lecithin daily.
Though it has not been proven conclusively, many believe that melatonin helps remove fluoride by increasing decalcification of the pineal gland. In addition to melatonin supplementation, plenty of daytime physical activity and/or exercise, a healthy diet, not overeating and meditation/relaxation exercises all contribute to higher melatonin production from the pineal gland.
Apple pectin is yet another effective item to use to eliminate fluoride. Other useful items include zeolite minerals, turmeric, cayenne, parsley, chlorella and cilantro.
Thus, even though dangerous man-made fluoride is exceedingly difficult to avoid entirely, by making the right choices and taking simple steps we can all greatly reduce our exposure to fluoride and eliminate much of what we do have in our bodies.
Sources included:
http://www.greaterthings.com/Lexico...
http://www.disease.com/news/10/0316...
http://www.ecomall.com/greenshoppin...
http://www.curezone.com/forums/fm.a...
http://www.curezone.com/forums/fm.a...
http://fluoridedangers.blogspot.com...
Why the fluoridation of public water supplies is illegal
Why the fluoridation of public water supplies is illegal
Email this article to a friend 
Printable Version FREE Email Newsletter
What's interesting here is that this biological effect of "preventing cavities" is a medical claim, according to the FDA. And as such, making this claim instantly and automatically transforms fluoride into a "drug" under currently FDA regulations.
This means that cities and towns all across America are now practicing medicine without a license by dripping liquid medication into the public water supply without the consent of those who are swallowing the medication.
If you or I did this, we would be arrested and tried as either terrorists (because contaminating the water supply is an act of terrorism) or felons practicing medicine without a license. So what allows cities and towns to get away with these very same crimes?
And that means those children or adults who already have high exposure to fluoride (from swallowing toothpaste or drinking fluoridated bottled water, for example) may now be exposed to too much fluoride from the added amounts in the tap water. Excess fluoride can cause serious health problems such as bone fractures and dark spots appearing on your teeth (dental fluorosis).
This does not appear to concern the proponents of fluoride -- people who believe they alone have the right to practice mass medicine without a license by dripping an unapproved drug chemical into the public water supply without the knowledge or consent of those who are being medicated by that chemical.
Every city and town in America currently engaged in fluoridation of the water supply is committing felony crimes. Town leaders who approve of water fluoridation are criminals operating in clear violation of FDA regulations, state medical laws and federal laws.
You may also wish to write a strong letter to your state medical board and complain that your city or town officials are "practicing medicine without a license" by dosing your city residents with an unapproved drug.
If they insist fluoride is not a drug, tell them to read the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). (http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinform...)
There, you will find that the Act states:
The term "drug" means... articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals.
Now, I don't personally agree with this definition of a "drug" but this is what the FDA claims it to be, and it clearly states that any item intended to "affect the structure" of the body is a drug.
Fluoride is intended to affect the structure of the teeth. That's the whole claimed purpose of dumping it into the water supply. Therefore, fluoride is a drug.
Furthermore, since it is a drug, it is ILLEGAL to dump it into the water supply, even if it were approved by the FDA to treat cavities (which it isn't).
Thus, every employee of every city or town that is currently dumping this chemical drug into the water supply is guilty of a felony crime and should be immediately arrested and prosecuted for contamination of the public water supplies as well as practicing medicine without a license.
Call your local police department and report these crimes. It's time to arrest these fluoro-terrorists who are illegally contaminating our public water supply with illegal drugs. Stop the fluoride madness.
"I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs. Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a long range basis. Any attempt to use water this way is deplorable." - Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd, Past President of the American Medical Association.
Other resources to check out:
Fluoride Action Network
www.FluorideAlert.org
Citizens for Safe Drinking Water
www.NoFluoride.com
IAOMT (dentists opposing mercury)
www.iaomt.org
Why the fluoridation of public water supplies is illegal
Email this article to a friend Printable Version FREE Email Newsletter
What's interesting here is that this biological effect of "preventing cavities" is a medical claim, according to the FDA. And as such, making this claim instantly and automatically transforms fluoride into a "drug" under currently FDA regulations.
This means that cities and towns all across America are now practicing medicine without a license by dripping liquid medication into the public water supply without the consent of those who are swallowing the medication.
If you or I did this, we would be arrested and tried as either terrorists (because contaminating the water supply is an act of terrorism) or felons practicing medicine without a license. So what allows cities and towns to get away with these very same crimes?
Cities openly violate state and federal law
Keep in mind that a medication can only be legally prescribed to someone after they have been diagnosed with a medical need. In other words, a doctor can't legally prescribe you some pharmaceutical unless he examines you and determines you actually need it. But fluoride is medicating everyone whether they need it or not, without any medical diagnosis whatsoever.And that means those children or adults who already have high exposure to fluoride (from swallowing toothpaste or drinking fluoridated bottled water, for example) may now be exposed to too much fluoride from the added amounts in the tap water. Excess fluoride can cause serious health problems such as bone fractures and dark spots appearing on your teeth (dental fluorosis).
This does not appear to concern the proponents of fluoride -- people who believe they alone have the right to practice mass medicine without a license by dripping an unapproved drug chemical into the public water supply without the knowledge or consent of those who are being medicated by that chemical.
Every city and town in America currently engaged in fluoridation of the water supply is committing felony crimes. Town leaders who approve of water fluoridation are criminals operating in clear violation of FDA regulations, state medical laws and federal laws.
How to fight back
If you happen to see one of these town leaders at a town meeting, make a citizens' arrest and put them in handcuffs, then turn them over to the local sheriff.You may also wish to write a strong letter to your state medical board and complain that your city or town officials are "practicing medicine without a license" by dosing your city residents with an unapproved drug.
If they insist fluoride is not a drug, tell them to read the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). (http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinform...)
There, you will find that the Act states:
The term "drug" means... articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals.
Now, I don't personally agree with this definition of a "drug" but this is what the FDA claims it to be, and it clearly states that any item intended to "affect the structure" of the body is a drug.
Fluoride is intended to affect the structure of the teeth. That's the whole claimed purpose of dumping it into the water supply. Therefore, fluoride is a drug.
Furthermore, since it is a drug, it is ILLEGAL to dump it into the water supply, even if it were approved by the FDA to treat cavities (which it isn't).
Thus, every employee of every city or town that is currently dumping this chemical drug into the water supply is guilty of a felony crime and should be immediately arrested and prosecuted for contamination of the public water supplies as well as practicing medicine without a license.
Call your local police department and report these crimes. It's time to arrest these fluoro-terrorists who are illegally contaminating our public water supply with illegal drugs. Stop the fluoride madness.
"I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs. Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a long range basis. Any attempt to use water this way is deplorable." - Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd, Past President of the American Medical Association.
Other resources to check out:
Fluoride Action Network
www.FluorideAlert.org
Citizens for Safe Drinking Water
www.NoFluoride.com
IAOMT (dentists opposing mercury)
www.iaomt.org
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
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 LubickNaomi Lubick is a freelance science writer based in Zürich, Switzerland, and Folsom, CA. She has written for Environmental Science & Technology, Nature, and Earth.
Citation: Lubick N 2010. Drugs in the Environment: Do Pharmaceutical Take-Back Programs Make a Difference? Environ Health Perspect 118:a210-a214. doi:10.1289/ehp.118-a210
Online: 01 May 2010
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.
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.”
For More Information Top
National Programs and Institutes (a list of take-back programs and other resources in various states)—Teleosis Institute
The Drug Take-Back Network News (recent news about drug take-back issues)—Product Stewardship Institute
Swedish Environmental Classification of Pharmaceuticals—Swedish Association of the Pharmaceutical Industry
Monday, May 10, 2010
Hidden Fluoride in Our Food - Natural Solutions Vibrant Health Balanced Living
Hidden Fluoride in Our Food - Natural Solutions Vibrant Health Balanced Living
Buying organic produce is an important health matter. However, in a fluoridated community, organic produce will still absorb fluoride during irrigation. Even when the water in a given community complies with the 1 ppm rule, the concentrations found simply in foods can exceed those limits. Ten years ago, a government toxicological profile had already revealed that due to fluoride in foods, beverages and oral care products, communities with fluoridated water were ingesting three to seven times the recommended level, far surpassing the margin of safety.
Buying organic produce is an important health matter. However, in a fluoridated community, organic produce will still absorb fluoride during irrigation. Even when the water in a given community complies with the 1 ppm rule, the concentrations found simply in foods can exceed those limits. Ten years ago, a government toxicological profile had already revealed that due to fluoride in foods, beverages and oral care products, communities with fluoridated water were ingesting three to seven times the recommended level, far surpassing the margin of safety.
Food Grown in Idaho Can Be High in Fluoride - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com
Food Grown in Idaho Can Be High in Fluoride
Fluoride Contaminated Irrigation Water Absorbs into Some Foods
Foods grown in Idaho can contain dangerous levels of fluoride, according to an abstract to be presented at the 2009 National Environmental Public Health Conference on October 26, 2009 in Atlanta Georgia.
Many parts of Idaho have groundwater with naturally-occurring fluoride above the EPA's Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 4 milligrams per liter - a level that if consumed daily leads to abnormal bone growth and
stained teeth.
Private wells that serve fewer than 15 connections or 25 individuals are not subject to EPA drinking water standards, according to presenter Kai Elgethun. Thousands of wells in rural Idaho fall into this category.
Transient wells serving schools are also exempt from fluoride standards, he says. Irrigation wells are completely exempt despite the fact that crops can take up significant amounts of fluoride, he writes.
Foods raised using fluoride contaminated water may contribute appreciably to human exposure to fluoride.
"We evaluated the relative contribution of fluoride...affected produce to residents' total exposure in addition to water ingestion alone," writes Elgethun.
Fluoride levels in southwest Idaho drinking water wells that were at or over the MCL averaged around 7 milligrams per liter (range 4 mg/L - 22 mg/L).
Leafy greens can concentrate fluoride in their edible portions. Levels in these crops can add an additional ~5-20% to the total oral dose when compared to water ingestion alone.
Crop uptake and subsequent food ingestion should be considered when calculating total oral dose for water contaminants and when educating the public, Elgethun concludes.
Source: "Safe from the Tap?: Hazards in Drinking Water from Private and Municipal Wells,"
http://www.expocadweb.com/09nephc/cc/forms
Fluoride Contaminated Irrigation Water Absorbs into Some Foods
Foods grown in Idaho can contain dangerous levels of fluoride, according to an abstract to be presented at the 2009 National Environmental Public Health Conference on October 26, 2009 in Atlanta Georgia.
Many parts of Idaho have groundwater with naturally-occurring fluoride above the EPA's Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 4 milligrams per liter - a level that if consumed daily leads to abnormal bone growth and
stained teeth.
Private wells that serve fewer than 15 connections or 25 individuals are not subject to EPA drinking water standards, according to presenter Kai Elgethun. Thousands of wells in rural Idaho fall into this category.
Transient wells serving schools are also exempt from fluoride standards, he says. Irrigation wells are completely exempt despite the fact that crops can take up significant amounts of fluoride, he writes.
Foods raised using fluoride contaminated water may contribute appreciably to human exposure to fluoride.
"We evaluated the relative contribution of fluoride...affected produce to residents' total exposure in addition to water ingestion alone," writes Elgethun.
Fluoride levels in southwest Idaho drinking water wells that were at or over the MCL averaged around 7 milligrams per liter (range 4 mg/L - 22 mg/L).
Leafy greens can concentrate fluoride in their edible portions. Levels in these crops can add an additional ~5-20% to the total oral dose when compared to water ingestion alone.
Crop uptake and subsequent food ingestion should be considered when calculating total oral dose for water contaminants and when educating the public, Elgethun concludes.
Source: "Safe from the Tap?: Hazards in Drinking Water from Private and Municipal Wells,"
http://www.expocadweb.com/09nephc/cc/forms
NCIDEA: President's Cancer Panel
NCIDEA: President's Cancer Panel
CHILDREN
1. It is vitally important to recognize that children are far more susceptible to damage from environmental carcinogens and endocrine-disrupting compounds than adults. To the extent possible, parents and child care providers should choose foods, house and garden products, play spaces, toys, medicines, and medical tests that will minimize children’s exposure to toxics. Ideally, both mothers and fathers should avoid exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals and known or suspected carcinogens prior to a child’s conception and throughout pregnancy and early life, when risk of damage is greatest.
Chemical exposures
2. Individuals and families have many opportunities to reduce or eliminate chemical exposures. For example:
Family exposure to numerous occupational chemicals can be reduced by removing shoes • before entering the home and washing work clothes separately from the other family laundry.
Filtering home tap or well water can decrease exposure to numerous known or suspected • carcinogens and endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Unless the home water source is known to be contaminated, it is preferable to use filtered tap water instead of commercially bottled water.
Storing and carrying water in stainless steel, glass, or BPA- and phthalate-free containers • will reduce exposure to endocrine-disrupting and other chemicals that may leach into water from plastics. This action also will decrease the need for plastic bottles, the manufacture of which produces toxic by-products, and reduce the need to dispose of and recycle plastic bottles. Similarly, microwaving food and beverages in ceramic or glass instead of plastic containers will reduce exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals that may leach into food when containers are heated.
Exposure to pesticides can be decreased by choosing, to the extent possible, food grown • without pesticides or chemical fertilizers and washing conventionally grown produce to remove residues. Similarly, exposure to antibiotics, growth hormones, and toxic run-off from livestock feed lots can be minimized by eating free-range meat raised without these medications if it is available. Avoiding or minimizing consumption of processed, charred, and well-done meats will reduce exposure to carcinogenic heterocyclic amines and polyaromatic hydrocarbons.
Individuals can consult information sources such as the Household Products Database to help • them make informed decisions about the products they buy and use.
Properly disposing of pharmaceuticals, household chemicals, paints, and other materials will • minimize drinking water and soil contamination. Individuals also can choose products made with non-toxic substances or environmentally safe chemicals. Similarly, reducing or ceasing landscaping pesticide and fertilizer use will help keep these chemicals from contaminating drinking water supplies.
Turning off lights and electrical devices when not in use reduces exposure to petroleum • combustion by-products because doing so reduces the need for electricity, much of which is generated using fossil fuels. Driving a fuel-efficient car, biking or walking when possible, or using public transportation also cuts the amount of toxic auto exhaust in the air.
Individuals can reduce or eliminate exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke in the home, auto, • and public places. Most counseling and medications to help smokers quit are covered by health insurance or available at little or no cost.
radiation
3. Adults and children can reduce their exposure to electromagnetic energy by wearing a headset when using a cell phone, texting instead of calling, and keeping calls brief.
4. It is advisable to periodically check home radon levels. Home buyers should conduct a radon test in any home they are considering purchasing.
5. To reduce exposure to radiation from medical sources, patients should discuss with their health care providers the need for medical tests or procedures that involve radiation exposure. Key considerations include personal history of radiation exposure, the expected benefit of the test, and alternative ways of obtaining the same information. In addition, to help limit cumulative medical radiation exposure, individuals can create a record of all imaging or nuclear medicine tests received and, if known, the estimated radiation dose for each test.
6. Adults and children can avoid overexposure to ultraviolet light by wearing protective clothing and sunscreens when outdoors and avoiding exposure when the sunlight is most intense.
SELF-ADVOCACY
7. Each person can become an active voice in his or her community. To a greater extent than many realize, individuals have the power to affect public policy by letting policymakers know that they strongly support environmental cancer research and measures that will reduce or remove from the environment toxics that are known or suspected carcinogens or endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Individuals also can influence industry by selecting non-toxic products and, where these do not exist, communicating with manufacturers and trade organizations about their desire for safer products.
CHILDREN
1. It is vitally important to recognize that children are far more susceptible to damage from environmental carcinogens and endocrine-disrupting compounds than adults. To the extent possible, parents and child care providers should choose foods, house and garden products, play spaces, toys, medicines, and medical tests that will minimize children’s exposure to toxics. Ideally, both mothers and fathers should avoid exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals and known or suspected carcinogens prior to a child’s conception and throughout pregnancy and early life, when risk of damage is greatest.
Chemical exposures
2. Individuals and families have many opportunities to reduce or eliminate chemical exposures. For example:
Family exposure to numerous occupational chemicals can be reduced by removing shoes • before entering the home and washing work clothes separately from the other family laundry.
Filtering home tap or well water can decrease exposure to numerous known or suspected • carcinogens and endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Unless the home water source is known to be contaminated, it is preferable to use filtered tap water instead of commercially bottled water.
Storing and carrying water in stainless steel, glass, or BPA- and phthalate-free containers • will reduce exposure to endocrine-disrupting and other chemicals that may leach into water from plastics. This action also will decrease the need for plastic bottles, the manufacture of which produces toxic by-products, and reduce the need to dispose of and recycle plastic bottles. Similarly, microwaving food and beverages in ceramic or glass instead of plastic containers will reduce exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals that may leach into food when containers are heated.
Exposure to pesticides can be decreased by choosing, to the extent possible, food grown • without pesticides or chemical fertilizers and washing conventionally grown produce to remove residues. Similarly, exposure to antibiotics, growth hormones, and toxic run-off from livestock feed lots can be minimized by eating free-range meat raised without these medications if it is available. Avoiding or minimizing consumption of processed, charred, and well-done meats will reduce exposure to carcinogenic heterocyclic amines and polyaromatic hydrocarbons.
Individuals can consult information sources such as the Household Products Database to help • them make informed decisions about the products they buy and use.
Properly disposing of pharmaceuticals, household chemicals, paints, and other materials will • minimize drinking water and soil contamination. Individuals also can choose products made with non-toxic substances or environmentally safe chemicals. Similarly, reducing or ceasing landscaping pesticide and fertilizer use will help keep these chemicals from contaminating drinking water supplies.
Turning off lights and electrical devices when not in use reduces exposure to petroleum • combustion by-products because doing so reduces the need for electricity, much of which is generated using fossil fuels. Driving a fuel-efficient car, biking or walking when possible, or using public transportation also cuts the amount of toxic auto exhaust in the air.
Individuals can reduce or eliminate exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke in the home, auto, • and public places. Most counseling and medications to help smokers quit are covered by health insurance or available at little or no cost.
radiation
3. Adults and children can reduce their exposure to electromagnetic energy by wearing a headset when using a cell phone, texting instead of calling, and keeping calls brief.
4. It is advisable to periodically check home radon levels. Home buyers should conduct a radon test in any home they are considering purchasing.
5. To reduce exposure to radiation from medical sources, patients should discuss with their health care providers the need for medical tests or procedures that involve radiation exposure. Key considerations include personal history of radiation exposure, the expected benefit of the test, and alternative ways of obtaining the same information. In addition, to help limit cumulative medical radiation exposure, individuals can create a record of all imaging or nuclear medicine tests received and, if known, the estimated radiation dose for each test.
6. Adults and children can avoid overexposure to ultraviolet light by wearing protective clothing and sunscreens when outdoors and avoiding exposure when the sunlight is most intense.
SELF-ADVOCACY
7. Each person can become an active voice in his or her community. To a greater extent than many realize, individuals have the power to affect public policy by letting policymakers know that they strongly support environmental cancer research and measures that will reduce or remove from the environment toxics that are known or suspected carcinogens or endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Individuals also can influence industry by selecting non-toxic products and, where these do not exist, communicating with manufacturers and trade organizations about their desire for safer products.
Americans Continually Exposed to Carcinogens: Report
Americans Continually Exposed to Carcinogens: Report
Americans Continually Exposed to Carcinogens: Report
SustainableBusiness.com News
In a landmark report issued Thursday, the President’s Cancer Panel asserts that public health officials have “grossly underestimated” the likelihood that environmental contaminants trigger a large proportion of the cancers diagnosed in 1.5 million Americans annually.
“The grievous harm from this group of carcinogens has not been addressed adequately by the National Cancer Program,” the panel told President Obama. “The American people—even before they are born—are bombarded continually with myriad combinations of these dangerous exposures.”
"The panel urges you most strongly to use the power of your office to remove the carcinogens and other toxins from our food, water, and air that needlessly increase healthcare costs, cripple our nation's productivity, and devastate American lives." the panel said.
The panel’s findings are expected to intensify pressure on the chemical industry and its allies in Congress to endorse toxic chemicals policy reforms.
Last month, both the US House and Senate unveiled legislation to overhaul the nation’s outdated chemical law, the Toxic Substances Control Act. That law has been widely criticized for preventing EPA from regulating even the small group of known human carcinogens, while also failing to keep pace with more recent science. Though the bills differ, each would require chemicals to be assessed for safety as a condition of remaining on the market. Each would also enact a program for “hot spots”- communities in the country that are especially hard-hit by chemical pollution.
However, both pieces of legislation fall short of public health goals in three critical areas, according to the group Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families (SCHF): 1) New chemicals would be allowed on the market without having to be proven safe; 2) Action on the most dangerous chemicals, persistent, bioaccumulative toxic chemicals, is deferred; 3) Scientific best practices recommended by the National Academy of Sciences to modernize and improve the methods EPA uses to assess chemical safety, are not incorporated.
Many of the policy recommendations issued by the President’s Cancer Panel align with principles of the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition. The report criticized current federal policy for allowing cancer-causing chemicals to proliferate in the marketplace and called for strengthening the chemical regulatory system in the U.S. The report found that agencies responsible for promulgating and enforcing regulations related to environmental exposures are “failing to carry out their responsibilities,” and recommended upgrading the system of environmental regulations to be “driven by science and free of political or industry influence” to protect public health.
Cancer is the second most common cause of death in the U.S., exceeded only by heart disease. More than 1.5 million people were diagnosed with new cases of cancer in 2009. In 2008 the direct Medical costs of cancer were $93.2 billion and the overall costs were $228.1 billion. Medical costs for pediatric cancers alone in 1997 totaled an estimated $3.9 billion.
Over the past two decades, the rates of some cancers rose significantly, including:
- Kidney, liver, thyroid, esophageal and testicular cancer, as well as melanoma in men.
- Non-Hodgkin’s, lymphoma, Hodgkin’s disease, melanoma and cancers of the thyroid, liver, and kidney in women.
- Childhood cancers overall, especially childhood leukemia and brain cancer
Website: pcp.cancer.gov
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Pfizer Charged with a Crime, Their Subsidiary Took the Blame
Pfizer Charged with a Crime, Their Subsidiary Took the Blame:
The Feds Cut a Deal with Pfizer
Pfizer did end up getting prosecuted for its fraudulent marketing spree … but their sentence was a mere slap on the wrist. And you won’t hear Pfizer being charged with any crime, because it was actually Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. Inc, a Pfizer subsidiary, that took the rap.
This was not due to an oversight or a smooth move on Pfizer’s part … it was the result of a deal made between Pfizer and federal prosecutors. The feds essentially let Pfizer off the hook so their products could continue to flow through Medicare and Medicaid.
As CNN wrote:
“ … Any company convicted of a major health care fraud is automatically excluded from Medicare and Medicaid. Convicting Pfizer on Bextra would prevent the company from billing federal health programs for any of its products. It would be a corporate death sentence.
Prosecutors said that excluding Pfizer would most likely lead to Pfizer's collapse, with collateral consequences: disrupting the flow of Pfizer products to Medicare and Medicaid recipients, causing the loss of jobs including those of Pfizer employees who were not involved in the fraud, and causing significant losses for Pfizer shareholders.”
So rather than sentencing Pfizer for the massive fraud and deception they carried out with no regard for patients’ health, and letting the company crumble as it should have, the feds decided to protect them.
They allowed Pfizer’s “imaginary friend” Pharmacia & Upjohn to take the conviction, even though the latter company had never sold any drugs. As CNN found, “the subsidiary is nothing more than a shell company whose only function is to plead guilty.”
So Pfizer got off scot-free -- other than a fine that amounted to three months of profits -- had little damage to their reputation and still sells their drugs through federally funded programs.
You Simply Can’t Trust the Government to Keep You Safe
If you are still under the impression that agencies like the FDA are looking out for your safety, it’s time to open your eyes. As in this latest case with Pfizer and Bextra, the federal government has a long history of siding with, and protecting, the drug companies.
It is no surprise when you consider that the drug companies have the largest political lobby and that a job with the FDA is frequently a revolving door with the drug companies. It is very common for many high ranking FDA officials to get lucrative consulting positions with the drug companies after they quit.
The converse is also very common. They can get paid millions before the go to the FDA, like the current commissioner of the FDA Margaret Hamburg did with Henry Schein.
Another case in point, occurred last year when President Obama declared the swine flu outbreak a national emergency, and federal health agencies urged Americans to run out and get vaccinated, or else? The swine flu pandemic is now being called one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century … and it’s another prime example of the partnership between the government and the pharmaceutical industry.
Fortunately, more people are waking up to the illusion and deception of the drug industry as a whole, and starting to clearly see the truth.
The public is correct in their conclusion that drug companies manipulate or suppress negative clinical trials, promote their toxic products for unapproved uses, and focus on developing drugs that are no better than older ones.
Physicians must also, en masse, come to the realization that drug reps cannot be trusted. This may be one of the most difficult areas to change, as the pharmaceutical industry has devised a highly effective system of indoctrination and very specific psychological techniques to manipulate physicians.
Doctors usually believe they are immune to persuasion tactics, and drug reps know just how important it is to maintain that illusion -- which is why it works so well.
Consider for a moment the in-depth report published in both The New England Journal of Medicine and PLoS Medicine, which admitted that pharmaceutical sales reps are trained in tactics that are on par with some of the most potent brainwashing techniques used throughout the world!
The idea that reps provide some kind of valuable, informative service to physicians is total fiction, created and perpetuated by the drug industry, to keep this deadly, but profitable, scheme going.
So until real change takes place, please don't risk your money or your life on a paradigm designed to profit from your ill health. Take control of your health by adopting natural lifestyle strategies that will promote your body’s natural healing abilities without the need for the drug companies’ latest creations.
Sunday, February 07, 2010
9 Top Health Blogs
Please read, and note which are "MAINSTREAM" medical BS funded by Big Pharma, and which are NOT!!!
9 Top Health Blogs To Follow For Health Consciousness
There is plenty of information right online that you can use to stay health conscious. These blogs range from those that focus on new medications and treatments that are available to the public to those that concentrate on how you can stay healthy using home testing products. Those who are interested in trying to stay as healthy as possible can take a look at the following top 9 health blogs online today:
This website is ideal for those who are looking up symptoms and who also want to learn about the latest news in the medical profession. WebMD also offers medical advice for those who have questions regarding their health. The blogs tend to focus on conditions and diseases, symptoms, treatments and preventative measures to avoid these conditions.
2. Testcountry.com
This is a website devoted to self diagnosis of various conditions ranging from high blood pressure to drug abuse. Those who are concerned about their health and do not want to pay a visit to the doctor, can purchase home testing kits from the site and use the blog to follow the latest technology when it comes to diagnostic testing. This site discusses everything from testing to get pregnant to testing for illegal drugs in the system and everything in between.
This is a blog site that offers general health information as well as allows those who visit to look up disease symptoms, treatments and cures It covers most topics of medicine and even discusses alternative medicine options.
This is a blog devoted to all aspects of the health of women, including diseases that affect women as well as pregnancy issues, menstrual issues, puberty and menopause. Women who are concerned with women's health issues can use this blog to discover more about conditions that affect women only.
5. Blogs.consumer reports.org/health
This blog focuses on prescription medicine, new breakthroughs in treatments when it comes to these medications as well as recalls on medications that have been removed by the market. The blog discusses research that is being performed into the treatment of various diseases and conditions as well.
If you are concerned about wellness and nutrition, you can use this blog as a guide to help healthy living habits. This is an ideal blog for anyone who wants to lose weight or is looking for diet and exercise tips as well as proper nutritional habits.
Those who are concerned with mental health issues that range from serious issues to anxiety and phobias can consult the blogs on this website for information related to mental health. Anyone suffering from a mental health condition, or thinks they may be suffering from such a condition, can look up symptoms and find out more about the condition by making use of this blog site.
This is a website that features blogs relating to men's health. The subjects range from diseases that affect men, such as prostate cancer, nutrition, exercise and fitness. The blogs are primarily focused on exercise, nutrition and fitness for men.
If you are looking for alternate health remedies in place of traditional medicine, the blog site of Dr. Joseph Mercola is for you. This site focuses on natural health products as opposed to traditional medical cures and treatments.
No matter what your health concern, chances are that you can find a health blog online that can offer you help. Check out these top 9 health blogs to find out which one can best suit your needs.
Read more: http://www.testcountry.org/9-top-health-blogs-to-follow-for-health-consciousness.htm#ixzz0erjM1qWF
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Green Tea Squeeze Play: Alternative Health Newsletter
Green tea health benefits
As I mentioned earlier, the reported benefits of green tea are multitudinous…and well studied. For example, green tea inhibits tumor growth in a variety of cancers, including: breast, lung, and prostate cancers. Specifically, the EGCG in green tea works to suppress angiogenesis, the growth of blood vessels that tumors need to survive. And if that's not enough -- stopping the growth of cancer at the front end -- green tea polyphenols have been shown to inhibit metastasis, the spread of cancer at the back end. And finally, EGCG is the first known natural telomerase inhibitor. That is to say, it eliminates the "immortality" of cancer cells which is their trademark and which makes them so deadly. The bottom line is that green tea is particularly effective in destroying the causes of leukemia, prostate cancer, breast cancer, and seems to provide the best protection known in terms of preventing lung cancer. And green tea seems to be able to almost totally prevent cancer causing DNA damage in smokers -- a possible explanation as to why the Japanese, who are among the world's heaviest smokers, have such a low incidence of lung cancer.
And the benefits of green tea don't stop there. It has also been shown to be effective in regulating blood sugar, reducing cholesterol and triglycerides, and in reversing the ravages of heart disease. (Incidentally, the Japanese, who drink large amounts of green tea, have some of the lowest rates of cardiovascular disease in the world.)
And finally, green tea has great benefits for the brain as well. It serves as an effective MAO inhibitor. It also protects against brain-cell death from glucose oxidase, over-production of nitric oxide, and it lowers the amount of free iron reaching the brain (a bad thing). The net result is that there are strong indications that green tea extract may play a major role in protecting against both Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease.
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Brain-surgery.us ~ Brain surgery, Brain surgeon, Neurosurgery, Neurosurgeon, Brain tumor, Brain tumour, Brain aneurysm, Brain aneurism
Brain-surgery.us ~ Brain surgery, Brain surgeon, Neurosurgery, Neurosurgeon, Brain tumor, Brain tumour, Brain aneurysm, Brain aneurism:
At this time, precautionary but strong recommendations for members of the General Public include (whenever feasible or possible): (i) using a regular "land-line" in preference to a hand-held mobile or cordless phone; (ii) using a hand-held phone on "speaker phone" mode held > 20 cm away or "in-vehicle hands-free speaker" mode as opposed to the typical "mobile phone-to-ear" use; (iii) minimising the use of current Bluetooth devices and unshielded headphone accessories for mobile phones; (iv) minimising the amount of time spent using mobile and cordless phones for all adults; and (v) restricting the use of mobile and cordless phones by children to emergency situations. For members of the Telecommunications Industry, the author recommends expediting the development and promotion of safe, practical and ubiquitous EMR/radiofrequency shielding devices for mobile and cordless phones and their Bluetooth and headset accessories, and further refinement of the hands-free "speaker phone" option. For members of the Health and Scientific Communities, the author recommends the objective reanalysis of all previous large-scale population studies that reported finding "no link between mobile phones and brain tumours", particularly from the perspectives of whether those "apparently negative or inconclusive studies" examined: (i) groups of "heavy" mobile phone users followed for greater than 10 years; (ii) the occurrence of the key mobile telephony-associated brain tumours, namely acoustic neuroma (vestibular Schwannoma) and astrocytoma, in the study population; and (iii) the relationship between the side of the brain tumour and the "preferred side" for mobile phone usage among "heavy" users in whom a brain tumour developed. Further large-scale studies taking all of these perspectives into account are recommended and encouraged by the author in order to definitively validate or refute the conclusions of this e-paper. Finally, the aforementioned precautions should be communicated to all at-risk persons using mobile phones.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)