What’s in Your Shampoo?
Most of us use shampoo every day, or at least a few times a week. We grab for the bottle, squirt a dollop into our hands, lather, and voilà: Clean hair. But do you know what’s actually in it? Let’s take a look at the basic anatomy of a shampoo by breaking down the “recipe” of ingredients: surfactants, actives, preservatives, color, and fragrance. We'll look at what is used in conventional shampoos—aside from water, which makes up 50 percent of most of them—and what is used in cleaner alternatives.
Deciphering the key components of the shampoos we use on a regular basis helps makes the long names found on their ingredient lists less confusing—and may also give you something to think about when choosing your next one.
Surfactants
Also known as surface active agents, surfactants are necessary for the lathering, cleaning, and degreasing effects of a shampoo. Shampoos usually contain a cocktail of surfactants, artfully combined to strike the right balance.
Conventional: These have the potential for harshness, stripping away fatty acids and usually contain a higher percentage of petroleum-based ingredients and portions. These ingredients can include compounds with environmental concerns. Examples include: sodium lauryl/laureth sulfate, ammonium laureth sulfate, cocamide DEA, ammonium xylene sulfonate.
Natural: Your shampoo may not foam like a conventional product because it contains a higher percentage of natural materials, but your hair will still be just as clean, with added natural benefits. Examples include: decyl glucoside, sucrose cocoate, sodium methyl cocoyl taurate, sodium lauroamphoacetate.
Preservatives
The main function of preservatives is to prevent microbial growth and to ensure a long shelf life. When it comes to preservatives, none are truly benign. And while preservative systems are a necessary component of most personal care products—and in particular water-based ones such as shampoos—some are worse than others.
Conventional: These tend to be stronger, used to increase shelf life. With this comes allergenic and irritant potential, and there is concern about some preservatives' hormone-disrupting ability. Examples include: iodopropynyl butylcarbamate, methylisothiazolinone, and methylchloroisothiazonlinone (which are not allowed in personal care products at Whole Foods Market), as well as parabens.
Natural: These preservatives will be milder. They will be ones that have been shown to function properly, yet with a lower likelihood of causing cosmetic-related allergies and sensitivities. Examples include: potassium sorbate, sodium benzoate, and alcohol.
Active and other Ingredients
These are the ingredients that are intended to nourish and beautify, making your hair shinier, smoother, softer, thicker, and more manageable. Other ingredients, such as thickeners, humectants, pH-control agents or chelators, may be added to stabilize the formula.
Conventional: These products typically contain less natural actives, fewer botanical-based ingredients and more synthetic ones. Examples include: disodium EDTA, polyquaternium-10, and aminomethyl propanol.
Natural: These products will contain high percentages of natural actives such as aloe vera gel, antioxidants, herbal extracts, plant oils, vitamins, proteins, amino acids, and fatty acids.
Fragrance
Along with functionality, fragrance—often a melange of many artificial smells, combined in a proprietary formula—is one of the main reasons we consumers will pick one product over another.
Conventional: Typically, synthetic fragrances are used in conventional shampoos, due to cost, performance, and variety. These have the potential to be irritating and their safety has been questioned.
Natural: Ideally, these are phthalate-free and 100 percent natural. At Whole Foods, only 100 percent natural fragrances are allowed in our Premium shampoos, for philosophical and safety reasons.
Color
In basic shampoos, color is added for decorative purposes only, and is unnecessary for functionality.
Conventional: Synthetic colorants are often added for decorative purposes only. In Premium Body Care products at Whole Foods Market, no colors are allowed, neither natural nor synthetic, as they are not necessary for a shampoo to function at all.
Natural: Most natural brands skirt even "natural" dyes in their shampoo.
So how does your shampoo measure up? Shampoo is one of the most challenging products to make truly natural because functionality is so important for hair products, and so we applaud brands like Depth, Ikove, Alaffia, Mineral Fusion, and John Masters Organics, which prove it is possible to make many good improvements in the area of natural shampoos while keeping your hair clean and looking its best.
Read the original post here: http://www.good.is/post/what-s-in-your-shampoo/
----------
On the hunt for new bedding, one is presented with exhaustive (and exhausting) options. Sateen or jersey? Is there a difference between the 300- and 800-threadcount comforter? What is pima cotton? And how on earth can you choose a mattress after lying on it for five minutes at Sleepy's? Throw sustainability and organics in the mix and it's more confounding that ever.
And yet we spend a third of our lives sleeping, so there's a reason these can be hard decisions to make. It's also why we should all give a little more thought to chemicals involved in the production of our beds and linens. Cotton farming occupies only 3 percent of farm land, and yet accounts for about 25 percent of worldwide insecticides use and over 10 percent of pesticide use. To help break it down, it takes about a quarter pound of chemicals to produce one cotton T-shirt. So, think of all the chemicals going into a set of sheets and a blanket, and then consider these guidelines to make your bedroom shopping trip a little greener.
1. The next time you shop for sheets, go organic. Organic cotton farming leaves no chemical residue on the finished material, so they are safe for you to cuddle up in at night. This is good for the planet and for you.
2. Think outside the usual material. There are great natural fibers you can try like linen, silk, jersey, and flannel. Online shopping is great when it comes to bedding because of the great selection and with standard bed sizes, fit isn't a concern.
3. Be a little flexible with colors. Synthetic dyes offer a wide range of colors, but they are just that—synthetic. There is a range of colors offered in organic bedding, but they may not be as easy to find or as vast as the non-organic sheets you find in most stores. You can always get a little help from the internet. Or you can opt for a more neutral hue and spice up the room with paint or other colorful accessories.
4. If have a little Martha in you, make your own duvet cover or pillow cases. For the duvet cover, take two organic flat sheets or blankets and sew them together to create your own duvet for a fraction of the cost. All you need for the pillow cases is some great organic material from the fabric store and a simple pillow pattern.
5. When choosing a new mattress, do your research. Most conventional mattresses are chemical havens. They are often made with synthetic materials like polyester, a plastic that emits gasses, and then they are covered in formaldehyde-based finishes for stain resistant convenience. Many also contain a fire retardant, which is a whole other set of chemicals. So, opt for natural fibers. They are sometimes more expensive, but arguably a worthwhile investment that will last you a decade or longer.
6. Get a good pillow. Fortunately, there are several options in the eco-friendly department when it comes to pillows. If you prefer firm, look at organic cotton. For a bit of spring, try wool. If you are concerned with proper alignment, look at natural latex foam pillows. There are several more options out there one of which should suit your particular needs.
7. Buy a pillow protector. This may just seem like an extra pillowcase, but a pillow protector will extend the life of your pillow and help to relieve dust mite allergies. Extending the life of our products creates less waste.
Do you have any great natural-bedroom tips to share?
Read the original post here: http://www.good.is/post/good-instructions-how-to-green-your-bedroom/
--------------
Cancer testing outstrips allopathic treatments
Posted on May 26, 2011. Filed under: IN THE NEWS, Medical Information | Tags: allopathic, allopathic suppression, cancer, cancer cells, medicine, screening, tests, tumors | Edit This
by: Dr. Carolyn Dean
Cancer diagnostic testing has finally outstripped allopathic cancer therapy. And the testing itself is not dangerous like the full body scans that use ionizing radiation.
Doctors now have blood tests that can find a single cancer cell in the body but their toxic treatments were never meant to target single cancer cells without wrecking havoc in the rest of the body. Allopathic medicine cuts out tumors with surgery or shrinks them with chemotherapy and radiation. Such treatments would simply not work on a handful of cancer cells.
Researchers want to use the tests AFTER surgery, chemo and radiation to see if the cancer is returning. There are no plans to use this testing to diagnose early cancer because they don’t have any treatments for early cancer. Allopathic medicine only practices what it knows, which is surgery, chemo and radiation.
There is also the fact that there are no patents on diet, supplements and detox. I never learned about them in medical school. The only way doctors get involved with natural medicine is when they or their family suffers illnesses that medicine can’t treat. It’s the same for individuals – treatment with natural medicine is often the last resort instead of the first. None of us seem to take the necessary steps to take care of our health unless it’s threatened.
Natural medicine, naturopathic medicine and alternative medicine hold the key to preventing and treating early cancer. Now with this early diagnostic cancer cell testing, we can give patients a simple before and after test to show how their diet and lifestyle program is working.
I’ve already seen it at work in someone with a history of cancer who had the cancer blood test done. When the cancer cell test levels came back high, while waiting for surgery, he did some alternative medicine therapies and saw that his test improved dramatically after only a few weeks. The treatments he used were ones outlined in my Future Health Now! online wellness program: clay and magnesium detox baths, castor oil packs, coconut oil pulling, inclined bed therapy and energy work (like Emotional Freedom Technique). The doctors were astounded.
This story will be repeated over and over when patients demand the cancer cell test and demand the right to use simple and safe therapies as their first choice instead of toxic chemotherapy and radiation.
Here’s a brief overview of what you can do right now to turn your body into a cancer-free zone. Why wait until you develop a tumor that will be treated (usually ineffectively) by allopathic medicine? Create your own lifestyle program to prevent cancer from developing in the first place.
1. Diet: Choose organic foods and eat according to your metabolic type or you blood type.
2. Supplements: Start with magnesium to supply the cofactor for over 325 metabolic enzyme systems in the body. Add food-based supplements, highly absorbed minerals, and digestive enzymes.
3. Detoxification: Magnesium is a detoxifier and can be used as Epsom salts or magnesium chloride bath flakes. Use detox clay along with magnesium in your baths or footbaths several times per week. Clay absorbs toxins from your body through your skin. Clay can remove heavy metals, chemicals and drugs. And it’s one of the few treatments for the effects of radiation.
4: Body Work: Massage, Yoga, and EFT will help to move energy through your nervous system or acupuncture meridian system and prevent blockage – either physical or emotional.
5: Spiritual/Vibrational: Prayer and Meditation.
I’ve been working for 40 years on Future Health Now! www.drcarolyndean.com/fhn which will allow you to create your own healthy lifestyle program which includes:
a. Vitalizing Foods
b. Personal Care
c. Energizing Exercise
d. Super Nutrients
e. Living Space
f. Rejuvenating Sleep
g. Mind over Matter
Reference: CellSearch Cancer Testing: http://www.veridex.com/cellsearch/C…
About the author:
Dr. Carolyn Dean is a medical doctor and naturopathic doctor. She has been in the forefront of the natural medicine revolution for over 30 years.
Dr. Dean is the author / coauthor of 22 health books (print and eBooks) including The Magnesium Miracle, IBS for Dummies, IBS Cookbook for Dummies, The Yeast Connection and Women’s Health, Future Health Now Encyclopedia, Death by Modern Medicine, Everything Alzheimers, and Hormone Balance.
Dr. Dean is Medical Director of the Medical Anti-Aging Clinic and Pharmacy in Dubai Health Care City and Medical Director of the Nutritional Magnesium Association.
Dr. Dean has a free newsletter and a valuable online 2-year wellness program called Future Health Now! and a telephone consulting practice. Find out more at www.drcarolyndean.com
----------
Mood boosting essentials treat mild depression, anxiety and sleeplessness
Posted on May 26, 2011. Filed under: Healthy Body & Spirit, IN THE NEWS, Wellness & Exercise | Tags: anxiety and sleeplessness, depression | Edit This
by: Fleur Hupston
See all articles by this author
Email this author
(NaturalNews) The brain is dependent on mood-boosting nutrients. When food lacks these essential nutrients, depression and anxiety can quickly set in. Typically, anti-depressants are prescribed to treat these problems, which in many cases can so easily be remedied by taking the correct nutrients.This article is for information purposes only. Anyone suffering with severe depression should see a qualified naturopath or homeopath to correctly identify the causes. Self-treating even mild cases of “the blues” with the supplements mentioned here is best undertaken with the help of a medical professional.Mood boosting mineralsChromium: This mineral helps to stabilize blood sugar. Individuals experiencing mood swings, who perhaps over-react when it comes to minor issues or feel very tired during the day, may be lacking in this essential mineral. According to Psychology Today, “Duke University scientists found that consuming chromium picolinate, a trace mineral naturally found in whole grains, mushrooms, liver and many other foods, has significant effects on individuals suffering from atypical depression”.
Magnesium: Low levels of magnesium in the human body can result in anxiety, sleeplessness and depression. Simply put, magnesium is the mineral needed to make serotonin, the brain’s “happy chemical”.
Amino acids
Most anti-depressant drugs supposedly work by boosting serotonin levels. Raising serotonin levels naturally can apparently be achieved by supplementing with the amino acid 5-hydroxytryptophan, or 5-HTP. This is sold over the counter in the UK, USA and Canada as a dietary supplement for use as an antidepressant, and it is marketed in many European countries for cases of major depression.
Other amino acids that can make a difference to mood swings include phenylalanine and tyrosine, from which the body makes the neurotransmitter noradrenalin – vital for motivation and drive.
Essential fats and mood
Much has been said on Natural News on the subject of omega 3 fats and the importance of eating oily fish such as wild salmon. Cod liver oil is another rich source of omega 3. Studies have shown that severely depressed individuals consuming a diet high in these fats generally show significant improvement, greater than that reported for antidepressant drugs.
Vitamins B & D
In older people, vitamin B is often missing because this vitamin is not absorbed so well the older one gets. Vitamins B6, B12 and folic acid are often recommended for individuals over 50 years of age, particularly with depression or “brain-fog”.
There is a definite correlation between individuals with a vitamin D deficiency and depression. In cold Northern climes, many people feel low, irritable and angry during winter because of the lack of sunshine. Depression levels can be substantially lowered by taking vitamin D supplements or by getting direct sunlight on the skin each day.
Sources:
http://www.moodfoods.com/magnesium-…
http://www.naturalnews.com/030713_o…
http://www.psychologytoday.com/arti…
Magnesium: Low levels of magnesium in the human body can result in anxiety, sleeplessness and depression. Simply put, magnesium is the mineral needed to make serotonin, the brain’s “happy chemical”.
Amino acids
Most anti-depressant drugs supposedly work by boosting serotonin levels. Raising serotonin levels naturally can apparently be achieved by supplementing with the amino acid 5-hydroxytryptophan, or 5-HTP. This is sold over the counter in the UK, USA and Canada as a dietary supplement for use as an antidepressant, and it is marketed in many European countries for cases of major depression.
Other amino acids that can make a difference to mood swings include phenylalanine and tyrosine, from which the body makes the neurotransmitter noradrenalin – vital for motivation and drive.
Essential fats and mood
Much has been said on Natural News on the subject of omega 3 fats and the importance of eating oily fish such as wild salmon. Cod liver oil is another rich source of omega 3. Studies have shown that severely depressed individuals consuming a diet high in these fats generally show significant improvement, greater than that reported for antidepressant drugs.
Vitamins B & D
In older people, vitamin B is often missing because this vitamin is not absorbed so well the older one gets. Vitamins B6, B12 and folic acid are often recommended for individuals over 50 years of age, particularly with depression or “brain-fog”.
There is a definite correlation between individuals with a vitamin D deficiency and depression. In cold Northern climes, many people feel low, irritable and angry during winter because of the lack of sunshine. Depression levels can be substantially lowered by taking vitamin D supplements or by getting direct sunlight on the skin each day.
Sources:
http://www.moodfoods.com/magnesium-…
http://www.naturalnews.com/030713_o…
http://www.psychologytoday.com/arti…
----------
Could grief be causing your chronic illness?
Posted on May 26, 2011. Filed under: EMPOWERMENT, Healthy Body & Spirit, IN THE NEWS, Wellness & Exercise | Tags: alcohol and drug abuse, allopathic suppression, medically induced, pharmaceutical side effects, poor nutrition, self-inflicted, smoking | Edit This
by: Larry Malerba, DO
(NaturalNews) Aside from the many self-inflicted and medically induced causes of illness such as smoking, poor nutrition, alcohol and drug abuse, pharmaceutical side effects, allopathic suppression, and surgeries gone awry, perhaps the most common “natural” cause of chronic illness is unresolved grief.
Grief is natural in the sense that everyone is faced with the issue at some point in his or her life. It is a normal human response, which when handled effectively should lead to psycho-spiritual growth and greater awareness.
The problem is that handling grief is easier said than done. The successful processing of grief is a function of numerous factors, including one’s psychological maturity and understanding of the nature and purpose of grief and loss. Other factors include the degree of emotional support from friends and family, one’s own personal state of physical/emotional/spiritual health and well-being, and our prevailing cultural attitudes toward grief.
When the grieving process is short-circuited and grief is not allowed to have its way it can lead to health issues as varied as the individuals that it afflicts. Unprocessed grief is commonly a source of anxiety, irritability, depression, other emotional disturbances, and even mania and psychosis. Conversely, it is quite common for grief to become somaticized. The classic symptom of difficulty swallowing with sensation of a lump (“globus hystericus”) is literally a somaticization of emotion that has become stuck in the throat — an obvious body metaphor for unexpressed feelings and unshed tears.
Likewise, grief can become lodged in the neck and back as muscle tension, in the chest as a cough or bronchitis, in the gut as nausea or intestinal cramps, or in the head as tension headaches or migraines. When grief is particularly traumatic as in the death of a child, or when a person’s health is already compromised, it is not unusual to see somatic manifestations on a deeper level. Thus, grief can lead to rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, Crohn’s disease, high blood pressure, and even heart disease. Again, each manifestation can be as unique as the vital force of the person struggling with grief.
The sources of grief are varied and each situation is unique in the sense that grief is always in the eye of the beholder. The loss of one person’s pet can be just as devastating as the loss of another person’s parent. We tend to equate grief with the death of a friend or loved one, but it can just as easily result from broken relationships, divorce, job loss, or a personal perception of failure. There are no rules; each instance of grief is a subjective experience that must be taken at face value if it is to be respected and handled compassionately by those attempting to comfort and assist the grieving individual.
I recently saw a woman in her 50s who sought help for her depression and chronic intestinal problems. Upon inquiring as to the source of her depression, she said that it was from not having fulfilled her dream of being the mother of a large number of children. When I suggested to her that the so-called depression could more accurately be characterized as unresolved grief, I could see her mind light up as a look of realization came across her face. The healing process had begun the moment she came to a new understanding of her condition. In the course of working with her over the next few months, years of depression and digestive disturbances began to fade into the distance as she gave herself permission to grieve the family that she knew she would never have.
Although individual responses to grief are unique and diverse, my own medical experience has taught me that there are a number of common response patterns or stereotypes, if you will, that can be identified. One such pattern is that of the distraught person who repeatedly cries and sobs for prolonged periods of time, for days, weeks, or even months on end, with no relief in sight. This type of “hysterical” grief can be devastating and exhausting. The polar opposite pattern is represented by the individual who vows to stay strong, shows no “weakness,” and sheds not a tear for months or even years after the original painful loss that caused the grief. These individuals seek to quickly put their grief “behind them,” not realizing that there is no free lunch and that they will someday be forced to deal with it, whether it be in the form of an emotional or physical crisis.
Grieving children commonly exhibit headaches or stomachaches that lead to calls home from the school nurse. Some individuals become worn down by their grief and their emotional state begins to resemble that of a person suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome, with its attendant malaise, emotional indifference, and lack of motivation. Some people become stuck in anger, blaming themselves and/or others for their loss. For such individuals, anger is usually a defensive form of denial that protects them from the more painful underlying feelings of grief. Other unfortunate individuals can be thrown into an existential crisis, questioning their very existence, losing their faith in something greater than themselves, and even losing their will to live.
While antidepressants, anxiolytics, and/or sleep aids may temporarily dull symptoms, they will not help to resolve the underlying issues of grief. In fact, pharmaceuticals will tend to enable the person to avoid emotions that must sooner or later be faced. The longer grief is postponed, the more likely it will contribute to chronic disease. The American obsession with productivity is not conducive to the successful processing of grief since the demands of the workplace often take precedence over issues of mental health. There is no set timetable for grief to run its course, and there is no statute of limitations. Fortunately, there are a variety of non-pharmaceutical approaches that can enhance the healing process.
First and foremost, patience, kindness, love, and understanding are prerequisites for a successful outcome. Most people simply need someone to listen to them. Secondly, the person affected by grief must come to understand that grief is a normal and necessary function of the human psyche, and the needs of the psyche will not be denied. Grief must be felt and experienced to the extent necessary to bring about a resolution, and this differs from one person to the next depending upon who that person is and the nature of the loss involved. For somaticized grief, it can be as simple as asking patients to trust their instincts and to name what it is that they believe is the real source of their ostensibly physical illness. Most people intuitively know the answer. It can be surprising how a person will respond when questioned and, frequently, the simple act of verbalizing one’s personal truth will be enough to initiate the healing process.
Good old fashioned counseling or psychotherapy can be invaluable in situations of grief, but for more stubborn cases that persist or that have become somaticized, there are additional methods that can be employed to great benefit. Various forms of bodywork can be particularly helpful in cases that manifest as chronic headaches, neck or back pain. Most massage therapists can relate stories of clients who finally relaxed, “let go,” and had a therapeutic emotional meltdown right there on the massage table. Such “healing crises” are cathartic events that can help break the logjam of unexpressed grief.
Dreams can be very important, especially for those who are grieving the death of loved ones. It is quite common for the deceased to pay a visit to surviving friends and family in their dreams. Sometimes the deceased brings a crucial piece of information that can help the living to understand the circumstances surrounding his or her death. And sometimes departed loved ones seek to reassure survivors that they are doing fine on the other side. To dismiss such an event as just a dream is a serious mistake and a lost opportunity to communicate with the departed. The ingrained materialistic outlook of American culture is a strong deterrent to recognizing that such dreams can assist in the resolution of grief and may also lead to spiritual growth.
When all else fails, a difficult and unresponsive case of grief will often respond quite nicely to a well-chosen homeopathic medicine. Some of the patterns of grief described above correspond to homeopathic medicines that are capable of releasing one from the grips of grief and its effects. It is best to consult a qualified homeopathic practitioner when dealing with long-standing grief.
Many of the lessons that I have learned regarding grief are by virtue of the patients that I have had the privilege to assist in the grieving process over the years. Our own friends, family, and patients can teach us a great deal about grief, an issue that often lies at the center of health, illness, life, and death.
Additional Information for the Homeopathic Management of Grief:
Dr. Ajit Singh, Grief and Its Homeopathic Approach, Homeopathic Journal, Vol 2, Issue 7, May 2009, Homeorizon.com
--------
Lifestyle movement is more important than exercising
Posted on May 26, 2011. Filed under: EMPOWERMENT, Healthy Body & Spirit, IN THE NEWS, Wellness & Exercise | Tags: breaks at work, lifestyle, movement, outisde, sedentary, sedentary habits, stairs, walking | Edit This
by: Elizabeth Walling
See all articles by this author
Email this author
(NaturalNews) The idea that exercise is good for us is constantly pummeled into our brains by the medical community, by health coaches and by the mass media. And while certain types of exercise can certainly be beneficial in context, placing too much emphasis on formal exercise may be highlighting the wrong issue and contributing to long term health problems–because it`s movement rather than exercisethat has the most dramatic impact on our health.What Makes Us Sedentary?Who is more sedentary: the person who exercisesfor one hour several times per week or the one who never exercises at all? Conventional wisdom says the second person is sedentary and will probably experience negative side effects from it. This, however, is an incomplete picture and may in fact be completely wrong if other factors are considered.More important than how often you exercise is how much you move during your everyday life. Why? Because how much time you spend sitting adversely affects your health far more than how much time you spend doing formal exercise. If you spend several hours a day sitting (at a desk, while commuting, at restaurants, etc.), it can negatively impact your health–even if you exercise regularly. Basically, regular exercise is not enough to counteract an otherwise sedentary lifestyle.
How to Add Movement to Your Lifestyle
There was a time when we didn`t have to consciously think about moving more during our daily lives, but that is no longer the case. During the last several decades, we have unconsciously shifted from a lifestyle that included plenty of movement to one that is mostly spent sitting down. Desk work is far more common than it used to be; commuting for at least an hour every day is not uncommon; and activities that used to require movement now require much less of it (washing dishes, doing laundry, etc.).
The best solution is to pepper our everyday lives with activity. This can be done in a variety of ways:
1. Take phone calls standing up or walking.
2. Use a standing desk if possible, or sit on an exercise ball at your desk.
3. Take frequent breaks during your day to use the restroom or to get a drink of water.
4. Try to get up and walk around for about five minutes during each hour.
5. Get up during commercial breaks while you`re watching television.
6. Use the stairs instead of the elevator whenever you have the choice.
7. Park on the far side of the parking lot when you can.
8. Get up and go window shopping rather than browsing online.
9. When you meet with friends, clients or colleagues, try to do something that includes more movement (such as walking through a local museum or park, etc.).
How you incorporate more movement into your life will largely depend on your lifestyle and preferences, but it can certainly be done if you make small changes over time. The little things really do add up in this case. Pretty soon you`ll be unconsciously moving more instead of unconsciously sitting more–and your health will thank you for it.
For more information:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/m…
http://www.livingthenourishedlife.c…
http://drpeggymalone.com/sitting-kill
How to Add Movement to Your Lifestyle
There was a time when we didn`t have to consciously think about moving more during our daily lives, but that is no longer the case. During the last several decades, we have unconsciously shifted from a lifestyle that included plenty of movement to one that is mostly spent sitting down. Desk work is far more common than it used to be; commuting for at least an hour every day is not uncommon; and activities that used to require movement now require much less of it (washing dishes, doing laundry, etc.).
The best solution is to pepper our everyday lives with activity. This can be done in a variety of ways:
1. Take phone calls standing up or walking.
2. Use a standing desk if possible, or sit on an exercise ball at your desk.
3. Take frequent breaks during your day to use the restroom or to get a drink of water.
4. Try to get up and walk around for about five minutes during each hour.
5. Get up during commercial breaks while you`re watching television.
6. Use the stairs instead of the elevator whenever you have the choice.
7. Park on the far side of the parking lot when you can.
8. Get up and go window shopping rather than browsing online.
9. When you meet with friends, clients or colleagues, try to do something that includes more movement (such as walking through a local museum or park, etc.).
How you incorporate more movement into your life will largely depend on your lifestyle and preferences, but it can certainly be done if you make small changes over time. The little things really do add up in this case. Pretty soon you`ll be unconsciously moving more instead of unconsciously sitting more–and your health will thank you for it.
For more information:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/m…
http://www.livingthenourishedlife.c…
http://drpeggymalone.com/sitting-kill
-------
After a heart attack – A healthy heart starts with great nutrition
Posted on May 26, 2011. Filed under: Healthy Body & Spirit, IN THE NEWS, Medical Information | Tags: anxiety, attack, cold sweats, diet, fatigue, HEALING, heart attack, palpitations, sedentary habits, stress, unhealthy fats | Edit This
by: Derrell Jones
See all articles by this author
Email this author
(NaturalNews) Going through a heart attack can be a harrowing experience. With symptoms ranging from heart palpitations, cold sweats, fatigue, and anxiety a heart attack is downright frightening with 40% of sufferers not surviving the episode. Survivors must make long term lifestyle changes immediately or risk another cardiac event. In a culture of fast living and fast food long term changes can be difficult to obtain.
A heart attack, or myocardial infarction, occurs when blood flow to certain areas of the heart is interrupted causing a shortage of oxygen in the heart tissue. Stress, sedentary habits, and diets high in unhealthy fats are prominent factors. A recent study conducted by researchers from the University of Missouri, Kansas City shed light on an interesting but unfortunate phenomenon. They found that of the 884 patients that frequently ate fast food before their heart attack, 503 of them continued to do so despite their recent attacks. Is this a matter of mere unhealthy convenience or something more?
It is no secret that fast food is a hodge-podge of chemically laced and genetically modified ingredients. The importance of the chemical aspect of the food is how it interacts with the brain, potentially leading to addictions or cravings. At the top of the list of addictive substances is MSG and any of its derivatives. MSG acts on different areas of the brain including the hypothalamus, which controls appetite and satiety. When damaged or otherwise diminished, the hypothalamus is unable to properly control not only our appetites, but also how much we eat. Also, consuming saturated fat and sugar in high amounts are thought to hijack natural brain processes causing the overproduction of opioids. Opioids are produced naturally by the brain, but overproduction can give way to self intoxication leading to addictions much like you would see in heroin addicts (not nearly as strong but powerful none the less).
For those poor souls who find it difficult to stay away from fast food let’s order up a few suggestions. First, it is imperative to increase the consumption of good fats, also known as essential fatty acids (EFA’s). Doing so in combination with reducing or eliminating saturated and trans fats will provide proper nutrition, satiety and relief for the hypothalamus allowing time for the gland to restore itself. Besides nourishment and boosting brain health EFA’s also bind toxins helping to rid the body of inflammatory substances. Also, one should avoid MSG and any of its variants (i.e. autolyzed yeast extract). MSG is a documented neurotoxin that has the ability to overwhelm areas of the brain that control appetite such as the hypothalamus as mentioned earlier. Finally, decreasing sugar intake will go a long way in fighting cravings for foods that aren’t healthy to consume. When blood sugar is kept at a steady level, as opposed to spiking and crashing, most cravings stop or become controllable.
A healthy heart starts with great nutrition. Without doubt anything resembling nutrition will not be found in a bag of fast food. Fast food is not only cheap and plentiful, but it is also engineered to make you want it and generally against your own best interest. Be good to your heart and let not your heart be troubled.
Sources:
Theheartdisease.net
Rense.com/general52/msg.htm
organicconsumers.org/foodsafety/fastfood032103.cfm
-------
Spring is in the air: Changing your diet to help lessen your allergies
Posted on May 26, 2011. Filed under: Healthy Body & Spirit, IN THE NEWS, Medical Information | Tags: dietary changes, external allergens, immune system, Mucus, reduce the itchy eyes, runny nose, sneezing, wheezing | Edit This
by: Kshamica S. Nimalasuriya MD, MPH
(NaturalNews) What’s a non-allergenic diet? Well, it’s a diet that decreases your level of reaction to external allergens. In other words, it’s dietary changes you can make to help improve your allergies and to help reduce the itchy eyes, runny nose, sneezing and wheezing.
Dairy products and sugar cause the creation of more mucus in the body. Mucus should be thin and runny to help get rid of allergens. When mucus gets thick allergens get stuck in the body instead of being cleared out which causes allergy symptoms to be more pronounced. So limiting both dairy and sugar is one way to help allergies.
Allergy is connected to the immune system and inflammation so it makes sense to strengthen this part of the body.
Quercetin is a bioflavonoid, which may have anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties helpful for allergies. Foods rich in quercetin include green tea, apples, onions, kale, papaya, kale, broccoli and many berries. Eating these foods may lessen the common allergy symptoms.
Vitamin C is a great immune boosting vitamin and is a great addition to meals during spring. Foods rich in vitamin C include bell peppers, dark leafy greens, broccoli, papaya and oranges. The two herbs with the most vitamin C are thyme and parsley.
Allergic symptoms are caused by histamine being released in our bodies. Avoiding foods high in histamine can help reduce these symptoms. These foods include tofu, beer, sausage, blue cheese, red wine, eggplant and many canned fish.
There are also a number of herbal products that are anti-histamines, which can help reduce allergy symptoms. These include nettle, chamomile, garlic and plantain.
So there are many things to add and subtract from the diet to help with allergies!
Before taking a natural herb for your allergies, consult your doctor. Some herbs can have interactions with other herbs, as well as dangerous side effects when taken with prescription and over the counter medications.
Check out the current pollen count in your area by checking out websites such as this one www.aaaai.org/nab (American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology National Allergy Bureau).
About the author:
Kshamica Nimalasuriya MD, MPH is a Preventive Medicine Physician involved with merging Media with Health, Open-Source Education, Herbal Medicine, Fitness, Nutrition, Wellness, and Love. She works on many initiatives bridging the global digital divide of health care education.
She has a line of organic natural skin care: www.aanandee.com
You can also find her on twitter: www.twitter.com/drkshamica www.aanandee.com
--------
The false claims of GMOs
Posted on May 25, 2011. Filed under: Food Facts, IN THE NEWS, Toxicity in our World | Edit This
by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer – Natural News
(NaturalNews) For years, biotechnology companies have been making lofty, unsubstantiated claims that genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) are the cure for world hunger, and that without them, people will starve to death. But according to many agricultural scientists and researchers, such claims have absolutely no basis in reality, and are nothing more than deceitful marketing. One researcher from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) recently compared the nonsensical industry rhetoric in favor of GMOs to giving cigarettes away free to children — in other words, claims that GMOs are the answer to world hunger are nothing but a ploy to hook farmers and consumers into taking the deadly bait.
Biotech mouthpieces and their media lackeys routinely hail GMOs as superior to conventional and organic crops because they say yields are better, less pesticides are needed to grow GM crops, and GM crops can be grown more densely in a given area than alternatives can. But is any of this actually true? To date, GMOs have not surpassed conventional or organic crops in terms of yields. And since 1996, which is right around the time GMOs were first introduced, pesticide use in the US has increased by nearly 400 million pounds (http://www.naturalnews.com/027642_g…).
On the other hand, a recent United Nations (UN) report explains that eco-farming, which uses natural growing methods rather than chemical- and GM-based methods, has actually boosted food production much more significantly than any GM methods have.
“Today’s scientific evidence demonstrates that agro ecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live — especially in unfavorable environments,” said Olivier De Schutter, a UN Special Rapporteur, at a recent presentation. “To date, agro ecological projects have shown an average crop yield increase of 80 percent in 57 developing countries, with an average increase of 116 percent for all African projects. Recent projects conducted in 20 African countries demonstrated a doubling of crop yields over a period of three to ten years.”
In truth, GMOs have failed in virtually every category of supposed benefit — they simply do not live up to the industry hype. And besides offering no benefit or improvement upon natural growing methods, GMOs are also a significant threat to both environmental and human health. There are no credible safety studies that have ever been conducted proving that “Frankencrops” are safe or beneficial (http://www.naturalnews.com/031951_G…).
Sources for this story include:
http://www.stltoday.com/business/lo…
---------
The health benefits of phytochemicals
Posted on May 25, 2011. Filed under: Healthy Body & Spirit, IN THE NEWS, Toxicity in our World | Tags: depleted soils, food absorbtion, Herbicides, NUTRIENTS, nutritional, Pesticides, peter greenlaw, toxic, toxicity | Edit This
(NaturalNews) Phytonutrients, the chemicals that help plants defend against environmental challenges, such as damage from pests or ultraviolet light, appear to provide humans with protection as well. Mounting research shows their effectiveness in preventing and treating a range of conditions including everything from cancer and heart disease to diabetes and high blood pressure. But current law dictates that if anyone advertises health benefits without FDA approval, it is automatically considered an illegal health claim, even for everyday foods, such as walnuts.
Phytochemicals are thought to be responsible for much of the disease protection granted by diets high in fruits, vegetables, beans, cereals, and plant-based beverages such as tea and wine, according to a University of California, Davis report (http://chnr.ucdavis.edu/content/Fac…).
Although it has become widely accepted that a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, legumes, and grains reduces the risk of cancer, heart disease, and other illnesses, scientists have only recently begun researching the effects of the different phytonutrients those foods contain.
Previous evidence has come from observations of cultures that eat plant-based diets and have lower rates of certain types of cancer and heart disease. The relatively low rates of breast and endometrial cancers in some Asian cultures, for example, are credited partly to dietary habits. These cancers are much more common in the United States, possibly because the typical American diet is higher in fat and lower in fruits, vegetables, legumes and grains, according to American Cancer Society.
Many experts suggest that people can reduce their risk of cancer significantly by eating the foods that contain phytonutrients, according to American Cancer Society (http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/Tre…). Evidence shows that they may work by helping to prevent the formation of potential carcinogens, blocking the action of carcinogens on their target organs or tissue, or acting on cells to suppress cancer development.
Research suggests that flavonoids, the most diverse group of phytochemicals, may be a key phytochemical group that contributes to the reduced mortality rates observed in people consuming high levels of plant-based foods, according to the UC Davis report. In the Zutphen Elderly Study, myocardial infarction was found to decrease as falvonoid intake increased. Similarly, the Seven Countries Study, which compared the diets of men living in various Western countries including the U.S., suggested that consumption of flavonoids was responsible for 25 percent of the observed difference in mortality rates in the different countries.
University of Minnesota Hormel Institute researchers say phytonutrients could be used in effective cancer prevention therapy, so much so that they eventually aim to develop phytochemical-derived anticancer drugs, Dr. Sigang Dong told The Austin Daily Herald (http://www.austindailyherald.com/20…).
“In the future, personalized prevention methods using photochemical could have a crucial role in cancer prevention, especially in high-risk populations,” Dong said. “We will continue our rigorous research in identifying molecular targets and aim for conducting human studies with phytocehemicals – this would provide the path for an enhanced approach to personalized cancer prevention.”
FDA monopoly on health
Evidence favoring the health benefits of phytonutrients is growing every day, so much so that the biotech industry is already researching transgenic and non-transgenic ways to vastly increase the phytonutrient levels in plants that already contain high levels of the chemicals, according the 2009 book Recent Advances in Biotechnology (http://books.google.com/books?id=Sl…).
Yet, even as the science bounds ahead, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration refuses to allow food producers to put the facts on their labels.
The agency has structured the rules to categorize anything that treats or prevents disease as a drug. If you eat walnuts, which are shown to lower high cholesterol — according to Natural News, the FDA declares your walnuts to be a drug. Furthermore, if anything is advertised as providing health benefits without FDA approval, it’s automatically considered to be an “unapproved drug”, even if it’s a common, everyday food like walnuts, cherries, grapes or orange (http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Enforcemen…).
Shockingly, even references to peer-reviewed scientific studies are a no-no without FDA permission. So if you sell walnuts, and your website merely links to such studies, then you can be threatened, arrested, imprisoned and fined millions of dollars by the FDA for selling “unapproved drugs.” (http://www.naturalnews.com/027750_G…)
The Alliance for Natural Health, a non-profit organization committed to protecting integrative medicine, is fighting these FDA mandates with The Free Speech About Science Act. The congressional bill, HR 4913, is designed to stop government censorship of truthful, scientific health claims about natural foods and herbs, and restore free speech to natural health (http://www.naturalnews.com/028879_c…). If the bill passes, it will allow manufacturers and producers to reference peer-reviewed, scientific studies that highlight the health benefits of food products that they grow or sell.
Understanding Phytonutrients
Some researchers estimate up to 40,000 phytonutrients will someday be fully catalogued and understood. In just the last 30 years, many hundreds of these compounds have been identified and are currently being investigated for their health-promoting qualities, according to The George Mateljan Foundation for the World’s Healthiest Foods.
Phytonutrients are classified by their chemical structure and categorized into families based on the similarities in their structures. The phenols, or polyphenols is one family that has received attention in the scientific literature. They include the anthocyanidins, which give blueberries and grapes their dark blue and purple color, and the catechins, found in tea and wine, which provide the bitter taste as well as the tawny coloring in these foods (http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?…).
Flavonoids are also commonly considered phenols, although the term “flavonoids” can refer to many phytonutrients. Isoflavones are usually categorized as members of this family. They are found in soy, kudzu, red clover, flax and rye, and have been researched extensively for their ability to protect against hormone-dependent cancers, such as breast cancer.
Other phytonutrients include the organosulfur compounds, such as the glucosinolates and indoles from brassica vegetables like broccoli, and the allylic sulfides from garlic and onions, all of which have been found to support our ability to detoxify noxious foreign compounds like pesticides and other environmental toxins.
Integrating phytonutrients into your diet
A recommended intake of phytochemicals does not exist today, according to the UC Davis report. The Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes and its Panel on Dietary Antioxidants and Related Compounds chose not to create a Dietary Reference Intake due to the lack of food composition data and a true understanding of the absorption and metabolism of phytonutrients. In the absence of such a DRI, many health authorities such as the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association recommend consuming a diet high in fruits and vegetables to
ensure that people get an adequate amount of phytochemical compounds.
Available scientific evidence does not support claims that taking phytochemical supplements is as helpful as consuming the fruits, vegetables, beans, and grains from which they are taken, according to the American Cancer Society (http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/Tre…). So, the best choice, according to O Magazine, is to head to the local farmers’ market for the season’s freshest produce packed with those precious chemicals. Typically, fruit travels more than 675 miles before hitting your table and it is leeching phytonutrients all the way.
And don’t forget to look beyond produce to the other phytonutrient-dense foods like beans and spices.
Beans are a miracle food, according to The Daily Times. They lower cholesterol, regulate blood sugar and insulin production, promote digestive health, and protect against cancer. If you think of fiber, protein, and antioxidants and immediately think whole grains, meat, and fruit, think again – beans offer all three in a single package.
Turmeric, ginger, coriander, cumin and fennel are just a few of the spices containing phytonutrients, according to The Detroit News. Cinnamon has been found to help control blood sugar and improve insulin resistance in diabetics. Paprika may help raise good cholesterol, and ginger, coriander and cumin may promote healthy digestion. (http://www.detnews.com/article/2011…).
Sources for this article include:
http://www.naturalnews.com/028879_c…
http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Enforcemen…
http://www.austindailyherald.com/20…
http://www.oprah.com/health/Eat-Sea…
http://www.organiclifestylemagazine…
http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/Tre…
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/defaul…
http://chnr.ucdavis.edu/content/Fac…
http://www.detnews.com/article/2011…
http://books.google.com/books?id=Sl…
http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?…
Read the original post here: http://www.naturalnews.com/032463_phytochemicals_health_benefits.html#ixzz1NO33zx00
-------
Radiation exposure chart admits cancer radiotherapy delivers fatal dose to patients
(NaturalNews) Thanks to the Fukushima catastrophe, we've all been learning a lot about the laws of physics lately -- especially about radiation. To help explain it all, the folks over at InformationIsBeautiful.com have created a radiation explanation chart that shows the relative levels of harm from various doses of radiation (link below).
The InformationIsBeautiful website is pretty cool. The folks there specialize in making complex data visually interesting. I've admired some of their work for quite some time.
So I was checking out their new "Radiation Dosage Chart" which explained all the effects of receiving radiation doses of various levels. The chart revealed things like:
• 100 mSv Annual dose at which increased lifetime cancer risk if evident
• 250 mSv Dose limit for US radiation workers in life-saving operations
• 1,000 mSv Temporary radiation sickness. Nausea, low blood count. Not fatal.
... and so on.
As I read down the chart, things got really interesting. View the chart yourself here:
http://www.naturalnews.com/images/r...
• 2,000 mSv Severe radiation poisoning
• 4,000 mSv Extremely severe dose - survival possible
• 5,000 mSv Extremely severe radiation dose - high chance of fatality
• 6,000 mSv Usually fatal dose
• 10,000 mSv Fatal dose
And then, right there on the chart, the very next line was a huge eye-opener, because it said:
• 20,000 mSv Highly targeted dose used in cancer radiotherapy
Cancer radiotherapy dose is fatal?
Okay, so wait a minute. A dose of 10,000 is fatal, yet the cancer industry uses twice that dose to "treat" cancer? I knew cancer radiation treatments were barbaric, but I never knew they were twice the amount considered absolutely fatal.
This outcome was so intriguing that I took a screen capture of the chart. That's what you're seeing at: http://www.naturalnews.com/images/r...
The next day, I went back to the InformationIsBeautiful.net website to make sure I really saw what I thought I saw. After all, if cancer radiotherapy is being given at 20,000 mSv, that's a pretty big story, especially in light of the Fukushima fallout and the increasing radiation burden on populations everywhere. So I brought up the website, and guess what?
The 20,000 mSv cancer radiotherapy line had been removed from the chart.
You can now see this for yourself at the InformationIsBeautiful website:
http://www.informationisbeautiful.n...
Notice anything missing? The 20,000 mSv line has been removed. It now jumps from 10,000 to 30,000.
Jokingly stated, it seems that the Information Is Beautiful website might now appear to be the Information Is Missing website.
Cancer industry influence?
So how do you think this line about 20,000 mSv in cancer radiotherapy got removed? I suppose there are a number of possible explanations for it. One particularly conspiratorial explanation is that someone from the cancer industry probably asked them to remove it. The cancer industry, after all, doesn't want people knowing the simple truth that cancer radiotherapy involves a fatal dose of radiation. And no industry operates with more secrecy than the cancer industry, it seems, with all its cover-ups about the dangers of chemotherapy and its continued suppression of the truth about vitamin D and its cancer preventive effects.
Then again, the InformationIsBeautiful website has actually done a fantastic job of producing information about Vitamin D and sunlight exposure. This is precisely the kind of information the cancer industry doesn't want people to see: http://www.informationisbeautiful.n...
(Pretty cool chart, eh?)
Just to give these folks a chance to explain all this, I sent off an email to David at the InformationIsBeautiful website asking them to clarify why they pulled the cancer radiotherapy information off their radiation dosage chart. Perhaps there's a completely innocent explanation for it, I thought, and I want to know the real story here.
The email I received in return was a polite response with a collection of frequently asked questions and answers. I don't blame the guys there for using this -- they're probably incredibly busy these days -- but I was intrigued by one of the answers in the email itself: It said that the InformationIsBeautiful team has "done commercial work for GE, the BBC, Google and many others."
And who is GE? They are, of course, one of the world's top manufacturers of radiotherapy equipment!
You can see an example of their radiotherapy machines at http://radiologynews.gehealthcare.c...
So now we have the Information Is Beautiful team pulling the "cancer radiotherapy" line out of their chart, then admitting they are a paid client of General Electric, a top manufacturer of radiotherapy equipment.
None of this proves anything, of course, but it probably raises a few eyebrows. Is there a financial conflict of interest at work here? Personally, I like their website a lot, and I'm a fan of their charts. So I don't want to think they might be engaged in some sort of intentional censoring of their chart data just to protect the cancer industry. But I've seen stranger stuff happen, for sure...
Is this a case of blatant information distortion?
The Information Is Beautiful website, by the way, isn't necessarily known for censoring their information due to political pressure. They do seem to be good guys in plenty of ways. For example, they say they're donating the proceeds from the sales of their radiation dosage chart to help with Japan relief efforts, and that's admirable. They also produce a lot of other really useful charts that have been very popular across the 'net.
Then again, the cancer industry can be very, very threatening to those who don't submit to its suppression of information both on the web and across the mainstream media.
Now, the trolls and paid online muckrakers hired by Big Pharma will of course insist that I'm making all this up. They'll say the chart never had the 20,000 line in it. I must have Photoshopped my screenshot to put it there, they'll charge. These people never stop lying in their attempts to smear those who are working each day to expose the deceptions of the pharmaceutical industry, of course. (They are actually paid by Big Pharma to poison the 'net.)
Fortunately for me, there is yet another source of evidence that backs up my story. A thread over at Gizmodo.com contains the exact same original radiation dosage chart that captured as a screen shot. It shows quite clearly the original 20,000 mSv line.
You can see that page at http://gizmodo.com/#!5786933/the-mo...
I am taking a screen shot of that page, too, just in case it magically disappears. If you go there and don't see the chart, rest assured that's exactly what happened (I've seen this happen hundreds of times with sensitive topics).
The chart image on that page links to an archived image on Gawkerassets.com which contains the full chart: http://cache.gawkerassets.com/asset...
And there, for all the world to see, is the full chart, with the 20,000 mSv "cancer radiotherapy" line, credited to David McCandless, March 2010, InformationIsBeautiful.net
Now, just in case that image also gets squelched off the 'net, I have saved a copy of it as well. (You might want to save off your own copy just in case.)
Version 1.35 has less information than version 1.0
Interestingly, if you go back to the version of the chart on the InformationIsBeautiful website, you'll notice that it currently says version 1.35 along the bottom (http://www.informationisbeautiful.n...).
What's really interesting is that if you compare the Version 1.0 and Version 1.35 charts, there are no significant differences other than the removal of the 20,000 mSv cancer radiotherapy line.
In other words, as this chart got "upgraded," its content actually got pared down. And what exactly got cut from the chart? The line about cancer radiotherapy.
Again, I am not accusing the guys over at InformationIsBeautiful of outright censorship or anything. There might be an innocent explanation for all this. But I've seen before how knowledge gets selectively removed from the most visible information sources, keeping people in the dark about something that is quite literally killing them.
So we'll see where this goes. I'm genuinely curious to see what their response is to this article. If they're polite and have a reasonable explanation for this, I'll do my best to pass it along. Heck, maybe they'll even want NaturalNews to help promote some of their upcoming charts on health issues such as vitamin D. Their charts are, after all, uber cool.
What are the actual radiation doses used by the cancer industry?
In the mean time, you might be wondering about another possibility: Is it possible that the line was pulled from the chart because it was not accurate? Maybe it was a typo, and the cancer industry doesn't even use that high of a dose.
Interestingly, a post beneath the chart on the Gizmodo thread, posted by user scarbrtj, says:
Chart says 20,000 mSv (20 Gy) is a "highly targeted dose used in cancer radiotherapy." Not really. That (very low) dose is almost never used for any cancer. For example, a dose of 80,000 mSv (80 Gy) is used for prostate cancer (and incidentally side effects are minimal to zero long-term because the radiation is so targeted in this case)... 60,000 mSv for breast cancer... 70,000 mSv for lung cancer... 50,000 mSv for rectal cancer.
Not that random internet posters have instant credibility or anything, but here we have a user explaining that far higher doses are routinely used in other cancer treatments.
Just to double check my facts here, I went looking for more information on the actual radiation doses used in cancer treatments. It turns out that 20,000 mSv (roughly 20 Gy) is on the low end. Epithelial tumors, for example are routinely treated with 60 to 80 Gy! Source: Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiat...)
Even more interestingly, doses of 45 - 60 Gy (roughly 45,000 - 60,000 mSv, see notes below) are used as a cancer prevention dose in breast cancer and cancers of the head and neck.
The radiotherapy scam exposed -- again!
Just in case you're not following all this, what we're seeing here is that 10,000 mSv is a fatal dose. The 20,000 mSv line was removed from the chart between versions 1.0 and 1.35. Meanwhile, the cancer industry is routinely using 60,000 mSv focused on the head and neck as a way to "prevent" cancer!
Are you starting to see how huge this cancer radiotherapy scam really is? Think about it: If exposure to just 100 mSv can actually cause cancer, then how can exposure to 60,000 mSv somehow "cure" it?
Not surprisingly, the cancer industry's lies fall apart when you look at the science. No wonder the industry has to work so hard to keep people misinformed. If cancer patients knew they were receiving literally 60,000% higher radiation doses (that's 60,000 mSv versus 100 mSv) than the level necessary to significantly increase the risk of cancer, they probably wouldn't sign up for more "treatments."
For the record, mSv and Gy units (Grays) don't always convert neatly and nicely back and forth, so these numbers are approximate, and they can vary based on the type of radiation and its so-called "biological damage conversion factor." As explained on the RadProCalculator website (http://www.radprocalculator.com/FAQ...):
Rad and Gray are absorbed dose units. When we look at radiation being absorbed in tissue, the absorption varies with the energy of the radiation. With a higher energy deposition in tissue, there are more rads or more Grays deposited than a lower energy deposition at the same rate (particles or photons per second). Now, what is a rem and what is a a Sievert? The term rem came from an acronym that means Roentgen Equivalent Man, in another words the equivalent biological damage done to human tissue. Some radiation emissions, when depositing the same energy as other radiation emissions, do more biological damage to the human organism than others. How does one convert? To go from rad to rem or from Gray to Sievert, you need a multiplication factor that represents the effective biological damage. Most training texts call this a quality factor (QF) or a radiation weighting factor. Some training texts call it a biological damage conversion factor but what it truly represents is the the ratio of biological damage done by radiation types to the biological damage done by gamma radiation. For gamma, x-ray and beta radiation, this factor is 1. For alpha, it is 20. For neutrons it is between 3 and 10, and is generally conservatively taken as 10. What this implies is that a rad or Gray of alpha energy absorbed by soft human tissue does 20 times more damage than a rad or Gray of gamma, x-ray or beta energy absorbed. Since for gamma, x-ray and beta, the multiplication factor is 1, one rad equals one rem and one Gray equals one Sievert.
So the actual calculations of damage depend on what numbers you use for the QF (radiation weighting factor). But even if you're off by 10 or 20 percent, the dosage of radiation being used in cancer radiotherapy is orders of magnitude higher than the dose needed to cause cancer in a very high percentage of those people who are exposed.
The cancer industry's own treatments, it turns out, are its best source of repeat business.
This is also true with chemotherapy, because the No. 1 side effect of chemotherapy is -- guess what? -- cancer!
Read the original story here: http://www.naturalnews.com/032136_radiation_exposure_chart.html
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032136_radiation_exposure_chart.html#ixzz1NEgnfKOU
Radiation exposure chart admits cancer radiotherapy delivers fatal dose to patients
(NaturalNews) Thanks to the Fukushima catastrophe, we've all been learning a lot about the laws of physics lately -- especially about radiation. To help explain it all, the folks over at InformationIsBeautiful.com have created a radiation explanation chart that shows the relative levels of harm from various doses of radiation (link below).
The InformationIsBeautiful website is pretty cool. The folks there specialize in making complex data visually interesting. I've admired some of their work for quite some time.
So I was checking out their new "Radiation Dosage Chart" which explained all the effects of receiving radiation doses of various levels. The chart revealed things like:
• 100 mSv Annual dose at which increased lifetime cancer risk if evident
• 250 mSv Dose limit for US radiation workers in life-saving operations
• 1,000 mSv Temporary radiation sickness. Nausea, low blood count. Not fatal.
... and so on.
As I read down the chart, things got really interesting. View the chart yourself here:
http://www.naturalnews.com/images/r...
• 2,000 mSv Severe radiation poisoning
• 4,000 mSv Extremely severe dose - survival possible
• 5,000 mSv Extremely severe radiation dose - high chance of fatality
• 6,000 mSv Usually fatal dose
• 10,000 mSv Fatal dose
And then, right there on the chart, the very next line was a huge eye-opener, because it said:
• 20,000 mSv Highly targeted dose used in cancer radiotherapy
Cancer radiotherapy dose is fatal?
Okay, so wait a minute. A dose of 10,000 is fatal, yet the cancer industry uses twice that dose to "treat" cancer? I knew cancer radiation treatments were barbaric, but I never knew they were twice the amount considered absolutely fatal.
This outcome was so intriguing that I took a screen capture of the chart. That's what you're seeing at: http://www.naturalnews.com/images/r...
The next day, I went back to the InformationIsBeautiful.net website to make sure I really saw what I thought I saw. After all, if cancer radiotherapy is being given at 20,000 mSv, that's a pretty big story, especially in light of the Fukushima fallout and the increasing radiation burden on populations everywhere. So I brought up the website, and guess what?
The 20,000 mSv cancer radiotherapy line had been removed from the chart.
You can now see this for yourself at the InformationIsBeautiful website:
http://www.informationisbeautiful.n...
Notice anything missing? The 20,000 mSv line has been removed. It now jumps from 10,000 to 30,000.
Jokingly stated, it seems that the Information Is Beautiful website might now appear to be the Information Is Missing website.
Cancer industry influence?
So how do you think this line about 20,000 mSv in cancer radiotherapy got removed? I suppose there are a number of possible explanations for it. One particularly conspiratorial explanation is that someone from the cancer industry probably asked them to remove it. The cancer industry, after all, doesn't want people knowing the simple truth that cancer radiotherapy involves a fatal dose of radiation. And no industry operates with more secrecy than the cancer industry, it seems, with all its cover-ups about the dangers of chemotherapy and its continued suppression of the truth about vitamin D and its cancer preventive effects.
Then again, the InformationIsBeautiful website has actually done a fantastic job of producing information about Vitamin D and sunlight exposure. This is precisely the kind of information the cancer industry doesn't want people to see: http://www.informationisbeautiful.n...
(Pretty cool chart, eh?)
Just to give these folks a chance to explain all this, I sent off an email to David at the InformationIsBeautiful website asking them to clarify why they pulled the cancer radiotherapy information off their radiation dosage chart. Perhaps there's a completely innocent explanation for it, I thought, and I want to know the real story here.
The email I received in return was a polite response with a collection of frequently asked questions and answers. I don't blame the guys there for using this -- they're probably incredibly busy these days -- but I was intrigued by one of the answers in the email itself: It said that the InformationIsBeautiful team has "done commercial work for GE, the BBC, Google and many others."
And who is GE? They are, of course, one of the world's top manufacturers of radiotherapy equipment!
You can see an example of their radiotherapy machines at http://radiologynews.gehealthcare.c...
So now we have the Information Is Beautiful team pulling the "cancer radiotherapy" line out of their chart, then admitting they are a paid client of General Electric, a top manufacturer of radiotherapy equipment.
None of this proves anything, of course, but it probably raises a few eyebrows. Is there a financial conflict of interest at work here? Personally, I like their website a lot, and I'm a fan of their charts. So I don't want to think they might be engaged in some sort of intentional censoring of their chart data just to protect the cancer industry. But I've seen stranger stuff happen, for sure...
Is this a case of blatant information distortion?
The Information Is Beautiful website, by the way, isn't necessarily known for censoring their information due to political pressure. They do seem to be good guys in plenty of ways. For example, they say they're donating the proceeds from the sales of their radiation dosage chart to help with Japan relief efforts, and that's admirable. They also produce a lot of other really useful charts that have been very popular across the 'net.
Then again, the cancer industry can be very, very threatening to those who don't submit to its suppression of information both on the web and across the mainstream media.
Now, the trolls and paid online muckrakers hired by Big Pharma will of course insist that I'm making all this up. They'll say the chart never had the 20,000 line in it. I must have Photoshopped my screenshot to put it there, they'll charge. These people never stop lying in their attempts to smear those who are working each day to expose the deceptions of the pharmaceutical industry, of course. (They are actually paid by Big Pharma to poison the 'net.)
Fortunately for me, there is yet another source of evidence that backs up my story. A thread over at Gizmodo.com contains the exact same original radiation dosage chart that captured as a screen shot. It shows quite clearly the original 20,000 mSv line.
You can see that page at http://gizmodo.com/#!5786933/the-mo...
I am taking a screen shot of that page, too, just in case it magically disappears. If you go there and don't see the chart, rest assured that's exactly what happened (I've seen this happen hundreds of times with sensitive topics).
The chart image on that page links to an archived image on Gawkerassets.com which contains the full chart: http://cache.gawkerassets.com/asset...
And there, for all the world to see, is the full chart, with the 20,000 mSv "cancer radiotherapy" line, credited to David McCandless, March 2010, InformationIsBeautiful.net
Now, just in case that image also gets squelched off the 'net, I have saved a copy of it as well. (You might want to save off your own copy just in case.)
Version 1.35 has less information than version 1.0
Interestingly, if you go back to the version of the chart on the InformationIsBeautiful website, you'll notice that it currently says version 1.35 along the bottom (http://www.informationisbeautiful.n...).
What's really interesting is that if you compare the Version 1.0 and Version 1.35 charts, there are no significant differences other than the removal of the 20,000 mSv cancer radiotherapy line.
In other words, as this chart got "upgraded," its content actually got pared down. And what exactly got cut from the chart? The line about cancer radiotherapy.
Again, I am not accusing the guys over at InformationIsBeautiful of outright censorship or anything. There might be an innocent explanation for all this. But I've seen before how knowledge gets selectively removed from the most visible information sources, keeping people in the dark about something that is quite literally killing them.
So we'll see where this goes. I'm genuinely curious to see what their response is to this article. If they're polite and have a reasonable explanation for this, I'll do my best to pass it along. Heck, maybe they'll even want NaturalNews to help promote some of their upcoming charts on health issues such as vitamin D. Their charts are, after all, uber cool.
What are the actual radiation doses used by the cancer industry?
In the mean time, you might be wondering about another possibility: Is it possible that the line was pulled from the chart because it was not accurate? Maybe it was a typo, and the cancer industry doesn't even use that high of a dose.
Interestingly, a post beneath the chart on the Gizmodo thread, posted by user scarbrtj, says:
Chart says 20,000 mSv (20 Gy) is a "highly targeted dose used in cancer radiotherapy." Not really. That (very low) dose is almost never used for any cancer. For example, a dose of 80,000 mSv (80 Gy) is used for prostate cancer (and incidentally side effects are minimal to zero long-term because the radiation is so targeted in this case)... 60,000 mSv for breast cancer... 70,000 mSv for lung cancer... 50,000 mSv for rectal cancer.
Not that random internet posters have instant credibility or anything, but here we have a user explaining that far higher doses are routinely used in other cancer treatments.
Just to double check my facts here, I went looking for more information on the actual radiation doses used in cancer treatments. It turns out that 20,000 mSv (roughly 20 Gy) is on the low end. Epithelial tumors, for example are routinely treated with 60 to 80 Gy! Source: Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiat...)
Even more interestingly, doses of 45 - 60 Gy (roughly 45,000 - 60,000 mSv, see notes below) are used as a cancer prevention dose in breast cancer and cancers of the head and neck.
The radiotherapy scam exposed -- again!
Just in case you're not following all this, what we're seeing here is that 10,000 mSv is a fatal dose. The 20,000 mSv line was removed from the chart between versions 1.0 and 1.35. Meanwhile, the cancer industry is routinely using 60,000 mSv focused on the head and neck as a way to "prevent" cancer!
Are you starting to see how huge this cancer radiotherapy scam really is? Think about it: If exposure to just 100 mSv can actually cause cancer, then how can exposure to 60,000 mSv somehow "cure" it?
Not surprisingly, the cancer industry's lies fall apart when you look at the science. No wonder the industry has to work so hard to keep people misinformed. If cancer patients knew they were receiving literally 60,000% higher radiation doses (that's 60,000 mSv versus 100 mSv) than the level necessary to significantly increase the risk of cancer, they probably wouldn't sign up for more "treatments."
For the record, mSv and Gy units (Grays) don't always convert neatly and nicely back and forth, so these numbers are approximate, and they can vary based on the type of radiation and its so-called "biological damage conversion factor." As explained on the RadProCalculator website (http://www.radprocalculator.com/FAQ...):
Rad and Gray are absorbed dose units. When we look at radiation being absorbed in tissue, the absorption varies with the energy of the radiation. With a higher energy deposition in tissue, there are more rads or more Grays deposited than a lower energy deposition at the same rate (particles or photons per second). Now, what is a rem and what is a a Sievert? The term rem came from an acronym that means Roentgen Equivalent Man, in another words the equivalent biological damage done to human tissue. Some radiation emissions, when depositing the same energy as other radiation emissions, do more biological damage to the human organism than others. How does one convert? To go from rad to rem or from Gray to Sievert, you need a multiplication factor that represents the effective biological damage. Most training texts call this a quality factor (QF) or a radiation weighting factor. Some training texts call it a biological damage conversion factor but what it truly represents is the the ratio of biological damage done by radiation types to the biological damage done by gamma radiation. For gamma, x-ray and beta radiation, this factor is 1. For alpha, it is 20. For neutrons it is between 3 and 10, and is generally conservatively taken as 10. What this implies is that a rad or Gray of alpha energy absorbed by soft human tissue does 20 times more damage than a rad or Gray of gamma, x-ray or beta energy absorbed. Since for gamma, x-ray and beta, the multiplication factor is 1, one rad equals one rem and one Gray equals one Sievert.
So the actual calculations of damage depend on what numbers you use for the QF (radiation weighting factor). But even if you're off by 10 or 20 percent, the dosage of radiation being used in cancer radiotherapy is orders of magnitude higher than the dose needed to cause cancer in a very high percentage of those people who are exposed.
The cancer industry's own treatments, it turns out, are its best source of repeat business.
This is also true with chemotherapy, because the No. 1 side effect of chemotherapy is -- guess what? -- cancer!
Read the original story here: http://www.naturalnews.com/032136_radiation_exposure_chart.html
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032136_radiation_exposure_chart.html#ixzz1NEgnfKOU
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032136_radiation_exposure_chart.html#ixzz1NEgnfKOU
No comments:
Post a Comment