so I have a fondness for odd theories......LOL it's entertaining....
Aaronaaron smith <ayn_seeker@yahoo.com>
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Fwd: Re: [Abes_Kids] New Book by a Kid
certainly hope so, but there are some concerning events happening that I have been paying attention to. The earth's magnetic field is weakening. Some places are large as Califonia are without a significant field, the Yellowstone Caldera has risen 100 feet and certain parts are closed as the ground temp is over 200 degrees. Last time it blew it covered most of the northern hemisphere in ash for a while. The interesting thing is that if the sun does eclipse the galactic center then, and we have a significant gravitational lens effect, this could be the tipping point even if it is small. Right now we are suppose to be in a low cycle of sunspots and they are giving off more radiation than has been seen in a while. The next spike is in 2012......with no magnetic field = no protection......oh boy.....I for one hope there is no big event coming.......
aaron smith <ayn_seeker@yahoo.com>
aaron smith <ayn_seeker@yahoo.com>
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Fwd: Toxins in Tap Water
Toxins in Tap Water
Water is good for you and we should drink it on a regular basis. Beyond those basic truths, there's little consensus on what's best when it comes to drinking water. While many people claim that the tap water supply in the US is the safest in the world, others are not so sanguine. Most recently, the news media widely reported that trace amounts of a whole pharmacopeia of medications, antibiotics to antidepressants to oral contraceptives, were detected in the water supply of major cities. Other stories have revealed that some bottling factories get their water from municipal sources, and further that the bottles themselves leach chemicals into the water. And then there's the environmental impact of all those plastic bottles tossed in the trash. So what's a thirsty person to do?
The facts, like some watering holes, are muddy at best. As it happens, bottled water and tap water are regulated by entirely different federal agencies. Tap water is always regulated by the EPA, but bottled water is regulated by the FDA -- sometimes. More on that in a minute.
FROM THE TAP
It's no surprise. You can't really assume the water that comes from your kitchen faucet is 100% safe. The EPA sets standards for approximately 90 contaminants in drinking water, including protozoan pathogens Cryptosporidium and Giardia (both of which can produce gastrointestinal illness like diarrhea and vomiting) plus other contaminants like lead, asbestos and arsenic -- but the testing and reporting is done by the water systems themselves, on the honor system. Plus, I was told by Cynthia Sass, MPH, MA, a registered dietitian and certified specialist in sports dietetics, there are many contaminants "not even on the radar of regulation." Additionally, according to a report by the environmental action group National Resources Defense Council, out of 19 cities tested, about one-fourth rated poor for water quality and compliance. A 2005 report by another consumer advocacy group, the Environmental Working Group, found that tap water in 42 states contained many contaminants that were dangerous, if not technically illegal. According to the report, of the 141 contaminants identified, 52 are linked to cancer, 41 to reproductive toxicity, 36 to developmental toxicity and 16 to immune system damage.
To confuse matters even more, the EPA has two levels of standards. The National Primary Drinking Water Regulations are mandatory and set quality standards for the contaminants mentioned above. The National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations set limits for an additional 15 contaminants that may affect taste, aesthetics (color or odor) or have cosmetic effects (like on the color of your teeth) but are not believed to pose a health risk. These secondary standards are not enforced by the EPA, they are simply stated as guidelines. Water suppliers are free to comply or not -- about 50% do.
Most health professionals think tap water is safe enough for most people, but agree that those with compromised immune systems should be careful. "If you're undergoing chemotherapy or if you're pregnant, you might have different concerns," Sass told me. The EPA suggests that people with compromised immune systems seek advice from their health care providers, but offers some guidance on its Web site: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/crypto.html.
The EPA's mandatory standard applies to water from municipal water supplies. Private wells that supply fewer than 25 people are not under government jurisdiction, so well owners should test annually since the EPA doesn't check individual residences. Local health departments can help provide guidance about well water quality (www.epa.gov/safewater/privatewells/index2.html).
IS BOTTLE BEST?
To avoid the whole issue, many people drink bottled water, believing that it's safer simply because it's bottled. Bottled water has become an enormous market, with more than 150 million Americans drinking it sometimes and 100 million doing so regularly. And indeed there are certain kinds of bottled water -- artesian well water and purified water -- that are as contaminant-free as any product is likely to be.
It's important to know that the FDA standards apply only to bottled water that is distributed nationally -- not regionally. However, an estimated 60% to 70% of the bottled water we buy in the US is regional, and thus exempt from FDA control. It's theoretically regulated at the state level, but only 40 of the 50 states actually do so and even those have limited or no resources for actual enforcement. To learn more about your state requirements, check with your state's water commission (known by other names, too, like Bureau of Water Quality Assurance or Water Resources Control Board, to name a few).
The situation is even more dismal for carbonated water and seltzer, which the FDA treats entirely differently from bottled waters. The FDA has some vague sanitation rules about these products with no specific limits on contaminants, and less than 50% of states require water in these categories to meet regular interstate bottled water standards.
WHICH WATER IS BEST?
The bottom line is that finding truly pure and safe water may take some detective work. It's relatively easy to check the quality of your tap water, as the EPA recently began requiring water suppliers to publish consumer confidence reports, which are water quality reports detailing where your water comes from and what's in it. These can be accessed by state on the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwinfo.
You can also call the EPA's Safe Drinking Water Hotline (800-426-4791). Sass also suggested checking with consumer advocacy organizations like the aforementioned Environmental Working Group (www.ewg.org) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (www.nrdc.org). If you're going to drink bottled water, stick with the national brands since they're required to meet FDA purity standards.
ANOTHER SOLUTION
For my home, I purchased a reverse osmosis filter, which is an effective purifier. When I'm on the go, I bring along a stainless steel carrier bottle, which I keep filled with filtered water from my tap. Another option is to purchase a water filtration pitcher, such as Brita or Pur, and keep it filled with "clean" drinking water in your fridge. These are ways to feel more comfortable that the water you and your family drink is safe... and to minimize the environmental impact as well.
Source(s):
Cynthia Sass, MPH, MA, a registered dietitian and certified specialist in sports dietetics, based in New York City.
Water is good for you and we should drink it on a regular basis. Beyond those basic truths, there's little consensus on what's best when it comes to drinking water. While many people claim that the tap water supply in the US is the safest in the world, others are not so sanguine. Most recently, the news media widely reported that trace amounts of a whole pharmacopeia of medications, antibiotics to antidepressants to oral contraceptives, were detected in the water supply of major cities. Other stories have revealed that some bottling factories get their water from municipal sources, and further that the bottles themselves leach chemicals into the water. And then there's the environmental impact of all those plastic bottles tossed in the trash. So what's a thirsty person to do?
The facts, like some watering holes, are muddy at best. As it happens, bottled water and tap water are regulated by entirely different federal agencies. Tap water is always regulated by the EPA, but bottled water is regulated by the FDA -- sometimes. More on that in a minute.
FROM THE TAP
It's no surprise. You can't really assume the water that comes from your kitchen faucet is 100% safe. The EPA sets standards for approximately 90 contaminants in drinking water, including protozoan pathogens Cryptosporidium and Giardia (both of which can produce gastrointestinal illness like diarrhea and vomiting) plus other contaminants like lead, asbestos and arsenic -- but the testing and reporting is done by the water systems themselves, on the honor system. Plus, I was told by Cynthia Sass, MPH, MA, a registered dietitian and certified specialist in sports dietetics, there are many contaminants "not even on the radar of regulation." Additionally, according to a report by the environmental action group National Resources Defense Council, out of 19 cities tested, about one-fourth rated poor for water quality and compliance. A 2005 report by another consumer advocacy group, the Environmental Working Group, found that tap water in 42 states contained many contaminants that were dangerous, if not technically illegal. According to the report, of the 141 contaminants identified, 52 are linked to cancer, 41 to reproductive toxicity, 36 to developmental toxicity and 16 to immune system damage.
To confuse matters even more, the EPA has two levels of standards. The National Primary Drinking Water Regulations are mandatory and set quality standards for the contaminants mentioned above. The National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations set limits for an additional 15 contaminants that may affect taste, aesthetics (color or odor) or have cosmetic effects (like on the color of your teeth) but are not believed to pose a health risk. These secondary standards are not enforced by the EPA, they are simply stated as guidelines. Water suppliers are free to comply or not -- about 50% do.
Most health professionals think tap water is safe enough for most people, but agree that those with compromised immune systems should be careful. "If you're undergoing chemotherapy or if you're pregnant, you might have different concerns," Sass told me. The EPA suggests that people with compromised immune systems seek advice from their health care providers, but offers some guidance on its Web site: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/crypto.html.
The EPA's mandatory standard applies to water from municipal water supplies. Private wells that supply fewer than 25 people are not under government jurisdiction, so well owners should test annually since the EPA doesn't check individual residences. Local health departments can help provide guidance about well water quality (www.epa.gov/safewater/privatewells/index2.html).
IS BOTTLE BEST?
To avoid the whole issue, many people drink bottled water, believing that it's safer simply because it's bottled. Bottled water has become an enormous market, with more than 150 million Americans drinking it sometimes and 100 million doing so regularly. And indeed there are certain kinds of bottled water -- artesian well water and purified water -- that are as contaminant-free as any product is likely to be.
It's important to know that the FDA standards apply only to bottled water that is distributed nationally -- not regionally. However, an estimated 60% to 70% of the bottled water we buy in the US is regional, and thus exempt from FDA control. It's theoretically regulated at the state level, but only 40 of the 50 states actually do so and even those have limited or no resources for actual enforcement. To learn more about your state requirements, check with your state's water commission (known by other names, too, like Bureau of Water Quality Assurance or Water Resources Control Board, to name a few).
The situation is even more dismal for carbonated water and seltzer, which the FDA treats entirely differently from bottled waters. The FDA has some vague sanitation rules about these products with no specific limits on contaminants, and less than 50% of states require water in these categories to meet regular interstate bottled water standards.
WHICH WATER IS BEST?
The bottom line is that finding truly pure and safe water may take some detective work. It's relatively easy to check the quality of your tap water, as the EPA recently began requiring water suppliers to publish consumer confidence reports, which are water quality reports detailing where your water comes from and what's in it. These can be accessed by state on the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwinfo.
You can also call the EPA's Safe Drinking Water Hotline (800-426-4791). Sass also suggested checking with consumer advocacy organizations like the aforementioned Environmental Working Group (www.ewg.org) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (www.nrdc.org). If you're going to drink bottled water, stick with the national brands since they're required to meet FDA purity standards.
ANOTHER SOLUTION
For my home, I purchased a reverse osmosis filter, which is an effective purifier. When I'm on the go, I bring along a stainless steel carrier bottle, which I keep filled with filtered water from my tap. Another option is to purchase a water filtration pitcher, such as Brita or Pur, and keep it filled with "clean" drinking water in your fridge. These are ways to feel more comfortable that the water you and your family drink is safe... and to minimize the environmental impact as well.
Source(s):
Cynthia Sass, MPH, MA, a registered dietitian and certified specialist in sports dietetics, based in New York City.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Fwd: ALERT: Monsanto Genetically Engineered Sugar to Hit U.S. in 2008
http://www.vanishingbees.com/
VIDEOS OF THE WEEK:
VANISHING OF THE BEES
We've highlighted this movie in Bytes before, but we strongly feel
this is truly a 'canary in the mine' issue.
This movie, which is nearing completion, analyzes why millions of
bees are dying around the world and how dramatically it could impact
the world's natural environment and food supply.
The producers are in need of donations to complete the film and are
currently eligible to receive matching funds from a foundation that
will double donations made by our readers.
View this breath-taking movie trailer here: http://www.vanishingbees.com
==========================================
ALERT: Genetically Engineered Sugar to Hit U.S. in 2008
Background Information:
American Crystal, a large Wyoming-based sugar company and several
other leading U.S. sugar providers have announced they will be
sourcing their sugar from genetically engineered (GE) sugar beets
beginning this year and arriving in stores in 2008.
Like GE corn and GE soy, products containing GE sugar will not be
labeled as such.
Since half of the granulated sugar in the U.S. comes from sugar
beets, a move towards biotech beets marks a dramatic alteration of the U.S. food supply.
These sugars, along with GE corn and soy, are found in many
conventional food products, so consumers will be exposed to
genetically engineered ingredients in just about every non-organic
multiple-ingredient product they purchase.
The GE sugar beet is designed to withstand strong doses of Monsanto's
controversial broad spectrum Roundup herbicide.
Studies indicate farmers planting "Roundup Ready" corn and soy spray
large amounts of the herbicide, contaminating both soil and water.
Farmers planting GE sugar beets are told they may be able to apply
the herbicide up to five times per year.
Sugar beets are grown on 1.4 million acres by 12,000 farmers in the
U.S. from Oregon to Minnesota.
Meanwhile candy companies like Hershey's are urging farmers not to
plant GE sugar beets, noting that consumer surveys suggest resistance
to the product. In addition the European Union has not approved GE
sugar beets for human consumption.
Ingredients from GE crops are not labeled in the U.S., once food
producers start using GE beet sugar in their candies, cereals,
breads, baby foods and other products, there will be no way for us to
know if we are eating GE sugar unless we buy organic foods, since GE
ingredients are banned in organic products.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_7031.cfm
==========================================
MONSANTO, CARGILL, &ADM RAKE IN BILLIONS ON WORLD FOOD CRISIS
of crop seeds and germplasm, wheat, rice, soy, corn, and other grains.
While a billion people go hungry, and food riots threaten global
stability, these Biotech and Food Giants are raking in record
profits, along with Wall Street speculators, who have shifted their
greed from sub-prime mortgages to increasingly scarce natural
resources and food.
Learn more: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/
article_12088.cfm http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/
article_12039.cfm
=================================================
CONSUMER TIP &ALERT:
HAZARDOUS & UNLABELED NANOTECH PESTICIDES IN CONSUMER PRODUCTS
An important lawsuit was filed last week against the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) by the International Center for Technology
Assessment calling for 200 consumer products to be removed from the
market, because they contain dangerous nanoparticle pesticides.
The EPA is illegally allowing a wide variety of consumer products to
be infused with nanoparticle-sized silver, supposedly for its
enhanced 'germ killing' abilities.
Nano-silver is now laced into products including children's toys,
personal care products, household appliances, cleaners, clothing,
cutlery, and coated electronics.
According to George Kimbrell, staff attorney for ICTA, 'Nano-silver
is leaching into the environment, where it will have toxic effects on
fish, other aquatic species and beneficial microorganisms.'
Nanotubes, one of the wonder materials of the new age of
nanotechnology, may carry a health risk similar to that of asbestos,
a wonder material of an earlier age that turned into a scourge after
decades of use when its fibers were found to cause lung disease,
researchers said Tuesday.
This time, the warning comes long before anyone has fallen ill, and
experts say the findings call for caution, not alarm, in handling
nanotubes, which are tiny, superstrong carbon fibers.
Although nanotubes are already found in some products, like tennis
rackets, researchers say the fibers appear to pose little risk to
consumers.
Nanotubes, discovered in 1991, are essentially rolled-up sheets of
carbon that can be used to produce materials that are far lighter and
stronger than steel, for example. But scientists have also long
wondered whether the needle-shaped nanotubes might cause the same
types of disease as needle-shaped asbestos fibers.
An article published Tuesday on the Web site of the journal Nature
Nanotechnology suggests that the answer may be yes.
A team of researchers reported that injecting nanotubes into the
abdomens of mice induced lesions similar to those that appear on the
outer lining of the lungs after the inhalation of asbestos.
In the case of asbestos, the lesions eventually become mesothelioma,
a deadly cancer.
The researchers, though, portrayed their results as good news by
providing people who work with nanotubes with knowledge of how to
minimize the dangers. "In a sense, we're forewarned and forearmed now
with respect to nanotubes," said Anthony Seaton, a professor of
environmental and occupational medicine at the University of Aberdeen
in Scotland.
Learn more about nanotechnology, take action, and see a comprehensive
list of everyday products containing nanotech here:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/nanotech.cfm
VIDEOS OF THE WEEK:
VANISHING OF THE BEES
We've highlighted this movie in Bytes before, but we strongly feel
this is truly a 'canary in the mine' issue.
This movie, which is nearing completion, analyzes why millions of
bees are dying around the world and how dramatically it could impact
the world's natural environment and food supply.
The producers are in need of donations to complete the film and are
currently eligible to receive matching funds from a foundation that
will double donations made by our readers.
View this breath-taking movie trailer here: http://www.vanishingbees.com
==========================================
ALERT: Genetically Engineered Sugar to Hit U.S. in 2008
Background Information:
American Crystal, a large Wyoming-based sugar company and several
other leading U.S. sugar providers have announced they will be
sourcing their sugar from genetically engineered (GE) sugar beets
beginning this year and arriving in stores in 2008.
Like GE corn and GE soy, products containing GE sugar will not be
labeled as such.
Since half of the granulated sugar in the U.S. comes from sugar
beets, a move towards biotech beets marks a dramatic alteration of the U.S. food supply.
These sugars, along with GE corn and soy, are found in many
conventional food products, so consumers will be exposed to
genetically engineered ingredients in just about every non-organic
multiple-ingredient product they purchase.
The GE sugar beet is designed to withstand strong doses of Monsanto's
controversial broad spectrum Roundup herbicide.
Studies indicate farmers planting "Roundup Ready" corn and soy spray
large amounts of the herbicide, contaminating both soil and water.
Farmers planting GE sugar beets are told they may be able to apply
the herbicide up to five times per year.
Sugar beets are grown on 1.4 million acres by 12,000 farmers in the
U.S. from Oregon to Minnesota.
Meanwhile candy companies like Hershey's are urging farmers not to
plant GE sugar beets, noting that consumer surveys suggest resistance
to the product. In addition the European Union has not approved GE
sugar beets for human consumption.
Ingredients from GE crops are not labeled in the U.S., once food
producers start using GE beet sugar in their candies, cereals,
breads, baby foods and other products, there will be no way for us to
know if we are eating GE sugar unless we buy organic foods, since GE
ingredients are banned in organic products.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_7031.cfm
==========================================
MONSANTO, CARGILL, &ADM RAKE IN BILLIONS ON WORLD FOOD CRISIS
of crop seeds and germplasm, wheat, rice, soy, corn, and other grains.
While a billion people go hungry, and food riots threaten global
stability, these Biotech and Food Giants are raking in record
profits, along with Wall Street speculators, who have shifted their
greed from sub-prime mortgages to increasingly scarce natural
resources and food.
Learn more: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/
article_12088.cfm http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/
article_12039.cfm
=================================================
CONSUMER TIP &ALERT:
HAZARDOUS & UNLABELED NANOTECH PESTICIDES IN CONSUMER PRODUCTS
An important lawsuit was filed last week against the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) by the International Center for Technology
Assessment calling for 200 consumer products to be removed from the
market, because they contain dangerous nanoparticle pesticides.
The EPA is illegally allowing a wide variety of consumer products to
be infused with nanoparticle-sized silver, supposedly for its
enhanced 'germ killing' abilities.
Nano-silver is now laced into products including children's toys,
personal care products, household appliances, cleaners, clothing,
cutlery, and coated electronics.
According to George Kimbrell, staff attorney for ICTA, 'Nano-silver
is leaching into the environment, where it will have toxic effects on
fish, other aquatic species and beneficial microorganisms.'
Nanotubes, one of the wonder materials of the new age of
nanotechnology, may carry a health risk similar to that of asbestos,
a wonder material of an earlier age that turned into a scourge after
decades of use when its fibers were found to cause lung disease,
researchers said Tuesday.
This time, the warning comes long before anyone has fallen ill, and
experts say the findings call for caution, not alarm, in handling
nanotubes, which are tiny, superstrong carbon fibers.
Although nanotubes are already found in some products, like tennis
rackets, researchers say the fibers appear to pose little risk to
consumers.
Nanotubes, discovered in 1991, are essentially rolled-up sheets of
carbon that can be used to produce materials that are far lighter and
stronger than steel, for example. But scientists have also long
wondered whether the needle-shaped nanotubes might cause the same
types of disease as needle-shaped asbestos fibers.
An article published Tuesday on the Web site of the journal Nature
Nanotechnology suggests that the answer may be yes.
A team of researchers reported that injecting nanotubes into the
abdomens of mice induced lesions similar to those that appear on the
outer lining of the lungs after the inhalation of asbestos.
In the case of asbestos, the lesions eventually become mesothelioma,
a deadly cancer.
The researchers, though, portrayed their results as good news by
providing people who work with nanotubes with knowledge of how to
minimize the dangers. "In a sense, we're forewarned and forearmed now
with respect to nanotubes," said Anthony Seaton, a professor of
environmental and occupational medicine at the University of Aberdeen
in Scotland.
Learn more about nanotechnology, take action, and see a comprehensive
list of everyday products containing nanotech here:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/nanotech.cfm
Monday, May 19, 2008
BBC NEWS | Politics | Hybrid embryos 'should be banned'
BBC NEWS | Politics | Hybrid embryos 'should be banned': "Hybrid embryos 'should be banned'
A human embryo
Critics say tinkering with human embryos is 'immoral'
Allowing scientists to carry out stem cell research using hybrid human-animal embryos 'is a step too far and should be banned', the Commons has been told.
Senior Tory MP Edward Leigh said there was 'no evidence yet to substantiate' the claims this could lead to treatment for Parkinson's and Alzheimer's."
A human embryo
Critics say tinkering with human embryos is 'immoral'
Allowing scientists to carry out stem cell research using hybrid human-animal embryos 'is a step too far and should be banned', the Commons has been told.
Senior Tory MP Edward Leigh said there was 'no evidence yet to substantiate' the claims this could lead to treatment for Parkinson's and Alzheimer's."
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Popular Drugs that Steal Nutrients
Popular Drugs that Steal Nutrients
Many Medications Deplete the Body of Important Vitamins and Minerals. Here’s How to Protect Your Health...
Frederic Vagnini, MD
Weill Cornell Medical College
reprinted from Bottom Line/Health, March 1, 2007
URL: http://www.bottomlinesecrets.com/blpnet/article.html?article_id=40837
Depletion of nutrients is among the most common -- and overlooked -- side effects of both over-the-counter (OTC) and prescription drugs.
Here's what happens: Medications can cause improper absorption of vitamins and minerals -- or they can accelerate the elimination of nutrients from the body. The consequences may range from bothersome symptoms, such as fatigue or stomach upset, to serious heart, muscle or nerve damage.
Most doctors are aware of some minerals that are depleted through the use of diuretics (water-excreting drugs). However, few doctors are aware of the dangers of nutrient depletion caused by many other types of medication, because the problem is not widely reported.
Popular drugs that deplete the body of nutrients...
ANTIBIOTICS
The most commonly prescribed antibiotics include azithromycin (Zithromax), amoxicillin (Amoxil), ampicillin (Omnipen), ciprofloxacin (Cipro), ofloxacin (Floxin) and erythromycin (Eryc).
Nutrients depleted...
B vitamins. The B vitamins are essential for normal metabolism as well as immune and nervous system functioning.
Vitamin K. This vitamin is critical for blood clotting and bone strength.
"Friendly" intestinal bacteria known as Bifidobacterium bifidum and Lactobacillus acidophilus. Antibiotics kill not only harmful bacteria but also "good" bacteria that promote gastrointestinal health and help balance immune response.
If you are prescribed an antibiotic: Ask your doctor about also taking a B-complex vitamin -- 50 mg... vitamin K supplement -- 60 micrograms (mcg) to 80 mcg... and probiotic supplements providing 15 billion live B. bifidum and 15 billion live L. acidophilus organisms daily.*
*If you're taking any medications, consult your doctor before changing your diet or beginning a supplement. In rare cases, increasing a nutrient may interfere with a drug's potency or worsen your condition.
In addition, eat more vitamin B-rich foods, such as beef liver, chicken, pork, fortified breads and cereals, whole-grain pastas, legumes, nuts and dark, leafy greens.
To increase your intake of vitamin K, eat kale... collard, turnip or mustard greens... spinach... broccoli... and Swiss chard.
Caution: Do not take vitamin K supplements or eat excessive amounts of vitamin K-rich foods if you take warfarin (Coumadin) or another blood-thinning drug.
For additional B. bifidum, eat more asparagus, garlic and/or onions, which stimulate growth of this friendly bacteria. For L. acidophilus, yogurt containing live cultures is your best food source.
High-Cholesterol Drugs
The most widely prescribed cholesterol-lowering "statins" include atorvastatin (Lipitor), simvastatin (Zocor), fluvastatin (Lescol), lovastatin (Mevacor) and pravastatin (Pravachol).
Nutrient depleted...
Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10). All cells require CoQ10 for the proper function of mitochondria (tiny energy-producing structures within the cells). The more energy a cell must produce, the more it depends on CoQ10. That's why cells of the heart, in particular -- because it is constantly beating -- require an abundance of CoQ10.
Unfortunately, statin drugs, which effectively block the production of harmful cholesterol, also prevent CoQ10 production.
Some doctors worry that long-term use of statins may worsen heart failure. Studies have found that patients with chronic heart failure have lower CoQ10 levels, and that CoQ10 supplements may improve their heart condition. Signs of CoQ10 deficiency include fatigue and muscle weakness.
If you are prescribed a statin: Ask your doctor about taking 30 mg to 100 mg of a CoQ10 supplement daily. This nutrient also is available in some foods, including beef, chicken, salmon, oranges and broccoli.
Painkillers
Millions of Americans take a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), such as ibuprofen (Motrin, Advil), naproxen (Aleve), celecoxib (Celebrex) and nabumetone (Relafen), to help relieve arthritis and other inflammatory pain.
Nutrient depleted....
Folic acid. Your body needs this water-soluble B vitamin to produce new cells and DNA and to synthesize and utilize proteins.
Several large epidemiological studies have linked low folic acid levels to increased risk for colon, breast and pancreatic cancers.
Heart health is also affected by folic acid. As folic acid levels decline, levels of the amino acid homocysteine rise. Studies suggest that elevated homocysteine can raise the risks for blood clots, heart attack and stroke.
Low folic acid levels may cause loss of appetite, irritability, weakness, shortness of breath, diarrhea, anemia, headaches, heart palpitations and a sore tongue.
If you take an NSAID regularly (daily for at least one to two weeks): Talk to your physician about also taking 400 mcg to 800 mcg of folic acid daily.
You also can get more folic acid by consuming fortified breakfast cereals, orange juice, spinach and other leafy greens, peas and beans.
BETA-BLOCKERS
Beta-blockers, such as propranolol (Inderal), atenolol (Tenormin), betaxolol (Betoptic S), carteolol (Cartrol) and labetalol (Normodyne), are commonly prescribed for high blood pressure or glaucoma.
Nutrients depleted...
CoQ10. Not only does CoQ10 appear to improve cardiac function in patients with chronic heart failure, studies suggest that it also may prevent second heart attacks and possibly protect against Parkinson's disease.
Melatonin. The hormone melatonin is essential for healthy sleep-wake cycles, and there's some early evidence that it may slow aging.
If you take a beta-blocker: Ask your physician about taking 30 mg to 100 mg of CoQ10 daily... and 1 mg to 3 mg of melatonin nightly, just before bed, if you have trouble sleeping.
ACE INHIBITORS
Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, such as enalapril (Vasotec), benazepril (Lotensin) and ramipril (Altace), as well as angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), including candesartan (Atacand) and irbesartan (Avapro), are prescribed for high blood pressure and heart failure, and to help prevent heart attacks in high-risk patients.
Nutrient depleted...
Zinc. Zinc boosts immunity, and some studies have shown that it reduces the duration of cold symptoms.
Zinc also is necessary for wound healing, strong bones and male potency, and it may help slow the progression of age-related macular degeneration (AMD).
In a recent six-year National Eye Institute study involving 3,600 people with AMD, zinc and antioxidant supplements reduced the risk of developing advanced AMD by 25%.
If you take an ACE inhibitor or ARB: Ask your doctor about taking 50 mg to 100 mg of zinc daily and eating more zinc-rich foods, such as oysters, beef, dark-meat chicken, pork tenderloin, yogurt, milk, peas, beans and nuts. If you continue to take zinc indefinitely, do not exceed 50 mg daily.
Important: Many medications combine an ACE inhibitor or ARB with a diuretic -- for example, enalapril and hydrochlorothiazide (Vaseretic) is an ACE inhibitor plus a diuretic... candesartan and hydrochlorothiazide (Atacand HCT) is an ARB plus a diuretic.
If you're taking a combination drug, you'll need to compensate not only for zinc, but also for the electrolytes and nutrients excreted by the diuretic, including potassium, magnesium, thiamine (B-1) and calcium. Ask your doctor for advice.
Diabetes Drugs
People with type 2 diabetes are often prescribed tolazamide (Tolinase), acetohexamide (Dymelor), glimepiride (Amaryl) or glipizide (Glucotrol) -- all sulfonylurea drugs. These medications stimulate the pancreas to produce more insulin, which lowers blood sugar.
Nutrient depleted...
CoQ10. Diabetes more than doubles your chances of dying from heart disease or stroke -- and low CoQ10 levels exacerbate those risks.
If you're taking a sulfonylurea drug: Ask your doctor about supplementing with 30 mg to 100 mg of CoQ10 daily.
Reflux Drugs
Proton pump inhibitors, such as esomeprazole (Nexium), lansoprazole (Prevacid), omeprazole (Prilosec) and rabeprazole (AcipHex), are prescribed for chronic heartburn -- also known as gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) -- and ulcers.
Nutrient depleted...
Vitamin B-12. Vitamin B-12 is essential for producing red blood cells and maintaining a healthy nervous system. Deficits may cause fatigue, dizziness, shortness of breath, diarrhea, tingling in the hands or feet, unsteady gait, nervousness, cognitive changes and even dementia.
Vitamin B-12 is found in red meat, fish, eggs and dairy foods, but our bodies require stomach acid to release the vitamin from these foods. Proton pump inhibitors reduce the production of stomach acid, inhibiting the release and absorption of vitamin B-12.
Iron. Low iron reduces the amount of oxygen your red blood cells can transport to body tissues, leaving you feeling weak and fatigued. A serious iron deficiency results in anemia.
If you take a proton pump inhibitor: Ask your doctor about taking 500 mcg to 1,000 mcg of vitamin B-12 daily and for advice on the best way to increase your iron intake.
Caution: Never take an iron supplement without consulting your physician -- excess iron can accumulate in your major organs and cause severe damage. Most people, however, can safely eat more iron-rich foods, including liver, beef, dark-meat chicken or turkey, legumes and fortified cereals.
Bottom Line/Health interviewed Frederic Vagnini, MD, medical director of the Heart, Diabetes and Weight-Loss Centers of New York and an assistant clinical professor of surgery at Weill Cornell Medical College, both in New York City. Dr. Vagnini is coauthor of The Side Effects Bible: The Dietary Solution to Unwanted Side Effects of Common Medications (Broadway).
Friday, May 16, 2008
AMERICAN THEOCRACY, BY KEVIN PHILLIPS
AMERICAN THEOCRACY, BY KEVIN PHILLIPS: "Home Commentary Table of Contents Preface About the Author Reviews Other Books Buy the Book
'American Theocracy may be the most alarming analysis of where we are and where we may be going to have appeared in many years. It is not without polemic, but unlike many of the more glib and strident political commentaries of recent years, it is extensively researched and frighteningly persuasive...By describing a series of major transformations, by demonstrating the relationships among them, and by discussing them with passionate restraint, Phillips has created a harrowing picture of danger that no American reader will welcome, but that none should ignore.'
The New York Times Book Review, March 19, 2006
'American Theocracy serves as an invaluable resource, given its marshaling of facts and figures, as well as the breadth and depth of its historical analyses... Overall, Phillips’ book is a thoughtful and somber jeremiad, written throughout with a graceful wryness...a capstone to his life’s work.'
Chicago Sun-Times, March 12, 2006
Baltimore Sun, March 12, 2006
'American Theocracy may be the most alarming analysis of where we are and where we may be going to have appeared in many years. It is not without polemic, but unlike many of the more glib and strident political commentaries of recent years, it is extensively researched and frighteningly persuasive...By describing a series of major transformations, by demonstrating the relationships among them, and by discussing them with passionate restraint, Phillips has created a harrowing picture of danger that no American reader will welcome, but that none should ignore.'
The New York Times Book Review, March 19, 2006
'American Theocracy serves as an invaluable resource, given its marshaling of facts and figures, as well as the breadth and depth of its historical analyses... Overall, Phillips’ book is a thoughtful and somber jeremiad, written throughout with a graceful wryness...a capstone to his life’s work.'
Chicago Sun-Times, March 12, 2006
"Phillips makes a very interesting argument that the old North-South split in this country is far deeper and more ingrained than most people realize, and that one way of looking at American politics today is to say that the South managed the aftermath of its defeat in 1865 that it is now the dominant section of the country."
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Bush Signs Bill To Take All Newborns’ DNA
Bush Signs Bill To Take All Newborns' DNA
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Friday, May 2, 2008
President Bush last week signed into law a bill which will see the federal government begin to screen the DNA of all newborn babies in the U.S. within six months, a move critics have described as the first step towards the establishment of a national DNA database.
Described as a "national contingency plan" the justification for the new law S. 1858, known as The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007, is that it represents preparation for any sort of "public health emergency."
The bill states that the federal government should "continue to carry out, coordinate, and expand research in newborn screening" and "maintain a central clearing house of current information on newborn screening… ensuring that the clearing house is available on the Internet and is updated at least quarterly".
Sections of the bill also make it clear that DNA may be used in genetic experiments and tests.
Read the full bill here.
One health care expert and prominent critic of DNA screening is Twila Brase, president of the Citizens' Council on Health Care who has written a detailed analysis (PDF) of the new law in which she warns that it represents the first program of populationwide genetic testing.
Brase states that S.1858 and H.R. 3825, the House version of the bill, will:
• Establish a national list of genetic conditions for which newborns and children are to be tested.
• Establish protocols for the linking and sharing of genetic test results nationwide.
• Build surveillance systems for tracking the health status and health outcomes of individuals diagnosed at birth with a genetic defect or trait.
• Use the newborn screening program as an opportunity for government agencies to identify, list, and study "secondary conditions" of individuals and their families.
• Subject citizens to genetic research without their knowledge or consent.
"Soon, under this bill, the DNA of all citizens will be housed in government genomic biobanks and considered governmental property for government research," Brase writes .
"The DNA taken at birth from every citizen is essentially owned
by the government, and every citizen becomes a potential subject of government-sponsored genetic research."
"The public is clueless. S. 1858 imposes a federal agenda of DNA databanking and population-wide genetic research. It does not require consent and there are no requirements to fully inform parents about the warehousing of their child's DNA for the purpose of genetic research."
In a previous report we outlined the consequences of the already existing DNA warehousing operation in Minnesota, a program that the Citizens' Council on Health Care has been following closely for a number of years.
Ms. Brase explained in a statement last month that state Health Department officials are now seeking exemption for the so called "DNA Warehouse" from Minnesota privacy law. This would enable state officials to continue to take the DNA of newborn infants without consent, which would also set the precedent for nationwide policy on DNA screening.
DNA of newborns has already been harvested, tested, stored and experimented with nationwide.
The National Conference of State Legislatures lists for all 50 states, as well as the District of Columbia, the various statutes or regulatory provisions under which newborns' DNA is already being collected.
In addition, all 50 states are now routinely providing these results to the Department of Homeland Security.
The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007 merely establishes this practice within the law.
Another vocal critic of bill S. 1858 is Texas Congressman Ron Paul who made the following comments before the U.S. House of Representatives:
"I cannot support legislation, no matter how much I sympathize with the legislation's stated goals, that exceed the Constitutional limitations on federal power or in any way threatens the liberty of the American people. Since S. 1858 violates the Constitution, and may have untended consequences that will weaken the American health care system and further erode medical privacy, I must oppose it."
Paul, a medical doctor himself continued, "S. 1858 gives the federal bureaucracy the authority to develop a model newborn screening program. Madame Speaker the federal government lacks both the constitutional authority and the competence to develop a newborn screening program adequate for a nation as large and diverse as the United States. …"
"Those of us in the medical profession should be particularly concerned about policies allowing government officials and state-favored interests to access our medical records without our consent … My review of S. 1858 indicates the drafters of the legislation made no effort to ensure these newborn screening programs do not violate the privacy rights of parents and children," Paul continued.
"In fact, by directing federal bureaucrats to create a contingency plan for newborn screening in the event of a 'public health' disaster, this bill may lead to further erosions of medical privacy. As recent history so eloquently illustrates, politicians are more than willing to take, and people are more than willing to cede, liberty during times of 'emergency," he concluded.
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)