Another new reason to read all your food labels… and stay away from high fructose corn syrup.
The Washington Post reports that two new US studies have done tests on the high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) found in everyday products in American households… and found half contained mercury.
The mercury was “in nearly a third of 55 popular brand-name food and beverage products where HFCS is the first- or second-highest labeled ingredient, according to two new U.S. studies,” says the Post. “The chemical was found most commonly in HFCS-containing dairy products, dressings and condiments.”
Representatives for the industries that make the foods with HFCS saysthe studies are based on outdated information because they use mercury-free versions now.
Either way, HFCS isn’t good for you (more on that HERE) and should be avoided but HFCS can be found places you’d never suspect… like yogurt, breakfast bars, some next step infant formulas, ketchup and, of course, soda and countless other items. So be sure to read ALL labels before giving any foods to children and pregnant women.
Mercury is especially dangerous for pregnant and breastfeeding women because they pass their mercury consumption onto their babies.
The CDC says “The nervous system is very sensitive to all forms of mercury. Methylmercury and metallic mercury vapors are more harmful than other forms, because more mercury in these forms reaches the brain. Exposure to high levels of metallic, inorganic, or organic mercury can permanently damage the brain, kidneys, and developing fetus. Effects on brain functioning may result in irritability, shyness, tremors, changes in vision or hearing, and memory problems.”
Mercury has also been found in fish, which is why fish consumption should be reduced to once a week while pregnant or breastfeeding. Probably a good rule to follow now for HFCS too.
More information
The U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry has more about mercury and health.
info about Mercury and your health, check out the government’s database of info HERE
Mayo Clinic’s article on negative of high fructose corn syrup HERE
more about the new HFCS studies from The Washington Post HERE
Dozens of people are estimated to have been killed in clashes between police and indigenous activists protesting oil and mining projects in the northern Peruvian Amazonian province of Bagua. Peruvian authorities have declared a military curfew. Troops are patrolling towns in the Amazon jungle. Authorities say up to twenty-two policemen have been killed, and two remain missing. The indigenous community says at least forty people, including three children, were killed by the police this weekend.
On the morning of Friday, June 5th some 600 Peruvian riot police and helicopters attacked a peaceful indigenous blockade outside of Bagua, killing twenty-five and injuring more than 150. The indigenous people were protesting policies set in place based on the Peru Free Trade Agreement with the United States. Remember, Obama was actually FOR the Peru FTA. Eyewitness accounts indicate the police fired live ammunition and tear gas into the crowd.
What essentially happened is that the Peruvian government wants to destroy the Amazon rainforest to use it for oil, mining, and biofuels, and they are attempting to do this in the name of free trade. When the indigenous people protested to protect their rights, they were brutally massacred.
Posted Wed, May 20, 2009 at 8:32 pm by deejay pr0pa.rations under health (No Respond)
despite the lack of coverage by mainstream media and denials by the FDA and American Dietetic Association (ADA) for 3 decades, aspartame, the sweet poison, is found in over 6,000 products fully stocked on grocery shelves. there is an overwhelming amount of evidence by doctors and everyday people that support the claim that aspartame is truly harmful and potentially deadly. this blog is but a scratch of the surface. the only ones that benefit from this excitoneurotoxic carcinogenic drug are the corporations looking to make more profits. please check out the information provided, continue to research, make your own conclusions, and make changes accordingly.
“human rights come in one-hundredth place
mass production has always been number one”
-deltron
Aspartame: What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You
The artificial sweetener, aspartame, is the bedrock of the diet industry. Found in everything from fizzy drinks to vitamin pills and marketed under a variety of different names, it is difficult to detect and even harder to avoid. 6,000+ products contain aspartame including “diet” drinks, “regular” lemonades (e.g. Schweppes), fruit juices, squashes, candy, chewing gum (almost ALL mainstream brands), yogurts, other sweet foods.
Aspartame accounts for over 75 percent of the adverse reactions to food additives reported to the FDA. Many of these reactions are very serious including seizures and death.[1] Side effects can occur gradually, can be immediate, or can be acute reactions. A few of the 90 different documented symptoms listed in the report as being caused by aspartame include: Headaches/migraines, dizziness, seizures, nausea, numbness, muscle spasms, weight gain, rashes, depression, fatigue, irritability, tachycardia, insomnia, vision problems, hearing loss, heart palpitations, breathing difficulties, anxiety attacks, slurred speech, loss of taste, tinnitus, vertigo, memory loss, and joint pain.
According to researchers and physicians studying the adverse effects of aspartame, the following chronic illnesses can be triggered or worsened by ingesting of aspartame:(2) Brain tumors, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, chronic fatigue syndrome, parkinson’s disease, alzheimer’s, mental retardation, lymphoma, birth defects, fibromyalgia, and diabetes.
Aspartame is made up of three chemicals: aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol. The book “Prescription for Nutritional Healing,” by James and Phyllis Balch, lists aspartame under the category of “chemical poison.” As you shall see, that is exactly what it is.
What Is Aspartame Made Of? Aspartic Acid (40 percent of Aspartame)
Dr. Russell L. Blaylock, a professor of neurosurgery at the Medical University of Mississippi, recently published a book thoroughly detailing the damage that is caused by the ingestion of excessive aspartic acid from aspartame. Blaylock makes use of almost 500 scientific references to show how excess free excitatory amino acids such as aspartic acid and glutamic acid (about 99 percent of monosodium glutamate (MSG) is glutamic acid) in our food supply are causing serious chronic neurological disorders and a myriad of other acute symptoms.(3)
How Aspartate (and Glutamate) Cause Damage
Aspartate and glutamate act as neurotransmitters in the brain by facilitating the transmission of information from neuron to neuron. Too much aspartate or glutamate in the brain kills certain neurons by allowing the influx of too much calcium into the cells. This influx triggers excessive amounts of free radicals, which kill the cells. The neural cell damage that can be caused by excessive aspartate and glutamate is why they are referred to as “excitotoxins.” They “excite” or stimulate the neural cells to death.
Aspartic acid is an amino acid. Taken in its free form (unbound to proteins) it significantly raises the blood plasma level of aspartate and glutamate. The excess aspartate and glutamate in the blood plasma shortly after ingesting aspartame or products with free glutamic acid (glutamate precursor) leads to a high level of those neurotransmitters in certain areas of the brain.
The blood brain barrier (BBB), which normally protects the brain from excess glutamate and aspartate as well as toxins, 1) is not fully developed during childhood, 2) does not fully protect all areas of the brain, 3) is damaged by numerous chronic and acute conditions, and 4) allows seepage of excess glutamate and aspartate into the brain even when intact.
The excess glutamate and aspartate slowly begin to destroy neurons. The large majority (75 percent or more) of neural cells in a particular area of the brain are killed before any clinical symptoms of a chronic illness are noticed. A few of the many chronic illnesses that have been shown to be contributed to by long-term exposure to excitatory amino acid damage include:
* Multiple sclerosis (MS)
* ALS
* Memory loss
* Hormonal problems
* Hearing loss
* Epilepsy
* Alzheimer’s disease
The risk to infants, children, pregnant women, the elderly and persons with certain chronic health problems from excitotoxins are great. Even the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB), which usually understates problems and mimics the FDA party-line, recently stated in a review that:
“It is prudent to avoid the use of dietary supplements of L-glutamic acid by pregnant women, infants, and children. The existence of evidence of potential endocrine responses, i.e., elevated cortisol and prolactin, and differential responses between males and females, would also suggest a neuroendocrine link and that supplemental L-glutamic acid should be avoided by women of childbearing age and individuals with affective disorders.”(4)
Aspartic acid from aspartame has the same deleterious effects on the body as glutamic acid.
The exact mechanism of acute reactions to excess free glutamate and aspartate is currently being debated. As reported to the FDA, those reactions include:(5)
One common complaint of persons suffering from the effect of aspartame is memory loss. Ironically, in 1987, G.D. Searle, the manufacturer of aspartame, undertook a search for a drug to combat memory loss caused by excitatory amino acid damage. Blaylock is one of many scientists and physicians who are concerned about excitatory amino acid damage caused by ingestion of aspartame and MSG.
A few of the many experts who have spoken out against the damage being caused by aspartate and glutamate include Adrienne Samuels, Ph.D., an experimental psychologist specializing in research design. Another is Olney, a professor in the department of psychiatry, School of Medicine, Washington University, a neuroscientist and researcher, and one of the world’s foremost authorities on excitotoxins. (He informed Searle in 1971 that aspartic acid caused holes in the brains of mice.)
Phenylalanine (50 percent of aspartame)
Phenylalanine is an amino acid normally found in the brain. Persons with the genetic disorder phenylketonuria (PKU) cannot metabolize phenylalanine. This leads to dangerously high levels of phenylalanine in the brain (sometimes lethal). It has been shown that ingesting aspartame, especially along with carbohydrates, can lead to excess levels of phenylalanine in the brain even in persons who do not have PKU.
This is not just a theory, as many people who have eaten large amounts of aspartame over a long period of time and do not have PKU have been shown to have excessive levels of phenylalanine in the blood. Excessive levels of phenylalanine in the brain can cause the levels of seratonin in the brain to decrease, leading to emotional disorders such as depression. It was shown in human testing that phenylalanine levels of the blood were increased significantly in human subjects who chronically used aspartame.(6)
Even a single use of aspartame raised the blood phenylalanine levels. In his testimony before the U.S. Congress, Dr. Louis J. Elsas showed that high blood phenylalanine can be concentrated in parts of the brain and is especially dangerous for infants and fetuses. He also showed that phenylalanine is metabolised much more effeciently by rodents than by humans.(7)
One account of a case of extremely high phenylalanine levels caused by aspartame was recently published the “Wednesday Journal” in an article titled “An Aspartame Nightmare.” John Cook began drinking six to eight diet drinks every day. His symptoms started out as memory loss and frequent headaches. He began to crave more aspartame-sweetened drinks. His condition deteriorated so much that he experienced wide mood swings and violent rages. Even though he did not suffer from PKU, a blood test revealed a phenylalanine level of 80 mg/dl. He also showed abnormal brain function and brain damage. After he kicked his aspartame habit, his symptoms improved dramatically.(8)
As Blaylock points out in his book, early studies measuring phenylalanine buildup in the brain were flawed. Investigators who measured specific brain regions and not the average throughout the brain notice significant rises in phenylalanine levels. Specifically the hypothalamus, medulla oblongata, and corpus striatum areas of the brain had the largest increases in phenylalanine. Blaylock goes on to point out that excessive buildup of phenylalanine in the brain can cause schizophrenia or make one more susceptible to seizures.
Therefore, long-term, excessive use of aspartame may provid a boost to sales of seratonin reuptake inhibitors such as Prozac and drugs to control schizophrenia and seizures.
Methanol (aka wood alcohol/poison) (10 percent of aspartame)
Methanol/wood alcohol is a deadly poison. Some people may remember methanol as the poison that has caused some “skid row” alcoholics to end up blind or dead. Methanol is gradually released in the small intestine when the methyl group of aspartame encounter the enzyme chymotrypsin.
The absorption of methanol into the body is sped up considerably when free methanol is ingested. Free methanol is created from aspartame when it is heated to above 86 Fahrenheit (30 Centigrade). This would occur when aspartame-containing product is improperly stored or when it is heated (e.g., as part of a “food” product such as Jello).
Methanol breaks down into formic acid and formaldehyde in the body. Formaldehyde is a deadly neurotoxin. An EPA assessment of methanol states that methanol “is considered a cumulative poison due to the low rate of excretion once it is absorbed. In the body, methanol is oxidized to formaldehyde and formic acid; both of these metabolites are toxic.” They recommend a limit of consumption of 7.8 mg/day. A one-liter (approx. 1 quart) aspartame-sweetened beverage contains about 56 mg of methanol. Heavy users of aspartame-containing products consume as much as 250 mg of methanol daily or 32 times the EPA limit.(9)
Symptoms from methanol poisoning include headaches, ear buzzing, dizziness, nausea, gastrointestinal disturbances, weakness, vertigo, chills, memory lapses, numbness and shooting pains in the extremities, behavioral disturbances, and neuritis. The most well known problems from methanol poisoning are vision problems including misty vision, progressive contraction of visual fields, blurring of vision, obscuration of vision, retinal damage, and blindness. Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen, causes retinal damage, interferes with DNA replication and causes birth defects.(10)
Due to the lack of a couple of key enzymes, humans are many times more sensitive to the toxic effects of methanol than animals. Therefore, tests of aspartame or methanol on animals do not accurately reflect the danger for humans. As pointed out by Dr. Woodrow C. Monte, director of the food science and nutrition laboratory at Arizona State University, “There are no human or mammalian studies to evaluate the possible mutagenic, teratogenic or carcinogenic effects of chronic administration of methyl alcohol.”(11)
He was so concerned about the unresolved safety issues that he filed suit with the FDA requesting a hearing to address these issues. He asked the FDA to “slow down on this soft drink issue long enough to answer some of the important questions. It’s not fair that you are leaving the full burden of proof on the few of us who are concerned and have such limited resources. You must remember that you are the American public’s last defense. Once you allow usage (of aspartame) there is literally nothing I or my colleagues can do to reverse the course. Aspartame will then join saccharin, the sulfiting agents, and God knows how many other questionable compounds enjoined to insult the human constitution with governmental approval.”(10) Shortly thereafter, the Commissioner of the FDA, Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr., approved the use of aspartame in carbonated beverages, he then left for a position with G.D. Searle’s public relations firm.(11)
It has been pointed out that some fruit juices and alcoholic beverages contain small amounts of methanol. It is important to remember, however, that methanol never appears alone. In every case, ethanol is present, usually in much higher amounts. Ethanol is an antidote for methanol toxicity in humans.(9) The troops of Desert Storm were “treated” to large amounts of aspartame-sweetened beverages, which had been heated to over 86 degrees F in the Saudi Arabian sun. Many of them returned home with numerous disorders similar to what has been seen in persons who have been chemically poisoned by formaldehyde. The free methanol in the beverages may have been a contributing factor in these illnesses. Other breakdown products of aspartame such as DKP (discussed below) may also have been a factor.
In a 1993 act that can only be described as “unconscionable,” the FDA approved aspartame as an ingredient in numerous food items that would always be heated to above 86 degree F (30 degree C).
Diketopiperazine (DKP)
DKP is a byproduct of aspartame metabolism. DKP has been implicated in the occurrence of brain tumors. Olney noticed that DKP, when nitrosated in the gut, produced a compound that was similar to N-nitrosourea, a powerful brain tumor causing chemical. Some authors have said that DKP is produced after aspartame ingestion. I am not sure if that is correct. It is definitely true that DKP is formed in liquid aspartame-containing products during prolonged storage.
G.D. Searle conducted animal experiments on the safety of DKP. The FDA found numerous experimental errors occurred, including “clerical errors, mixed-up animals, animals not getting drugs they were supposed to get, pathological specimens lost because of improper handling,” and many other errors.(12) These sloppy laboratory procedures may explain why both the test and control animals had sixteen times more brain tumors than would be expected in experiments of this length.
In an ironic twist, shortly after these experimental errors were discovered, the FDA used guidelines recommended by G.D. Searle to develop the industry-wide FDA standards for good laboratory practices.(11)
DKP has also been implicated as a cause of uterine polyps and changes in blood cholesterol by FDA Toxicologist Dr. Jacqueline Verrettin her testimony before the U.S. Senate.(13)
References
(1) Department of Health and Human Services, Report on All Adverse Reactions in the Adverse Reaction Monitoring System, (February 25 and 28, 1994).
(2) Compiled by researchers, physicians, and artificial sweetner experts for Mission Possible, a group dedicated to warning consumers about aspartame.
(3) Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills, by Russell L. Blaylock, M.D.
(4) Safety of Amino Acids, Life Sciences Research Office, FASEB, FDA Contract No. 223-88-2124, Task Order No. 8.
(5) FDA Adverse Reaction Monitoring System.
(6) Wurtman and Walker, “Dietary Phenylalanine and Brain Function,” Proceedings of the First International Meeting on Dietary Phenylalanine and Brain Function., Washington, D.C., May 8, 1987.
(7) Hearing Before the Committee On Labor and Human Resources United States Senate, First Session on Examing the Health and Safety Concerns of Nutrasweet (Aspartame).
(8) Account of John Cook as published in Informed Consent Magazine. “How Safe Is Your Artificial Sweetner” by Barbara Mullarkey, September/October 1994.
(9) Woodrow C. Monte, Ph.D., R.D., “Aspartame: Methanol and the Public Health,” Journal of Applied Nutrition, 36 (1): 42-53.
(10) US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, No. 84-1153 Community Nutrition Institute and Dr Woodrow Monte v. Dr Mark Novitch, Acting Commissioner, US FDA (9/24/85).
(11) Aspartame Time Line by Barbara Mullarkey as published in Informed Consent Magazine, May/June 1994.
(12) FDA Searle Investigation Task Force. “Final Report of Investigation of G.D. Searle Company.” (March 24, 1976)
(13) Testimony of Dr Jacqueline Verrett, FDA Toxicologist before the US Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, (November 3, 1987).
Posted Tue, April 28, 2009 at 10:27 pm by deejay pr0pa.rations under health (4 Responds)
hey everyone. thanks for checking out my blog. for my first post, i would like to bring the health concerns of cell phones into the spotlight. something that has been kept under wraps by the industry, health officials, and governments. the health of yourself and your loved ones are worth the time. more information on this topic will be added here as it is accumulated.
Did you Know… (statistics from 2006)
1. In Australia the number one disease among children is brain tumors and brain cancer, just surpassed Leukemia.
2. After 10 years of cell phone use, sperm count in adult males is down 30%.
3. In Japan you aren’t allowed to use Cell Phones on the train due to 2nd hand EMF.
4. In England it is recommended that teenagers 16 and under refrain from unnecessary cell phone use.
5. None of the Cell Phone Companies are insured. They are all self insured. Lloyds of London won’t insure.
6. 7 State Class Action Lawsuits; 10 Brain Cancer Lawsuits; 2 Workman’s Comp Lawsuits in California.
7. In new Verizon contracts in fine print…upon signing this contract you agree not to sue the Cell Phone Maker or participate in a Class Action Lawsuit.
8. With 500 minutes of cell Phone use per month you have a 300% increased probability of getting brain cancer.
9. There are 40,000 to 50,000 new cases of brain tumors and eye cancer per year attributed to Cell Phone use.
10. The average kid uses a Cell Phone 2600 minutes per month.
11. If the current trend continues, there will be 500,000 new cases of tumors per year by the year 2010.
12. Five years ago, Disney Corporation turned down a $2 Million per year licensing fee for use of Disney Characters. Just signed a 2 billion contract with Sprint.
13. Antigo Wisconsin is going wireless this year and the whole county in the near future.
Health Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation The following is an interview by freelance reporter Michael Fosburg with Dr. George Carlo, Chairman of the Science and Public Policy Institute, a non-profit public health group based in Washington, D.C. Dr. Carlo is recognized as one of the world’s top experts on the health effects of electromagnetic radiation. He is the co-author, with Martin Schram, of Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age and was the chief scientist of the world’s largest research effort into wireless safety.
MF: Dr. Carlo, what is the Science and Public Policy Institute, and what role does it play regarding the dangers of cell phones?
GC: We opened the institute in the early 1990s as a forum to address public health issues where there was a clash between science and politics. Over the years, we have studied controversial problems ranging from silicone breast implants, to hazardous waste sites and, more recently, mobile phone health risks. In 2002, we established the Safe Wireless Initiative project, initially to continue research into mobile phone dangers and, more specifically, to monitor health problems among cell phone users.
MF: Is the Safe Wireless Initiative program still in operation?
GC: Yes. In fact, we now have more than 6,000 members and we’re growing every week. Our main focus is to provide information to consumers about the cell phone safety problem and helpful solutions to that problem. Our health concerns registry is the only post-market surveillance program in the world tracking health problems among cell phone users.
MF: Shouldn’t the government or the cell phone industry be doing that tracking?
GC: Yes, they should. But while the mobile phone industry and government regulatory agencies continue to maintain that there is no evidence of increased disease among cell phone users, neither are monitoring these consumers for disease. No one is looking for problems or even counting, so how would they ever know if problems exist? Based on the $28 million research program I oversaw in the 1990’s-research funded by the industry and overseen by a formal government interagency working group-we recommended that surveillance of phone users be put in place as far back as 1998. But absolutely no consumer protection steps have been taken. I find that inexcusable.
MF: How can the government be so silent with so much publicity about cell phone dangers over the years?
GC: The cell phone industry has effectively changed the focus from public safety to politics, and they have used political pressure to keep the lid on the issue. The watch dogs in government are not barking, and that has left the consumer unprotected. The Food and Drug Administration has inexplicably walked away from putting any regulatory control on cell phone companies. The Environment Protection Agency had its radiofrequency radiation budget cut to the point where they are no longer involved in the issue. Because of the flow of dollars associated with wireless communications, the Federal Communications Commission has openly become a financial partner with the industry in deploying the technology. In effect, mobile phone health risks are not regulated in the U.S. Consumers are unknowingly on their own in terms of protection. The Safe Wireless Initiative provides consumers with a safety avenue.
MF: How does the Safe Wireless Initiative work to help consumers?
GC: Besides providing up-to-date consumer information on the problem, we critically evaluate prevention products to make sure consumers are not being misled by businesses trying to capitalize on disease fears. We have a dedicated, confidential Web site (www.health-concerns.org) where we ask people who believe that they have health problems related to their cell phones or other sources of electro-magnetic radiation to confidentially register their symptoms into the database so that we can continue the research. The information remains confidential so their identities are not compromised, but they will be helping other people tremendously. With the strength of numbers in the registry, it gives us a forum to influence federal and state legislators toward policy changes that will help solve the problem for everyone.
MF: Here is a simple question that I have always wanted to ask. How do cell phones actually work?
GC: The cell phone is really a radio that sends information signals on waves to a base station sometimes several miles away. To cover the distance, the signal is pushed by a burst of power which is the source of the radiation we are most concerned with. The farther the base station, the more power needed to carry the signal; the more power, the more radiation generated-and the greater the danger. Thus, the power bars on your phone give you an indication of how much radiation you are being exposed to during a call-the fewer number of bars, the greater amount of radiation.
MF: With that being the case, can I protect myself by making calls shorter to reduce the radiation?
GC: Not necessarily. The length of your call, or even the number of calls you make for that matter, are not as important in terms of the radiation as where you are when you make the call relative to the base station. For example, there is no way to know whether ten one-minute calls are better or worse than one ten-minute call in terms of health risk. That makes it difficult because there are no easy behavior changes that solve the problem.
MF: What does the radiation from a cell phone do to us?
GC: First, we are concerned about dangers from two different types of radiation associated with cell phones: the near-field radiation plume and a more subtle far-field contribution. The near-field plume penetrates your body about six inches from the center of the phone’s antenna. If it’s against your head, it penetrates your brain. If it’s on your waist, it penetrates the important blood-forming flat bones of your hips. This plume is like a “bull in a china closet” and it overtakes all of your body’s natural defenses against this type of exposure. We know now that this near-field plume leads to tissue dysfunction such as leakage in the protective blood brain barrier and genetic damage, including interference with DNA repair. These biological effects lead to conditions ranging from brain tumors to learning difficulties in children.
MF: What about other type of radiation that you mentioned, the far-field?
GC: This field produces subtle effects for most people, but the effects are insidious and accumulate over time. Background levels of electromagnetic radiation have increased dramatically over the past decade, and cell phones are now a major contributor to that background load. The mechanism leading to the danger is interference with the human biofield-the sum total of the energies generated as part of our metabolism. Our biofield is a major determinant of overall health and wellness. The increasing level of environmental electromagnetic radiation competes with our own energies and produces a general compromise of our physiologic processes. Over time, this deterioration can lead to a host of symptoms ranging from hyperactivity and attention deficit behavior to lowered immune response. Some people are extremely sensitive to this type of radiation, and electrosensitivity prevalence is now on the rise around the world. This is a problem that will continue to worsen over time.
MF: So, overall, where do we stand today with all of this?
GC: After two decades of science, we know that serious health risks are associated with radiation emitted by mobile phones and other wireless devices. We are particularly concerned about brain cancer, other tumors of the brain, eye cancer, genetic damage, brain ailments, as well as behavioral and learning problems. Children have become the main focus of our Safe Wireless Initiative because they being using mobile telephones very early in life, and they are showing unprecedented infatuation with the devices resulting in excessive usage. All this while their growing tissues and organs are more susceptible to the type of damage that we have seen in the research. Consider that published epidemiological studies of adult cell phone users indicate that usage in the neighborhood of 500 minutes per month over about ten years leads to a doubling in brain cancer risk. A study we conducted last year in Buffalo, New York, showed average teenage usage in the neighborhood of 2,600 minutes per month-more than five times greater than the adults in the studies showing increased cancer risk. What will happen to these young people after a life-time of use? No one knows exactly, but the predictions based on today’s data are dire.
MF: If this is such a big problem, how come everyone isn’t talking about it?
GC: The big problem is that the telecommunications industry has not only failed to heed intervention recommendations that would make the products safer, but has purposefully, and effectively, sought to shape public perceptions about dangers by controlling both the media and the output of the worldwide scientific research agenda. In some cases, the mobile telephone industry has circulated false information to the news media about research findings. Furthermore, the industry has actively sought partners such as the Disney Corporation to facilitate sales to children, openly identifying the 8 to 12 year-old age group as a “target market,” called the “tweeners”. Thus, the “need” for the cell phone is established very early in life, and it becomes almost an addiction. This is scarily similar to addictive nicotine added to cigarettes. This type of open disregard for the safety of consumers, especially young people, is grotesque.
MF: But shouldn’t the government be protecting consumers from this danger?
GC: Yes, they should. but while some governments around the world have taken steps to protect citizens and consumers, the actions have been slow and minimal because of the resistance movement mounted by the industry. In the United States, nothing has been done for protection whatsoever. If you follow the money, the reasons become clear. In both the United States and Europe, billions of dollars are being collected by governments who sell the telecommunications spectrum to the private sector. Revenues collected from spectrum auctions in the late 1990s and continuing tax revenues from consumer usage have put governments in a compromised position: they have a vested economic interest in the continued financial success the wireless industry. Strong regulatory control to protect consumers is arguably counter to government political and financial interests.
MF: So, what works?
GC: The most effective primary preventive are the hands-free headsets that effectively move the near-field radiation plume away from the body, thus significantly reducing exposure. I personally use an air-tube headset-fully wired headsets an act as an antenna, attracting ambient far-field radiation toward the head. The air tube lowers that risk. Phones equipped with speakerphones accomplish the same primary protection, as long as the phone is kept more than six to eight inches away from the body when being used. There is a noise field technology, developed jointly by scientists in the U.S. military and the private sector, that may soon be available to consumers that effectively eliminates first stage biological effects triggered by both near-field and far-field radiation. There are also secondary preventives that compensate for biofield interference from general sources of electromagnetic radiation. These are available as after-market accessories that can be attached to the phones themselves. Finally, consumers should remember that any steps they take to improve their health will help them fight the effects of those exposures.
