Do You Use A Cell Phone?
Are You Absolutely Positive It Is SAFE?
You Might Want To Read The First Section
Of This Important Article About Health
Now, this group did not do any specific new research. What they did was review the previously published evidence. This is the evidence that specifically, the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society thought did not provide evidence that the cell phone exposure was an increased risk to radiation. But this expert committee now has said otherwise. This is really important. This is the very first time, this is really epic, this is the first time that scientists recognized worldwide, a scientific authority organization has made this connection.
Now, this is particularly concerning because over five billion people in the world -- literally about 80 percent of the world’s population, has a cell phone, and it’s going to increase from there. We know that many of the Third World countries just skipped the infrastructure developing landlines and went straight to cell phones. And this is a relatively recent phenomenon. This has occurred over the last few years and exposure to this type of radiation does not cause an immediate threat. In fact, the initial confusion about this, about the connection to cancer, seems to be related to the differences between ionizing radiation like X-rays, which clearly, are associated with cancer increase, which cell phones do not do, because what the cell phones do is emit a radio frequency magnetic field which interacts with your own bio signaling system to cause this increase.
The specific types of cancers that seem to be associated with exposure to cell phones are brain cancers. In 2008, the year for which we have the most recent statistics, there were 1.2 million brain cancers and about two-thirds of these were glioma. This expert WHO scientific committee found that there was a 40 percent increased risk of this type of cancer. But there were other experts who’ve reviewed the evidence and they believe and they published in some well-respected peer-reviewed journals that the evidence may double, not 40 percent but double your risk of developing brain cancer.
What you can do, and hardly anyone is discussing, is pick your cell phone carrier appropriately. There are essentially two technologies that are used to distribute cell phone signals. One is CDMA and the other is GSM. It turns out, GSM is far more dangerous to you because it emits 28 times more radiation than CDMA phones. Now in the United States, there are two primary CDMA networks, those would be Verizon and Sprint. All the others, for the most part, use GSM but you need to check with your carrier specifically to confirm that. So that’s the first step you can do -- use a safer carrier. Not necessarily the phone but the carrier is really the key.
So once you have your phone and hopefully you picked a safe carrier, then there are some important principles that additionally you can use. The first is to recognize that the danger to you is really related to how far the phone is from your body. If you look at your BlackBerry or your iPhone, you’ll see that there are very specific warnings on how to use them, that they need to be a certain distance -- at least an inch or so -- away from your body so you don’t put it up to your head. Ideally, the further away it is from your body, the better. Now in my view, and there are certain times of the year when I’m travelling and I really need to rely on the use of a cell phone, the most important thing that you can do is use a speakerphone. Essentially, almost all new phones have the speakerphone function so you put it on speaker and then you set it down. You don’t hold it. My phone has a speaker stand so sometimes if I can’t sit down, I’ll just hold it away from me like this. But ideally you set it down and talk.
Now, if privacy is an issue and you can’t be on a speakerphone or for whatever reason, then you want to use a wired headset. A wired headset plugs into your phone and ideally, you want to keep it again, as far away from your body as possible. Ideally, put it down here and put the headset, connect it to your ear so you can hear, and don’t hold your phone. There are two primary types of headsets, the ones that are wired and the one that we use is called a BlueTube or a hollow tube, as you can see here, that essentially allows the sound to travel up from the wire into your ear without any wire being really close to your head. Because there is some concern that there is additional radiation that’s transmitted up the wire. Clearly using a wire is going to be better but still, the wire is going to be right in your ear so the BlueTube tends to eliminate that factor and keeps any radiation several inches away from your brain, which is really an important principle to apply. So those are the basic components.
Now that we’ve established how you can use your cellphone safely, I just want to emphasize how excited and delighted I am about this recent announcement from WHO because it really is a vindication of much of the work that I’ve been doing. Since the late 1990s, I’ve been regularly warning people about these dangers. In fact I posted over 200 articles about this topic on the site. Go into specific details and you can easily look them up in our search engine.
This reminds me of the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer. He talked about any truth transition into our culture going to essentially three stages. The first is that it’s ridiculed and I’ve certainly received tons of ridicule due to my position on this. The second phase according to Schopenhauer is that it’s violently opposed. We are starting to see some of that because of these entrenched interests, these scientific organizations who were adamant about claiming the safety of this device that literally, many teenagers and adolescents are spending 10, 12, 18 hours a day on. They were just adamant about it being safe so now we know differently. The third phase of this transition to truth is that it’s widely adopted and widely accepted as self-evident. This is the typical transition and it’s not just related to health; it’s really related to any principles of truth because truth is something that you really can’t suppress for very long. It essentially is going to surface after a while; it’s exactly what we’re seeing in so many areas.
Let me give you a few other illustrations of where this has happened in previous areas related to health that I’ve mentioned in the past. So if you’ve been following the site for a while, you’ll know that I was one of the first public figures to recommend and encourage the use of vitamin D because of all of its amazing benefits, and really sought to dispel the current held beliefs of many dermatologists and expert medical groups that the sun is dangerous. Nothing could be further from the truth as long as you have reasonable and rational exposure to it. This is one major area where we already made a huge impact. But there are four significant issues or health challenges that are being violently opposed in the current system. Let me tell you what those are. First is fluoridation, the second is GMO (genetically modified organisms), the third is the use of mercury, primarily in dental amalgam, and the fourth is vaccinations.
Because of this connection we really have to focus on this, and we are making major progress on this, especially with Dr. Paul Connett, who’s leading the charge on a local basis and seeking to eliminate that from local water supplies. There have been a number of cities in the United States that have been successful in doing this, and there are some big ones on board, like New York City, to remove it from the water supplies. So that’s our goal – one of our missions is to eliminate fluoridated water in the United States. Most likely, Canada will precede that, because Canada is much farther along the path than the United States. But that is our goal, and I think we will ultimately be successful because we can see the cracks developing in their armor, and the truth is that they just don’t have the science behind their support for the use of fluoridated water. We will be successful.
So where do we stand? Why do they put mercury in amalgams to begin with? Well, it tends to be a very effective and cheap way to have a dental restoration. Clearly, if you have an ideal form of nutrition from birth, you won’t even get that dental decay to begin with, so you wouldn’t need a filling. But obviously not everyone’s following this, so if you have a filling, there’s a tendency for them to use cheap, long-held fillings like mercury amalgams, which have been used for over a century. Fifty percent of that amalgam is mercury. Fifty percent. It is a potent neurotoxin – very small amounts of it. It’s well-established. It doesn’t take much to cause a problem. In fact, the EPA and OSHA have identified this as a biohazard, and so before the dentist actually inserts that mercury into a patient’s mouth, it’s a biohazard. For whatever reason that mercury has to removed, that mercury filling is extracted, and that’s additional biohazard.
But no one’s paying attention to the time that it’s in the patient’s mouth and is actually chewing. Every time you chew, you release mercury vapors. It’s well-documented and clearly and objectively demonstrated that there’s a number of different instruments they can show this.
Fortunately, there are movements – such as Charlie Brown and Consumers for Dental Choice – that are making significant headway on a national and international basis at reversing some of these decisions. But it appears that we’re likely going to be successful in this area due to environmental concerns, not necessarily biological concerns, because of the invested interest of the American Dental Association and other groups that have so much to lose from a historical perspective in their opposition to the removal of the dental amalgam.
Most likely, the environmental issues are going to be more widely appreciated, and there are going to be recommendations for banning and barring the use of these. We expect this sometime in the not-so-distant future.
Another primary reason why these modifications are done is so that they can provide a business benefit. They typically patent these foods, and it provides a very significant, potent financial incentive for them to continue this process.
Many European countries, you may be aware of, actually ban this. Europe, in general, has been a bit larger in the United States in this area because they didn’t have restrictions on labeling. The invested interest for GM foods in the United States have been very effectively political, obviously, and essentially prevented the labeling of these foods despite the fact that the vast majority – 80, 90 percent of people – would love to know if their food is genetically modified or not. They want to know, but they can’t know. It’s really not possible like it is in Europe. In Europe, they successfully banned them in many countries, and it’s almost a non-issue there. But we will be successful ultimately, because it’s just a matter of time before the grassroots’ efforts to educate the large numbers of people into making this simple choice of choosing organic foods, which do not have GM crops in them, as an effective alternative to essentially bypassing this legislative manipulation by these large invested interests. So we will be ultimately successful in our efforts to eliminate GM foods from the United States.
Recently there was a group of parents – about 83 – who were given awards by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. This is a program that was developed in the late 80s to essentially insulate the vaccine manufacturers’ many liability. The government has a process where they evaluate each claim, and if it’s proven by their standards to be a case, the parents or children are awarded damages. Recently there were 83 parents who came out and acknowledged that the government, in fact, found and approved that there was essentially brain damage, brain injury, autism, or autism-like symptoms that were a result of the vaccine that was given. Some of the vaccine experts now are saying that these were really vaccine symptoms – we’re not just seeing autism symptoms, there is some autism – but we don’t have a test for autism. What clearly happened here is there is brain injury. This is one of the major concerns.
Again, the whole issue is vaccine safety. Do we really want to compromise the potential long-term health of these children potentially for the benefits of the masses? It’s a controversial area, and we’re going to go into more specifics or details. It’s going to be a really long challenge down the road. But we hope to be successful in at least preventing mandatory vaccinations and allowing the families and parents the options whether or not they’re going to choose to use that as a tool for their children.
If they’ve committed the best amount of their professional life to these processes, recommendations, or methods that essentially are proven wrong and proven to be harmful and hurt, damage, and kill large numbers of people, that’s going to be a devastating blow to them. So there’s this massive self-interest with these well-intentioned, not necessarily deceitful ones, and to overcome that barrier is an enormous jump. So there’s this large numbers of incentives to perpetuate this current system. And this occurs not just in health, but in all areas because it’s really intrinsic to human nature.
I just focused on the major challenges that we have in the health area. Hopefully this will help you provide a better understanding of the issues, variables, and factors involved there. Once you understand that, you can react more knowledgably and more wisely and make responsible decisions, so that you and your family can continue to take control of your health.
Are You Absolutely Positive It Is SAFE?
You Might Want To Read The First Section
Of This Important Article About Health
Cell Phones and Cancer
By Dr. Mercola
June 19, 2011
Dr. Mercola: Hi this is Dr. Mercola and I’ve got some breaking news for you. If you haven’t heard already that in the beginning of June of this year, a committee composed of over 31 scientists from 41 different countries working for the World Health Organization (WHO) concluded that exposure to cell phone radiation is a possible carcinogen and classified into the 2B category. This is the same category as DDT (the pesticide), gasoline engine exhaust, burning coal, dry cleaning chemicals, or working in a print factory.By Dr. Mercola
June 19, 2011
Now, this group did not do any specific new research. What they did was review the previously published evidence. This is the evidence that specifically, the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society thought did not provide evidence that the cell phone exposure was an increased risk to radiation. But this expert committee now has said otherwise. This is really important. This is the very first time, this is really epic, this is the first time that scientists recognized worldwide, a scientific authority organization has made this connection.
Now, this is particularly concerning because over five billion people in the world -- literally about 80 percent of the world’s population, has a cell phone, and it’s going to increase from there. We know that many of the Third World countries just skipped the infrastructure developing landlines and went straight to cell phones. And this is a relatively recent phenomenon. This has occurred over the last few years and exposure to this type of radiation does not cause an immediate threat. In fact, the initial confusion about this, about the connection to cancer, seems to be related to the differences between ionizing radiation like X-rays, which clearly, are associated with cancer increase, which cell phones do not do, because what the cell phones do is emit a radio frequency magnetic field which interacts with your own bio signaling system to cause this increase.
The specific types of cancers that seem to be associated with exposure to cell phones are brain cancers. In 2008, the year for which we have the most recent statistics, there were 1.2 million brain cancers and about two-thirds of these were glioma. This expert WHO scientific committee found that there was a 40 percent increased risk of this type of cancer. But there were other experts who’ve reviewed the evidence and they believe and they published in some well-respected peer-reviewed journals that the evidence may double, not 40 percent but double your risk of developing brain cancer.
Safe Cell Phone Use
Clearly, it is an issue and I think the major take home fact here that we need to be concerned about is to really protect your children. This is well recognized now as a possible risk to cancer and the most vulnerable age group is going to be the children. More and more kids are using these cell phones. You really need to put limits, if you’re a parent, to children using these. For yourself and for your children, there are certain guidelines. Let me review them for you here just to emphasize the importance of decreasing your exposure to this. What are the things that you can do to protect yourself and your family from this cell phone radiation? The first thing is to ignore the traditional studies that are published about safe phones because these safe phones use something called the SAR (specific absorption rate) rating and that’s going to give you a false sense of reassurance because the SAR rating means absolutely nothing, so just ignore those.What you can do, and hardly anyone is discussing, is pick your cell phone carrier appropriately. There are essentially two technologies that are used to distribute cell phone signals. One is CDMA and the other is GSM. It turns out, GSM is far more dangerous to you because it emits 28 times more radiation than CDMA phones. Now in the United States, there are two primary CDMA networks, those would be Verizon and Sprint. All the others, for the most part, use GSM but you need to check with your carrier specifically to confirm that. So that’s the first step you can do -- use a safer carrier. Not necessarily the phone but the carrier is really the key.
So once you have your phone and hopefully you picked a safe carrier, then there are some important principles that additionally you can use. The first is to recognize that the danger to you is really related to how far the phone is from your body. If you look at your BlackBerry or your iPhone, you’ll see that there are very specific warnings on how to use them, that they need to be a certain distance -- at least an inch or so -- away from your body so you don’t put it up to your head. Ideally, the further away it is from your body, the better. Now in my view, and there are certain times of the year when I’m travelling and I really need to rely on the use of a cell phone, the most important thing that you can do is use a speakerphone. Essentially, almost all new phones have the speakerphone function so you put it on speaker and then you set it down. You don’t hold it. My phone has a speaker stand so sometimes if I can’t sit down, I’ll just hold it away from me like this. But ideally you set it down and talk.
Now, if privacy is an issue and you can’t be on a speakerphone or for whatever reason, then you want to use a wired headset. A wired headset plugs into your phone and ideally, you want to keep it again, as far away from your body as possible. Ideally, put it down here and put the headset, connect it to your ear so you can hear, and don’t hold your phone. There are two primary types of headsets, the ones that are wired and the one that we use is called a BlueTube or a hollow tube, as you can see here, that essentially allows the sound to travel up from the wire into your ear without any wire being really close to your head. Because there is some concern that there is additional radiation that’s transmitted up the wire. Clearly using a wire is going to be better but still, the wire is going to be right in your ear so the BlueTube tends to eliminate that factor and keeps any radiation several inches away from your brain, which is really an important principle to apply. So those are the basic components.
Now that we’ve established how you can use your cellphone safely, I just want to emphasize how excited and delighted I am about this recent announcement from WHO because it really is a vindication of much of the work that I’ve been doing. Since the late 1990s, I’ve been regularly warning people about these dangers. In fact I posted over 200 articles about this topic on the site. Go into specific details and you can easily look them up in our search engine.
This reminds me of the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer. He talked about any truth transition into our culture going to essentially three stages. The first is that it’s ridiculed and I’ve certainly received tons of ridicule due to my position on this. The second phase according to Schopenhauer is that it’s violently opposed. We are starting to see some of that because of these entrenched interests, these scientific organizations who were adamant about claiming the safety of this device that literally, many teenagers and adolescents are spending 10, 12, 18 hours a day on. They were just adamant about it being safe so now we know differently. The third phase of this transition to truth is that it’s widely adopted and widely accepted as self-evident. This is the typical transition and it’s not just related to health; it’s really related to any principles of truth because truth is something that you really can’t suppress for very long. It essentially is going to surface after a while; it’s exactly what we’re seeing in so many areas.
Let me give you a few other illustrations of where this has happened in previous areas related to health that I’ve mentioned in the past. So if you’ve been following the site for a while, you’ll know that I was one of the first public figures to recommend and encourage the use of vitamin D because of all of its amazing benefits, and really sought to dispel the current held beliefs of many dermatologists and expert medical groups that the sun is dangerous. Nothing could be further from the truth as long as you have reasonable and rational exposure to it. This is one major area where we already made a huge impact. But there are four significant issues or health challenges that are being violently opposed in the current system. Let me tell you what those are. First is fluoridation, the second is GMO (genetically modified organisms), the third is the use of mercury, primarily in dental amalgam, and the fourth is vaccinations.
Fluoride in Water
The first issue is fluoride and we started to see the beginning of the cracks in the traditional support for fluoride last year, when it was recommended by the Centers for Disease Control in the United States to avoid the use of fluoridated water when you’re reconstituting infant formula. Now I’m not a big fan of infant formula, I think breastfeeding is better to begin with. But for those parents who are using infant formula, the expert authorities now recommend not to use fluoridated water when you’re reconstituting because it’s been shown to be a risk for developing brains, for the babies. This is one of the first cracks but even this year, there was a study published that showed percent of adolescents in the United States have dental fluorosis. It’s a cosmetic deformity that’s occurring in almost half of the kids in this country. Now, I believe, and as a result of that observation, the recommendations for the level of fluoridation of the municipal water supplies were reduced by nearly 50 percent. I believe they did that not because of this cosmetic deformity but because there’s also an association with fluoride in the health of your bones and your brain. There are over two dozen studies that show clear and unequivocal associations between the use fluoridated water and the IQ of children.Because of this connection we really have to focus on this, and we are making major progress on this, especially with Dr. Paul Connett, who’s leading the charge on a local basis and seeking to eliminate that from local water supplies. There have been a number of cities in the United States that have been successful in doing this, and there are some big ones on board, like New York City, to remove it from the water supplies. So that’s our goal – one of our missions is to eliminate fluoridated water in the United States. Most likely, Canada will precede that, because Canada is much farther along the path than the United States. But that is our goal, and I think we will ultimately be successful because we can see the cracks developing in their armor, and the truth is that they just don’t have the science behind their support for the use of fluoridated water. We will be successful.
Mercury Dental Amalgams
Another battle we’ve been involved in is the use of mercury dental amalgam fillings. My primary interest in this evolved from the time that I was taking care of many chronically sick patients, and when we do the exhaustive, comprehensive, detailed analysis to determine what was causing their problem, we would frequently find that it was the mercury being released from the dental amalgams. Many times, these patients would never get better until they had those amalgams removed and were properly detoxified from mercury.So where do we stand? Why do they put mercury in amalgams to begin with? Well, it tends to be a very effective and cheap way to have a dental restoration. Clearly, if you have an ideal form of nutrition from birth, you won’t even get that dental decay to begin with, so you wouldn’t need a filling. But obviously not everyone’s following this, so if you have a filling, there’s a tendency for them to use cheap, long-held fillings like mercury amalgams, which have been used for over a century. Fifty percent of that amalgam is mercury. Fifty percent. It is a potent neurotoxin – very small amounts of it. It’s well-established. It doesn’t take much to cause a problem. In fact, the EPA and OSHA have identified this as a biohazard, and so before the dentist actually inserts that mercury into a patient’s mouth, it’s a biohazard. For whatever reason that mercury has to removed, that mercury filling is extracted, and that’s additional biohazard.
But no one’s paying attention to the time that it’s in the patient’s mouth and is actually chewing. Every time you chew, you release mercury vapors. It’s well-documented and clearly and objectively demonstrated that there’s a number of different instruments they can show this.
Fortunately, there are movements – such as Charlie Brown and Consumers for Dental Choice – that are making significant headway on a national and international basis at reversing some of these decisions. But it appears that we’re likely going to be successful in this area due to environmental concerns, not necessarily biological concerns, because of the invested interest of the American Dental Association and other groups that have so much to lose from a historical perspective in their opposition to the removal of the dental amalgam.
Most likely, the environmental issues are going to be more widely appreciated, and there are going to be recommendations for banning and barring the use of these. We expect this sometime in the not-so-distant future.
GMOs
What about GMO or genetically modified foods? The key operating term here is safety. The main issue is that there are no long-term safety studies done with these foods. For the most part, these modifications are performed so the food factory farming system can maximize their crop productions. They usually do this through massive use of chemicals, specifically very potent pesticides and herbicides that are applied to the plants. Frequently, these modified plants become resistant to the chemicals, so any of these GMO crops are typically loaded with herbicides and pesticides. That’s the last thing want to have in your food supply.Another primary reason why these modifications are done is so that they can provide a business benefit. They typically patent these foods, and it provides a very significant, potent financial incentive for them to continue this process.
Many European countries, you may be aware of, actually ban this. Europe, in general, has been a bit larger in the United States in this area because they didn’t have restrictions on labeling. The invested interest for GM foods in the United States have been very effectively political, obviously, and essentially prevented the labeling of these foods despite the fact that the vast majority – 80, 90 percent of people – would love to know if their food is genetically modified or not. They want to know, but they can’t know. It’s really not possible like it is in Europe. In Europe, they successfully banned them in many countries, and it’s almost a non-issue there. But we will be successful ultimately, because it’s just a matter of time before the grassroots’ efforts to educate the large numbers of people into making this simple choice of choosing organic foods, which do not have GM crops in them, as an effective alternative to essentially bypassing this legislative manipulation by these large invested interests. So we will be ultimately successful in our efforts to eliminate GM foods from the United States.
Vaccines
Let’s talk about vaccine safety. Safety is really the keyword here, because all the studies that prove the effectiveness of vaccines do not look at long-term complications of this. What are the complications? Admittedly, no question, one of the most controversial is autism. When I first graduated from medical school, there were two things that were significant. One was that we had a relatively smaller amount of vaccines; about 300 percent more are given now than when I graduated. And we had a much lower instance of autism. There was about one in 100,000, and now we see conservatively about one in 150, to as low as one in 20 having some autism-like symptoms.Recently there was a group of parents – about 83 – who were given awards by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. This is a program that was developed in the late 80s to essentially insulate the vaccine manufacturers’ many liability. The government has a process where they evaluate each claim, and if it’s proven by their standards to be a case, the parents or children are awarded damages. Recently there were 83 parents who came out and acknowledged that the government, in fact, found and approved that there was essentially brain damage, brain injury, autism, or autism-like symptoms that were a result of the vaccine that was given. Some of the vaccine experts now are saying that these were really vaccine symptoms – we’re not just seeing autism symptoms, there is some autism – but we don’t have a test for autism. What clearly happened here is there is brain injury. This is one of the major concerns.
Again, the whole issue is vaccine safety. Do we really want to compromise the potential long-term health of these children potentially for the benefits of the masses? It’s a controversial area, and we’re going to go into more specifics or details. It’s going to be a really long challenge down the road. But we hope to be successful in at least preventing mandatory vaccinations and allowing the families and parents the options whether or not they’re going to choose to use that as a tool for their children.
Professional Legacy
Lastly, we have professional legacy. Many of these experts in these various areas spent their entire professional life – essentially the vast majority of time they’ve been alive – promoting or working on research to establish the justification and the continued use of this approach. If for some reason they were proven wrong, it would be an enormous blow to their self-esteem and ego and, even more importantly, to the concept that they would have to face – that they have done something wrong. In many cases, these individuals are well-intentioned. They’re really seeking to help and serve and love large amounts of the population. That’s really sort of the motivating factor that we have as human beings. And that’s really a base emotion that we seek to satisfy. When we’re on our deathbed, we’re not going to want to know why we didn’t work anymore; we’re going to want to know how we helped, loved, and served more people.If they’ve committed the best amount of their professional life to these processes, recommendations, or methods that essentially are proven wrong and proven to be harmful and hurt, damage, and kill large numbers of people, that’s going to be a devastating blow to them. So there’s this massive self-interest with these well-intentioned, not necessarily deceitful ones, and to overcome that barrier is an enormous jump. So there’s this large numbers of incentives to perpetuate this current system. And this occurs not just in health, but in all areas because it’s really intrinsic to human nature.
I just focused on the major challenges that we have in the health area. Hopefully this will help you provide a better understanding of the issues, variables, and factors involved there. Once you understand that, you can react more knowledgably and more wisely and make responsible decisions, so that you and your family can continue to take control of your health.
Click here to unsubscribe
No comments:
Post a Comment