This Everyday "Healthy" Beverage Poisons Your Body One Swallow at a Time

This article by Dr. Mercola appears on his website.

You've probably heard a lot about bottled water. That it's healthier for you than tap water, that it can replace your vitamins, that it's really only tap water and how environmentally unfriendly it is.

With this type of conflicting information about water, it's easy to get confused. Let's see if we can help you cut through the clutter and lead you down the path to healthier water consumption.

Environmental Impact

There's no sense in sugar-coating it. Bottled water is destructive to the environment. It is a fact that 67 million water bottles are thrown away each day.

That's a staggering amount of waste considering only 10 percent of these water bottles are ever recycled. Despite the good reputation recycling has, this practice is not always best for the ecosystem as it is labor-intensive, costly and burns natural resources. Also, just because you are throwing your used water bottles into the recycling bin, it does not necessarily mean they are able to be recycled.

Another problem with bottled water is the incredible amount of fuel needed to transport these heavy loads of plastic (and sometimes glass) bottles to your local supermarket, home or office.

Where Your Bottled Water REALLY Comes From

About 40 percent of bottled water is nothing more than bottled tap water! So not only might you still be drinking all the chemicals you were trying to avoid in the first place, you may be exposing yourself to even MORE chemicals by drinking from plastic bottles….

The Dangers of Plastic

Drinking water from a plastic water bottle poses serious health risks to you and your family. Let's take a look at some of these dangers to give you a better idea of why bottled water is not the healthy choice you've been led to believe it is.

Plastic would obviously be an issue for most bottled waters but it also comes into play for home or commercially filtered waters, or even raw spring water in that you need a container to store your water before you consume it. Obviously the best container is glass because when you choose plastic you are potentially exposed to the following chemicals.

BPA – Bisphenol A or BPA is an estrogen-mimicking chemical that has been linked to a host of serious health problems including:

• Learning and behavioral problems
• Altered immune system function
• Early puberty in girls and fertility problems
• Decreased sperm count
• Prostate and breast cancer
• Diabetes and obesity

If you are pregnant or nursing, your child is also at risk. If you are feeding your baby or toddler from a plastic bottle, switch to glass to avoid BPA contamination.

Phthalates -- Phthalates are widely used in the United States to make plastics like polyvinyl chloride (PVC) more flexible.

Phthalates are endocrine-disrupting chemicals that have been linked to a wide range of developmental and reproductive effects, including:

• Reduced sperm counts
• Testicular atrophy or structural abnormality
• Liver cancer

Further, in experiments on rats, phthalates have demonstrably blocked the action of fetal androgens, which affects gender development in male offspring, leading to undescended testes at birth and testicular tumors later in life.

Studies have also found that boys whose mothers had high phthalate exposures while pregnant were much more likely to have certain demasculinized traits and produce less testosterone.

Yet another study found that pregnant women who are exposed to phthalates gave birth more than one week earlier than women who were not exposed to them.

Pharmacy in a Bottle -- As mentioned above, about 40 percent of bottled water is tap water. This means you are not only exposed to dangerous BPA from the bottle, you may also be exposed to a variety of water contaminants such as fluoride, chlorine, arsenic, aluminum, disinfection byproducts and prescription drugs.

Although you may have been told that disposing your unused prescription or over-the-counter (OTC) drugs in the garbage instead of down the toilet means this eliminates the threat of your water supply being contaminated, this is simply not true. Water that drains through landfills, known as leach rate, eventually ends up in rivers. Although not all states source drinking water from rivers, many do.

According to studies, human cells do not grow normally when exposed to even minute amounts of prescription or over-the-counter drugs.

Some drugs that were never meant to be combined are mixed together in the drinking water you consume every day. Millions of people have drug allergies. Are you one of them? If so, how do you know the unusual symptoms you've been exhibiting are not due to ingesting small doses of the drugs you're allergic to from your bottled water?

Ticking Time Bomb

Though drinking bottled water directly from a store shelf poses serious health risks, leaving this bottled water in your car or strapped to your bike and exposed to the hot sun will cause even more serious chemical exposure. Ultraviolet rays from the sun or high temperatures will accelerate leaching of the plastic chemicals mentioned above into the water.

Adding to this health threat is a toxic substance called dioxin, which is also released into bottled water when it is left in the sun. Dioxin has been strongly linked to the development of breast cancer.

Health-conscious people like to transport filtered water from home to ensure a safe supply on the go. If you're one of these individuals, using a glass or steel bottle instead will bypass the risks associated with carrying filtered water in plastic.

"Vitamin Water" – As Unhealthy as Soda

One of the biggest scams soda manufacturers have come up with is, "vitamin water". The marketers for this cleverly disguised "health drink" take advantage of your growing interest in health and try to make you believe it can measure up to the vitamins and minerals in food. It can't even come close.

In truth, vitamin water is one of the worst types of bottled water you can drink!

Most vitamin waters contain health-harming additives such as high fructose corn syrup, which is a primary cause of obesity and diabetes, and food dyes that can wreak havoc on your physical and emotional health.

Don't be fooled. Skip the vitamin water. If you eat a healthy diet and follow my comprehensive nutritional plan http://www.mercola.com/nutritionplan/index.htm , most of your vitamins will come from food. For more information about the health hazards of vitamin waters, please see this link.

Do Not Deliver

For years, you may have enjoyed the ease and convenience of having bottled water delivered straight to your door. The idea of being able to avoid the dangerous chemicals in tap water by having your very own water cooler full of fresh, mountain spring water to drink from may have seemed to good to be true.

Turns out, it was. Home water delivery is not an environmentally-friendly way to get the water you need.The plastic bottles they come in pose health risks that are less significant than the pint or quart water bottles as they have denser plastic and they typically are reused many times, unlike the smaller bottles.

Although some water home delivery companies will ship their water in glass, you still have no real idea where your water is coming from. Also, the load is that much heavier and requires that much more fuel to transport and heavy glass bottles can be difficult to manage and have been known to break and cut seriously injure or even kill people.

The Truth about Fluoride

Tap water, and bottled water that originates from tap water, is loaded with fluoride. Though you may have been lead to believe this substance to be vital to the dental health of you and your family, this is simply not the case. Unfortunately, the belief that fluoride prevents cavities is a common misconception. In fact, the exact opposite is true.

As this recent study done on children in India shows, fluoride is anything but a cavity fighter. Fluoride is a toxin that actually leads to an increased risk of cavities and can cause a wide range of health problems, including weakening your immune system and accelerating aging due to cellular damage.

One study, published in the September 2001 issue of International Journal of Pediatric Dentistry, found that South African children who drank water containing high levels of natural fluoride (3 ppm), had more tooth decay than children in other parts of South Africa who drank much lower concentrations (between 0.19 to 0.48 ppm). And fluoride-saturated American teenagers had twice the rate of cavities as the South African children drinking low levels of natural fluoride!

A new study in the Journal of the American Dental Association, published in October of last year, also found that, contrary to what most people have been told, fluoride is actually bad for teeth.The study found that fluoride intake during a child's first few years of life is significantly associated with fluorosis, and warned against using fluoridated water in infant formula.

In response, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has updated the information on their website, stating:

"Recent evidence suggests that mixing powdered or liquid infant formula concentrate with fluoridated water on a regular basis may increase the chance of a child developing ... enamel fluorosis." "In children younger than 8 years of age, combined fluoride exposure from all sources—water, food, toothpaste, mouth rinse, or other products—contributes to enamel fluorosis."

More importantly however, on January 7, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that they will take another look at the standards and guidelines for fluoride in drinking water due to the increase in dental fluorosis.

This is the first time in 50 years that the federal government has recommended changing the amount of fluoride added to public water supplies. They're now proposing the recommended amount of fluoride in drinking water be reduced to 0.7 milligrams per liter of water. The recommended range has been 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L, so for many communities this new level will equate to a fluoride reduction of nearly 50 percent! The EPA is also initiating a review of the maximum amount of fluoride allowed. Depending on their findings, the maximum amount of fluoride allowed may also be revised. This is at least a step in the right direction!

However, this is likely not the last you'll hear on this issue. According to a recent press release by The Fluoride Action Network, "Fluoridegate" is fast approaching as it's becoming clear that dental fluorosis is "just the tip of the iceberg." The press release states:

"A series of disclosures are surfacing about the actions of water fluoridation promoters that point to a likely tsunami of Fluoridegate investigations, hearings, and explosive courtroom entanglements. Tennessee state legislator Frank Niceley states, "There is a real Fluoridegate scandal here. Citizens haven't been told about harm from fluorides, and this needs to be investigated by the authorities and the media."

Washington D.C. toxic tort attorney Chris Nidel says, "I think when we look back we'll ask why Fluoridegate didn't surface earlier. There are serious concerns about possible conflict of interest and heavy editing of information being fed to the public about fluoride risks and impacts."

Your Optimal Water Choices

Your most convenient solution is to filter your own tap water. African women spend five hours per day, on average, seeking out water and carrying it back to their villages. If you're like most modern Americans, you have indoor plumbing in your home. So, why are you purchasing and transporting bottled water from your supermarket?

The most economical and environmentally sound choice you and your family can make is to purchase and install a water filter for your home. Alternatively, you can look around for sources of mountain spring water, which is about as close to ideal as you can get.

There's a great website called FindaSpring.com where you can find a natural spring in your area. This is also a great way to get back to nature and teach your children about health and the sources of clean water. The best part is that most of these spring water sources are free!

Final Thoughts

Your body is made up of 80 percent water and you can only live a few days without this precious, life-giving substance. Most of you are dehydrated and not even aware of your body's many cries for water. But the quality, and hence the source of your water is vitally important for maintaining optimal health. To learn even more about water, please visit my water index page for links to more articles on this important topic.

Please visit The Wellness Academy for more information.

A Hundred Health Sapping Neurotoxins are Hidden in Packaged and Restaurant Food

This article by Barbara Minton appears on the Natural News website. Please visit the originating website for additional information and links.

(NaturalNews) What is it that stands between you and vibrant health? People who have spent a fortune on supplements, gotten plenty of exercise and bought high quality food still find themselves unable to answer this question. For many of them, the answer lies in neurotoxins hidden in even the most healthy sounding foods, including many foods labeled as organic. These ingredients often cause serious reactions, including migraines, insomnia, asthma, depression, anxiety, aggression, chronic fatigue, and even ALS. They may be responsible for the swelling numbers of children diagnosed as ADHD.

Almost everything in every kind of grocery store has additives that can cause reactions including asthma attacks, obesity, tinnitus, and restless leg syndrome. While 1 out of every 4 people is sensitive to neurotoxic food additives, only 1 in 250 is aware that these additives are the source of the reactions they are having.

Most neurotoxic food additives contain free glutamic acids processed from proteins. Monosodium glutamate (MSG) is probably the best known of the neurotoxins. However, there are many other names for these protein derived additives, including yeast extract, maltodextrin, carrageenan, hydrolyzed vegetable protein, dough conditioners, seasonings, spices, and whey protein concentrate. Even the pleasant sounding term natural flavors can mean the presence of additives toxic to the brain and nervous system.

Food additives are there to trick you into thinking what you are consuming tastes really great. They are an assault on your nerve synapses and a violent attack on the cells of your brain.

"Bet you can't eat just one"

Remember that old slogan? Food and beverage companies use food additives because they make you crave more of what tastes so good. They cause nerve cells to cry out for repeated stimulation, keep you buying and consuming more of their products. People watch in horror as they pile on pounds and become food junkies without any idea of how they are being manipulated to further corporate interests. In addition to the benign sounding terms natural flavors and spices, manufacturers use other seemingly innocuous names for these additives on their labels, such as seasonings, broth, or gelatin.

Restaurants are another place to find foods laced with neurotoxins. This is why restaurant food tastes so good. Neurotoxins have conditioned people to think restaurant food tastes so great they will stand in line to get a table, when what they are really paying money for is the privilege of having their brain cells destroyed.

Many people think if they avoid Chinese restaurants they can avoid neurotoxins in their food. But these hazardous chemicals are added to virtually all restaurant food from McDonalds to the most exclusive gourmet dining spots. A sign on the widow or on the package that says there is no MSG, simply means that another form of neurotoxin is used instead.

The FDA wouldn't allow dangerous food additives, would they?

Unfortunately, the food industry is controlled by powerful conglomerates that have great political influence over the FDA and other government regulatory agencies. Naturally it is in the best interests of these corporations to defend their use of the neurotoxic additives that make their products so pleasing to the senses and so habit forming. Just like the tobacco industry, food corporations have no regard for the health of their customers but will stop at nothing to get their money. Until consumers realize what is being done to them and how they are being used, neurotoxins are here to stay. Kicking the addiction promoted by food additives is as difficult as kicking the nicotine habit.

Although the science of food technology has been around since the 1950s, consumers are just now waking up to the link between neurotoxic additives and their loss of vitality. Even when people understand the link intellectually, many are so hooked on the fabulous taste of adulterated food that they just can't stop eating, no matter what it is doing to them. Others buy into the lame propaganda telling them that neurotoxic additives are safe.

Additives from natural sources can be highly toxic

MSG is natural. It is a sodium salt of glutamic acid, an amino acid. Originally isolated from seaweed, MSG is now made by fermenting corn, potatoes and rice. MSG is naturally present in high levels in tomatoes and Parmesan cheese. But MSG is highly dangerous to health. An early study reported that the inner layer of the retina was destroyed in neonatal rats receiving a single exposure to MSG. This is an amazing finding considering that humans are more than 5 times more sensitive to MSG than rats.

Another study used rats to determine the effects of exposure to MSG on obesity. Rats given MSG developed obesity, type II diabetes, and metabolic syndrome X. They also developed lesions of the ventromedial hypothalamic nucleus. MSG is a powerful disrupter of the endocrine system, creating havoc with meta-thermoregularory modulates like neuropeptide Y and leptin, and their target tissue, brown fat. It reduces the thermogenicity of brown fat while also suppressing food intake. This means that MSG makes a people gain weight even when they decrease caloric intake.

These findings explain how a person can hardly eat at all while still putting on weight. But these effects are not confined to MSG. The other substances classified as neurotoxic food additives produce much the same outcomes.

Natural flavors are isolates from naturally occurring products just like MSG. Many natural products including organic fruits and vegetables contain compounds that in isolation are extremely harmful. Some of these compounds are what make up the defense system of the plants. When the whole plant, fruit or vegetable is consumed as food, other compounds are present that neutralize their harmful effects. When taken from the plant as isolates, the compounds become no different in their effects than those created in a laboratory.

The word spice is another innocuous sounding germ, but in the world of food marketing, it is a word that has been manipulated to sound harmless when it really isn't. People tend to think that the individual spices are not listed because the creator of the product doesn't want to give away his secrets. This is not true. When the word "spices" is used, it is the tip off that toxic additives are hidden in the product.

Feeling your best involves learning to read labels

Neurotoxins are added to virtually every packaged food and beverage sold in almost every store. Not just packaged meal type items, but many of the ingredients used to create a meal.

Anyone wanting to avoid neurotoxic additives needs to know that there is a lot more to it than just looking for MSG on the label. MSG may be the most well known of the additives, but all the others are just as hazardous to health and as likely to produce a reaction. Even if products say "No MSG" or call themselves "all natural" or "organic", it is almost a certainty that neurotoxic additives are in that product. There is no way to know unless you are willing to take the time to read the label.

When there are a hundred different kinds of neurotoxic food additives used being pumped into almost everything on stores shelves, trying to avoid them may seem like navigating a mine field. It helps if you are armed with a listing of what to avoid. The label of any product that is canned, frozen, bagged, bottled, boxed, wrapped, put in a carton, or offered in a take home dish or container needs to be examined because almost all of them contain neurotoxins. Check everything you suspect may have flavoring added to it, even coffee, tea bags, and bottled waters. You will be surprised. Be sure to check chewing gum and candy.

It may seem overwhelming at first to have to drag around a list of toxic food additives and examine every product you buy. But very quickly you will learn where to find the ingredient lists and what to look for. The key words will jump off the label right into your eye. As you become better at identifying products using these additives, you will also begin to notice how much better you feel. Those persistent symptoms that have been around for months or years will begin to disappear along with the unwanted pounds. By the time label reading becomes second nature and can be done in one quick glance, you will well be on the road to vibrant health.

Here is a list of what to look for. Arm yourself against corporate exploitation when you go to the store, and learn how to spend your money so that it benefits you, rather than someone else who has made it clear he doesn't care whether you are healthy or not.

Neurotoxic Chemical Food Additives:

• aspartame
• autolyzed anything
• barley malt
• beef base
• beef flavoring
• beef stock
• bouillon
• broth of any kind
• calcium caseinate
• carrageenan
• caseinate
• chicken base
• chicken broth
• chicken flavoring
• chicken stock
• disodium anything
• dough conditioner
• flavoring
• gelatin
• gelatinized anything
• glutamate
• gaur gum
• hydrolyzed anything
• kombu extract
• l-cysteine
• malt anything
• malted anything
• milk solids
• monosodium glutamate
• natural flavor
• nutrasweet
• pork base
• pork flavoring
• protein concentrate
• protein extract
• seasoned salt
• seasoning
• smoke flavoring
• sodium caseinate
• solids of any kind
• soup base
• soy extract
• soy protein anything
• soy sauce
• spice
• stock
• textured protein
• textured vegetable protein
• umami
• vegetable gum
• whey anything
• yeast extract

For more information see:

http://www.rtnc411.org/rtnc-list.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4676616/

http://www.answers.com/topic/flavoring-extract-and-flavoring-syrups-not-elsewhere-classified

Please visit The Wellness Academy for additional information.

50 reasons to oppose fluoridation

This is a reproduction of an article that appears on the Food Consumer website. Please visit their website for additional information and links on this subject.


Dr. Paul Connet, Ph.D. of St. Lawrence University in Canton, NY offers 50 reasons to oppose fluoridation as listed below and the statements are slightly edited.


1, Humans don't need fluoride to have good teeth;


2, Fluoridation is unnecessary. Most Western European countries are not fluoridated and they have experienced the same decline in dental decay as the U.S. where a majority of cities are fluoridated;


3, Fluoridation's role in the decline of tooth decay is in serious doubt;


4, Where fluoridation has been discontinued in communities in Canada and other countries, dental decay has not increased but actually decreased;


5, Dental crises were reported to have occurred in U.S. cities where fluoride has been added to drinking water for over 20 years; Tooth decay is more correlated with income than fluoride levels in water;


6, A decline in tooth decay had been already seen before fluoridation was introduced; Some studies suggested increased levels of fluoride in drinking water was associated with elevated risk of tooth decay;


7, The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention acknowledges findings by many leading dental researchers that fluoride does not have to be ingested to have a protective effect, which is topical, but not systemic. Since swallowing fluoride is unnecessary, no reason exists to force people (against their will) to drink fluoride in their water supply;


8, The FDA has never approved any fluoride product designed for ingestion as safe or effective;


9, Fluoridation does not help reduce dental decay rates. A major survey has found 30 percent of children in fluoridated areas had dental fluorosis on at least two teeth while the purpose of fluoridation is to limit the rate below 10 percent;


10, While fluoride is a known risk factor for dental fluorisis, other factors also affect the dental condition;


11, The level of fluoride put into drinking water at 1 ppm is not what nature intended. Fluoride presented in mother's milk is 200 times lower than 1 ppm. No benefits but only risks come from this level of fluoride;


12, Fluoride is a cumulative poison, and only 50 percent of this mineral ingested daily can be excreted through the kidneys;


13, Fluoride actively interferes with hydrogen bonding and inhibits a great number of enzymes;


14, Together with aluminum, fluoride interferes with G-proteins leading to further interference with many hormonal and some neurochemical signals;


15, Fluoride is mutagenic and can damage DNA and interfere with enzymes that help DNA repairs;


16, Fluoride can form complexes with other metals or minerals causing a variety of problems;


17, Animal studies show exposure to 1 ppm of fluoride in the form of sodium fluoride or aluminum fluoride in drinking water for a year resulted in morphological changes in kidneys and brains of rats, increased uptake of toxic metal aluminum in the brain and the formation of beta-amyloid deposits, which increases the risk of Alzheimer's disease;


18, Aluminum fluoride used to fluoridate water is toxic to the brain; the U.S. government recommended this chemical should be tested for its toxicity;


19, Fluoride accumulates in the brain and alters mental behavior in a manner like a neurotoxin;


20, Five studies in China revealed fluoride exposure was linked lower IQ in children;


21, Fluoride also accumulates in the pineal gland to a very high level and reduces melatonin production and leads to an early onset of puberty;


22, Fluoride was prescribed in Europe to patients with hyperthyroidism. Water fluoridation essentially forces people to use a thyroid-depressing drug; The department of health and human services reported fluoride exposure in fluoridated communities is estimated at the range of 1.6 to 6.6 mg per day, which covers the dose range from 2.3 to 4.5 mg per day that decreases the thyroid functions;


23, Some early symptoms of skeletal fluorosis, which is caused by fluoride, mimics the symptoms of arthritis, a fact that leads to misdiagnosis of skeletal fluorosis. Because of this, incidence of skeletal fluorosis can be underestimated;


24, High doses of fluoride up to 26 mg per day were tried to treat people with osteoporosis in hopes that their bones can be hardened and fracture rates can be reduced. Exposure to such high levels, in fact, increased the rate of fractures, particularly hip fractures. The level of exposure can be easily reached in people who live in fluoridated areas during their lifetime;


25, Many studies have linked exposure of fluoride with increased risk of fractures, particularly hip fractures, which are serious health problems;


26, The one and only government-sanctioned animal study intended to examine the effect of fluoride on cancer risk showed a dose-dependent increase in risk of bone cancer in male rats. Other cancers in the liver and the mouth were also increased, but the government downplayed the findings;


27, A review of data in a National cancer database found higher rates of bone cancer in young men in fluoridated areas compared to unfluoridated areas. A smaller study revealed the increase in bone cancer in young men living in fluoridated areas was 6 times higher, compared with those living in unfluoridated areas;


28, Animal studies showed high levels of fluoride wreaks havoc on the male reproductive system, specifically damaging sperm and boosting the odds of infertility;


29, Although toxic at high levels, the fluoridation programs are poorly monitored. As a result, the exposure to high toxic mineral varies widely and some people might have been victimized by the practice;


30, No one can really know exactly how much his daily intake of fluoride is. Some people could expose themselves to much higher levels than others even though the average may or may not be too much out of the normal range;


31, Fluoridation is unethical because individuals are forced to drink fluoridated water. If fluoride is indeed beneficial, people can always take it as a dietary supplement;


32, Referenda cause a conflict between individual rights and majority rule. Fluoride, a toxin, should not be given to an individual just because his neighbors agree that he should receive it in drinking water;


33, Some people are more sensitive than others. One 13-year study showed about 1 percent of patients given 1 mg of fluoride per day developed negative reactions;


34, The Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry and other researchers reported that certain individuals including elderly, diabetics, and those with poor kidney function may be more vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects;


35, Vulnerable are also those who suffer malnutrition such as deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, vitamin C, and iodine and protein in their diet. People with malnutrition are likely the poor, who are the targets of new fluoridation programs;


36, Dental decay is more commonly seen in poor communities. That is not because they have no access to fluoride, but because they are poor and don't have access to adequate dental care and don't have dental insurance;


37, Fluoridation has failed to prevent the most serious oral health problem facing young and poor children, that is, baby bottle tooth decay or early childhood caries;


38, Early studies intended to help launch fluoridation programs were criticized for their poor methodology and choice of control communities. Dr. Hubert Arnold from the University of California at Davis was cited as saying the early fluoridation trials "are especially rich in fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical methods, omissions of contrary data, and just plain muddleheadedness and hebetude."


39, When the U.S. Public Health Service first endorsed fluoridation in 1950, no single trial had been yet completed;


40, After the launching of fluoridation, evidence from studies indicated that fluoride could not help prevent pit and fissure tooth decay, which represents up to 85 percent of the tooth decay in children. This is a fact that has been known to the dental community;


41, People today are exposed to much higher levels of fluoride than the optimal fluoridation level 1 ppm, which is the level viewed as optimal in 1945.


42, Fluoride chemicals used to fluoridate water in the U.S. are not food or pharmaceutical grade. They come from the wet scrubbing systems commonly seen in the superphosphate fertilizer industry. They are contaminated with impurities and only 90 percent of it is sodium fluorosilicate and fluorosilic acid.


43, The chemicals used for fluoridation have not been tested for its safety. The tests conducted in animal studies used pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride, but not industrial grade fluoride chemicals;


44, Use of fluorisilic acid increased uptake of lead into children's blood;


45, Sodium fluoride is an extremely poisoning substance, a dose of 200 mg of fluoride ion can be enough to kill a young child, and 3 to 5 grams of it may kill an adult. Deaths were reported to result from excess exposure to fluoride;


46, At least 14 Nobel Prize winners had expressed their reservations about fluoridation;


47, Nobel laureate in Medicine and Physiology Dr. Arvid Carlsson was quoted as saying ""I am quite convinced that water fluoridation, in a not-too-distant future, will be consigned to medical history...Water fluoridation goes against leading principles of pharmacotherapy, which is progressing from a stereotyped medication - of the type 1 tablet 3 times a day - to a much more individualized therapy as regards both dosage and selection of drugs. The addition of drugs to the drinking water means exactly the opposite of an individualized therapy" (Carlsson 1978).


48, Pro-fluoridation officials refuse to debate over fluoridation. Dr. Michael Easley, a well known lobbyist for fluoridation in the US was quoted as saying "Debates give the illusion that a scientific controversy exists when no credible people support the fluorophobics' view". Dr. Edward Groth, a Senior Scientist at Consumers Union, was quoted as observing "the political profluoridation stance has evolved into a dogmatic, authoritarian, essentially antiscientific posture, one that discourages open debate of scientific issues".


49, Scientist, doctors, and dentists who have spoken against fluoridation have been subjected to censorship and intimidation;


50, The Union representing scientist at US EPA headquarters in Washington DC opposes water fluoridation. "In summary, we hold that fluoridation is an unreasonable risk. That is, the toxicity of fluoride is so great and the purported benefits associated with it are so small - if there are any at all - that requiring every man, woman and child in America to ingest it borders on criminal behavior on the part of governments."


For more details about adverse effects of fluoride, readers are encouraged to visit the fluoridealert.org's website.


Please visit The Wellness Academy for more information.

Fox News Kills Monsanto Story

Here is a video on Fox News, Monsanto, bovine growth hormone, and free speech.



Please visit The Wellness Academy for more information.

New Law May Slow Cell Phone Cancer Epidemic

This article is a copy of one that appears on Dr. Mercola's website. The original can be viewed here.

New Law May Slow Cell Phone Cancer Epidemic

Supporters of a Maine bill which would require cell phone manufacturers to put warning labels on mobile phones say that ignoring the health risks of heavy cell phone use invites a cancer epidemic.

David Carpenter, director of the Institute for Health and Environment at the University of Albany, argued, "We can do nothing and wait for the body count. That's what happened with smoking."

The bill would make Maine the first state to mandate warnings that cell phones can cause brain cancer, especially among children.

Sources: Google News March 3, 2010

Dr. Mercola's Comments

Time will tell if Maine will rise to the challenge and become the first US state to mandate warning labels on cell phones. Sponsored by democratic Rep. Andrea Boland, the bill, HP 1207/LD 1706, also known as “An Act to Create the Children's Wireless Protection Act,” was referred to the Committee on Health and Human Services on January 7 of this year.

It has created some national news, and for good reason. It’s a highly controversial issue, and vehemently opposed by the wireless industry who, ironically, claims the bill is little more than political grandstanding and has no scientific basis.

The Scientific Basis of Cell Phone Warnings

Despite industry’s reluctance to admit the scientific basis of placing a prominent warning on every cell phone sold, the legislation was indeed prompted by such scientific findings.

I’ve reported on a number of them in the past, such as:

• A study by Dr. Siegal Sadetzki linking cell phone use to salivary gland tumors
• Wearing a cell phone on your hip – either on your belt or in a pocket – has been linked to decreased bone density in the pelvic region. (All the other vital organs located in your pelvic region – your liver, kidney, bladder, colon and reproductive organs – are also susceptible to radiation damage)
• Proximity to cell phone towers causes an increase in the symptoms of electromagnetic hypersensitivity, including fatigue, sleep disturbances, visual and auditory disturbances, and cardiovascular effects
•  The REFLEX report, which concluded there is real evidence that non-thermal hyperfrequency electromagnetic fields can have geno-toxic effects and can damage DNA, which is an underlying cause of cancer
•  The BioInitiative Report, which includes studies showing evidence for:
•  Effects on Gene and Protein Expression (Transcriptomic and Proteomic Research)
•  Genotoxic Effects – RFR and ELF DNA Damage
•  Stress Response (Stress Proteins)
•  Effects on Immune Function
•  Effects on Neurology and Behavior
•  Brain Tumors, Acoustic Neuromas, and childhood cancers like leukemia
•  And much more
• The 2009 special EMF issue of the Journal of Pathophysiology, which contains over a dozen different studies on the health effects of electromagnetic fields and wireless technology

In addition, a review of 11 long-term epidemiologic studies published in the journal Surgical Neurology revealed that using a cell phone for 10 or more years approximately doubles the risk of being diagnosed with a brain tumor on the same side of the head where the cell phone is typically held.

Another noted brain cancer authority, Australian Dr Vini Gautam Khurana, published a paper in 2008 titled: Mobile Phones and Brain Tumors, which also covers more than 100 sources of recent medical and scientific literature on this topic.  

Are We Headed Toward a Brain Cancer Epidemic?

It should be noted that while there are a significant number of studies showing the biological effects of electromagnetic fields and radiofrequencies within the microwave range, the industry claims that since these technologies do not have a thermal (heating) effect on your body, they will not cause biological harm.

Alas, there are literally thousands of studies showing that this logic is incorrect. I’ve barely scratched the surface with the examples I listed above.

Clearly, to claim there is NO evidence of harm from cell phones and other non-thermal radiation is ludicrous at this point.

In addition, real-life is starting to show us the truth, just like we saw with smoking and the rise in lung cancer. Australia, for example, has seen an increase in pediatric brain cancers of 21 percent in just one decade.

This is consistent with studies showing a 40 percent brain tumor increase across the board in Europe and the U.K. over the last 20 years. In fact, brain cancer has now surpassed leukemia as the number one cancer killer in children.

If you still have doubts, I highly recommend reading the book Public Health SOS: The Shadow Side of the Wireless Revolution, written by Camilla Rees and Magda Havas, PhD., to get a better understanding of the facts on this important issue.

What Would the Warning Label Say?

Boland’s bill calls for the following statement to be prominently placed on every cell phone and all related packaging, on a non-removable label:


In addition, the bill, as currently written, requires the label to include the color graphic showing the electromagnetic absorption of a 5-year old child’s brain, as depicted in a 1996 study published by the IEEE on the effect of cell phone microwave emissions on the neck and head.

How to Protect Yourself and Your Family

I strongly urge you not to wait for legislation to be passed before you start paying attention to this issue.

And while you can’t completely avoid radiation in today’s wireless world, if you’re ready to give up your cell phone, you can virtually eliminate that one hazard, at least.

At the bare minimum, don’t let young children use a cell phone or other wireless devices, and avoid cell phone exposure while pregnant or carrying your infant as children are FAR more susceptible to harm from microwave radiation than adults. If you’re not prepared to ditch your cell phone, you can at least minimize exposure by heeding the following advice:

• 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.
• 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.
• 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 every single time.
• If you must use a portable home phone, use the older kind that operates at 900 MHz. They are no 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 will not be of much use). You can find meters at www.emfsafetystore.com.
• As a general rule of thumb, 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.
• Also seek to avoid carrying your phone on your body as that merely maximizes any potential exposure. Ideally put it in your purse or carrying bag.
• Don’t assume one cell phone is safer than another: Please understand that despite assurances, there’s still no such thing as a “safe” cell phone.
• For example, SAR value, while providing information for comparison purposes between phones, is very limited in its usefulness as a measure of ‘safety.’ For more details on SAR values, please review this previous article.
• Keep your cell phone away from your body when it’s 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.
• 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 information carrying 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.

Personally, I believe this issue is so important, I’ve created an entire web site dedicated to EMF education and information. Feel free to bookmark EMF.mercola.com, and check back on occasion for the latest news and updates.

The Web site ElectromagneticHealth.org also offers ten free audio interviews with some of the world’s leading experts in the field of EMF.

Related Links:

Great Example Why You Simply Can't Believe That Cell Phones Are Safe

How Cellphone Radiation Affects Your Cells

Interview with Expert on Dangers of Cell Phones

“Warning, this device emits electromagnetic radiation, exposure to which may cause brain cancer. Users, especially children and pregnant women, should keep this device away from the head and body.”

Please visit The Wellness Academy for more information.

The negative health effects of chlorine

This is a reproduction of an article appearing on The Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients. The original article can be viewed here.

The negative health effects of chlorine.
by Joseph Hatterly

Summary

Federal regulations require chlorine treatment of the water supplied to urban/suburban areas of America and much of Canada from surface sources such as lakes, reservoirs and rivers. That constitutes about 75% of water that Americans consume. Water from underground sources generally is not chlorinated unless it is supplemented by surface water. My hometown, Lacey, Washington, and some surrounding communities that are supplied water by Lacey, are fortunate to be among that group.

Chlorination is inferior water treatment on at least two counts. (1) Although it has greatly lowered infectious waterborne diseases in the US and Canada, chlorination fails against a variety of water problems including parasites, and can seriously harm people who use the water, (2) Its cost is unnecessarily high. As of 1996, Andover, Massachusetts' new ozone treatment costs $83 per million gallons of purified water, only two-thirds as much as the old treatment process. The town saves $64,000 annually in chemicals costs alone, (1) and uses less electricity.

Possible Damage to Arteries

When chlorinated water is run through a hose or carried in a pail followed by milk as in a dairy, "very tenacious, yellowish deposits chemically similar to arterial plaque" form; with unchlorinated water this doesn't happen. (2)

CBS' 60 Minutes show July 11, 1992, displayed two laboratory rats, both of them eating standard rat chow and drinking chlorinated water. One rat had clear arteries. The other was also on pasteurized, homogenized milk. When the animals were sacrificed and cut open, the arteries of the milk-drinking rats were clogged. A scientist in a white coat winked at the camera and said, "He [the live rat he was holding] is the only one doing research on that." The researcher didn't say why, but the powerful dairy and chemical lobbies come to mind.

Dairy buckets, hoses and rats' arteries resist the arterial-wall damage known as atherosclerosis. But what can chlorinated water and cow's milk, particularly homogenized milk, do to the far more susceptible arteries of humans? Those of young chickens are about as susceptible to such damage as people's arteries. So as a first approximation, J.M. Price, MD gave cockerels (roosters less than a year old) only chlorinated water (without milk). They developed arterial plaques; and the stronger the concentration of chlorine, the faster and worse the damage. Cockerels on unchlorinated water developed no such damage. (2)

The residents of the small town of Roseto, Pennsylvania, had no heart attacks despite a diet rich in saturated animal fats and milk - until they moved away from Roseto's mountain spring water and drank chlorinated water. After that, consuming the same diet, they had heart attacks. (2) The Roseto example is dramatic enough, but the needed detailed comparisons and follow-up have never been done.

How well does the incidence of heart attacks match the areas where water is/ was chlorinated? Chlorination spread throughout America in the second and third decades of this century, about 20 years before the mushrooming of heart attacks. Light chlorination, we will recall, yielded slow growth of plaques in Price's cockerels; and so chlorination of people's drinking water at the usual low concentration might have been expected to take at least 10-20 years to produce clinical manifestations of atherosclerosis.

A physician team led by William F. Enos autopsied 300 GIs who had died in battle in the Korean War. These men, who had passed induction examination as healthy, averaged 22.1 years of age. To their shock and amazement, in 77% of the 300 the pathologists found "gross evidence of arteriosclerosis in the coronary arteries." In several, one or more heart arteries were partly or completely occluded. (3)

Although Dr. Enos didn't try to explain his discovery, he assumed arterial clogging had developed gradually. Seeming to support that assumption, almost 20 years later pathologists discovered early arterial damage in 96% of nearly 200 consecutive babies who had died of whatever cause in their first month outside the womb. Two of those babies' coronary arteries were blocked, causing infantile heart attacks. (4) Identified as crib deaths, these were related to functionally deficient vitamin [B.sub.6]. (5)

But did arterial damage in fact develop slowly? The water that the American soldiers had to drink in Korea was so heavily chlorinated that many could hardly tolerate it. In Vietnam too, autopsies of American soldiers found heart-artery damage. (6) Again, water supplied to them had been heavily chlorinated. (2) Did much of the soldiers' arterial damage develop, not gradually but quickly, as in Dr. Price's cockerels? The truth - slow or rapid development of clogging - may never be known. Interestingly, from 1950 to 1965 while heart attacks mushroomed, on a population level arterial lesions did not increase; the major growth was in clotting.

Chemical Background

Highly reactive chlorine is one of the industrial waste products profitably disposed of by using people as garbage cans, then on into the environment. Chlorine oxidizes lipid contaminants in the water. It thus creates free radicals, (2) (highly reactive atomic or sub-atomic particles lacking an electron) and oxysterols (formed when lipid and oxygen molecules combine). (8'9)

To function we require moderate numbers of both free radicals and oxysterols. The immune system employs free radicals to kill cells that its cellular immune mechanism can't handle. A second mechanism using free radicals initiates programmed cell suicide known as apoptosis. (10) And moderate quantities of oxysterols, like cholesterol itself, serve a protective function. (11) But excess free radicals and excess oxysterols damage arteries and initiate cancer, among many other kinds of harm.

How does chlorine in water cause these problems? It destroys protective acidophilus, which nourishes and cooperates with the 3 to 3-1/2 pounds (12) of immunity-strengthening "friendly" organisms lining the colon, where about 60% of our immune cells operate. (13) And chlorine combines with organic impurities in the water to make trihalomethanes (THMs), or chioramines. The more organic matter, the more THMs; and like excess oxysterols they are carcinogens.

Industrial chemist J.P. Bercz, PhD, showed in 1992 that chlorinated water alters and destroys essential fatty acids (EFAs), (14) the building blocks of brains and central nervous systems. (15) The compound hypochlorite, created when chlorine mixes with water, generates excess free radicals; these oxidize EFAs, turning them rancid.

Most Western diets contain very little of critically needed omega-3 EFAS. These are found in fish oil and, better, in flaxseed oil; also in moderate quantity in first-virgin olive oil. These EFAs, except in olive oil, go rancid quickly. And so, to extend their products' shelf life food processors remove all health-promoting EFAs, as well as destroying or discarding most needed micronutrients.

Processors substitute partially hydrogenated trans, transformed fats. Found in all boxed and packaged foods that have long lists of hard-to-pronounce chemical names on the side, trans fatty acids consumed in large quantity can cause heart attacks and many other degenerative diseases. (16-18)

Among the THMs that result from chlorine combining with organic compounds in water are carcinogenic chloroform and carbon tetrachloride. It is the combination of chlorine and organic materials already in the water that produces cancer-causing byproducts. The more organic matter in the water, the greater is the accumulation of THMs. (19)

In a study of more than 5,000 pregnant women in the Fontana, Walnut Creek and Santa Clara areas of California, researchers from the state health department found that women who drank more than five glasses a day of tap water containing over 75 parts per billion of THMs had a 9.5% risk of spontaneous abortion, i.e. miscarriage. Women less exposed to the contaminants showed 5.7% risk; no comparison was given for women who ingested no THMs. (20)

Other Risks of Chlorinated Water

Chlorine in swimming pools reacts with organic matter such as sweat, urine, blood, feces, and mucus and skin cells to form more chloramines. Chloroform risk can be 70 to 240 times higher in the air over indoor pools than over outdoor pools. (21) And Canadian researchers found that after an hour of swimming in a chlorinated pool, chloroform concentrations in the swimmers' blood ranged from 100 to 1,093 parts per billion (ppb). (22) If the pool smells very much of chlorine, don't go near it.

Taking a warm shower or lounging in a tub filled with hot chlorinated water, one inhales chloroform. Researchers recorded increases in chloroform concentration in bathers' lungs of about 2.7 ppb after a 10-minute shower. Worse, warm water causes the skin to act like a sponge; and so one will absorb and inhale more chlorine in a 10-minute shower than by drinking eight glasses of the same water. This irritates the eyes, the sinuses, throat, skin and lungs, dries the hair and scalp, worsening dandruff. It can weaken immunity.

A window from the shower room open to the outdoors would release chloroform from the shower room air. But to prevent its absorption through the skin requires a showerhead that removes chlorine. The ShowerWise[TM] filter and showerhead can be ordered for $69, plus two filters $129 -- from What Doctors Don't Tell You, 1-800-851-7100 or fax 410-223-2619. Others offer comparable products.
[My comments -- Nikken has an excellent and inexpensive shower filter available.]

Dishwashers pollute indoor air with chlorinated organics created from dishwasher detergents and volatilized in the air for us to breathe. They vent 5 to 7 liters (quarts) of air into the house air every minute of operation. The chlorine reacts with food scraps. (23) Ceramic disks, used instead of detergents, totally avoid the problem and are said to be about 75% less costly than detergent. (24-26)

Relation to Melanoma and Cancers

Studies in Belgium have related development of deadly malignant melanoma to consumption of chlorinated water. (27) Drinking and swimming in chlorinated water can cause melanoma. (28-30) Sodium hypochlorite, used in chlorination of water for swimming pools, is mutagenic in the Ames test and other mutagenicity tests. (31-32) Redheads and blonds are disproportionately melanoma-prone; their skin contains a relative excess of pheomelanins compared to darker people. (33) Franz H. Rampen of the Netherlands said worldwide pollution of rivers and oceans and chlorination of swimming pool water have led to an increase in melanoma. (34,35)

That disease is not associated with exposure to ultraviolet light. People who work indoors all the time, exposed to fluorescent lights, (36-38) have the highest incidence of melanoma. And the disease usually appears on parts of the body that are not often exposed to sunlight. (39)

Other Harm from Chlorination

Long-term risks of consuming chlorinated water include excessive free radical formation, which accelerates aging, increases vulnerability to genetic mutation and cancer development, hinders cholesterol metabolism, and promotes hardening of arteries.

Excess free radicals created by chlorinated water also generate dangerous toxins in the body. These have been directly linked to liver malfunction, weakening of the immune system and pre-arteriosclerotic changes in arteries (which, as we saw, struck Dr. Price's cockerels and may have happened to American soldiers in Korea and Vietnam). Excessive free radicals have been linked also to alterations of cellular DNA, the stuff of inheritance. (40) Chlorine also destroys antioxidant vitamin E, (2) which is needed to counteract excess oxysterols/free radicals for cardiac and anti-cancer protection.

A study in the late 1970s found that chlorinated water appears to increase the risk of gastrointestinal cancer over a person's lifetime by 50 to 100%. This study analyzed thousands of cancer deaths in North Carolina, Illinois, Wisconsin and Louisiana. Risk of such cancers results from use of water containing chlorine at or below the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) standard and "is going to make the EPA standard look ridiculous," stated Dr. Robert Harris, lead scientist in the study. (41)

A later meta-analysis found chlorinated water is associated each year in America with about 4,200 cases of bladder cancer and 6,500 cases of rectal cancer. Chlorine is estimated to account for 9% of bladder cancer cases and 18% of rectal cancers. (42) Those cancers develop because the bladder and rectum store waste products for periods of time. (Keeping the bowels moving regularly lowers such risk.) Chlorinated water is associated, too, with higher total risk of combined cancers. (43) Chlorine in treated water can also cause allergic symptoms ranging from skin rash to intestinal symptoms to arthritis, headaches, and on and on. (44)

Recent research has found a new hazard in chlorinated water: a byproduct called MX. A research team from the National Public Health Institute in Finland discovered that, by causing genetic mutations, MX initiates cancer in laboratory animals. (45,46) Also, DCA (dichloroacedic acid) in chlorinated water alters cholesterol metabolism, changing HDL ("good") to LDL ("bad") cholesterol (47) -- and causes liver cancer in laboratory animals. (48)

Substitute Water Treatments

Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) destroys infectious organisms and impurities in water 4,000 times better than chlorine. (53) "A 35% technical grade H2O2 will promote bacterial growth to break down sewage and enhance the dissolved oxygen level in discharge water entering lakes and streams." (54) Ozone (O3) treatment, mentioned above, is equally effective. Worldwide, 1,100 cities treat their drinking water with ozone; many have done so since as early as 1901. (55) Los Angeles treats its drinking water with H2O2, and then adds chlorine. (56) Some chlorine may likewise be added after ozonation to prevent re-infestation; about one-third as much suffices.

To generate ozone, dry air or oxygen is passed through a high-voltage electrical field. Ozone drinking-water treatment in Andover, Massachusetts successfully controlled the effects of algae blooms and eliminated water quality problems. Potential THM formation was reduced by an average of 75%. (57)

But H2O2 and O3 are relatively cheap; moreover, the only byproducts are pure oxygen and hydrogen, so no one can reap a big immediate profit on their disposal. (Hydrogen is a potential major energy source for electricity generation and for zero-emission vehicles. (58)) France and Germany, wiser and less controlled by the chemical industry, now chlorinate water only in emergencies. (59)

The chemical companies pulled off a huge coup when they bamboozled America and Canada into chlorination. They make big profits disposing of excess chlorine into our drinking water; otherwise, they would have to pay to destroy it. So now we know why American water isn't treated with safe, cheaper, more effective ozone. And why Dr. Price's revealing studies with cockerels, as well as the Roseto story, were not pursued.

Other Water Pollution Problems

EPA tests have shown that in the water we drink, over 2,100 organic and inorganic chemicals [including pesticides, heavy metals, radon, radioactive particles (60)] and parasitic (61) organisms including cryptosporidium (62,63) have been identified; 156 of them are pure carcinogens. (In 1993, cryptosporidium killed more than 100 and infected over 400,000.) Of those, 26 are tumor promoting: they can make an existing tumor grow. Exposure to cryptosporidium in people with lowered gastrointestinal immune function could lead to chronic GI tract infection. (64) Other examples include recurring cases of Legionnaire's disease, a pneumonia caused by Legionella pneumophila, which may lurk in hot water supplies. (65)

A public notice recently issued in Washington, DC warned that a high level of bacteria in the [chlorinated, fluoridated city system] water made it unsafe for dialysis patients, AIDS patients, organ transplant patients, the elderly and infants. But water contamination is often worst in small communities that can't afford proper treatment; the EPA has not released this information. (66)

Testimony to hearings of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight revealed Pfiesteria outbreaks among people drinking chlorinated water. The organism, which kills fish, sickens some people; they get sick from drinking the water, not from eating infected seafood. The EPA's Robert Perciasepe said, in written testimony, "Any new public health policy on this issue needs to consider reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution in our waters." (67) A bill passed by the US House of Representatives would require managers of municipal water systems to tell customers what contaminants have been found in local drinking water. (68) But government laboratories test only for bacterial content and a few of the major inorganic toxins such as lead and arsenic. So, for a complete water test one must consult a private laboratory.

Sherry A. Rogers, MD, authority on environmental medicine, raises the estimated number of chemicals in drinking water to 5,000. (69) And 85% of American aquifers supplying wells below 8,000 feet altitude are contaminated with heavy metals; (70) a recent federal report says the water you drink may have been recycled from sewage waste back to drinking water five times. (71) The late Kevin Treacy, MD of Australia said, "If municipal water were introduced now, it would not be allowed." (72)

The EPA called 129 contaminants found in water supplies "dangerous" singly, let alone in combination. Pesticides and other toxic wastes run off farmlands and pastures or are dumped by factories, pollute rivers and seep into underground aquifers. Aptly called "biocides" by Russell Jaffe, MD, PhD, pesticides are designed to end life; few have been shown to be safe. The EPA depends on producers of pesticides to test their safety: the wolf guards the hen house. It should be no surprise that the tests take a long time, and many have been fraudulent.

Further, one poison is tested at a time; synergistic effects of combinations, potentially far worse, are ignored. (73) Besides, many of the so-called "inert" substances in pesticide combinations are more toxic than the "active"; one of the "marts" is DDT, supposedly prohibited for American farm use since 1973. (74) The American Society of Microbiology reported that water in the US is filled with microbes, such as viruses and bacteria, which pose a growing threat to public health. The document states that water pollution control efforts have focused on protecting water against chemical pollution, but they neglect serious problems from wastewater, sewer overflows, septic tanks, and the risks associated with microbial pollutants. The report recommended creation of a task force to coordinate federal agency activities on environmental and public health issues. (75) Isn't all that bad enough without the deliberate addition of the further toxicity of chlorine?

Plants do not thrive as well on chlorinated as on unchlorinated water; wild animals do not develop atherosclerosis until they drink chlorinated water in American zoos. Although their food, selected by people, isn't the same as what they caught, plucked or dug up in the wilds, evidence indicts chlorinated water, with its thousands of other chemicals, as the worst culprit in zoo animals' arterial clogging. (76)

Scientists in Minnesota propagated embryos from healthy frogs in plain tap water. Some of the frogs had no legs or six legs, or an eye in the middle of the throat. Earlier, deformed frogs were found in tap water in the US, Canada and Japan (77)...And we are drinking that stuff.

Purification of Drinking Water

A reverse-osmosis water purifier that removes 87 to 93% of fluoride and comparable percentages of other toxins, is known as The Duchess. It retails for $650; or $370 from the Natural Medicine Institute, 19125 SE Stark Street, Portland, Oregon 97233; 503-491-1067. (78)

Julian Whitaker, MD uses and recommends the Ultra-Sun water filter, which can be installed under the sink or on the countertop. The system combines solid carbon block filters with ultraviolet (UV) light chambers. The carbon block filters remove lead, chemical and organic pollutants, chlorination byproducts, and improve taste, and the UV light kills microbes. It avoids reverse osmosis, which discards valuable minerals from the water such as calcium, magnesium and trace minerals. (79) The filter can be purchased from Phillips Products and Services at 800-705-5559, ext. K11019. The cost: $295.

The simple PUR filter easily attaches to a kitchen faucet; Consumer Reports, in July 1997, rated it very high. And it is relatively inexpensive. (80)

[My comments -- Nikken has a several styles and varieties of water filters that are NAB certified.]

References

(1.) city improves water quality with ozone system (Andover, Massachusetts). Amer City & County 1996;111:12:38.
(2.) Price JM. Coronaries/Cholesterol/Chlorine: NY: Pyramid, 1969.
(3.) Enas WF et al. Coronary disease among United States soldiers killed in action in Korea. Jour Amer Med Assoc 1953;152:1090-1093.
(4.) Jaffe D. et al. Coronary arteries in newborn children: Intimal variations in longitudinal sections and their relationships to clinical and experimental data. Acta Paediat Scand Supp. 219:1-27.
(5.) Suzman MM. Nutritional and metabolic factors in the development of coronary artery disease in early life: The possible role of dietary protein and pyridoxine. Unpub. Abstr., 1984.
(6.) McNamara, JJ et al. Coronary artery disease in combat casualties in Vietnam. JAMA 1971;216:1185-1187.
(7.) Nieper H. Mineral transporters, New Dynamics of Preventive Medicine, 1974.
(8.) Janney P. Health dowsing in the 1990s (audio tape), Sylvia, NC: Goodkind of Sound. 1992.
(9.) Taylor CB et al. Spontaneously occurring angiotexic derivatives of cholesterol. Amer Jour Clin Nutr 1979;32:40-57.
(10.) Taylor EW. Interview on Bland JS, Funct Med Update 1997; May.
(11.) Smith LL. Another cholesterol hypothesis: Cholesterol as antioxidant. Free Rod Biol Med 1991;11:47-61.
(12.) Bland JS. Funct Med Update, 1999.
(13.) Dash SK. Lecture to National Health Federation, 1993.
(14.) Berez JP. Toxicology of drinking water disinfection byproducts from nutrients. Rate studies of destruction of polyunsaturated fatty acids in vitro by chlorine-based disinfectants. Chem Research in Toxicology, 1992;5:418-425.
(15.) Howell E, Enzyme Nutrition: The Food Enzyme Concept. Wayne, NJ: Avery Publ Group, 1985.
(16.) Berez JP. Op. Cit.
(17.) Budwig J. Flax oil as a true aid, published in Budwig J, Flax Oil as A True Aid Against Arthritis, Heart Infarction, Cancer and Other Diseases.. Vancouver, BC: Apple Publ., 1993.
(18.) Regers SA. Tired or Toxic? Syracuse, NY: Prestige Publ., 1990.
(19.) Waller K et al. Trihalomethanes in drinking water and spontaneous abortion. Epidemiology 1998;9;2:134-140.
(20.) Herwart BL et al. Outbreaks of waterborne disease in the U.S.: 1989-190. JAWWA 1992 Apr:29.
(21.) J Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 1994;4;4:491-502.
(22.) Levesque B. in Environmental Health Perspectives 1994;Dec. Summarized in Science News 1995;147:5.
(23.) Sci News 1999;July 10;156:22.
(24.) Craun G. Surface water supplies and health JAWWA 1988;Feb:40.
(25.) Mercola J. Health news you can use. July 1999:6. http://www.mercola.com/
(26.) Herbert HJ. Bacterial threat to water supply reported growing. Orange County Register 1996;July 11.
(27.) Douglass WC. Second Opinion 1994;Feb
(28.) Prota G. Recent advances in the chemistry of melanogenesis in mammals. J Invest Dermatol 1980;75:122-127.
(29.) Rampen FH, Nelewans RT, KerbeekALM. Is water pollution a cause of cutaneous melanoma? Epidemiology 1992;3;3:263-265.
(30.) Murray F. The Murray report. Let's Live 1997;Oct:16.
(31.) Meier JR. Genotoxic activity of organic chemicals in drinking water. Mutat Res 1988; 196;211-245.
(32.) Kurakawa Y, Takayama S et al. Long-term in vivo carcinogenicity Costa of potassium bromate, sodium hypochlorite, and sodium chlorite conducted in Japan. Environ Cellular Perspectives 1996;69:221-25.
(33.) Cesarini J-R. Photo-induced events in the human melanocytic system: Photoagression and photaprotection. Pigment Cell Res 1988;1:223-233.
(34.) Rampen FH et a]. Epidemiology 1992;3;3:263-265.
(35.) Murray F. The Murray report. Let's Live 1997;Oct:16.
(36.) Beral V et al. Malignant melanoma and exposure to fluorescent lighting at work. Lancet 1982;Aug 7:290-293.
(37.) Kustov VI et al. Epidemiology of malignant melanoma. Vopr Onkol 1987;33:35-39 [Engl abstract).
(38.) Ott JN. Light, Radiation and You.. Greenwich, CT. Devin-Adair Publishers, 1990.
(39.) Garland FC et al. Occupational sunlight exposure and melanoma in the U.S. Navy.Arch Environmental Health 1990;45:261-267.
(40.) Bercz JP. Op. cit.
(41.) Harris R. Speech to Miami chapter of Sierra Club, 1980. NY Times 1980;Oct 17.
(42.) Am J Public Health 1997;87:1168-1176.
(43.) Morris RD et al. Chlorination, chlorination byproducts and cancer. A meta-analysis. Amer J Pub Health, 1992;82:955-963.
(44.) Douglass WC. Letters. Second Opinion 1998;June:8.
(45.) Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1997;89:832-833,848-856.
(46.) Whitaker JM. Health and Healing 1997;Aug (Suppl.)
(47.) Douglass WC. Second Opinion 1994;Dec.
(48.) What Doctors Don't Tell You 1997;Oct;special supplement.
(49.) Williams DG. Alternatives for the Health Conscious Individual. l997;August.
(50.) Bland JS. Prey Med Update 1994;Nov.
(51.) Williams DG. Alternatives for the Health Conscious Individual. 1997;August.
(52.) Hattersley JG. Fluoridation's deciding moment. Jour Orthomolecular Med, 1999;14;4:185-197.
(53.) McCabe E. Oxygen Therapies. Morrisville, NY: Energy Publications, 1990.
(54.) Walters C. The last word. Acres USA 1999;Aug:46.
(55.) McCabe E. Op. cit.
(56.) Los Angeles Dept of Water and Power, 1992.
(57.) Ann Hatcher, senior analyst with the NEES Companies, Westborough, Mass. In Amer City & County 1996;111; 12:38.
(58.) The third age of fuel. The Economist 1997;Oct 25:16.
(59.) Hans Raible of Stuttgart, Germany. Personal communication, 1993.
(60.) Null GH et al. What physicians should know about the biological effects of ingested fission products. Townsend Ltr Doc 1993;Aug:812-815.
(61.) Bland JS. Prey Med Update 1993;Mar.
(62.) McAnulty JM et al. A community-wide outbreak of cryptosporidiosis associated with swimming at a wave pool. JAMA 1994;272:1597-1600.
(63.) Rose JB. Environmental ecology of cryptosporidium and public health implications. Annu Rev Public Health 1997;18:135-161.
(64.) Bland JS. Funct Med Update 1997;Oct.
(65.) Whitaker JM. Don't drink tap water. Health & Healing 1998;Apr:4-7.
(66.) Glum GL. Essiac: Nature's cure for cancer. Wildfire, 1991;6:48-55.
(67.) Mlot C. Feds tackle toxic cell. Sci News 1997;152:213.
(68.) From Amer City & County 1996;111;12:38.
(69.) Rogers SA. Northeast Center for Environmental Medicine Health Letter 1994;Summer.
(70.) Janney P. Op. cit.
(71.) Willix.
(72.) Treacy K. Personal communication, 1994.
(73.) Rogers SA. Tired or Toxic?
(74.) Rogers SA. Depression: Cured at Last! Sarasota, FL: SK Publ, 1996.
(75.) Bugs in our water. Acres USA 1999;Sept:5.
(77.) Williams DG. Alternatives for the Health Conscious individual. 1997;Nov. From Washington Post 1997;Oct 1: p. A12.
(78.) Brian H. MacCoy, ND of Portland, Oregon. 1019 l22nd Ave. NE.
(79.) Whitaker J. Don't drink tap water. Health & Healing 1998;Apr:4-7.
(80.) Am J Public Health 1997;87:1168-1176.
(81.) Well Mind Association, 1994;Jan
(82.) Low-Dose Irradiation and Biological Defense Mechanisms. T Sugahara, L. Sagan, T. Aoyama. NY: Excerpta Medica, 1992. ISBN# 0-444-89409-8.
(83.) Begen KT. A cytodynamic two stage model that predicts radon hormesis (decreased, then increased lung-cancer risk vs. exposure). Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Univ. of California, Preprint UCRL-TC-123219.
(84.) Cohen BL. Test of the linear-no threshold theory of radiation carcinogenesis for inhaled radon decay products. Health Physics 1991;68:157-174.
(85.) Cohen BL. Test of the linear-no threshold theory of radiation carcinogenesis. Op. cit.
(86.) Low-Dose Irradiation and Biological Defense Mechanisms. Op. cit.
(87.) Cancer postponement with radon. Access to Energy 1997;24;6 (Feb.):1-3.
(88.) Douglass 'NC. DDT -- The slandered chemical.--Second Opinion 1998;8;3:4-5.

Please visit The Wellness Academy for more information.