White House chef says future food to be made from chemicals, not real food ingredients

Monday, July 30, 2012 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) Every two years, a consortium of Europe's most active minds converges at the Euroscience Open Forum to discuss the latest advancements in scientific research and innovation. But this year's meeting, which was held in Dublin, Ireland, featured a disturbing workshop held by White House executive pastry chef Bill Yosses, who explained and demonstrated to audience members how the food of the future will not actually contain real food, but rather various combinations of lab-created chemicals that mimic food.


As reported on Six One News, a feature of RTE News in Ireland, Yosses and several other food experts showed a live audience how to create various foams, gels, solids, and other food-like textured substances out of chemicals that, when combined, resemble things like lemon souffle and chocolate pudding. These food scientists then shared samples of these laboratory creations with audience members, who were told that the imitation food products are the wave of the future.


"You take the (chemical) compounds and you make the dish," said Herve This of AgroParisTech, a science and research organization based in France, to RTE News in Ireland. "So you have no vegetables, no fruit, no meat, no fish, nothing except compounds. And you have to create a shape, a color, a taste, a freshness, a pungency, an astringency, everything," he added, likening traditional cooking methods such as "cracking eggs" and using real food ingredients to "living in the Middle Ages."


White House executive pastry chef Bill Yosses shares a similar sentiment, as he believes creating fake food out of chemicals will actually help improve the quality of cuisine and availability of food. He told Six One News that chefs can use the information he presented to gain a "(better) understanding of what they're doing and use that to improve the processes, to improve not only the flavor but the hygiene, the longevity, how to store things."


"All that comes about from understanding cooking on a really molecular level," he added, with sort of a twinkle in his eye. But when he was asked if these same chemical food experiments are used at the White House in meals served to the Obamas, Yosses laughed and said no, explaining that "the First Family is looking for traditional, sort of 'happy recipes' that people are familiar with."


You can watch the disturbing segment in its entirety at:
http://www.rte.ie/news/av/2012/0712/media-3342255.html


While intended to specifically showcase some of the more offbeat scientific developments circulating the "technosphere" today, the Euroscience Open Forum, including the troubling seminar on chemical-based "foods of the future," is actually a troubling foreshadowing of what may soon come for Americans. Some scientists are apparently of the strong persuasion that man-made food items are preferable to natural foods, and the former is what they hope the public will eventually accept.


The average person, in other words, will eventually be expected to happily eat green gelatin-like blobs made of chemical compounds, along with ambiguous cracker products that resemble "Soylent Green," while the White House and the world's other elites continue to eat wholesome, natural foods, including those hand-picked from Michelle Obama's organic garden.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.rte.ie/news/av/2012/0712/media-3342255.html

http://www.medicaldaily.com

http://www.ndtv.com

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036626_cooking_chemicals_ingredients.html#ixzz229cHVRtL

Vitamin D revealed to be miracle anti-cancer 'drug' with astonishing chemical properties

Thursday, July 26, 2012 by: Willow Tohi


(NaturalNews) A new study published this month finds that the hormonally active form of vitamin D, Calcitriol 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D(3), inhibits the growth of many kinds of cancerous cells, including breast cancer, indicating that vitamin D3 can be useful in treating and even preventing a variety of cancers. Authors of the study said that caner cell growth is inhibited by "anticancer actions including cell cycle arrest, promotion of apoptosis and inhibition of invasion, metastasis, and angiogenesis." Vitamin D's anti-inflammatory properties and interference with estrogen synthesis further explains its anti-tumor properties.

Two studies from 2007 used meta-analysis, which combines data from multiple reports, to find that therapeutic doses of vitamin D could prevent up to half of all cases of breast cancer, and two-thirds of all cases of colorectal cancer in the United States. The studies showed a direct correlation between blood levels of vitamin D and cancer. Those with the highest blood levels were found to be at the lowest risk, and the lowest blood levels at the highest risk.

Many sources still try to cast a shadow on the effectiveness of vitamin D, citing that a specific dose strength has not yet been established, and needs more research. It likely won't be narrowed down to a one-size-fits-all dose, because every body is different, and if it were, it wouldn't be as effective. One other thing that may be giving varied results regarding dosing is the source of vitamin D used - it varies from study to study. Typically, higher doses are required of synthetic sources to increase blood levels, and they don't generally have the same effect as natural sources.

Vitamin D facts

The "sunshine" vitamin, vitamin D is fat-soluble vitamin required for the absorption and utilization of calcium and phosphorous. It protects against muscle weakness, regulates heartbeat, is necessary for normal blood clotting and thyroid function, and regulates more than 2,000 genes, affecting the proliferation and death of cells.

Vitamin D comes in several forms. The kind that comes from food is D2. There is a synthetic form, D5. The most active is the most natural kind, D3. It is synthesized in the skin in response to the sun's ultraviolet rays. There is a cholesterol compound in the skin that is a precursor of vitamin D. The D we get from food and supplements is not fully active until it goes through the liver and kidneys, where it is converted, then it circulates through the blood like a hormone.

According to Bach, problems from deficiency may include: heart disease, birth defects, depression, hypertension, stroke, dementia, fibromyalgia, impaired bone mineralization, skin, breast, prostate and other cancers, multiple sclerosis, insomnia, eye problems, problems with pregnancy, and other chronic diseases. It is estimated that more than one billion people worldwide, and 77 percent of Americans, are deficient in vitamin D.

It is not possible for most people to consume enough vitamin D thorough diet alone. It is found in fatty saltwater fish and fish liver oils, such as halibut, salmon, sardines, and cod liver oil. It is also added (fortified) to diary and eggs, so you'll find it in things like milk, yogurt, and butter. Other foods that have vitamin D include dandelion greens, oatmeal, cereals, and sweet potatoes.

Having a healthy and balanced diet can prevent cancer, and the need for prescriptions that contribute to cancer, such as cholesterol reducing drugs that inhibit vitamin D absorption from the sun. Even the National Cancer Institute estimates that 80 percent of cancer cases could be prevented. Most people supplement to get enough vitamin D. The recommended doses are generally not enough to address health problems. Be sure your supplements come from whole food vitamins so that higher doses won't be detrimental to your health, as they might from synthetic vitamin sources.

Eating good food, limiting unhealthy food and substances, getting exercise, and soaking up a bit of sun are critical to happiness and lasting health. So get out there and have fun - and help prevent cancer while you're at it!

Sources for this article include:

http://www.foodconsumer.org

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070206100608.htm

Balch, Phyllis, CNC. Prescription for Nutritional Healing. p. 21.

http://www.naturalnews.com/035063_vitamin_D_cancer_facts.html

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036597_vitamin_D_anti-cancer_drug.html#ixzz21l7R0VuS

Which organic superfood products give you the biggest bang for your buck and why?

Video interview with Dr Kurt of Michaux Family Chiropractic:

If you have ever wondered which organic superfood products you should consume that give you the greatest power for the least money, now you'll know! 

Watch our local town doc, Dr Kurt Michaux of Michaux Family Chiropractic in Clermont, share about the amazing and fast success he is having with his patients that are consuming these superfood products! 

Find out why the products are flying off his shelves after just two months of starting to provide them at his clinic! The proof is in the pudding! 

This was a spur of the moment interview that he and I did last month after the Clermont NTC event with Star Athletics (founded by Dennis Mitchell and Damu Cherry-Mitchell). Great stuff! Look for footage of super Olympic athletes Kellie Wells and Justin Gatlin in the video.

Click here for the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbOEhwtNUig&feature=autoplay&list=PL1EF17C0E2E1605DF&playnext=5

Miriam

The Bitter Sweet Truth About Splenda

21st January 2012

By Sayer Ji – Wake Up World

If you were told to ingest a biologically alien synthetic chemical whose presence on this planet did not predate 1976, and whose structure is only a few atoms away from the deadly pesticide DDT, and you knew that not only were there no long term human safety studies performed on it, but that it had been already proven in tests to have following adverse health effects:

· Shrunken thymus glands (up to 40% shrinkage)

· Enlarged liver and kidneys.

· Abnormal histopathological changes in spleen and thymus

· Increased cecal weight

· Reduced growth rate

· DNA Damage

· Adverse changes to gastrointestinal bacteria

· Abnormal Pelvic Mineralization

· Decreased red blood cell count

· Hyperplasia of the pelvis

· Aborted pregnancy (Maternal & Fetal Toxicity)

· Decreased fetal body weights and placental weights

· Bowel inflammation

· Triggering migraine

· Increase glycosylation of hemoglobin (HbA1c) for diabetics

….would you still consume it? Of course not! And yet, millions of Americans (including our precious children!) are doing exactly that by consuming Splenda. So, what is sucralose, chemically speaking?

Like “Splenda,” the term “sucralose” is a cute little marketing ploy. The true name of this ugly little chemical is actually too long for the human tongue to comfortably pronounce (which is usually an excellent indication that it is not safe to ingest!) Go ahead and see if you can wrap your vocal chords around this phonetic monstrosity:

1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-BETA-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-alpha-D-galactopyranoside

Despite the intended insinuation, sucralose is not a form of sucrose (cane sugar). Sucralose/Splenda is produced through artificially substituting three hydroxyl groups (hydrogen + oxygen) with three chlorine atoms in the sugar (sucrose) molecule. Natural sugar is a hydrocarbon built around 12 carbon atoms. When transformed into Splenda it becomes a chlorocarbon, in the same family as deadly pesticides like DDT, insecticides, biocides, disinfectants like Chlorox Bleach, and WWI poison gas like dichlorourea. The makers of sucralose/Splenda argue that this “remarkably stable” chemical passes unchanged into the urine and feces, when in fact, up to 11% to 27% is absorbed into the body (FDA, 1999). In fact, the varying degrees to which sucralose is absorbed is used as a marker for gut and intestinal permeability to determine certain disease states. Once absorbed, some portion of this chlorocarbon accumulates in the body (between 1.6% to 12.2%). What effects will these accumulated chemicals have? According to James Bowen, M.D:

“Any chlorocarbons not directly excreted from the body intact can cause immense damage to the processes of human metabolism and, eventually, our internal organs. The liver is a detoxification organ which deals with ingested poisons. Chlorocarbons damage the hepatocytes, the liver’s metabolic cells, and destroy them. In test animals Splenda produced swollen livers, as do all chlorocarbon poisons, and also calcified the kidneys of test animals in toxicity studies.”

How can this be true for an FDA approved sweetener?

FDA approval does not in any way guarantee safety…..sadly enough, in many cases, it guarantees the exact opposite. Take aspartame for instance. Aspartame (Equal/NutraSweet) contains 10% methanol, which is broken down in our body into two extremely toxic substances: formaldehyde and formic acid. There are over 30 known adverse health effects associated with its consumption! This sweetener gained FDA approval in 1981, despite appalling evidence linking it to cancer, particularly, brain cancer.

So, if Splenda is not a viable alternative to sugar, what can we use instead?

When one uncouples the experience of “sweetness” from caloric content, the body becomes confused because it does not receive nourishment and therefore will not attain satiety – this, in turn, leads to overindulgence. Indeed, new studies have shown exactly this: those who consume synthetic sweeteners are more prone to obesity. What this means is that when we ingest something sweet, it should also have caloric and nutritional content. Anything less than this equation is a recipe for failure and ill health. Thankfully Nature provides us with a veritable cornucopia of healthy sweeteners: honey, stevia, xylitol, erythritol, and dehydrated organic cane juice, all of which are available at your local health food store. Next time that sweet tooth calls, remember not to succumb to advertising hype which would convert poisonous chemicals into “magical” no-calorie sweeteners. Use both common sense and a sense of moderation, and your body will thank you. If you were told to ingest a biologically alien synthetic chemical whose presence on this planet did not predate 1976, and whose structure is only a few atoms away from the deadly pesticide DDT, and you knew that not only were there no long term human safety studies performed on it, but that it had been already proven in tests to have following adverse health effects:

About the Author Sayer Ji is the founder of GreenMedInfo.com, the world’s largest, evidence-based, open-source, natural medicine database. Follow him on Facebook or Twitter

http://wakeup-world.com/2012/01/21/the-bitter-sweet-truth-about-splenda/

The Health Dangers of Aspartame

Author: Dr. Edward Group 03/03/2009 @ 2:48 pm

I previously discussed a company that launched an anti-aspartame campaign in New Zealand, and ever since, I’ve been sent tons of questions concerning the various dangers of aspartame.

Aspartame is a non-saccharineartificial sweetener currently used in over 6,000 diet and low calorie food products. Popular trademark brands of the sweetener in the United States include NutraSweet®, Equal®, and Tropicana Slim®, which are used to sweeten a number of sodas and chewing gums.

However, research done on aspartame has shown that it may not be completely safe for human consumption, and may cause a number of health complications if taken in large doses. Efforts to revoke FDA approval on aspartame have so far been unsuccessful, so it is advisable to simply avoid these products whenever possible.

Aspartame: What it can do to you

Aspartame is an NMDA receptor antagonist, which means that it inhibits the release of neurotransmitters that cause pain within the body. NMDA receptor antagonists are often used as a form of anesthesia for animals, but not on humans due to the fact that they often cause brain damage in rodents. The possible side effects of aspartame on humans include headaches,brain tumors, brain lesions, and lymphoma.

Why Was Aspartame Approved by the FDA?

You may be wondering why aspartame is approved by the Food and Drug Administration, even though it is suspected to cause brain damage over long periods of time.

Well, aspartame gained FDA approval while it was owned by Donald Rumsfeld, who was at that time the CEO of the pharmaceutical company G.D. Searle & Company. Rumsfeld earned millions of dollars by marketing the product as NutraSweet, and when medical research into the product confirmed the risk of brain tumors, Rumsfeld simply hired another FDA board member to overturn the ban that the current board had inflicted.

Did you know? Despite its apparent danger to animals and humans, aspartame has been approved by the FDA a total of 26 times over the last 23 years.^[1]

The Health Effects of Aspartame

Any further inquiries into aspartame’s health effects have therefore been relegated to independent studies, which often lack the funding to properly advertise their findings. However, the studies completed thus far show overwhelming evidence regarding the apparent dangers of aspartame.

An analysis done using MEDLINE showed that 92% of non-industry sponsored studies reported one or more problems with aspartamein terms of its effects on health. These studies reported a range of side effects including fibromyalgia, brain tumors, memory loss, lymphoma, leukemia, and peripheral nerve cancer. Headaches andmigraine symptoms are one of the most common side effects of aspartame.

An article published in the July 2007 issue of Science magazine featured 12 prominent health experts who support a ban on aspartame. It also featured a letter to U.S. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Dr. Andrew Von Eschenbach requesting approval of the sweetener to be revoked due to extensive evidence that it causes cancer. Approval status has not changed yet due to the influence of lobbyists on politicians, and ongoing conflicts between capitalism and environmentalism.

Aspartame can create a number of serious health conditions if ingested regularly. It has the potential to cause cancer, brain damage, and eventually death. It is wise to make healthy choices when purchasing food and beverages, and strive to buy whole, natural, organic products whenever possible. Aspartame with the help of public outcry, will hopefully be restricted by the FDA in the near future in order to minimize its effects on the population.

For organic and natural sweeteners, I recommend agave nectar,raw locally harvested honey or xylitol.

~Dr. G

Related Blogposts:

• The Effects of Artificial Sweeteners
• Anti-Aspartame Campaign Launched in New Zealand
• The Health Dangers of Energy Drinks

http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/natural-health/health-dangers-of-aspartame/

‘Unknown disease’ kills 60 children in Cambodia – Could vaccines have been the cause?

Ethan A. Huff
Natural News
July 11, 2012

Dozens of young children in Cambodia have died in recent months of what health authorities are claiming is some kind of mystery disease. But based on the nature of the afflicted children’s symptoms prior to their deaths, it seems a likely possibility that they may have been victims of vaccine injuries, and that the disease explanation is the media’s attempt to cover up the truth.

According to Dr. Nima Asgari, a public health specialist at the United Nations (UN) body in Cambodia, as many as 60 children have died in Cambodia since April, all after experiencing similar symptoms. Prior to their deaths, many of the children had reportedly been suffering high fever, severe chest disease symptoms, and/or signs of neurological damage, symptoms which are all strangely associated with vaccine injury.

The so-called “disease,” which authorities insisted from the beginning they could not identify, has actually afflicted 61 children thus far, only one of which obviously survived. But all the children who were admitted to hospitals in both Phnom Penh, Cambodia’s largest and capital city, and a popular tourist area known as Siem Reap, were seven years of age or younger at their times of death.

The World Health Organization (WHO) says it is worried about the fact that the “condition” leads to a very high mortality rate in such a short period of time. But at the same time, the international body claims the disease is not contagious, as neither hospital staff nor nearby patients that have come into contact with the now-deceased children have developed similar symptoms.

Mysterious deaths wreak of deliberate experimentation on humans via vaccines

Since the mystery condition does not appear to be contagious in any way, and only seems to occur in young children of vaccine age, it is not that far of a stretch to hypothesize that vaccines may have something to do with these mysterious deaths. It would not be the first time, after all, that vaccine experimentation has led to the unusually rapid spread of “disease” in just a few weeks or months.

The AIDS epidemic, for instance, appears to have been triggered by a vaccine campaign for smallpox in Africa back in the late 1970s. (http://www.infowars.com) According to some reports, the 13-year campaign launched by WHO to vaccinate Africans living in Central Africa was directly responsible for inducing HIV and AIDS, which quickly spread around the world. (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net)

Interestingly, Cambodia has recently launched its own vaccination campaigns, including one for measles that began back in 2011. 

(http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/health/2011-02/10/c_13725980.htm) But neither health authorities nor the mainstream media have even entertained the thought that vaccines might the cause of the mystery deaths.

Some official reports are now blaming the deaths of Enterovirus Type 71 (EV71), also known as “hand, foot and mouth disease.” (http://news.blogs.cnn.com) But this explanation does not make any sense, as EV71 is highly contagious, while the “mystery condition” does not appear to be contagious.

Sources for this article include:

http://news.yahoo.com

http://www.cambodiaschildren.org

http://www.prisonplanet.com/unknown-disease-kills-60-children-in-cambodia-could-vaccines-have-been-the-cause.html

Got Fluoride? You may want to rethink that!

Urgent Warning to All Cell Phone Users

Not only am I careful with where I store my cell phone, but I have an EMF protector chip on it and wear a protector pendant on a necklace. I also have a gadget at home for whole house protection against EMFs. Cell phone danger is serious stuff! I got it all of my protection gadgets at www.ewater.com/2020.

Miriam

Visit the Mercola Video Library

By Dr. Mercola

If you think the jury's still out on whether cell phones can be dangerous to your health, then you might want to take the time to listen to this video from the Environmental Health Trust (www.ehtrust.org). Dr. Devra Davis, author of "Disconnect--The Truth About Cellphone Radiation," has been researching the safety hazards of radiation emanating from your cell phone.

Like many people, Dr. Davis just didn't believe the possibility of cell phones being dangerous―until she studied it. And now, with the toxicological and epidemiological evidence to back up her claims, she's trying to get the word out that cell phone radiation is not only dangerous, but can be downright lethal.

In her lecture, Dr. Davis explains how the biological impact of your cell phone is notrelated to its power, which is quite weak, but rather to the erratic nature of its signal and its ability to disrupt resonance and interfere with DNA repair. This is now believed to be the most plausible theory for understanding the wide array of health impacts discovered, which includes cancer...

Can Your Cell Phone Cause Cancer?

One interesting case that can serve as an illustrative warning of the cancer-causing potential of cell phones is that of a young woman with no other predisposing risk factors for cancer who came down with multi-focal breast cancer. The case was revealed in the May issue of the Environmental Health Trust's newsletterⁱ.  As it turns out, the young lady had the curious habit of tucking her cell phone into her bra...

Two cancer specialists, Robert Nagourney and John West, concluded there was only one other possibility that might have directly contributed to her breast cancer. "We connected the dots," the patient said. And the dots―quite literally the pattern of the cancer, and distribution of the cancerous cells―lined up perfectly with the shape of her cell phone.

While her doctor can't prove the cell phone caused her cancer, it should serve as a potent warning not only to other women who might tuck their phones in their bras, but also to those of you who keep your phones in your pants pocket or shirt pocket as well. As a general rule, you'll want to avoid carrying your phone anywhere on your body. Keep in mind that the most dangerous place to be, in terms of radiation exposure, is within about six inches of the emitting antenna. You do not want any part of your body within that proximity.

Why Carrying Your Cell Phone on Your Body is a Bad Idea...

Regardless of the area exposed to the continuous radiation emitted by your cell phone, there's the potential for harm, although certain areas are clearly more vulnerable than others.

For example, research published in 2009 showed evidence that wearing a cell phone on your hip may weaken an area of your pelvisⁱⁱ. Using an X-ray technique used in the diagnosis and monitoring of patients with osteoporosis, researchers measured pelvic bone density in 150 men who regularly carried their cell phones attached to their belts. The men carried their phones for an average of 15 hours each day, and had used cell phones for an average of six years. The researchers found that bone mineral density was lowered on the side of the pelvis where the mobile phones were carried, raising the possibility that bone density could be adversely affected by the electromagnetic fields emitted by cell phones.

It's important to realize that as long as your cell phone is on, it emits radiation intermittently, even when you are not actually making a call. So wearing a cell phone on your hip for 15 hours a day is giving that area of your body nearly continuous radiation exposure.

Previous studies have found that cell phone radiation can affect men's sperm count, and the quality and motility of their sperm, and this may be a far greater issue than its effect on bone density. One such study, published in PLoS Oneⁱⁱⁱ found that:

"RF-EMR in both the power density and frequency range of mobile phones enhances mitochondrial reactive oxygen species generation by human spermatozoa, decreasing the motility and vitality of these cells while stimulating DNA base adduct formation and, ultimately DNA fragmentation. These findings have clear implications for the safety of extensive mobile phone use by males of reproductive age, potentially affecting both their fertility and the health and wellbeing of their offspring."

Men in particular may want to reconsider carrying their cell phones on their belts or in their pocket, in close proximity of their reproductive organs. In addition, you have a number of other sensitive organs in that general area, including liver, kidneys, colon and bladder—all of which are susceptible to radiation.

Recent Evidence Identifies Strong Cell Phone Cancer Link

Last year, an Israeli research group reported a sharp increase in the incidence of parotid gland tumors over the last 30 years, with the steepest increase happening after 2001. Your parotid gland is a type of salivary gland, located closest to your cheek—the same area where most people typically hold their cell phones. The researchers found a four-fold increase in parotid gland cancers from 1970 to 2006, while rates of other salivary gland cancers remained stable^iv.

That same year, Dr. Siegal Sadetzki, the principal investigator of a 2008 study, testified at a U.S. Senate Hearing that cell phones were identified as a contributor to salivary gland tumors. The report states that your risk of getting a parotid tumor on the same side of your head that you use for listening to the mobile phone increases by:

• 34 percent if you are a regular cell phone user and have used a mobile phone for 5 years.
• 58 percent if you had more than about 5,500 calls in your lifetime.
• 49 percent if you have spoken on the phone for more than 266.3 hours during your lifetime.

World Health Organizaion Classifies Cell Phone Radiation as Class B Carcinogen

Cell phone subscriptions are now estimated at 5.9 billion globally^v—that's 87 percent of the world population! I think it's safe to say, we've already passed the point of no return when it comes to this technology. But as cell phone use continues to grow unabated, a growing body of researchers is speaking out against the technology, warning that it may have serious biological side effects that must be acknowledged and remedied.

Fortunately, their warnings are slowly but surely beginning to be heard.

On May 31, 2011, the World Health Organization (WHO)/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) issued a report admitting cell phones might indeed cause cancer, classifying radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" (Class 2B)^vi. The classification came in part in response to research showing wireless telephones increase the risk for brain cancer.

According to the press release^vii:

"Dr Jonathan Samet (University of Southern California, USA), overall Chairman of the Working Group, indicated that "the evidence, while still accumulating, is strong enough to support a conclusion and the 2B classification. The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk."

"Given the potential consequences for public health of this classification and findings," said IARC Director Christopher Wild, "it is important that additional research be conducted into the long‐term, heavy use of mobile phones. Pending the availability of such information, it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands‐free devices or texting."

Children are at Greatest Risk—Including While in Utero

Sadly, children and teens are at greatest risk—both for parotid gland tumors and brain tumors—as their thinner skull bones allow for greater penetration of cell phone radiation. The radiation can enter all the way into their midbrain, where tumors are more deadly. In addition, children's cells reproduce more quickly, so they're more susceptible to aggressive cell growth. Children also face a far greater lifetime exposure. According to Professor Lennart Hardell of Sweden, those who begin using cell phones heavily as teenagers have 4 to 5 times more brain cancer as young adults!

The following image, used with permission from the book Public Health SOS: The Shadow Side of the Wireless Revolution, clearly shows the differences in depth of penetration between adults and young children.

Pregnant women would also be wise to avoid cell phones as much as possible. In 2008, researchers analyzed data from nearly 13,000 children and found that exposure to cell phones while in the womb, and also during childhood, were linked to behavioral difficulties.^viiiUsing handsets just two or three times a day during pregnancy was enough to raise the risk of their babies developing hyperactivity and difficulties with conduct, emotions, and relationships by the time they reached school age—and the risk became even greater if the children also used the phones themselves before the age of seven.

Overall, the study revealed that mothers who used mobile phones were 54 percent more likely to have children with behavioral problems. Later on, when the children began using cell phones themselves, they were:

• 80 percent more likely to suffer from behavioral difficulties
• 25 percent more at risk from emotional problems
• 34 percent more likely to suffer from difficulties relating to their peers
• 35 percent more likely to be hyperactive
• 49 percent more prone to problems with conduct

Experts Adamantly Claim Harmful Effects are Now Provable

Experts in the area of the biological effects of electromagnetic frequencies (EMF) and wireless technologies believe there's virtually no doubt that cell phones and related gadgets are capable of causing not only cancer but contributing to a wide variety of other conditions, from depression and diabetes to heart irregularities and impaired fertility. Researchers have now identified numerous mechanisms of harm, which explain how electromagnetic fields impact your cells and damages your DNA.

One such expert is Dr. Martin Blank, PhD, one of the most experienced researchers of the cellular and molecular effects of electromagnetic fields in the U.S. He gave an informative speech at the November 18, 2010 Commonwealth Club of California program, "The Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields," co-sponsored by ElectromagneticHealth.org. In it, he explained why your DNA, with its 'coil of coils' structure, is especially vulnerable to electromagnetic fields of all kinds.

As described in the International Journal of Radiation Biology, April 2011^ix, DNA possesses the two structural characteristics of fractal antennas: electronic conduction, and self-symmetry.

These properties contribute to greater reactivity of DNA to electromagnetic fields than other tissues, making the long-term consequences of repeated microwave exposures to our genetic material of great concern. Dr. Blank is adamant when he says that there IS evidence of harm, and that the harm can be significant. He also points out that the science showing harmful effects has been peer-reviewed, published, and that the results have been replicated, evaluated and "judged by scientists capable of judging it." I wrote an in-depth article about these findings back in January of last year. If you missed it, go ahead and review it now.

An analysis of the range of known mechanisms of action, including DNA effects, was published in November 2010 in "Non-Thermal Effects and Mechanisms of Interaction Between Electromagnetic Fields and Living Matter^x." Furthermore, the mobile industry's ownresearch in the 13-country Interphone study^xi showed a 40 percent increased risk of brain cancer from 1,640 or more hours of cell phone use, and independent Swedish research published in 2007 showed a 540 percent increased risk of brain cancer from greater than 2,000 hours of cell phone use^xii.

My Top Tips for Cell Phone Safety

It's worth remembering that the telecommunication industry is much larger than the medical industrial complex, and they have far more influence than the drug companies. They're also mirroring many of the same tactics as the tobacco industry to peddle their wares. This includes attempting to discredit researchers who publish unfavorable cell phone studies.

As Dr. Davis shows in her lecture above, the results of any study can be accurately predicted by looking at its sponsorship. According to a review by Dr. Lai in 2008, the probability that a study will find "no effect" is two to three times higher in industry-funded studies, while independently-funded studies into the health effects of mobile technology are TWICE as likely to find a positive result.

So please, be aware that there is already robust scientific evidence that cell phones and other wireless devices pose significant health risks to all of us—especially to children and pregnant women. So while such findings are not being widely publicized as of yet, it makes sense to take action now to protect yourself and your children. You can help to minimize your exposure to electromagnetic radiation from cell phones and other wireless devices by heeding the following advice:

• Children Should Always Avoid Using Cell Phones: Barring a life-threatening emergency, children should not use a cell phone, or a wireless device of any type.
• Reduce Your Cell Phone Use: Turn your cell phone off more often. Reserve it for emergencies or important matters. As long as your cell phone is on, it emits radiation intermittently, even when you are not actually making a call. If you're pregnant, avoiding or reducing your cell phone use may be especially important.
• Use a Land Line at Home and at Work: Although more and more people are switching to using cell phones as their exclusive phone contact, it is a dangerous trend and you can choose to opt out of the madness. SKYPE offers a portable number via your computer that can plug into any Ethernet port while traveling.
• Reduce or Eliminate Your Use of Other Wireless Devices: You would be wise to cut down your use of these devices. Just as with cell phones, it is important to ask yourself whether or not you really need to use them as often as you do. And most importantly, do not even consider having any electronic or wireless devices in the bedroom that will interfere with the quality of your sleep.
  If you must use a portable home phone, use the older kind that operates at 900 MHz. They are not safer during calls, but at least many of them do not broadcast constantly even when no call is being made. Note the only way to truly be sure if there is an exposure from your cordless phone is to measure with an electrosmog meter, and it must be one that goes up to the frequency of your portable phone (so old meters won't help much). As many portable phones are 5.8 Gigahertz, we recommend you look for RF meters that go up to 8 Gigahertz, the highest range now available in a meter suitable for consumers.
  Alternatively you can be very careful with the base station placement as that causes the bulk of the problem since it transmits signals 24/7, even when you aren't talking. So if you can keep the base station at least three rooms away from where you spend most of your time, and especially your bedroom, they may not be as damaging to your health. Another option is to just simply turn the portable phone off, only using it when you specifically need the convenience of moving about while on a call.
  Ideally it would be helpful to turn off your base station every night before you go to bed.
  You can find RF meters as well as remediation supplies at www.emfsafetystore.com. But you can pretty much be sure your portable phone is a problem if the technology is DECT, or digitally enhanced cordless technology.
• Use Your Cell Phone Only Where Reception is Good: The weaker the reception, the more power your phone must use to transmit, and the more power it uses, the more radiation it emits, and the deeper the dangerous radio waves penetrate into your body. Ideally, you should only use your phone with full bars and good reception.
• Avoid Carrying Your Phone on Your Body as that merely maximizes any potential exposure. Ideally put it in your purse or carrying bag. Placing a cell phone in a shirt pocket over the heart is asking for trouble, as is placing it in a man's pocket if he seeks to preserve his fertility.
• Don't Assume One Cell Phone is Safer than Another: There's no such thing as a "safe" cell phone.  This is particularly true for industry promoted SAR ratings, which are virtually useless in measuring the true potential biological danger as most all of the damage is not done by heat transfer, which SAR measures.
• Keep Your Cell Phone Away From Your Body When it is On: The most dangerous place to be, in terms of radiation exposure, is within about six inches of the emitting antenna. You do not want any part of your body within that area.
• Respect Others Who are More Sensitive: Some people who have become sensitive can feel the effects of others' cell phones in the same room, even when it is on but not being used. If you are in a meeting, on public transportation, in a courtroom or other public places, such as a doctor's office, keep your cell phone turned off out of consideration for the 'second hand radiation' effects. Children are also more vulnerable, so please avoid using your cell phone near children.
  If you are using the Pong case, which redirects the cell phone radiation away from the head and successfully lowers the SAR effect, realize that in redirecting the radiation away from your head this may be intensifying the radiation in another direction, perhaps toward the person next to you, or, if in your pocket, increasing radiation intensity toward your body. Caution is always advised in dealing with any radiation-emitting device. We recommend cell phones be kept 'Off' except for emergencies.
• Use Safer Headset Technology: Wired headsets will certainly allow you to keep the cell phone farther away from your body. However, if a wired headset is not well-shielded -- and most of them are not -- the wire itself acts as an antenna attracting ambient radio waves and transmitting radiation directly to your brain.
  Make sure that the wire used to transmit the signal to your ear is shielded.
  The best kind of headset to use is a combination shielded wire and air-tube headset. These operate like a stethoscope, transmitting the information to your head as an actual sound wave; although there are wires that still must be shielded, there is no wire that goes all the way up to your head.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/06/16/emf-safety-tips.aspx?fb_ref=fbLike&fb_source=profile_oneline