Unsafe at Any Dose

Published on May 3, 2011

Unsafe at Any Dose

By HELEN CALDICOTT

Published: April 30, 2011, Sydney, Australia

SIX weeks ago, when I first heard about the reactor damage at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan, I knew the prognosis: If any of the containment vessels or fuel pools exploded, it would mean millions of new cases of cancer in the Northern Hemisphere.

Many advocates of nuclear power would deny this. During the 25th anniversary last week of the Chernobyl disaster, some commentators asserted that few people died in the aftermath, and that there have been relatively few genetic abnormalities in survivors’ offspring. It’s an easy leap from there to arguments about the safety of nuclear energy compared to alternatives like coal, and optimistic predictions about the health of the people living near Fukushima.

But this is dangerously ill informed and short-sighted; if anyone knows better, it’s doctors like me. There’s great debate about the number of fatalities following Chernobyl; the International Atomic Energy Agency has predicted that there will be only about 4,000 deaths from cancer, but a 2009 report published by the New York Academy of Sciences says that almost one million people have already perished from cancer and other diseases. The high doses of radiation caused so many miscarriages that we will never know the number of genetically damaged fetuses that did not come to term. (And both Belarus and Ukraine have group homes full of deformed children.)

Nuclear accidents never cease. We’re decades if not generations away from seeing the full effects of the radioactive emissions from Chernobyl.

As we know from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it takes years to get cancer. Leukemia takes only 5 to 10 years to emerge, but solid cancers take 15 to 60. Furthermore, most radiation-induced mutations are recessive; it can take many generations for two recessive genes to combine to form a child with a particular disease, like my specialty, cystic fibrosis. We can’t possibly imagine how many cancers and other diseases will be caused in the far future by the radioactive isotopes emitted by Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Doctors understand these dangers. We work hard to try to save the life of a child dying of leukemia. We work hard to try to save the life of a woman dying of metastatic breast cancer. And yet the medical dictum says that for incurable diseases, the only recourse is prevention. There’s no group better prepared than doctors to stand up to the physicists of the nuclear industry.

Still, physicists talk convincingly about “permissible doses” of radiation. They consistently ignore internal emitters — radioactive elements from nuclear power plants or weapons tests that are ingested or inhaled into the body, giving very high doses to small volumes of cells. They focus instead on generally less harmful external radiation from sources outside the body, whether from isotopes emitted from nuclear power plants, medical X-rays, cosmic radiation or background radiation that is naturally present in our environment.

However, doctors know that there is no such thing as a safe dose of radiation, and that radiation is cumulative. The mutations caused in cells by this radiation are generally deleterious. We all carry several hundred genes for disease: cystic fibrosis, diabetes, phenylketonuria, muscular dystrophy. There are now more than 2,600 genetic diseases on record, any one of which may be caused by a radiation-induced mutation, and many of which we’re bound to see more of, because we are artificially increasing background levels of radiation.

For many years now, physicists employed by the nuclear industry have been outperforming doctors, at least in politics and the news media. Since the Manhattan Project in the 1940s, physicists have had easy access to Congress. They had harnessed the energy inside the center of the sun, and later physicists, whether lobbying for nuclear weapons or nuclear energy, had the same power. They walk into Congress and Congress virtually prostrates itself. Their technological advancements are there for all to see; the harm will become apparent only decades later.

Doctors, by contrast, have fewer dates with Congress, and much less access on nuclear issues. We don’t typically go around discussing the latent period of carcinogenesis and the amazing advances made in understanding radiobiology. But as a result, we do an inadequate job of explaining the long-term dangers of radiation to policymakers and the public.

When patients come to us with cancer, we deem it rude to inquire if they lived downwind of Three Mile Island in the 1980s or might have eaten Hershey’s chocolate made with milk from cows that grazed in irradiated pastures nearby. We tend to treat the disaster after the fact, instead of fighting to stop it from happening in the first place. Doctors need to confront the nuclear industry.

Nuclear power is neither clean, nor sustainable, nor an alternative to fossil fuels — in fact, it adds substantially to global warming. Solar, wind and geothermal energy, along with conservation, can meet our energy needs.

At the beginning, we had no sense that radiation induced cancer. Marie Curie and her daughter didn’t know that the radioactive materials they handled would kill them. But it didn’t take long for the early nuclear physicists in the Manhattan Project to recognize the toxicity of radioactive elements. I knew many of them quite well. They had hoped that peaceful nuclear energy would absolve their guilt over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but it has only extended it.

Physicists had the knowledge to begin the nuclear age. Physicians have the knowledge, credibility and legitimacy to end it.

Helen Caldicott, a founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility, is the author of “Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer.”

Aspartame is, by far, the most dangerous substance on the market that is added to foods.

Published on April 15, 2011

Aspartame is, by far, the most dangerous substance on the market that is added to foods., by Dr. Mercola

read the original article here

Aspartame is the technical name for the brand names NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, and Equal-Measure. It was discovered by accident in 1965 when James Schlatter, a chemist of G.D. Searle Company, was testing an anti-ulcer drug.

Aspartame was approved for dry goods in 1981 and for carbonated beverages in 1983. It was originally approved for dry goods on July 26, 1974, but objections filed by neuroscience researcher Dr John W. Olney and Consumer attorney James Turner in August 1974 as well as investigations of G.D. Searle’s research practices caused the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to put approval of aspartame on hold (December 5, 1974). In 1985, Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle and made Searle Pharmaceuticals and The NutraSweet Company separate subsidiaries.

Aspartame accounts for over 75 percent of the adverse reactions to food additives reported to the FDA. Many of these reactions are very serious including seizures and death. A few of the 90 different documented symptoms listed in the report as being caused by aspartame include: Headaches/migraines, dizziness, seizures, nausea, numbness, muscle spasms, weight gain, rashes, depression, fatigue, irritability, tachycardia, insomnia, vision problems, hearing loss, heart palpitations, breathing difficulties, anxiety attacks, slurred speech, loss of taste, tinnitus, vertigo, memory loss, and joint pain.

According to researchers and physicians studying the adverse effects of aspartame, the following chronic illnesses can be triggered or worsened by ingesting of aspartame: Brain tumors, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, chronic fatigue syndrome, parkinson’s disease, alzheimer’s, mental retardation, lymphoma, birth defects, fibromyalgia, and diabetes.

Aspartame is made up of three chemicals: aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol. The book “Prescription for Nutritional Healing,” by James and Phyllis Balch, lists aspartame under the category of “chemical poison.” As you shall see, that is exactly what it is.

What Is Aspartame Made Of?

Aspartic Acid (40 percent of Aspartame)

Dr. Russell L. Blaylock, a professor of neurosurgery at the Medical University of Mississippi, recently published a book thoroughly detailing the damage that is caused by the ingestion of excessive aspartic acid from aspartame. Blaylock makes use of almost 500 scientific references to show how excess free excitatory amino acids such as aspartic acid and glutamic acid (about 99 percent of monosodium glutamate (MSG) is glutamic acid) in our food supply are causing serious chronic neurological disorders and a myriad of other acute symptoms.

How Aspartate (and Glutamate) Cause Damage

Aspartate and glutamate act as neurotransmitters in the brain by facilitating the transmission of information from neuron to neuron. Too much aspartate or glutamate in the brain kills certain neurons by allowing the influx of too much calcium into the cells. This influx triggers excessive amounts of free radicals, which kill the cells. The neural cell damage that can be caused by excessive aspartate and glutamate is why they are referred to as “excitotoxins.” They “excite” or stimulate the neural cells to death.

Aspartic acid is an amino acid. Taken in its free form (unbound to proteins) it significantly raises the blood plasma level of aspartate and glutamate. The excess aspartate and glutamate in the blood plasma shortly after ingesting aspartame or products with free glutamic acid (glutamate precursor) leads to a high level of those neurotransmitters in certain areas of the brain.

The blood brain barrier (BBB), which normally protects the brain from excess glutamate and aspartate as well as toxins, 1) is not fully developed during childhood, 2) does not fully protect all areas of the brain, 3) is damaged by numerous chronic and acute conditions, and 4) allows seepage of excess glutamate and aspartate into the brain even when intact.

The excess glutamate and aspartate slowly begin to destroy neurons. The large majority (75 percent or more) of neural cells in a particular area of the brain are killed before any clinical symptoms of a chronic illness are noticed. A few of the many chronic illnesses that have been shown to be contributed to by long-term exposure to excitatory amino acid damage include:

Multiple sclerosis (MS)
ALS
Memory loss
Hormonal problems
Hearing loss
Epilepsy
Alzheimer’s disease

Parkinson’s disease
Hypoglycemia
AIDS
Dementia
Brain lesions
Neuroendocrine disorders

The risk to infants, children, pregnant women, the elderly and persons with certain chronic health problems from excitotoxins are great. Even the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB), which usually understates problems and mimics the FDA party-line, recently stated in a review that:

“It is prudent to avoid the use of dietary supplements of L-glutamic acid by pregnant women, infants, and children. The existence of evidence of potential endocrine responses, i.e., elevated cortisol and prolactin, and differential responses between males and females, would also suggest a neuroendocrine link and that supplemental L-glutamic acid should be avoided by women of childbearing age and individuals with affective disorders.”

Aspartic acid from aspartame has the same deleterious effects on the body as glutamic acid.

The exact mechanism of acute reactions to excess free glutamate and aspartate is currently being debated. As reported to the FDA, those reactions include:

aspartame effect

Headaches/migraines
Nausea
Abdominal pains
Fatigue (blocks sufficient glucose entry into brain)
Sleep problems
Vision problems
Anxiety attacks
Depression
Asthma/chest tigShtness.

One common complaint of persons suffering from the effect of aspartame is memory loss. Ironically, in 1987, G.D. Searle, the manufacturer of aspartame, undertook a search for a drug to combat memory loss caused by excitatory amino acid damage. Blaylock is one of many scientists and physicians who are concerned about excitatory amino acid damage caused by ingestion of aspartame and MSG.

A few of the many experts who have spoken out against the damage being caused by aspartate and glutamate include Adrienne Samuels, Ph.D., an experimental psychologist specializing in research design. Another is Olney, a professor in the department of psychiatry, School of Medicine, Washington University, a neuroscientist and researcher, and one of the world’s foremost authorities on excitotoxins. (He informed Searle in 1971 that aspartic acid caused holes in the brains of mice.)

Phenylalanine (50 percent of aspartame)

Phenylalanine is an amino acid normally found in the brain. Persons with the genetic disorder phenylketonuria (PKU) cannot metabolize phenylalanine. This leads to dangerously high levels of phenylalanine in the brain (sometimes lethal). It has been shown that ingesting aspartame, especially along with carbohydrates, can lead to excess levels of phenylalanine in the brain even in persons who do not have PKU.

This is not just a theory, as many people who have eaten large amounts of aspartame over a long period of time and do not have PKU have been shown to have excessive levels of phenylalanine in the blood. Excessive levels of phenylalanine in the brain can cause the levels of seratonin in the brain to decrease, leading to emotional disorders such as depression. It was shown in human testing that phenylalanine levels of the blood were increased significantly in human subjects who chronically used aspartame.

Even a single use of aspartame raised the blood phenylalanine levels. In his testimony before the U.S. Congress, Dr. Louis J. Elsas showed that high blood phenylalanine can be concentrated in parts of the brain and is especially dangerous for infants and fetuses. He also showed that phenylalanine is metabolised much more effeciently by rodents than by humans.

One account of a case of extremely high phenylalanine levels caused by aspartame was recently published the “Wednesday Journal” in an article titled “An Aspartame Nightmare.” John Cook began drinking six to eight diet drinks every day. His symptoms started out as memory loss and frequent headaches. He began to crave more aspartame-sweetened drinks. His condition deteriorated so much that he experienced wide mood swings and violent rages. Even though he did not suffer from PKU, a blood test revealed a phenylalanine level of 80 mg/dl. He also showed abnormal brain function and brain damage. After he kicked his aspartame habit, his symptoms improved dramatically.

As Blaylock points out in his book, early studies measuring phenylalanine buildup in the brain were flawed. Investigators who measured specific brain regions and not the average throughout the brain notice significant rises in phenylalanine levels. Specifically the hypothalamus, medulla oblongata, and corpus striatum areas of the brain had the largest increases in phenylalanine. Blaylock goes on to point out that excessive buildup of phenylalanine in the brain can cause schizophrenia or make one more susceptible to seizures.

Therefore, long-term, excessive use of aspartame may provid a boost to sales of seratonin reuptake inhibitors such as Prozac and drugs to control schizophrenia and seizures.

Methanol (aka wood alcohol/poison) (10 percent of aspartame)

Methanol/wood alcohol is a deadly poison. Some people may remember methanol as the poison that has caused some “skid row” alcoholics to end up blind or dead. Methanol is gradually released in the small intestine when the methyl group of aspartame encounter the enzyme chymotrypsin.

The absorption of methanol into the body is sped up considerably when free methanol is ingested. Free methanol is created from aspartame when it is heated to above 86 Fahrenheit (30 Centigrade). This would occur when aspartame-containing product is improperly stored or when it is heated (e.g., as part of a “food” product such as Jello).

Methanol breaks down into formic acid and formaldehyde in the body. Formaldehyde is a deadly neurotoxin. An EPA assessment of methanol states that methanol “is considered a cumulative poison due to the low rate of excretion once it is absorbed. In the body, methanol is oxidized to formaldehyde and formic acid; both of these metabolites are toxic.” They recommend a limit of consumption of 7.8 mg/day. A one-liter (approx. 1 quart) aspartame-sweetened beverage contains about 56 mg of methanol. Heavy users of aspartame-containing products consume as much as 250 mg of methanol daily or 32 times the EPA limit.

Symptoms from methanol poisoning include headaches, ear buzzing, dizziness, nausea, gastrointestinal disturbances, weakness, vertigo, chills, memory lapses, numbness and shooting pains in the extremities, behavioral disturbances, and neuritis. The most well known problems from methanol poisoning are vision problems including misty vision, progressive contraction of visual fields, blurring of vision, obscuration of vision, retinal damage, and blindness. Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen, causes retinal damage, interferes with DNA replication and causes birth defects.

Due to the lack of a couple of key enzymes, humans are many times more sensitive to the toxic effects of methanol than animals. Therefore, tests of aspartame or methanol on animals do not accurately reflect the danger for humans. As pointed out by Dr. Woodrow C. Monte, director of the food science and nutrition laboratory at Arizona State University, “There are no human or mammalian studies to evaluate the possible mutagenic, teratogenic or carcinogenic effects of chronic administration of methyl alcohol.”

He was so concerned about the unresolved safety issues that he filed suit with the FDA requesting a hearing to address these issues. He asked the FDA to “slow down on this soft drink issue long enough to answer some of the important questions. It’s not fair that you are leaving the full burden of proof on the few of us who are concerned and have such limited resources. You must remember that you are the American public’s last defense. Once you allow usage (of aspartame) there is literally nothing I or my colleagues can do to reverse the course. Aspartame will then join saccharin, the sulfiting agents, and God knows how many other questionable compounds enjoined to insult the human constitution with governmental approval.” Shortly thereafter, the Commissioner of the FDA, Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr., approved the use of aspartame in carbonated beverages, he then left for a position with G.D. Searle’s public relations firm.

It has been pointed out that some fruit juices and alcoholic beverages contain small amounts of methanol. It is important to remember, however, that methanol never appears alone. In every case, ethanol is present, usually in much higher amounts. Ethanol is an antidote for methanol toxicity in humans. The troops of Desert Storm were “treated” to large amounts of aspartame-sweetened beverages, which had been heated to over 86 degrees F in the Saudi Arabian sun. Many of them returned home with numerous disorders similar to what has been seen in persons who have been chemically poisoned by formaldehyde. The free methanol in the beverages may have been a contributing factor in these illnesses. Other breakdown products of aspartame such as DKP (discussed below) may also have been a factor.

In a 1993 act that can only be described as “unconscionable,” the FDA approved aspartame as an ingredient in numerous food items that would always be heated to above 86 degree F (30 degree C).

Diketopiperazine (DKP)

DKP is a byproduct of aspartame metabolism. DKP has been implicated in the occurrence of brain tumors. Olney noticed that DKP, when nitrosated in the gut, produced a compound that was similar to N-nitrosourea, a powerful brain tumor causing chemical. Some authors have said that DKP is produced after aspartame ingestion. I am not sure if that is correct. It is definitely true that DKP is formed in liquid aspartame-containing products during prolonged storage.

G.D. Searle conducted animal experiments on the safety of DKP. The FDA found numerous experimental errors occurred, including “clerical errors, mixed-up animals, animals not getting drugs they were supposed to get, pathological specimens lost because of improper handling,” and many other errors. These sloppy laboratory procedures may explain why both the test and control animals had sixteen times more brain tumors than would be expected in experiments of this length.

In an ironic twist, shortly after these experimental errors were discovered, the FDA used guidelines recommended by G.D. Searle to develop the industry-wide FDA standards for good laboratory practices.

DKP has also been implicated as a cause of uterine polyps and changes in blood cholesterol by FDA Toxicologist Dr. Jacqueline Verrett in her testimony before the U.S. Senate.

Manuka honey ‘could help fight superbugs’

Published on April 14, 2011

Manuka honey ‘could help fight superbugs’

By Michelle Roberts Health reporter, BBC News

Read the original article here

A combination of topical honey applied to the skin plus antibiotics may beat superbugs

Manuka honey could be used to combat some of the most hard-to-treat infections that are resistant to powerful antibiotics, scientists say.

Lab experiments show it can clear bacteria found in festering wounds and contaminated hospital surfaces.

It works by breaking down the defences bacteria use against antibiotics, making it useful in treating superbug infections such as MRSA.

The results were presented at a Society for General Microbiology meeting.

Professor Rose Cooper from the University of Wales Institute Cardiff found a variety of honey from bees foraging on manuka trees in New Zealand proved effective.

Fighting resistance

A specially filtered version of this honey, with impurities removed, is already used in modern licensed wound-care products around the world.

Indeed, people have known for centuries about honey’s antiseptic powers.

The researchers wanted to gain a better understanding of this honey’s bacteria-fighting properties and to see if it might help tackle some of the most stubborn infections encountered in our hospitals.

Professor Cooper’s work with two common types of bacteria – streptococci and pseudomonads – revealed that manuka honey can deter the attachment of bacteria to tissue, which is an essential step in the initiation of acute infections.

Stopping attachment also blocks the formation of biofilms, which can protect bacteria from antibiotics and allow them to cause persistent infections.

Medical grade honey

The latest lab work showed that the honey can make MRSA more sensitive to antibiotics such as oxacillin – effectively reversing antibiotic resistance.

Professor Cooper said: “This indicates that existing antibiotics may be more effective against drug-resistant infections if used in combination with manuka honey.

“What we need to do now is look at more combinations with antibiotics and do some clinical work in patients.

“It could be applied topically to wounds and used in combination with antibiotics to treat resistant infections.”

But she warned people not to try the same at home with honey bought from the supermarket. “Not only is it messy, it wouldn’t be advisable. We have been using medical grade honey, not the stuff you buy in shops.”

Radioactivity in the ocean: Diluted, but far from harmless

Published on April 12, 2011

Published Apr 7 2011 by Yale Environment 360, Archived Apr 12 2011

Radioactivity in the ocean: Diluted, but far from harmless

by Elizabeth Grossman

With contaminated water from Japan’s crippled Fukushima nuclear complex continuing to pour into the Pacific, scientists are concerned about how that radioactivity might affect marine life. Although the ocean’s capacity to dilute radiation is huge, signs are that nuclear isotopes are already moving up the local food chain.

Over the past half-century, the world has seen its share of incidents in which radioactive material has been dumped or discharged into the oceans. A British nuclear fuels plant has repeatedly released radioactive waste into the Irish Sea, a French nuclear reprocessing plant has discharged similar waste into the English Channel, and for decades the Soviets dumped large quantities of radioactive material into the Arctic Ocean, Kara Sea, and Barents Sea. That radioactive material included reactors from at least 16 Soviet nuclear-powered submarines and icebreakers, and large amounts of liquid and solid nuclear waste from USSR military bases and weapons plants.

Still, the world has never quite seen an event like the one unfolding now off the coast of eastern Japan, in which thousands of tons of radioactively contaminated water from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant are pouring directly into the ocean. And though the vastness of the ocean has the capacity to dilute nuclear contamination, signs of spreading radioactive material are being found off Japan, including the discovery of elevated concentrations of radioactive cesium and iodine in small fish several dozen miles south of Fukushima, and high levels of radioactivity in seawater 25 miles offshore.

International Atomic Energy Agency. Seawater concentrations of cesium-137, March 23 to March 30.

How this continuing contamination will affect marine life, or humans, is still unclear. But scientists agree that the governments of Japan, the United States, and other nations on the Pacific Rim need to ramp up studies of how far this contamination might spread and in what concentrations.

“Given that the Fukushima nuclear power plant is on the ocean, and with leaks and runoff directly to the ocean, the impacts on the ocean will exceed those of Chernobyl, which was hundreds of miles from any sea,” said Ken Buesseler, senior scientist in marine chemistry at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts. “My biggest concern is the lack of information. We still don’t know the whole range of radioactive compounds that have been released into the ocean, nor do we know their distribution. We have a few data points from the Japanese — all close to the coast — but to understand the full impact, including for fisheries, we need broader surveys and scientific study of the area.”

Buessler and other experts say this much is clear: Both short-lived radioactive elements, such as iodine-131, and longer-lived elements — such as cesium-137, with a half-life of 30 years — can be absorbed by phytoplankton, zooplankton, kelp, and other marine life and then be transmitted up the food chain, to fish, marine mammals, and humans. Other radioactive elements — including plutonium, which has been detected outside the Fukushima plant — also pose a threat to marine life. A key question is how concentrated will the radioactive contamination be. Japanese officials hope that a temporary fishing ban off the northeastern Japanese coast will be enough to avert any danger to human health until the flow of radioactive water into the sea can be stopped.

But that spigot is still running. Since the March 11 earthquake and tsunami, and the resulting damage to the reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, huge quantities of water have been poured on four stricken reactors to keep them cool. Thousands of tons of radioactively contaminated water have then been released from the Fukushima complex into the ocean. And even though the Japanese this week stopped a leak of highly radioactive material from the badly damaged Reactor No. 2, the water used to cool the reactor cores continues to flow into the sea. In addition, atmospheric fallout from the damaged reactors is contaminating the ocean as prevailing winds carry radioactivity out over the Pacific.

The Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) has reported that seawater containing radioactive iodine-131 at 5 million times the legal limit has been detected near the plant. According to the Japanese news service, NHK, a recent sample also contained 1.1 million times the legal level of radioactive cesium-137.

Studies from previous releases of nuclear material in the Irish, Kara and Barents Seas, as well as in the Pacific Ocean, show that such radioactive material does travel with ocean currents, is deposited in marine sediment, and does climb the marine food web. In the Irish Sea — where the British Nuclear Fuels plant at Sellafield in the northwestern United Kingdom released radioactive material over many decades, beginning in the 1950s — studies have found radioactive cesium and plutonium concentrating significantly in seals and porpoises that ate contaminated fish. Other studies have shown that radioactive material from Sellafield and from the nuclear reprocessing plant at Cap de la Hague in France have been transported to the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans. A study published in 2003 found that a substantial part of the world’s radioactive contamination is in the marine environment.

Antony Dickson/AFP/Getty Images. A sign inside a Hong Kong supermarket assures shoppers that the sushi for sale is not of Japanese origin.But what impact this radioactive contamination has on marine life and humans is still unclear. Even the mass dumping of nuclear material by the Soviets in the Arctic has not been definitively shown to have caused widespread harm to marine life. That may be because containment vessels around some of the dumped reactors are preventing the escape of radiation. A lack of comprehensive studies by the Russians in the areas where nuclear waste was dumped also has hampered understanding. Two events in the early 1990s — a die-off of seals in the Barents Sea and White Sea from blood cancer, and the deaths of millions of starfish, shellfish, seals and porpoises in the White Sea — have been variously attributed by Russian scientists to pollution or nuclear contamination.

How the radioactive materials released from the Fukushima plants will behave in the ocean will depend on their chemical properties and reactivity, explained Ted Poston, a ecotoxicologist with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, a U.S. government facility in Richland, Washington. If the radionuclides are in soluble form, they will behave differently than if they are absorbed into particles, said Poston. Soluble iodine, for example, will disperse rather rapidly. But if a radionuclide reacts with other molecules or gets deposited on existing particulates — bits of minerals, for example — they can be suspended in the water or, if larger, may drop to the sea floor.

“If particulates in the water column are very small they will move with the current,” he explained. “If bigger or denser, they can settle in sediment.”

If iodine-131, for example, is taken up by seaweed or plankton, it can be transferred to fish, which are in turn eaten by larger fish, as has been seen in the Irish Sea. Fish can also take in radionuclides in the water through their gills, and radionuclides can be ingested by mollusks. But Edward Lazo, deputy division head for radiation protection at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, said, “This is not a fully developed science and there are lots of uncertainties.”

Radioactive iodine is taken up by the thyroid in humans and marine mammals — or in the case of fish, thyroid tissue — and is also readily absorbed by seaweed and kelp. Cesium acts like potassium and is taken up by muscle. Cesium would tend to stay in solution and can eventually end up in marine sediment where, because of its long half life, it will persist for years. Because marine organisms use potassium they can also take up cesium. “Cesium behaves like potassium, so would end up in all marine life,” said Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research in Maryland. “It certainly will have an effect.”

Tom Hei, professor of environmental sciences and vice-chairman of radiation oncology at Columbia University, explained that the mechanisms that determine how an animal takes in radiation are the same for fish as they are for humans. Once in the body — whether inhaled or absorbed through gills or other organs — radiation can make its way into the bloodstream, lungs, and bony structures, potentially causing death, cancer, or genetic damage. Larger animals tend to more sensitive to radiation than smaller ones. Yet small fish, mollusks and crustaceans, as well as plankton and phytoplankton, can absorb radiation, said Poston. How the radiation accumulates depends on the degree of exposure — dose and duration — and the half-life of the element, said Hei.

Depending on its chemical form and by what organisms it is taken up, radiation can also concentrate when it moves through the food chain. A 1999 study found that seals and porpoises in the Irish Sea concentrated radioactive cesium by a factor of 300 relative to its concentration in seawater, and a factor of 3 to 4 compared to the fish they ate.

So far, the Japanese government and TEPCO have provided only limited data on marine contamination from the Fukushima plant. Given the emergency situation, independent monitoring along the coast is difficult, said Jan Beránek, director of Greenpeace International’s nuclear energy project. On April 5, the Japanese government set its first standards for allowable levels of radioactive material in seafood. A number of countries have banned seafood imports from Japan. The U.S. has barred food imports from the prefectures closest to Fukushima and the Food and Drug Administration says it is closely monitoring imported food products, including seafood, for radiation contamination.

“This is not an imminent health concern, but we haven’t seen the end of it,” said Theo Theofanous, professor of chemical and mechanical engineering at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) says it is not conducting any monitoring of the marine environment for radiation. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is monitoring airborne radiation, but its spokespeople were unable to say whether the EPA was monitoring the marine environment as well.

Experts such as Buesseler of Woods Hole, as well as activists like Beránek, said an international effort should quickly be launched to sample and measure radionuclides in the ocean, seafloor, and marine life, with close attention paid to which direction ocean currents can be expected to transport water potentially contaminated by Fukushima.

Original article available here

Video: How the food industry is deceiving you with Peter Jennings

Published on April 8, 2011

Video: How the food industry is deceiving you

Read the original article here

“In 2004, the late, great Peter Jennings pulled no punches with his insightful and hard-hitting five-part series How the Food Industry is Deceiving You. In it, Jennings took a critical look at how the rapid rise of obesity in America is directly connected to the unholy alliance between the food industry and our government. As just one of the many examples of underhanded dealings, Jennings points to agricultural subsidy programs and shows how the lion’s share of subsidy dollars go to produce sugars and fats. The exposé also highlights how, despite the insanely large amounts of money spent on marketing unhealthy foods (in 2002, the food industry spent $34 billion on marketing– $12 billion of which was aimed at children), the food industry still insists that the choice is yours, and that obesity is most likely tied to people’s unwillingness to exercise (Michael F. Jacobson stops in to disprove that myth).

The series ends with a very somber Jennings looking right into the camera, comparing the food industry today with the tobacco industry 30 years ago. He claimed that by publicizing the dangers of smoking, the government successfully reduced national smoking rates. The message hits hard—at the time of filming, Jennings was dying of smoking-induced lung cancer (he passed away in 2005). He then called for the government to step up and educate the public about healthy eating.

Today, nearly seven years after Jennings’ plea, there is still much to be done to divorce the partnership between Big Ag and Big Gov. The good news is that other journalists have followed in Jennings’ footsteps. In 2010, Katie Couric sat down with industrial food critics former FDA Commissioner Dr. David Kessler and Fast Food Nation author Eric Schlosser in her report Americans and Food, which took a compelling look at antibiotic abuse in industrial meat production, genetically modified organisms, high fructose corn syrup, growth hormones in dairy cows and more.” – Jennifer Bunnin

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

The Best Medicinal Herbs To Grow

Published on April 8, 20111 Comment

eHow – The Best Medicinal Herbs To Grow

By J. Lang Wood, eHow Contributor

Read the original article here

The environmental movement has spawned an interest in growing plants that have been used traditionally for their medicinal properties. Many of these plants are easy to grow in most regions, while others do well when grown indoors. The plants can be prepared as infusions, tinctures, syrups, or as oils for medicinal use. Those interested in growing and using plants for medicinal purposes should carefully research how these substances should be used and in what amounts. Like all medicines, improper use can be dangerous.

Aloe Vera – Aloe Vera is a plant that grows commonly in the southwestern United States. The leaves produce a mucous-like substance that possesses cooling and healing properties. It can be used against sunburn, kitchen burns, and other skin irritations. In a juice form, aloe vera is used against ulcerative colitis, constipation, and other digestive disease
Sage – Sage is a cooking herb as well as a medicinal plant. It was often used to help indigestion, flatulence, depression, and menopausal symptoms.
Peppermint – Besides its delicious smell, peppermint has been in use since ancient times for its medicinal properties. It is used to help upset stomach, spastic colon, and irritable bowel syndrome, as well as to reduce fevers.
Tea Tree – Tea tree oil is used in many over-the-counter medicines and beauty products. It can be used to help acne, athlete’s foot, burns, cold sores, insect bites, and vaginal infections. Tea Tree can also be used against chronic fatigue syndrome.
Ginseng – Ginseng is a plant highly regarded for its medicinal properties. It is used to relax the nervous system, stimulate hormone production, treat insomnia, lower blood sugar and cholesterol, and improve general stamina.
Feverfew – Feverfew is a very old medicinal plant that has been used for hundreds of years to treat colds, fevers, and arthritis, as well as for bruises, swollen feet, and to help with migraine headaches.
Fenugreek – The seeds of fenugreek are nutritious and are taken to treat inflammation of the stomach and intestines. It can also be used for the treatment of late onset diabetes, to lower cholesterol levels, to prevent cancer of the liver, and for labor pains.
Evening Primrose – The roots can be eaten and the shoots can be added into a salad. A tea is often made from the roots to treat obesity and bowel pain. Leaves and bark, which are made into evening primrose oil, treat rheumatoid arthritis, eczema, acne, and premenstrual disorders.
Chamomile – Besides being known as a soothing tea, chamomile can be used for a number of ailments, including a cold, diarrhea, earache, toothache, digestive disorders, eczema, and common wounds.
Echinacea – This lovely flowering plant is known as one of the most important medicinal herbs in any medicinal garden. It can be used to treat wounds, burns, insect bites, and even snakebites. It is also used to strengthen the immune system in fighting allergies.

Precautions When Using Medicinal Plants – Pregnant or nursing women should not use medicinal plants unless under the supervision of their doctors. Always let your physician know what medicinal plants you have been using. If there are any changes in heart rhythm, vision, mental processes, dizziness, itching, rashes, or abnormal bleeding, discontinue use of medicinal plants and consult with your physician.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Related Articles:

Physicians for Social Responsibility Deeply Concerned About Reports of Increased Radioactivity in Food Supply

Published on April 5, 2011

March 23, 2011

Washington, DC – March 23, 2011 – Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) expressed concern over recent reports that radioactivity from the ongoing Fukushima accident is present in the Japanese food supply. While all food contains radionuclides, whether from natural sources, nuclear testing or otherwise, the increased levels found in Japanese spinach and milk pose health risks to the population. PSR also expressed alarm over the level of misinformation circulating in press reports about the degree to which radiation exposure can be considered “safe.”

According to the National Academy of Sciences, there are no safe doses of radiation. Decades of research show clearly that any dose of radiation increases an individual’s risk for the development of cancer.

“There is no safe level of radionuclide exposure, whether from food, water or other sources. Period,” said Jeff Patterson, DO, immediate past president of Physicians for Social Responsibility. “Exposure to radionuclides, such as iodine-131 and cesium-137, increases the incidence of cancer. For this reason, every effort must be taken to minimize the radionuclide content in food and water.”

“Consuming food containing radionuclides is particularly dangerous. If an individual ingests or inhales a radioactive particle, it continues to irradiate the body as long as it remains radioactive and stays in the body,”said Alan H. Lockwood, MD, a member of the Board of Physicians for Social Responsibility. “The Japanese government should ban the sale of foods that contain radioactivity levels above pre-disaster levels and continue to monitor food and water broadly in the area. In addition, the FDA and EPA must enforce existing regulations and guidelines that address radionuclide content in our food supply here at home.”

As the crisis in Japan goes on, there are an increasing number of sources reporting that 100 milliSieverts (mSv) is the lowest dose at which a person is at risk for cancer. Established research disproves this claim. A dose of 100 mSv creates a one in 100 risk of getting cancer, buta dose of 10 mSv still gives a one in 1,000 chance of getting cancer, and a dose of 1 mSv gives a one in 10,000 risk.

Even if the risk of getting cancer for one individual from a given level of food contamination is low, if thousands or millions of people are exposed, then some of those people will get cancer.

Recent reports indicate the Japanese disaster has released more iodine-131 than cesium-137. Iodine-131 accumulates in the thyroid, especially of children, with a half-life of over 8 days compared to cesium-137, which has a half-life of just over 30 years. Regardless of the shorter half-life, doses of iodine-131 are extremely dangerous, especially to pregnant women and children, and can lead to incidents of cancer, hypothyroidism, mental retardation and thyroid deficiency, among other conditions.

“Children are much more susceptible to the effects of radiation, and stand a much greater chance of developing cancer than adults,” said Dr. Andrew Kanter, president-elect of PSR’s Board. “So it is particularly dangerous when they consume radioactive food or water.”

All food contains some radioactivity as a result of natural sources, but also from prior above-ground nuclear testing, the Chernobyl accident, and releases from nuclear reactors and from weapons facilities. The factors that will affect the radioactivityin food after the Fukushima accident are complicated. These include the radionuclides that the nuclear reactor emits, weather patterns that control the wind direction and where the radionuclides are deposited, characteristics of the soil (e.g., clays bind nuclides, sand does not) and the nature of the food(leafy plants like spinach are more likely to be contaminated than other plants like rice that have husks, etc.).However, radiation can be concentrated many times in the food chain and any consumption adds to the cumulative risk of cancer and other diseases.

“Reports indicate that the total radioactive releases from the Fukushima reactor have been relatively small so far. If this is the case, then the health effects to the overall population will be correspondingly small,” said Ira Helfand, MD, a member of the Board of Physicians for Social Responsibility. “But it is not true to say that it is “safe” to release this much radiation; some people will get cancer and die as a result.”

Resources

Health risks of the releases of radioactivity from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactors: Are they a concern for residents of the United States?

More on Radiation Dangers:

“Safe” Radiation is a Lethal TMI Lie

Victims of Radiation

A tribute to the victims of Chernobyl

List of known cancer causing ingredients everyone should avoid

Published on March 31, 2011

Cancer Group and Ralph Nader Release “Dirty Dozen” Consumer Product List

Published by the Cancer Prevention Coalition

“Dirty Dozen” list released by Dr. Epstein and Cancer Prevention Coalition

On Sept. 21, 1995, the Cancer Prevention Coalition (CPC) and Ralph Nader released a “Dirty Dozen” list of consumer products used in most American homes which is still useful today. Brand named “Dirty Dozen” products include: Ajax Cleanser®, Clairol® Nice n’ Easy Haircolor and Lysol® Disinfectant.

The “Dirty Dozen” products contain a wide-range of carcinogenic and other toxic ingredients and contaminants to which most of us are exposed daily.

CPC Chairperson Samuel Epstein, M.D., and investigative journalist, David Steinman, compiled the “Dirty Dozen” from data on over 3,500 consumer products analyzed and ranked in their recently published The Safe Shopper’s Bible. The good news is that safer alternatives are available for all the “Dirty Dozen”.

The Dirty Dozen List

Click here to view the ‘Dirty Dozen’ list on the Cancer Prevention Coalition Site

Following is a list of consumer products used in most American homes and manufactured by giant U.S. corporations, according to a report by the Cancer Prevention Coalition (CPC) and Ralph Nader — released back in 1995 but still just as timely today. The first “Dirty Dozen” list products included: Ajax Cleanse®, Clairol® Nice n’ Easy Haircolor and Lysol® Disinfectant.

According to the report, these “Dirty Dozen” products contain a wide-range of carcinogenic and other toxic ingredients and contaminants to which most of us are exposed daily.

FOOD

Beef Frankfurters — (eg. Oscar Mayer Foods Corporation)

Unlabeled Toxic Ingredients:

BENZENE HEXACHLORIDE, Carcinogenic.
DACTHAL, Carcinogenic (can be contaminated with dioxin); irritant; strong sensitizer.
DIELDRIN, Carcinogenic; xenoestrogen.
DDT, Carcinogenic; xenoestrogen.
HEPTACHLOR, Carcinogenic; neurotoxic; reproductive toxin; xenoestrogen.
HEXACHLOROBENZENE, Carcinogenic; neurotoxic; teratogenic.
LINDANE, Carcinogenic; neurotoxic; damage to blood forming cells.
HORMONES: Carcinogenic and feminizing.
ANTIBIOTICS: Some are carcinogenic, cause allergies and drug resistance.
Labeled Ingredient:
NITRITE, Interacts with meat amines to form carcinogenic nitrosamines which are a major risk factor for childhood cancers.

Safer Alternative:

Nitrite-Free Organic hot dogs or tofu franks.

Whole Milk — (eg. Borden or Lucerne)

Unlabeled Toxic Ingredients:

DDT, Carcinogenic; xenoestrogen.
DIELDRIN, Carcinogenic; xenoestrogen.
HEPTACHLOR, Carcinogenic; neurotoxic; reproductive toxin; xenoestrogen.
HEXACHLOROBENZENE, Carcinogenic; neurotoxic; reproductive toxin.
ANTIBIOTICS: Some are carcinogenic, cause allergies and drug resistance.
RECOMBINANT BOVINE GROWTH HORMONE and IGF-1: Also, risk factor for breast, colon and prostate cancers.

Safer Alternative:

rBGH-free Organic skim milk

COSMETICS AND PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS

Talcum Powder — (Johnson & Johnson. Inc.)

Labeled Toxic Ingredient:

TALC, Carcinogenic and a risk factor for ovarian cancer; lung irritant.

Safer Alternative:

Corn Starch — (Johnson & Johnson, Inc.)

Cover Girl Replenishing Natural Finish Make Up (Foundation) (Procter & Gamble. Inc.)

Labeled Toxic Ingredients:

BHA, Carcinogenic.
TALC, Carcinogenic; Lung Irritant.
TRIETHANOLAMINE (TEA), Interacts with nitrites to form carcinogenic nitrosamines.
LANOLIN, Often contaminated with DDT and other carcinogenic pesticides.
PARABENS, Contact dermatitis.
FRAGRANCE, Wide range of unlabeled, untested, and toxic ingredients; contact dermatitis.

Safer Alternative:

Max Factor Pan-Silk Ultra Creamy Makeup (Max Factor, Inc.) — Note: Max Factor has stopped selling in the U.S. Max Factor is still offering these items in their store at : http://www.maxfactor.com/index.jsp. Drugstore.com, Amazon, Sears, and a great many stores on the Internet still have some Max Factor products left, as well.

Crest Tartar Control Toothpaste — (Procter & Gamble. Inc.)

Labeled Toxic Ingredients:

FD&C BLUE #1, Carcinogenic.
SACCHARIN, Carcinogenic.
FLUORIDE, Possibly carcinogenic.

Safer Alternative:

Tom’s of Maine Natural Non-Fluoride Toothpaste

Alberto VO5 Conditioner (Essence of Neutral Henna) (Alberto-Culver USA. Inc.)

Labeled Toxic Ingredients:

FORMALDEHYDE, Carcinogenic; neurotoxic; contact dermatitis and sensitizer.
POLYSORBATE 80, Generally contaminated with the carcinogen 1,4-dioxane.
FD&C RED #4, Carcinogenic.
FRAGRANCE, Wide range of undisclosed ingredients; contact dermatitis.

Safer Alternative:

Earth Preserv Hair Vitalizer (all scents, but with fragrances) (Earth Preserv, Inc.)

Clairol Nice ‘n Easy (Permanent Haircolor) (Clairol. Inc.)

Labeled Toxic Ingredients:

QUATERNlUM-15, Formaldehyde-releaser; carcinogenic; neurotoxic; contact dermatitis and sensitizer.
DIETHANOLAMINE (DEA), Carcinogenic; also interacts with nitrites to form a carcinogenic nitrosamine.
PHENYLENE-DIAMINES, Includes carcinogens and other ingredients inadequately tested for carcinogenicity; contact dermatitis.
PROPYLENE GLYCOL, Contact dermatitis.
FRAGRANCE, Wide range of undisclosed ingredients; contact dermatitis.
NOTE: Also evidence of causal relation to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, multiple myeloma and other cancers.

Safer Alternatives:

Igora Botanic — Schwarzkopf, Inc. or Logona Henna Black — Natur Kosmetik

HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS

Ajax Cleanser (Colgate-Palmolive. Inc.)

Unlabeled Toxic Ingredients:

CRYSTALLINE SILICA, Carcinogenic; eye, skin and lung irritant.
WASHING SODA,Caustic.
NOTE: Carcinogenicity of silica is admitted in 1994 Material Safety and Data Sheet (MSDS). (Manufacturer claims to have reduced silica levels since 1993.)

Safer Alternative:

Comet Cleanser (Procter & Gamble, Inc.)

Zud Heavy Duty Cleanser (Reckitt & Colman. Inc.)

Unlabeled Toxic Ingredient:

CRYSTALLINE SILICA, Carcinogenic; eye, skin and lung irritant. (Carcinogenicity is denied in Material Safety and Data Sheet.)

Safer Alternative:

Comet Cleanser (Procter & Gamble, Inc.)

Lysol Disinfectant Spray (Reckitt & Colman. Inc.)

Labeled or Unlabeled Toxic Ingredient:

ORTHOPHENYLPHENOL (OPP): Carcinogenic; irritant. (Carcinogenicity is denied in Material Safety and Data Sheet.)

Safer Alternative:

Airwick Stick Up (Reckitt & Colman, Inc.)

Zodiac Cat & Dog Flea Collar (Sandoz Agro. Inc).

Labeled Toxic Ingredient:

PROPOXUR, Carcinogenic; neurotoxic.

Safer Alternative:

Trader Joe’s Herbal Flea Collar for cats or dogs

Ortho Weed-B-Gon Lawn Weed Killer (Monsanto Co.)

Labeled Toxic Ingredient:

SODIUM 2,4-DICHLOROPHENOXYACETATE (2,4-D), Carcinogenic with evidence of casual relation to lymphoma, soft tissue sarcoma and other cancers ; neurotoxic; reproductive toxin.

Safer Alternative:

Organic pesticides

See September 21, 1995 press release: Cancer Group and Ralph Nader Release First Annual “Dirty Dozen” Consumer Product List: www.preventcancer.com

Carcinogen Information from ‘Every Child Healthy, Building Champions for Life‘

We’re guessing if we saw Skittles naked, without their coloring, we probably wouldn’t want to eat them as much. Same goes for a lot of food — if it were brown, or, even worse, grey, it definitely wouldn’t be as appetizing. This is where food dyes come in. While we can thank dyes for making our food more attractive, there are also some hefty health risks that dyes create.

The most widely used dyes — Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6 — are contaminated with cancer-causing substances, according to The Center for Science in the Public Interest. Red 3 is classified by the FDA as a carcinogen, but it’s still widely used in foods. Besides cancer, the dyes can also cause hyperactivity and children, as well as allergic reactions.

This isn’t just a radical nonprofit that’s trying to eliminate dye usage. The British government asked manufacturers to stop using food dyes last year, and the European Union is putting a warning notice on foods containing dyes starting in July. If the same type of system is implemented in the U.S., we’re assuming some companies will try to find a new way to color our food. We have a suggestion: natural ingredients. Last we checked, fruits come in all colors of the rainbow.

LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS

Congress Must Protect People from Toxic Chemicals Known to Cause Harm:

Asbestos: http://www.nrdc.org/health/asbestos-fs.asp
Bisphenol A (BPA): http://www.nrdc.org/health/toxics/bpa.asp
Formaldehyde: http://www.nrdc.org/health/formaldehyde-fs.asp
Hexane: http://www.nrdc.org/health/hexane-fs.asp
Hexavalent Chromium: http://www.nrdc.org/health/HexavalentChromium-fs.asp
Methylene Chloride: http://www.nrdc.org/health/MethyleneChloride-fs.asp
Phthalates: http://www.nrdc.org/health/phthalates.asp
Flame Retardants TDCP and TCEP: http://www.nrdc.org/health/flameretardants-fs.asp
Tricholoroethylene (TCE): http://www.nrdc.org/health/tricholoroethylene.asp
Vinyl Chloride: http://www.nrdc.org/health/VinylChloride-fs.asp

Some of the ingredients in beauty products aren’t that pretty. U.S. researchers report that one in eight of the 82,000 ingredients used in personal care products are industrial chemicals, including carcinogens, pesticides, reproductive toxins, and hormone disruptors. Many products include plasticizers (chemicals that keep concrete soft), degreasers (used to get grime off auto parts), and surfactants (they reduce surface tension in water, like in paint and inks). Imagine what that does to your skin, and to the environment.

Click here to read a list of cosmetic chemicals to avoid

The Truth About Food-dyes

Published on March 31, 2011

The rainbow of food dyes in our grocery aisles has a dark side, By David W. Schab and Michael F. Jacobson, Friday, March 25, 8:51 PM

Published in the Washington Post

Read the original article here

Today’s supermarket is a fun house of hues. Its aisles feature riotously colored processed foods perfectly engineered to appeal to the part of your brain that says “yum”: Technicolor Starburst candy. Polychromatic Froot Loops. A rainbow of flavored juices.

Those hyper-saturated colors have come to seem normal, even natural, like the come-ons of tropical fruits. But they are increasingly produced through the magic of artificial food dyes, applied not just to candies and snack foods but to such seemingly all-natural products as pickles, salad dressing and some oranges.

Artificial dyes aren’t just making your Yoplait Light Red Raspberry yogurt blush and your Kraft Macaroni and Cheese glow in the dark. They are causing behavioral problems and disrupting children’s attention, according to a growing number of scientific studies. On Wednesday, following the lead of European regulators, a Food and Drug Administration advisory committee will begin a review of research on the behavioral effects of artificial dyes. In a significant turn from the agency’s previous denials that dyes have any influence on children’s behavior, an FDA staff report released last week concluded that synthetic food colorings do affect some children.

The agency should take action. Allowing the use of artificial dyes violates the FDA’s mandate to protect consumers from unsafe products. It also runs afoul of the agency’s mandate to crack down on food that has been made “to appear better or of greater value than it is.”

Concern about food dye is long-standing. In the 1800s, American food manufacturers began doctoring their wares with toxic pigments made from lead and copper. In the second half of that century, a revolution in organic chemistry brought artificial dyes made from coal tar — a relative advance over lead.

At the turn of the 20th century, margarine producers were making the most of the technology: They added new yellow dyes to their colorless product to better compete with butter. But the dairy industry lobbied for bans and taxes on colored margarine, and state legislatures and Congress obliged. Consumers who wanted their margarine yellow could open a separate packet of dye and mix it in themselves.

In 1906, Congress took up the question of whether artificial dyes were bad for consumers, with the first of several major acts. The most recent and stringent of them, passed in 1960, banned color additives that caused cancer in humans or animals. But the fate of one such additive, Red 3, illustrates how even strong legislation can be thwarted. Lab rats that were fed large amounts of the dye developed thyroid cancer, so in 1984 the acting FDA commissioner recommended banning it. However, fruit-cocktail producers, who relied on the dye to brighten maraschino cherries, pleaded with the Department of Agriculture to block the move. As a result, the FDA banned Red 3 only in cosmetics and topical drugs.

In the early 1990s, FDA and Canadian scientists found that Red 40, Yellow 5 and Yellow 6, the three most widely used dyes, were contaminated with likely human carcinogens. And while many foods, such as M&M’s and Kellogg’s Hot Fudge Sundae Pop Tarts, include as many as five different dyes, even today the carcinogenic potential of such combinations has not been tested.

Despite those concerns, parents continued to serve up meals and stuff their children’s lunchboxes with more and more processed foods colored with dyes, stoking a five-fold increase in the per-capita production of food dyes over the past 50 years.

Over the same period, psychiatrists and teachers were seeing more attention and behavioral problems, while allergists were raising concerns about Yellow 5. Physician Benjamin Feingold’s 1975 book, “Why Your Child Is Hyperactive,” along with the additive-free diet it promoted, spawned numerous studies on the effect of additives on attention-deficit disorders.

In 2004, one of us co-authored an analysis of the best studies of food dyes’ effects on behavior. That analysis found striking evidence that hyperactive children who consumed dyes became significantly more hyperactive than children who got a placebo.

At the same time, the British government funded two studies, each involving almost 300 children. Their results were even more startling: Artificial food dyes (in combination with a common preservative) could make even children with no known behavioral problems hyperactive and inattentive.

Health officials in the United Kingdom urged manufacturers to stop using the six dyes — including Red 40, Yellow 5 and Yellow 6 — involved in those studies. Next, the European Parliament required that foods containing those chemicals bear a label warning that the dyes “may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children.” That is seen by some as the death knell for artificial dyes throughout Europe.

Beyond the behavioral problems and cancer risks, the greatest hazard that dyes pose for children may also be the most obvious: They draw kids away from nutritious foods and toward brightly colored processed products that are high in calories but low in nutrients, such as fruit-flavored drinks and snack foods. Those types of foods are a major force in America’s obesity epidemic, which, according to the Society of Actuaries, costs the nation $270 billion a year.

Artificial colorings are explicitly meant to manipulate consumers’ perceptions. Manufacturers tout research showing that redness enhances the impression of sweetness, and that in tests with beverages and sherbets, the color of the product did more to influence consumers’ perception of the flavor than the flavor itself. One dye marketer states that its colorings offer “a limitless palette, unmatched technology and the emotional connection between people and color.”

A world without harmful dyes does not mean a future of blandly beige snacks. A range of vivid natural colorings, made largely from plant extracts, is already in use in Europe and to a lesser extent in the United States. In Britain, for example, McDonald’s Strawberry Sundaes are made without artificial coloring; here, Red 40 adds to the strawberry color. Both the British and American formulations of Nutri-Grain Strawberry cereal bars contain strawberries, but in Britain plant-based colorings add extra color, while in the United States Red 40 does the job.

Fortunately, some U.S. companies are switching to colorings found in nature. The bountiful shelves of Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s are devoid of dyes, Necco has dropped artificial dyes from its iconic wafers, and Starbucks has banned dyes from its baked goods and drinks. Most companies will resist, because artificial dyes are brighter, cheaper and more stable than natural colorings. It’s also a nuisance for them to reformulate their dyed products — and the government has given them no incentive to change.

Today, Britons enjoy all the colorful foods they have come to expect without many of the health risks they learned to avoid. Here, we get the same foods — but until the FDA bans synthetic dyes, we get them with a side order of dangerous and unnecessary chemicals.

David W. Schab is an assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at Columbia University. Michael F. Jacobson is the executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Shedding Light on the Food Industry

by Robyn O’Brien

Visit her website here

A Texas native raised on Twinkies and PoBoys, Robyn O’Brien is a critically-acclaimed author, researcher and mother of four who has leveraged her experience as a food industry analyst to uncovering how one of life’s most basic activities – eating – has become a risk to our health. Her work has been praised by Ted Turner, Dr. Oz, Erin Brockovich and seen in the New York Times, on CNN, the Today Show and other media.

In the years that she has been a speaker and a nationally recognized author, she has delivered inspiring messages to thousands of people around the country, from entrepreneurs to members of Congress to corporate professionals to mothers’ groups, schools and universities. Her meticulously detailed research sheds light on policy, financial incentives and the skyrocketing rates of cancer, autism, obesity and allergies, and her story is sure to inspire you.

In her first book, The Unhealthy Truth: How Our Food Is Making Us Sick and What We Can Do About It, using the resources and skills that she developed as an analyst in the food and technology industries, Robyn diagnoses the failing American food system and its financially-driven incentive structure that has allowed additives into the American food supply that have either been banned or labeled from foods in other developed countries, especially those served to children.

TEDxAustin Robyn O’Brien 2011

Check Out Robyn’s Blog Here

Krill Oil 48x Better Than Fish Oil?

Published on March 30, 20112 Comments

Krill Oil 48x Better Than Fish Oil?

Read the original article here

Written by Dr. Michael Eades

Krill isn’t your average shrimp. (Photo: The Sun and Doves)

Krill oil, logically enough, comes from krill, which are small, shrimp like crustaceans that inhabit the cold ocean areas of the world, primarily the Antarctic and North Pacific Oceans.

Despite their small size–one to five centimeters in length–krill make up the largest animal biomass on the planet. According to Neptune Technologies, the Canadian company that holds the patent for krill oil extraction, there are approximately 500 million tons of krill roaming around in these northern seas, 110,000 tons of which are harvested annually.

Krill oil, like fish oil, contains both of the omega-3 fats, eicosapentanoic acid (EPA) and docosahexanoic acid (DHA), but hooked together in a different form…

In fish oil, these omega-3 fatty acids are found in the triglyceride form, whereas in krill oil they are hooked up in a double chain phospholipid structure. The fats in our own cell walls are in the phospholipid form.

Attached to the EPA leg of the phospholipid is a molecule of astaxanthin, an extremely potent anti-oxidant. The phospholipid structure of the EPA and DHA in krill oil makes them much more absorbable and allows for a much easier entrance into the mitochondria and the cellular nucleus. In addition to EPA and DHA, krill oil contains a complex phospholipid profile including phosphatidylcholine, a potent source of reductive-stress-reducing choline, which also acts as a natural emulsifier.

Krill oil contains vitamin E, vitamin A, vitamin D and canthaxanthin, which is — like astaxanthin — a potent anti-oxidant. The anti-oxidant potency of krill oil is such that when compared to fish oil in terms of ORAC (Oxygen Radical Absorptance Capacity) values, it was found to be 48 times more potent than fish oil.

The astaxanthin found in krill oil provides excellent protection against ultraviolet light and UV-induced skin damage. It was for this reason that I started taking krill oil to begin with–-I discovered its other virtues later on.

A number of studies have shown that krill oil is tremendously effective in reducing LDL-cholesterol, raising HDL-cholesterol (up to 44% in some cases), and lowering blood sugar. It has been shown to be effective in treating the pain and inflammation from rheumatoid arthritis and aches and pains in general. One large study showed that krill oil has tremendous benefits in terms of symptom reduction in PMS and dysmenorrhea. And it has been shown to be effective in the treatment of adult ADHD. In all these studies krill oil was tested against fish oil and not simply a placebo.

Due to the rapid absorption of krill oil and the high anti-oxidant content there is virtually never the fishy burping and aftertaste sometimes experienced with fish oil. The jury is out right now on if and to what degree there is a problem for those people allergic to shrimp. Until the jury is in, I would be careful in taking krill oil if I had a shrimp allergy.

Are there any downsides to this substance?

Only one. It is a little more expensive than fish oil, but, as with all things, you get what you pay for. virtually all krill oil is produced by Neptune Technologies and shipped to the various supplement manufacturers, so any krill oil you get will have come from the same place and be the same dosage. The only unknown is how long it has been sitting around in a warehouse somewhere, which is, of course, the same unknown with fish oil. At least with krill oil, thanks to the high anti-oxidant content, the shelf life is much longer.

One last thing to remember: popping a couple of fish oil and krill oil caps don’t give the same immediate relief as popping a NSAID [Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs like Advil, ibuprofen, Aleve, etc.].

It takes a while–a couple of weeks in my case–for the fish oil/krill oil to provide the same degree of pain relief as the NSAID. The take home message is: don’t take your first dose and compare it to the relief you got with a dose of NSAID. In the study I mentioned in the last post, the subjects took the fish oil for two weeks along with their NSAIDs, then tapered off the drugs and treated their pain with the fish oil alone.

[Two of several clinical studies on Krill Oil (NKO) from PubMed can be found below the author bio.]

###

About the author of this post:

Dr. Michael Eades is one of the foremost bariatric (obesity treatment) doctors in the US and the first to introduce insulin resistance to the mainstream. He is author of the international bestseller, Protein Power.

——————————————————————

Clinical Studies:

“Omega-3 DHA and EPA for cognition, behavior, and mood: clinical findings and structural-functional synergies with cell membrane phospholipids.”

Kidd PM.

University of California, Berkeley, California, USA.

The omega-3 fatty acids docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) are orthomolecular, conditionally essential nutrients that enhance quality of life and lower the risk of premature death. They function exclusively via cell membranes, in which they are anchored by phospholipid molecules. DHA is proven essential to pre- and postnatal brain development, whereas EPA seems more influential on behavior and mood. Both DHA and EPA generate neuroprotective metabolites. In double-blind, randomized, controlled trials, DHA and EPA combinations have been shown to benefit attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (AD/HD), autism, dyspraxia, dyslexia, and aggression. For the affective disorders, meta-analyses confirm benefits in major depressive disorder (MDD) and bipolar disorder, with promising results in schizophrenia and initial benefit for borderline personality disorder. Accelerated cognitive decline and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) correlate with lowered tissue levels of DHA/EPA, and supplementation has improved cognitive function. Huntington disease has responded to EPA. Omega-3 phospholipid supplements that combine DHA/EPA and phospholipids into the same molecule have shown marked promise in early clinical trials. Phosphatidylserine with DHA/EPA attached (Omega-3 PS) has been shown to alleviate AD/HD symptoms. Krill omega-3 phospholipids, containing mostly phosphatidylcholine (PC) with DHA/EPA attached, markedly outperformed conventional fish oil DHA/EPA triglycerides in double-blind trials for premenstrual syndrome/dysmenorrhea and for normalizing blood lipid profiles. Krill omega-3 phospholipids demonstrated anti-inflammatory activity, lowering C-reactive protein (CRP) levels in a double-blind trial. Utilizing DHA and EPA together with phospholipids and membrane antioxidants to achieve a triple cell membrane synergy may further diversify their currently wide range of clinical applications.

###

“Evaluation of the effect of Neptune Krill Oil on chronic inflammation and arthritic symptoms.”

Deutsch L.

OBJECTIVES: a) To evaluate the effect of Neptune Krill Oil (NKO) on C-reactive protein (CRP) on patients with chronic inflammation and b) to evaluate the effectiveness of NKO on arthritic symptoms. METHODS: Randomized, double blind, placebo controlled study. Ninety patients were recruited with confirmed diagnosis of cardiovascular disease and/or rheumatoid arthritis and/or osteoarthritis and with increased levels of CRP (>1.0 mg/dl) upon three consecutive weekly blood analysis. Group A received NKO (300 mg daily) and Group B received a placebo. CRP and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) osteoarthritis score were measured at baseline and days 7, 14 and 30. RESULTS: After 7 days of treatment NKO reduced CRP by 19.3% compared to an increase by 15.7% observed in the placebo group (p = 0.049). After 14 and 30 days of treatment NKO further decreased CRP by 29.7% and 30.9% respectively (p < 0.001). The CRP levels of the placebo group increased to 32.1% after 14 days and then decreased to 25.1% at day 30. The between group difference was statistically significant; p = 0.004 at day 14 and p = 0.008 at day 30. NKO showed a significant reduction in all three WOMAC scores. After 7 days of treatment, NKO reduced pain scores by 28.9% (p = 0.050), reduced stiffness by 20.3% (p = 0.001) and reduced functional impairment by 22.8% (p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: The results of the present study clearly indicate that NKO at a daily dose of 300 mg significantly inhibits inflammation and reduces arthritic symptoms within a short treatment period of 7 and 14 days.