New ADA Recommendation: Parents Should Use Fluoride Toothpaste on 12-Month-Olds

Daily Sheeple

by Melissa Melton


The American Dental Association (ADA) has updated its guidelines on fluoride toothpaste for tiny kids, now recommending that a rice-sized amount be used on the gums of children as young as 12-to-14 months old:

According to the American Dental Association, preventing tooth decay can start a lot earlier than previously recommended. Old guidelines advised parents to wait until their children turned two before introducing them to fluoride toothpaste. Now, the association has recommended all parents to start using fluoride toothpaste on children younger than two.

The updated guidelines stated that it is safe to use a rice-grain sized amount of fluoride toothpaste for young toddlers starting at 12 to 14-months. Parents should only apply a smear of the toothpaste and teach their children to remember to always spit out excess paste when they are brushing their teeth. For children aged three to six, parents can start to use more toothpaste in the size of a pea-blob. The association reminded parents that children should learn to brush their teeth twice a day.

Fluoride has been shown in studies to cause a multitude of negative health effects, including fertility issues, cancer, cardiovascular disease, endocrine disruption, neurotoxic effects, pineal gland and gastrointestinal issues, among others. Fluoride was even once prescribed in Europe as a drug thatreduced thyroid activity.

Children in America are already being exposed to large amounts of fluoride as it is through widespread fluoridated water consumption, on top of the fact that in many cases that same fluoridated water is used to grow a lot of the nation’s produce. The majority of fluoride added to water supplies in this country is a byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer industry. In addition, fluoride-based pesticides are also sprayed on our food supply. We’re also one of the only nations, along with Australia, that allows a fumigant called sulfuryl fluoride (which breaks down into inorganic fluoride) to be applied to certain foods after they have been harvested. Another fluoride-based pesticide, cryolite, is also applied to many crops in this country as well. Most people, including children, are exposed to this through eating green grapes, as cryolite is widely used in many U.S. vineyards.

We are continuously reassured by officials that fluoridating water supplies helps fight cavities.

According to the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), more people drink fluoridated water in this country than in the rest of the world combined, yet there is no significant difference in tooth decay between nations that fluoridate water and nations that don’t. Because it’s added directly to the water, there’s no way to tell how much of a “dose” a child is getting through drinking/cooking water when added to all the other sources in a child’s daily life.

Far and away, however, the largest dose of fluoride the average child gets in this country comes from toothpaste. Unfortunately, many children end up swallowing toothpaste when they are young and learning to brush, ingesting dangerously high levels according to FAN:

Use of fluoride toothpaste during childhood is a major risk factor for dental fluorosis, particularly for children who brush before the age of three and who live in areas with fluoridated water.

Children who swallow fluoride toothpaste can reach fluoride levels in their blood that exceed the levels that have been found to inhibit insulin secretion and increase blood glucose in animals and humans. All fluoride toothpastes sold in the U.S. must now include a poison label that warns users to “contact a poison control center immediately” if they swallow more than used for brushing.

Just one 1 gram of fluoride toothpaste (a full strip of paste on a regular-sized brush) is sufficient to cause acute fluoride toxicity in two-year old child (e.g., nausea, vomiting, headache, diarrhea).

In 2009, U.S. poison control centers received over 25,000 calls related to excessive ingestion of fluoride toothpaste, with over 378 users requiring emergency room treatment.

The article quoted at the beginning of this article goes on to say that experts claim using small amounts of fluoride on teeth will reduce the chances of children developing fluorosis.

It’s kind of a twisting of words, isn’t it? Fluorosis is the discoloration and pitting damage that occurs to bone when it comes in contact with excessive fluoride; thus, using no fluoride at all will also reduce the chances of developing fluorosis.

Now the ADA says all parents should use fluoridated toothpaste on children under two, and begin with one-year-olds. How a baby who might not even have teeth or be able to walk will be able to even remotely comprehend the directions to spit and not swallow this potentially dangerous chemical was not explained.

American Milk Banned in Europe Because it Does No Body Good

Waking Times
by Anna Hunt

As a mother of three young children, the debate centered around the nutritional value of cow’s milk has been at the forefront of my mind for quite some time. Conditioned by the well-known campaigns of milk marketers “Milk. It does a body good.” and “Got Milk?”, I’ve been led to believe that milk is needed – especially by young children – for good bone growth, brain development and, of course, to meet the body’s calcium needs.

If milk does a body so much good, why is US-produced milk banned in Europe? It turns out that in 1994, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the use of recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH). rBGH in milk is believed to increase the risk of cancer. In an attempt to protect its citizens from genetically-modified milk, the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the U.N. Food Safety Agency representing 101 nations worldwide, has banned rBGH milk in the 101 nations that it represents. Canada is another country where rBGH milk is banned.

The European Commission organized independent research to review the effect of rBGH on public health. Here is what they found:

“The public health committee confirmed earlier reports of excess levels of the naturally occurring Insulin-like-Growth Factor One (IGF-1), including its highly potent variants, in rBGH milk and concluded that these posed major risks of cancer, particularly of the breast and prostate, besides promoting the growth and invasiveness of cancer cells by inhibiting their programmed self-destruction (apoptosis).” Source: Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.

rBGH is another one of Monsanto’s genetically-engineered products that mimics the cow’s naturally-produced BGH hormone. American dairy farmers inject their cows with rBGH to increase how much milk each cow produced – usually by 20%. The use of rBGH results in cows also producing more IGF-1 hormone, to such excess that milk from rBGH-treated cows has up to 80% more IGF-1.

Researchers throughout the world argue that consumption of excess IGF-1 hormone, which is also found in humans, may result in a higher risk of breast, colon and prostate cancer. Yet, in the US, Monsanto and the milk industry do not clearly label which milk comes from rBGH-treated cows.

And the effect on humans is just one of the problems. The use of rBGH also has a serious effect on the animals. Here’s a short 3-minute video about Monsanto’s deception regarding rBGH.


 If the idea of consuming hormone-filled, cancer-causing, Franken-milk doesn’t turn you off of cow’s milk, at least the non-organic non-labeled brands, then perhaps some of the following facts will give you more food for thought:

Milk is believed to deplete the body of natural calcium, which is used up in the process of digesting milk. It offers an inorganic calcium that cannot be easily digested and used by the human body. “Just like our bodies cannot use the iron in a magnet, they cannot use the calcium in milk.”

Milk is acidic, making it difficult for the body to digest. As a result, the pH of human intestines may become unbalanced, making them more susceptible to injury and disease.

Cow’s milk contains at least 59 active hormones, allergens, fat, cholesterol, herbicides, pesticies, antibiotics, blood, pus, bacteria and viruses.

“It’s not natural for humans to drink cow’s milk. Humans milk is for humans. Cow’s milk is for calves. You have no more need of cow’s milk than you do rats milk, horses milk or elephant’s milk. Cow’s milk is a high fat fluid exquisitely designed to turn a 65 lb baby calf into a 400 lb cow. That’s what cow’s milk is for!” – Dr Michael Klaper MD

Yes, our bodies need calcium. But perhaps milk is not the best source, as we’ve been led to believe. Try eating more lettuce, kale, broccoli, almonds, oranges, flax seed, sesame seeds, dill, thyme and other dried herbs. For cereal, try almond or hemp milk instead of cow’s milk. Calcium from plant sources is more easily digested by our bodies than calcium from cow’s milk, because plants have a high magnesium content, and magnesium aids in the assimilation of calcium by the body. Decreasing your intake of cow’s milk will do your body good!

CFL Bulbs Contain Harmful Chemicals, Damage Your Skin

Intel Hub

With the government moving to ban incandescent light bulbsin favor energy-saving compact fluorescent lights, or CFLs, it’s important to remember what this means for your health.

A German Study that found that compact fluorescent lights emit cancer-causing chemicals such as phenol, naphthalene, and styrene when switched on. Inspired by these findings, researchers at Stony Brook University in New York have released a study on the effects that UV radiation from CFL bulbs can have on human skin cells.

Researchers summarized their findings, “… [we] measured the amount of UV emissions and the integrity of each bulb’s phosphor coatings. Results revealed significant levels of UVC and UVA, which appeared to originate from cracks in the phosphor coatings, present in all CFL bulbs studied”

Abundant research has shown that UVA radiation can penetrate to the deepest levels of skin tissue. It is known to contribute greatly to skin wrinkling, and according to a US-Australian study, UVA radiation causes the greatest amount of damage to skin cells where most skin cancers start. These cells are called keratinocytes, and they are the same cells the researchers at Stony Brook exposed to radiation from CFL bulbs.

So who is responsible for the radiation given off by these energy efficient bulbs? Well, in 2006 and 2007 the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) measured base levels of radiation given off by CFLs. ACGIH is a completely NON-governmental member-based organization that is comprised of leading “occupational hygiene professionals.”

These levels were then reviewed by the IESNA, another member based organization comprised of lighting industry manufacturers and employers. Their president Chip Israel is the owner of Lighting Design Alliance, one of the worlds leading lighting design firms with offices in Chicago, Los Angeles, Fort Collins, and Dubai.

The IESNA then created the currently used RP 27, which sets the standards for acceptable levels of radiation emissions from all light sources. If a CFL bulb is found to exceed these levels, the maker of the bulb is required to place a warning on the package. There is no accountability however, as manufacturers are expected to self-police.

This is particularly troubling in light of new laws emerging all over the planet phasing out traditional and even halogen incandescent bulbs in favor of CFLs. The most noteworthy being a ban adopted by the European Union around September of 2012.

Some states are adopting these same types of regulation, albeit more slowly. For example, California no longer allows residents to purchase traditional incandescent bulbs – opting instead for halogen incandescent bulbs that use about 25% less energy – but encourages people to use CFLs instead regardless.

To protect your skin from being harmed by these bulbs, researchers recommend that you stay at least two feet away from them at all times, as radiation levels drop with distance. Additionally, the more filters between a person and the bulb – such as a glass cover or shade – the less radiation will reach your skin.

More Proof that Pesticides are Having Detrimental Effects on Children

Natural Society
by Elisabeth Renter

A new study from the Pesticide Action Network says that the more than 1 billion pounds of pesticides used in the United States every year may be having detrimental effects on children’s health. While it may seem like a statement from Captain Obvious, the industry that makes these pesticides insists they are safe. Safe to have on our foods, in our air, and leeched into our water. And just as safe for children as they are for adults.

But, the Pesticide Action Network North America (PAANA) says, that simply isn’t the case. Their research, and research that has come before them, indicates these chemicals (used to kill things incidentally) are contributing to things like autism, birth defects, early puberty, obesity, cancer, diabetes, and asthma.

Researchers drew their conclusions from dozens of studies that linked pesticides with serious health concerns. These studies show that the effects of pesticides on children are even more pronounced than they are in adults. After all, everything is smaller and still developing in the young.

“One of the things that is also really clear from science is that children are just much more vulnerable to pesticide exposure,” said report co-author Kristin Schafer. “In terms of how their bodies work and defense mechanisms work, how much (pesticides) they’re taking in pound for pound, they’re eating more, drinking more, breathing more than an adult, and are much more susceptible to harms that pesticides can pose.”

For their part, the pesticide industry says these findings are simply untrue—that their chemicals are harmless for everyone, that they are tested for safety and wouldn’t be used if they weren’t safe. Of course, their vested interest in the continued belief of their chemicals safety wouldn’t be playing a role in their insistence, would it? Pesticide companies and companies like Monsanto, for instance, are notorious for funding studies that “prove” their safety—because truly objective studies would hurt their bottom line.

Related:  Brain tumour link to pesticides

Aspartame is linked to leukemia and lymphoma in new landmark study on humans

Natural News

As few as one diet soda daily may increase the risk for leukemia in men and women, and for multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in men, according to new results from the longest-ever running study on aspartame as a carcinogen in humans. Importantly, this is the most comprehensive, long-term study ever completed on this topic, so it holds more weight than other past studies which appeared to show no risk. And disturbingly, it may also open the door for further similar findings on other cancers in future studies.

The most thorough study yet on aspartame - Over two million person-years

For this study, researchers prospectively analyzed data from the Nurses' Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study for a 22-year period. A total of 77,218 women and 47,810 men were included in the analysis, for a total of 2,278,396 person-years of data. Apart from sheer size, what makes this study superior to other past studies is the thoroughness with which aspartame intake was assessed. Every two years, participants were given a detailed dietary questionnaire, and their diets were reassessed every four years. Previous studies which found no link to cancer only ever assessed participants' aspartame intake at one point in time, which could be a major weakness affecting their accuracy.

One diet soda a day increases leukemia, multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphomas

The combined results of this new study showed that just one 12-fl oz. can (355 ml) of diet soda daily leads to:

- 42 percent higher leukemia risk in men and women (pooled analysis)
- 102 percent higher multiple myeloma risk (in men only)
- 31 percent higher non-Hodgkin lymphoma risk (in men only)

These results were based on multi-variable relative risk models, all in comparison to participants who drank no diet soda. It is unknown why only men drinking higher amounts of diet soda showed increased risk for multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Note that diet soda is the largest dietary source of aspartame (by far) in the U.S. Every year, Americans consume about 5,250 tons of aspartame in total, of which about 86 percent (4,500 tons) is found in diet sodas.

Confirmation of previous high quality research on animals

This new study shows the importance of the quality of research. Most of the past studies showing no link between aspartame and cancer have been criticized for being too short in duration and too inaccurate in assessing long-term aspartame intake. This new study solves both of those issues. The fact that it also shows a positive link to cancer should come as no surprise, because a previous best-in-class research study done on animals (900 rats over their entire natural lifetimes) showed strikingly similar results back in 2006: aspartame significantly increased the risk for lymphomas and leukemia in both males and females. More worrying is the follow on mega-study, which started aspartame exposure of the rats at the fetal stage. Increased lymphoma and leukemia risks were confirmed, and this time the female rats also showed significantly increased breast (mammary) cancer rates. This raises a critical question: will future, high-quality studies uncover links to the other cancers in which aspartame has been implicated (brain, breast, prostate, etc.)?

There is now more reason than ever to completely avoid aspartame in our daily diet. For those who are tempted to go back to sugary sodas as a "healthy" alternative, this study had a surprise finding: men consuming one or more sugar-sweetened sodas daily saw a 66 percent increase in non-Hodgkin lymphoma (even worse than for diet soda). Perhaps the healthiest soda is no soda at all.

Related:  Op-Ed: Aspartame's cancer causing mechanism discovered-FDA must ban it
Aspartame is, by Far, the Most Dangerous Substance on the Market that is Added To Foods

7 Nasty and Crazy Effects of Pesticides in Food, Exposure

Natural Society
by Lisa Garber

When asked by a skeptical friend why you buy organic, do you find yourself tongue-tied? Was it obesity? Or thyroid problems? Why should you buy organic? There are numerous reasons to skip the mainstream supermarket food and shop at an organic grocer, but just one of those reasons revolves around the effects of pesticides.

Unfortunately, pesticides attack your body on several fronts. Keep this list handy the next time you find yourself wondering if you should buy a carton of conventional strawberries rather than organic to potentially save a few pennies. Remember that all of the following conditions will cost you much more than money; the effects of pesticides will cost you your health.

Here are 7 nasty and crazy effects of pesticides.

Effects of Pesticides – Cancer

The dreaded diagnosis of cancer has been linked in over 260 studies worldwide to agrochemicals. Worse, scientists have linked pesticides with several types of cancers, including that of the breast, prostate, brain, bone, thyroid, colon, liver, lung, and more. Some researchers from USC found that “those who lived within 500 meters of places where methyl bromide, captan and eight other organochlorine pesticides had been applied, they found, were more likely to have developed prostate cancer.”

But even indirect exposure, such as through parental use, has been found to affect children in a terrible way. A study published in Environmental Health Perspectives has linked parental use of pesticides with an increased risk of brain cancer in children. “Parental exposures may act before the child’s conception, during gestation, or after birth to increase the risk of cancer,” the study said. And when the parents are exposed to the pesticides may also play a role in the different cellular changes that lead to cancer.

Obesity and Diabetes

Because pesticides have also been linked to obesity, it’s logical that it would be connected to diabetes, in which obesity often has a role. Some researchers found a higher prevalence of obesity in the participants with high urinary concentrations of a pesticide known as 2,5-dichlorophenol (2,5-DCP). It is important to note that 2,5-DCP is one of the most widely used pesticides on the globe.

Robert Sargis, MD, PhD, revealed his recent study findings at the Endocrine Society’s 94th Annual Meeting, stating that agricultural fungicide created insulin resistance in fat cells. The journal Diabetes Carepublished in 2011 that people with excess weight and high levels of organochlorine pesticides in their bodies had greater risk of becoming diabetic.

Parkinson’s Disease

Long-term exposure to herbicides and pesticides have been associated in over 60 studies with Parkinson’s. You don’t have to be a conventional farmer to be wary of these findings. Use natural methods to keep pests and weeds out of your home and garden today.

Infertility and Birth Defects

One of the most well-known negative effects of pesticides, infertility is continuously found to be a result of exposure to these agrochemicals. Atrazine—a weed killer used in agriculture as well as on golf courses and which has been found in tap water—may be partially responsible for climbing miscarriage and infertility rates. As for men, one 2006 study pinpointed chlorpyrifos with lowering testosterone levels. This pesticide is often found in strawberry fields and apple and peach orchards.

Other researchers tested roundup on mature male rats at a concentration range between 1 and 10,000 parts per million (ppm), and found that within 1 to 48 hours of exposure, testicular cells of the mature rats were either damaged or killed.

Avoid pesticides even if you’re already pregnant. These chemicals are responsible for causing various birth defects, too. A report revealed that the top selling herbicide Roundup disrupts male hormones due to the main active ingredient – glyphosate.

Autism

Admittedly, pesticides aren’t solely to blame for autism, but they may be a hefty part of the equation. Leading scientists are attributing the condition to genes and insecticides exposed to the mother while pregnant as well as to the child in early years. This is because many chemicals affect the neurology of bugs, inadvertently affecting the neurological function of children, too. A 2010 Harvard study blames organophosphate pesticides—found in children’s urine—to ADHD.

What is the best way to to avoid pesticide exposure and pesticides in food? Don’t use pesticides, and buy organic. Organic isn’t always easy or cheap, so keep in mind these updated dirty dozen fruits and vegetables to always buy organic (plus 15 cleaner foods you can afford to buy conventional). NASA has also suggested raising air purifying plants indoors to clear your home of indoor air pollution. Remember to remove pesticides from your home, too.

Higher Levels of BPA in Children and Teens Significantly Associated With Obesity

Science Daily

Researchers at NYU School of Medicine have revealed a significant association between obesity and children and adolescents with higher concentrations of urinary bisphenol A (BPA), a synthetic chemical recently banned by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from sippy cups and baby bottles. Still, the chemical continues to be used in aluminum cans, such as those containing soda.

The study appears in the September 19 issue of JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association), dedicated to the theme of obesity.

“This is the first association of an environmental chemical in childhood obesity in a large, nationally representative sample,” said lead investigator Leonardo Trasande, MD, MPP, associate professor of pediatrics and environmental medicine. “Our findings further demonstrate the need for a broader paradigm in the way we think about the obesity epidemic. Unhealthy diet and lack of physical activity certainly contribute to increased fat mass, but the story clearly doesn’t end there.”

BPA, a low-grade estrogen, was until recently found in plastic bottles labeled with the number 7 recycling symbol, and is still used as an internal coating for aluminum cans. Manufacturers say it provides an antiseptic function, but studies have shown the chemical disrupts multiple mechanisms of human metabolism that may increase body mass. BPA exposure has also been associated with cardiovascular disease, breast cancer, prostate cancer, neurological disorders, diabetes and infertility.

“In the U.S. population, exposure [to BPA] is nearly ubiquitous, with 92.6 percent of persons 6 years or older identified in the 2003-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) as having detectable BPA levels in their urine. A comprehensive, cross-sectional study of dust, indoor and outdoor air, and solid and liquid food in preschool-aged children suggested that dietary sources constitute 99 percent of BPA exposure,” the investigators wrote.

Using a sample of nearly 3,000 children and adolescents, ages 6 through 19 years, randomly selected for measurement of urinary BPA concentration in the 2003-2008 NHANES, Dr. Trasande and his co-authors, Jan Blustein, MD, PhD, and Teresa Attina, MD, PhD, MPH, examined associations between urinary BPA concentrations and body mass.

After controlling for race/ethnicity, age, caregiver education, poverty to income ratio, sex, serum cotinine level, caloric intake, television watching, and urinary creatinine level, the researchers found children with the highest levels of urinary BPA had 2.6 times higher odds of being obese than those with the lowest measures of urinary BPA. Among the participants with the highest levels, 22.3 percent were obese compared with 10.3 percent of the participants with the lowest levels.

Further analyses showed this association to be statistically significant in only one racial subpopulation, white children and adolescents. The researchers also found that obesity was not associated with exposure to other environmental phenols commonly used in other consumer products, such as sunscreens and soaps.

“Most people agree the majority of BPA exposure in the United States comes from aluminum cans,” Dr. Trasande said. “This data adds to already existing concerns about BPA and further supports the call to limit exposure of BPA in this country, especially in children. Removing it from aluminum cans is probably one of the best ways we can limit exposure. There are alternatives that manufacturers can use to line aluminum cans.”

The researchers wrote in their study that advocates and policy makers have long been concerned about BPA exposure. “We note the recent FDA ban of BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups, yet our findings raise questions about exposure to BPA in consumer products used by older children. Last year, the FDA declined to ban BPA in aluminum cans and other food packaging, announcing ‘reasonable steps to reduce human exposure to BPA in the human food supply’ and noting that it will continue to consider evidence on the safety of the chemical. Carefully conducted longitudinal studies that assess the associations identified here will yield evidence many years in the future.”

Corporations Add Equally Toxic ‘BPS’ to BPA-Free Products

Natural Society

We’ve all seen the “BPA-free” labels affixed prominently to new plastic products. And many of us have fallen for the ruse, purchasing these new water bottles and food storage containers thinking we can still enjoy the convenience of plastics without the hormone-altering BPA. But what manufacturers are using in place of BPA might not be any safer. It’s known as ‘BPS‘ and as a matter of fact, it could be even worse.

Bisphenol-A (BPA) has made headlines over the past several years for the growing awareness of its dangers. Namely, it mimics estrogen in the body, throwing hormones out of whack. Although the United States and Europe have banned BPA in baby bottles, Canada remains the only country that has officially declared BPA as a “toxic substance.” Because of this, many people have smartly begun shunning plastics, opting for glass or metal, or choosing the new slick and expensive drinking bottles labeled “BPA-free”.

In place of BPA, manufacturers have begun using something called bisphenol-S (BPS). Unfortunately, there is no indication that BPS is any safer. On the contrary, it could be even worse than the villainized BPA. So, why are manufacturers using it? Well, because they can!

There is little information available on BPS at this point. Scientific research is lacking, and because there is little to say that it’s bad for you, manufacturers don’t have to worry (yet) about the repercussions of putting it in their products and selling it to unknowing consumers.

According to the Environmental Science and Technology, BPS is actually of a “comparable potency” to BPA. Also, it is “less biodegradable, and more heat-stable and photo-resistant” than its predecessor BPA. What does this mean? Well, it has the same estrogen-mimicking qualities and it doesn’t degrade as quickly as BPA, so it can stick around in your body for longer periods of time.

This isn’t a new practice—skirting public fears by playing on their ignorance. Plastic manufacturers know that the information about BPS is still in an infancy stage. They know they can get a few good years off of this “BPA-free” label craze before science catches up with them. So, in the meantime, they will keep selling you their new supposedly-safer products and probably even sell them at a higher price!

The bottom line is that we don’t know everything that is now being included in plastics. They are likely an “alphabet soup of toxic chemicals,” according to Mercola. Even canned goods are lined with BPA. Your best bet is to stick with glass whenever possible for food storage, drinking water, and microwaving (if you still do that).

How harmful are your mobile phones and towers?

We’ve all heard about it – mobile phones are harmful to health. There are several chain emails, Facebook and Twitter updates about it. We wanted to get to the bottom of it all. So we caught up with Neha Kumar an expert on the topic of mobile radiation and director, NESA, a firm which designs radiation measurement and shielding equipment. She has been studying about radiation from cell phones/towers for about three years and has interacted with experts, researchers, doctors and patients around the world who have been affected by prolonged exposure to cell phone/tower radiation. 
Excerpts from the interview:
 
How exactly does mobile radiation cause health problems?

Mobile phones and towers emit electromagnetic radiation having health effects which can be divided into thermal and non-thermal. Thermal effects refer to heating effect which you observe if you hold the phone for long near your ear.

Non-thermal effects on the cells, genes and the DNA and are more harmful than thermal effects.
Excessive use of mobiles can lead to headache, sleep disturbance, lack of concentration, memory loss, tinnitus (ringing in the ears) and increased risk of brain cancer.

Having mobile towers in your neighbourhood can also pose health problems like severe headache, sleep disturbance, constant body pain, memory problems, joint pains etc. The more severe health effects noted include infertility, miscarriage, neurodegenerative disorders (Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, etc.), heart problems and cancer.

Full Story

How Marijuana Cures Cancer

Sugar should be controlled like alcohol: report

National Post News, Feb. 1, 2012

Sugar is so toxic it should be controlled like alcohol, according to new report that goes so far as to suggest setting an age limit of 17 years to buy soda pop.

It points to sugar as a culprit behind many of the world’s major killers — heart disease, cancer and diabetes — that are now a greater health burden than infectious disease.

A little sugar “is not a problem, but a lot kills — slowly,” says the report to be published Thursday in Nature, a top research journal.

Over the eons sugar was available to our ancestors as fruit for only a few months a year at harvest time, or as honey “which was guarded by bees,” says the report by Dr. Robert Lustig, a noted childhood obesity expert at the University of California, and two U.S. colleagues specializing in health policy.

Now it is added to “nearly all processed foods.” In developing countries, sugary soft drinks are often cheaper than potable water or milk, they say, noting that over the past 50 years, consumption of sugar has tripled worldwide.

Full story

Aspartame has been Renamed and is Now Being Marketed as a Natural Sweetener

Health Freedom Alliance, Nov. 13, 2011

Artificial sweeteners especially aspartame has gotten a bad rap over the years, most likely due to studies showing they cause cancer. But not to worry Ajinomoto the company that makes Aspartame has changed the name to AminoSweet. It has the same toxic ingredients but a nice new sounding name.

And if you or your child happens to be allergic to Aspartame, well don’t take it personally it’s just business.

Despite the evidence gained over the years showing that aspartame is a dangerous toxin, it has remained on the global market . In continues to gain approval for use in new types of food despite evidence showing that it causes neurological brain damage, cancerous tumors, and endocrine disruption, among other things.

Most consumers are oblivious to the fact that Aspartame was invented as a drug but upon discovery of its’ sweet taste was magically transformed from a drug to a food additive. HFA wants to warn our readers to beware of a wolf dressed up in sheep’s clothing or in this case Aspartame dressed up as Aminosweet.

Over 25 years ago, aspartame was first introduced into the European food supply. Today, it is an everyday component of most diet beverages, sugar-free desserts, and chewing gums in countries worldwide. But the tides have been turning as the general public is waking up to the truth about artificial sweeteners like aspartame and the harm they cause to health. The latest aspartame marketing scheme is a desperate effort to indoctrinate the public into accepting the chemical sweetener as natural and safe, despite evidence to the contrary.

Full story

How Plastic Food Containers Could Be Making You Fat, Infertile and Sick

sott.net, Oct. 27, 2011

In previous articles here, here and here, I wrote about the dangers of an environmental toxin called bisphenol-A (BPA). BPA is a chemical that is found in several plastics and plastic additives. It's in the water bottles some folks carry to gyms, the canned tomatoes and coconut milk they cook with, and in the baby bottles moms use to feed their infants.

We've known for decades that BPA has estrogenic activity. In vivo animal studies and in vitro cell-culture research has linked low-level estrogenic activity associated with BPA exposure to all kinds of fun stuff, like diabetes, ADHD, heart disease, infertility and cancer.

There is now significant evidence suggesting that even low levels of BPA-exposure can cause harm, and this is particularly true in vulnerable populations like pregnant women, infants and the chronically ill. (1)

Full story

Roundup and birth defects researcher presents findings to German government

EU Reporter, Oct. 3, 2011

On 28 September 2011, the scientist at the centre of the global row over glyphosate/Roundup herbicide and birth defects met with representatives of the German government to present his scientific findings that Roundup herbicide and the chemical on which it is based, glyphosate, cause birth defects in laboratory animals.

Prof Andres Carrasco, MD, is head of the Molecular Embryology Laboratory at University of Buenos Aires (UBA) and chief scientist at the National Council for Science and Technology (CONICET), Argentina. Carrasco’s findings gave scientific credibility to reports of people in Argentina who claimed escalating rates of birth defects and cancers after the introduction of genetically modified soy, which is engineered to tolerate being sprayed with huge amounts of glyphosate.

Full story

The Deathly Icing on the Cake: Revealing the Cancerous Truth About Aspartame

Natural Society, Oct. 17, 2011

Aspartame, the artificial sweetener found in many diet sodas and used as an ‘alternative’ sweetener, has been found recently to possess detrimental cancerous effects.

Though it may seem as news to some readers, aspartame has been a known carcinogen for quite some time.

Aspartame researcher Dr. Soffritti did a similar pair of studies to Innes-Brown’s. The first study found that consumption of the equivalent of 4 to 5 bottles of diet soda per day yielded high rates of cancerous growths among many of his subjects; the highest dose producing 25 percent of females with cancerous cell growth, compared to 8.7 percent of the control group females. With this study, Soffritti concluded that aspartame at a ratio as low as 400 parts per million (ppm) was considered carcinogenic.

Initially these findings caused quite some controversy and sparked mass denial and nay saying worldwide. Now, after over 900 published studies on the health hazards of the sweetener are released, the nay saying has been curbed substantially.

Full story

VRM: Gardasil/Cervarix – A Legacy Of Shame

VaccineResistanceMovement.org, Aug. 10, 2011

According to the Centre for Disease Control (CDC), Cervical Cancer is “the 2nd leading cause of cancer deaths among women around the world. In the United States, about 10,000 women get cervical cancer every year and about 4,000 are expected to die from it.”. What the CDC doesn’t tell you is the fact that “70 percent of all HPV infections resolve themselves without treatment within a year. Within two years, the number climbs to 90 percent. Of the remaining 10 percent of HPV infections, only half will develop into cervical cancer, which leaves little need for the vaccine” – the viewpoint of Dr. Diane Harper, lead researcher in the development of two human papilloma virus vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix, and one seemingly in direct contradiction to the scientific literature being ‘foisted’ on the public by Vaccine Manufacturers Merck (Gardasil) & GlaxoSmithKline (Cervarix); vigorously backed by Government directed Health Departments around the world.

In fact, Merck clearly admits, on its official package insert, to the limited effectiveness of its product - ‘GARDASIL has not been demonstrated to protect against diseases due to HPV types not contained in the vaccine. Not all vulvar, vaginal, and anal cancers are caused by HPV, and GARDASIL protects only against those vulvar, vaginal, and anal cancers caused by HPV (Human Papillomavirus).’

Full story

Cancer Feeds on Fructose, America’s Number One Source of Calories

Activist Post, Sept. 30, 2011

High-fructose corn syrup is the primary source of calories in the United States. In addition to containing mercury, a known carcinogen, cancer cells actually feed on high-fructose corn syrup after it is metabolized by the liver. A new study, published in the Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Targets, examined the link between refined sugar and cancer. The results add further evidence to the reports of many health experts and scientific studies that have drawn the connection between excess sugar consumption and the development of cancer.

Similar research published in the journal Cancer Research found that the way in which sugar is metabolized stimulates cancer growth. The researchers reported: "Importantly, fructose and glucose metabolism are quite different … These findings show that cancer cells can readily metabolize fructose to increase proliferation."

What is even more concerning is that the scientists conducting the research used pancreatic cancer cells, widely considered to be the most deadly form of cancer. The discovery was monumental because not only did the researchers prove that tumor cells feed on sugar (glucose), but the tumor cells used fructose for cell division in order to speed up the growth and spread of the cancer. Fructose consumption actually led to a massive increase in tumor cell growth and proliferation way beyond that of glucose.

This cancer-feeding fructose is what the majority of Americans are consuming on a daily basis, to the point where high-fructose corn syrup is their number one source of calories. Even children are consuming excessive amounts of sugar in juice boxes, candy, and even ‘healthy’ sports beverages. The amount is so extreme that the average American consumes around 150 grams of sugar each day; whereas, many experts believe that the number should be around 15 grams per day or lower to prevent cancer.

Full story

Monsanto Nation: Taking Down Goliath

Organic Consumers Association, July 28, 2011

"If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it." - Norman Braksick, president of Asgrow Seed Co., a subsidiary of Monsanto, quoted in the Kansas City Star, March 7, 1994

After two decades of biotech bullying and force-feeding unlabeled and hazardous genetically engineered (GE) foods to animals and humans, it's time to move beyond defensive measures and go on the offensive. With organic farming, climate stability, and public health under the gun of the gene engineers and their partners in crime, it's time to do more than complain. With over 1/3 of U.S. cropland already contaminated with Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), with mounting scientific evidence that GMOs cause cancer, birth defects, and serious food allergies and with new biotech mutants like alfalfa, lawn grass, ethanol-ready corn, 2,4 D-resistant crops, and genetically engineered trees and animals in the pipeline, time is running out.

Living in Monsanto Nation there can be no such thing as "coexistence." It is impossible to coexist with a reckless industry that endangers public health, bribes public officials, corrupts scientists, manipulates the media, destroys biodiversity, kills the soil, pollutes the environment, tortures and poisons animals, destabilizes the climate, and economically enslaves the world's 1.5 billion seed-saving small farmers. It's time to take down the Biotech Behemoth, before the living web of biodiversity is terminated.

Full story

'Four in 10' face ordeal of cancer

The Independent, July 14, 2011

Rising cancer rates mean that more than four in 10 Britons will be diagnosed with the disease at some point in their lives, according to a study by a leading health charity.

New figures obtained by Macmillan Cancer Support show that 42% of Britons who die have had cancer - compared to around 35% a decade ago.

The study, which analysed data from 2008, also revealed that 64% of cancer sufferers will eventually die from the disease.

Ciaran Devane, chief executive of Macmillan Cancer Support, said: "It is really alarming that the number of people who will get cancer is now well past one in three, and that there are so many more people with cancer today than even 10 years ago."

Full story

Cancer Surges In Body Scanner Operators; TSA Launches Cover-Up

PrisonPlanet, June 28, 2011

Fearful of provoking further public resistance to naked airport body scanners, the TSA has been caught covering up a surge in cases of TSA workers developing cancer as a result of their close proximity to radiation-firing devices, perhaps the most shocking revelation to emerge from the latest FOIA documents obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

After Union representatives in Boston discovered a “cancer cluster” amongst TSA workers linked with radiation from the body scanners, the TSA sought to downplay the matter and refused to issue employees with dosimeters to measure levels of exposure.

Documents obtained by EPIC show that, far from affirming their safety, NIST warned that airport screeners should avoid standing next to full body scanners in order to keep exposure to harmful radiation “as low as reasonably achievable.”

Further documents illustrate how a Johns Hopkins study actually revealed that radiation zones around body scanners could exceed the “General Public Dose Limit,” contradicting repeated claims by the TSA that Johns Hopkins had validated the safety of the devices.

Full story