Your Food and Radiation

Because of the risk of Cesium 137 being present in plumes of radioactivity, it is wise to consider the effect on food.  Cesium 137 is attracted to soil and it can get into the food chain through plants, grass eaten by food source animals, and in many other ways.  This radioactive element has a half life of 30 years which means that just half of the radioactivity will be gone in 30 years.  Another cycle or so will be needed to eliminate all of the cesium from the soil.

Since cesium acts like potassium in your body it is wise to eat potassium rich foods and perhaps use potassium supplements. This is a risk to your kidneys.

US foods in some categories like canned fish and sodas are exposed to gamma radiation before the products are shipped from factories.

Last Friday's earthquake woes continue for Japan. The radiation threat from a nuclear power plant in Fukushima, where fires have already exposed radiation waves as far out as Tokyo, isn't abating, and the U.S. has issued evacuation orders for everyone located within a 50-mile perimeter of the reactor. As uncertainty remains, countries that import Japanese food are on alert for possible contamination.

Those nearby, such as Thailand, South Korea, Taiwan, India, Singapore and parts of China, have begun screening the imported Japanese food for radiation, and Italy has banned all Japanese food imports outright. Tuesday, the European Union issued an alert recommending radiation checks on all imports that have come out of Japan since March 15. 

Contaminated food continues to emit radiation -- the stronger the level of radiation, the longer it lasts. Any exposure to radiation increases the risk of cancer.

What types of food is implicated? Anything grown or produced in the fallout area -- and affected areas continue to spread. Most at risk are living foods such as plants and animals, which could absorb radiation through the ground, reports the Wall Street Journal. "Immediate contamination could occur from particles from the air settling on plants or feed, or in the longer run radioactive elements could get washed to the soil where plants grow," states the Journal. This would affect fresh foods as well as animal products from affected livestock such as milk and cheese. Non-growing foods kept in warehouses and silos should be protected.

White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters yesterday, "The agencies that check food imports do that every day and of course are aware of what has happened in Japan and will be checking food accordingly."

Read more: http://www.slashfood.com/2011/03/17/japanese-food-imports-tested-for-radiation/

NB: Radioactive Cesium was the main cause of death following Chernobyl.
Photo Credit: http://www.periodictable.com/

Read more »

Posted in: cesium137,first natural health news,first natural news,food,Japan,radiation

Airport X-Ray Machines: UPDATE

17 May 2011 - 

Scientists Cast Doubt on TSA Tests of Full-Body Scanners

by Michael Grabell ProPublica, May 16, 2011, 2:11 p.m.
The Transportation Security Administration says its full-body X-ray scanners are safe and that radiation from a scan is equivalent to what's received in about two minutes of flying. The company that makes them says it's safer than eating a banana [1].
But some scientists with expertise in imaging and cancer say the evidence made public to support those claims is unreliable. And in a new letter [2] sent to White House science adviser John Holdren, they question why the TSA won't make the scanners available for independent testing by outside scientists.
The machines, which are designed to reveal objects hidden under clothing, have the potential to close a significant security gap for the TSA because metal detectors can't find explosives or ceramic knives, which can be just as sharp as the box cutters that hijackers used on 9/11.
They are also important for TSA's public relations battle over the alternative, the "enhanced pat-down," which has bred an epidemic of viral videos: A 6-year-old girl [3] is touched from head to toe. A former Miss USA [4] says she was violated. A software programmer warns a screener, "If you touch my junk [5], I'm going to have you arrested."
After the underwear bomber tried to blow up a Northwest Airlines plane on Christmas Day 2009, the TSA ramped up deployment of full-body scanners and plans to have them at nearly every security line by 2014.
There are two types of body scanners [6]. Millimeter wave machines emit a radio frequency similar to cellphones. Backscatters work like a fast-moving X-ray. In the latter, the rays bounce off the skin and create a fuzzy white image [7] of the passenger's body. Because the beam doesn't go through the body, most of its radiation is received by the skin.
The TSA says the backscatter technology has been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration [8], the National Institute for Standards and Technology [9] and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory [10]. Survey teams are using radiation-detecting dosimeters to check the machines at airports. The TSA says the results have all confirmed that the scanners don't pose a significant risk to public health.
According to the agency and many radiation experts, the dose is so low, even for children or cancer patients, that someone would have to pass through the machines more than a thousand times before approaching the annual limit set by radiation safety organizations.
But the letter to the White House science adviser, signed by five professors at University of California, San Francisco, and one at Arizona State University, points out several flaws in the tests. Studies published in scientific journals in the last few months have also cast doubt on the radiation dose and the machines' ability to find explosives.
A number of scientists, including some who believe the radiation is trivial, say more testing should be done given the government's plans to put millions of passengers through the machines. And they have been disturbed by the TSA's reluctance to do so.
"There's no real data on these machines, and in fact, the best guess of the dose is much, much higher than certainly what the public thinks," said John Sedat, a professor emeritus in biochemistry and biophysics at UCSF and the primary author of the letter.
The same group stirred controversy last year when it sent a letter to Holdren [11] arguing that while the overall dose to the body may be low, the TSA hadn't quantified the dose to the skin. Last fall, FDA and TSA officials released a study [12] that estimated the dose to the skin to be twice the dose to the body, though still extremely low.
In the most recent letter sent to Holdren on April 28, the professors note that the Johns Hopkins lab didn't test an actual airport machine. Instead, the tests were done on a model built by the manufacturer, Rapiscan [13], and configured to resemble a system previously tested by the TSA.
The researchers' names have been kept secret, and the report on the tests is so "heavily redacted" that "there is no way to repeat any of these measurements," they wrote.
The physics and medical professors also took issue with the device used to measure the radiation. Although the device, known as an ion chamber, is commonly used to test medical equipment, they argue that the detector gets overwhelmed by the amount of radiation the backscatter deposits in a short time and might not provide accurate readings.
Helen Worth, a spokeswoman for the Johns Hopkins lab, referred questions to the TSA.
Part of the trouble is that there is no ideal device for measuring the radiation dose given by backscatter X-rays, said David Brenner, director of the Columbia University Center for Radiological Research. The machines emit a pencil beam that rapidly moves across and up and down the body, he said.
"We are one of the oldest and biggest radiological research centers in the country, and we find this to be a very hard technical problem," said Brenner, who was not involved with the letter.
Another issue is that there is a lot of uncertainty with the model used to estimate cancer risk from radiation exposure to the skin, said Rebecca Smith-Bindman, a UCSF radiologist who also was not involved in the letter.
Smith-Bindman, who has testified before Congress about excessive radiation from medical scans, studied the TSA reports and said she wasn't concerned about the airport X-rays.
The risks are "truly trivial," she wrote in an article [14] for the Archives of Internal Medicine. A passenger would have to undergo 50 airport scans to reach the level of a dental X-ray, 1,000 for a chest X-ray, and 4,000 for a mammogram.
Though imperfect, the available models predict that the backscatters would lead to only six cancers over the course of a lifetime among the approximately 100 million people who fly every year, Smith-Bindman concluded.
"There's really unnecessary fear related to these scans," she said. "What I'm not as comfortable with is that there has not been access to these machines. They are not being tested on the same regulatory basis that we see on medical equipment."
After her article was published, Smith-Bindman was contacted by a TSA public affairs officer. During the conversation, she suggested that she or other outside scientists be allowed to test the machine. The official was shocked by the suggestion and said such access could tip off people who want to avoid detection, Smith-Bindman said.
"It was not appreciating that there's legitimate scientific questions that have to be balanced against the security questions," she said.
The TSA did not respond to ProPublica's questions about why it wouldn't allow outside testing. But at a congressional hearing [15] in March, Robin Kane, assistant administrator for security technology, said doing so would expose a lot of sensitive information the agency wouldn't normally share publicly. The machines had already been tested several times, he said, and if set up securely, the agency would allow more testing.
The available information leaves scientists with little to work with. Peter Rez, the Arizona State physics professor who signed the letter to Holdren, has tried to calculate the radiation by examining the handful of backscatter images that have been released publicly.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center [16], a civil liberties group, sued the Department of Homeland Security, TSA's parent agency, in federal court seeking release of 2,000 backscatter images used in testing. But it has not been successful.
The few images that have been made public do not reveal faces or detailed private features. The TSA says the images Rez used are out of date, but Rez says the current image on TSA's website is unusable.
Using the earlier images, Rez concluded [17] in the Radiation Protection Dosimetry journal that it was highly unlikely the machines could have produced such high-quality images with doses of radiation as low as those described by TSA. He estimated the dose, while still very small, is 45 times higher than the results measured by Johns Hopkins.
Applying Rez's numbers, Brenner wrote a paper [18] for the journal Radiology, estimating that 100 additional cancers would develop for every 1 billion scans.
For Rez, the real danger occurs if the machine stops in the middle of a scan, allowing the beam to focus on a tiny area for several seconds. Given that the backscatter works with a wheel rotating at a high speed, and that the agency plans to use the scanners continuously 365 days a year, mechanical failures are likely, he said.
The TSA says that the scanners have safety systems, such as automatic shutoffs and emergency stop buttons, that will kill the beam in the event of any problem that could result in abnormal radiation. How those fail-safe systems work isn't entirely clear.
When Johns Hopkins researchers visited the Rapiscan facility, the automatic termination appeared to work. But the full results of the shutoff tests are redacted.
What's more, the test system didn't have an emergency stop button.

14 March 2011 -

The Transportation Security Administration announced Friday that it would retest every full-body X-ray scanner that emits ionizing radiation — 247 machines at 38 airports — after maintenance records on some of the devices showed radiation levels 10 times higher than expected. Complete article

Is there something that tells you this may be too little, too late?  Typical government approach.

21 December 2010 -  NO Proof Scanner Are Safe

If you believe the government, you have little to worry about from the radiation beam flitting over the front and back of your body in airport watchdogs' search for explosives and other hidden implements of terror this holiday season.


The Transportation Security Administration says that when working properly, the backscatter Advance Imaging Technology X-ray scanners emit an infinitesimal, virtually harmless amount of radiation.


The problem is that the TSA offers no proof that anyone is checking to see if the machines are "working properly."  Complete article

17 December - Leading Scientists Say Airport Full Body Scanners Easily Duped

by Fran Golden

Two respected scientists say they have discovered a flaw in airport full body scanners that could potentially allow terrorists to outsmart the machines.

In research published in the Journal of Transportation Security, physicists Leon Kaufman and Joseph W. Carlson of the University of California San Francisco say body scanner machines can easily be duped.


While the purpose of the scanners is to find contraband hidden on the body, some weapons and explosives would not be visible to the devices say the researchers, who are known for their work in creating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) machines used in hospitals.


That's because the human body and benign objects add "structured noise that interferes with signal averaging," the scientists say.


A "pancake" of explosives with beveled edges, taped to the abdomen, for instance, "would be invisible to this technology, ironically, because of its large volume, since it is easily confused with normal anatomy," the scientists report.


"It is also easy to see that an object such as a wire or a boxcutter blade, taped to the side of the body, or even a small gun in the same location, will be invisible," Kaufman and Carlson write.


Increasing radiation exposure to get a better image from the body scanning technology won't help, the scientists say. "Even if exposure were to be increased significantly, normal anatomy would make a dangerous amount of plastic explosive with tapered edges difficult if not impossible to detect."


In reaching their conclusions, the scientists used simulations (computational algorithms). They refer in their research to some photos of full body scanners not deployed in the U.S., but used at airports elsewhere.


The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) responds to the latest report with the same pat response it has given to other criticism about full body scanners, a spokesman telling AOL Travel News, "While there is no silver bullet, advanced imaging technology is a proven, highly-effective tool that safely detects both metallic and non-metallic items concealed on the body that could be used to threaten the security of airplanes."


The TSA adds that full body scanners are just one of the airport security methods it has in place.


Critics of full body scanners have raised privacy concerns about "naked" images and questioned whether radiation from the machines could potentially pose a cancer risk, among other things.


This week the TSA also took steps to debunk a rumor that airport body scanner images of "Baywatch" star Donna D'Errico -- who has criticized the TSA for singling out attractive celebrities to go through body scans – are in circulation. The TSA says it's impossible for anyone to capture scanner images given safeguards it has in place.

Sing Along with the Scanner


13 December - Inside TSA scanners: How terahertz waves tear apart human DNA


When Natural Health News first looked at the issue of the airport x-ray scanners it was 2006.  Even then we reported that there was a health risk f40m x-ray exposure and T waves.  In light of US government talking heads we know that this has not been properly addressed.


Now Dr. Russell Blaylock gives us his helpful opinion and read more interesting material  here and here

Dr. Blaylock: Body Scanners More Dangerous Than Feds Admit
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 9:58 AM
By Dr. Russell Blaylock. a nationally recognized board-certified neurosurgeon


The growing outrage over the Transportation Security Administrations new policy of backscatter scanning of airline passengers and enhanced pat-downs brings to mind these wise words from President Ronald Reagan: The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: Im from the government and Im here to help you.
So, what is all the concern really about - will these radiation scanners increase your risk of cancer or other diseases? A group of scientists and professors from the University of California at San Francisco voiced their concern to Obama's science and technology adviser John Holdren in a well-stated letter back in April.
The group included experts in radiation biology, biophysics, and imaging, who expressed serious concerns about the dangerously high dose of radiation to the skin.
Radiation increases cancer risk by damaging the DNA and various components within the cells. Much of the damage is caused by high concentrations of free radicals generated by the radiation. Most scientists think that the most damaging radiation types are those that have high penetration, such as gamma-rays, but in fact, some of the most damaging radiation barely penetrates the skin.
One of the main concerns is that most of the energy from the airport scanners is concentrated on the surface of the skin and a few millimeters into the skin. Some very radiation-sensitive tissues are close to the skin - such as the testes, eyes, and circulating blood cells in the skin.
This is why defenders using such analogies as the dose being 1,000-times less than a chest X-ray and far less than what passengers are exposed to in-flight are deceptive. Radiation damage depends on the volume of tissue exposed. Chest X-rays and gamma-radiation from outer space is diffused over the entire body so that the dose to the skin is extremely small. Of note, outer space radiation does increase cancer rates in passengers, pilots, and flight attendants.
We also know that certain groups of people are at a much higher risk than others. These include babies, small children, pregnant women, the elderly, people with impaired immunity (those with HIV infection, cancer patients, people with immune deficiency diseases, and people with abnormal DNA repair mechanism, just to name a few).
As we grow older, our DNA accumulates a considerable amount of unrepaired damage, and under such circumstances even low doses of radiation can trigger the development of skin cancers, including the deadly melanoma. I would also be concerned about exposing the eyes, since this could increase ones risk of developing cataracts.
About 5 percent of the population have undiagnosed abnormal DNA repair mechanism. When exposed to radiation, this can put them at a cancer risk hundreds of times greater than normal people.
It also has been determined that when skin is next to certain metals, such as gold, the radiation dose is magnified 100-fold higher. What if you have a mole next to your gold jewelry? Will the radiation convert it to a melanoma? Deficiencies in certain vitamins can dramatically increase your sensitivity to radiation carcinogenesis, as can certain prescription medications.
As for the assurances we have been given by such organization as the American College of Radiology, we must keep in mind that they assured us that the CT scans were safe and that the radiation was equal to one chest X-ray. Forty years later we learn that the dose is extremely high, it is thought to have caused cancer in a significant number of people, and the dose is actually equal to 1,000 chest X-rays.
Based on these assurances, tens of thousands of children have been exposed to radiation doses from CT scanners, which will ruin the children's lives. I have two friends who were high-ranking Environmental Protection Agency scientists, and they assure me that in government safety agencies, politics most often override the scientists real concerns about such issues.
This government shares House Speaker Nancy Pelosis view when she urged passage of the Obamacare bill sight unseen - Lets just pass the bill, and we will find out what is in it later.
When the real effects of these scanners on health become known, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and the rest of the gang who insist the scanners are safe will be long gone.

(November 26) --  I started covering the issue of the airport x-ray scanner four years or so ago.  Since that time many have hopped on the band wagon to speak out against this intrusive, expensive, and health-risky device.  Most researchers now tell us that it isn't really as effective as Chertoff and his minions wish you to believe.


One of my health colleagues added more information today, and it might interest you

Dressing for Scanners  Daisy Nguyen, Associated Press, November 23, 2010

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- It was no crime of fashion, but Wendy Gigliotti's bulky sweater and ankle-length skirt made her a target of airport screeners.
A female Transportation Security Administration officer at Sacramento International Airport told her, "We can't tell if there's something under your skirt." She was then frisked in a way she said felt more intrusive than a physical exam.
"I felt not only like a criminal, I felt absolutely violated," said Gigliotti.
Gigliotti is among the travelers feeling mortified or even outraged by the more thorough security pat-downs the TSA began using this month as the holiday travel season begins.
Travel experts say the new scrutiny underscores the need for better airport fashion choices that can help people breeze through screenings with their dignity intact.

(Nov. 24) -- Deborah Hastings

Man Sues TSA, Claims Pat-Down Violates His Rights

An Arkansas man is taking the Transportation Security Administration to court, claiming new screening searches violate the Constitution.


Robert Dean filed a federal lawsuit in Little Rock this week, even though the city's airport doesn't have the new scanners that have sparked outrage across the country. Dean's suit asks for a federal ban against the machines and full-body searches.


On a recent trip to Chicago, Dean claims that being subjected to a full-body scan and being patted down by TSA personnel harmed his "emotional, psychological and mental well-being," The Associated Press reported.
The security agency said it does not comment on pending litigation, according to the AP.


"Filing for an injunction will stop these types of invasive measures until we can get a ruling on the constitutionality of this," Dean said, according to FOX 16 TV in Arkansas.


The invasive procedures violate the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, Dean says.


"The physical aspects of it weren't that traumatic," he said of his experience in Chicago. "I think it's the thought of somebody sitting behind a screen looking at your naked body doing these examinations," he told KTHV TV in Little Rock.

Tagged:  full body scanner, full body scanners, full body scans, pat downs, patdown, patdowns, robert dean, tsa sued

22 November: From I want to give Congress a pay cut.

Adam KokeshNovember 17, 2010 at 10:39pm Subject: Help Spread the Message - National Opt-Out Day! National Opt-Out Day represents an exciting opportunity for all Americans. This very simple, straightforward act of civil disobedience is one that everyone can get behind. Help spread the message and make sure everyone knows this is something they can support and participate in! Share this video and do what you can to inform people about this issue. http://www.facebook.com/l/5f40cB64tVwUeCceIhhCDFBq2HA;www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFlvg0qyCkA Love, faith, respect, Adam Kokesh TSA has met the enemy — and they are us 12 November - More on Airport X-Ray Scanners, as the battle heats up more than your body - I can't imagine people being so unaware of the risk of exposure to these x-ray scanners going in at just about every airport without the benefit of your health care provider discussing with you the risk/benefit analysis of this kind of exposure to your body. Obviously some of the smarter bears around town look like the airline pilots association and Peter Rez, a physics professorat Arizona State University. Rez has independently calculated the radiation dose of backscatter scanners  was higher than TSA has said. Leave it to DSA to spend millions on unproven technology like Chertoff's border detection system from Boeing.  Maybe Boeing and Chertoff need to make some payments to the treasury fro this big goof!  It might go a long way toward getting us out of the financial muck & mire we seem to be rolling  through. Read Complete Article At least someone is thinking outside the box, maybe you should too. 16 September - TSA Testing Privacy Upgrades for Full Body Scanners 4 August - Police agencies admit to saving body scan images  Capabilities of the checkpoint security machines are still shrouded in mystery http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38561251/ns/technology_and_science-security Despite claims by the TSA that electronic body scan images "cannot be stored or recorded," some federal police agencies are in fact saving tens of thousands of images, according to a report by CNET News. The body scanners, increasingly found in airports, courthouses and other places where security is high, use an assortment of technologies. These include millimeter wave scanners (shown below) — in which the subject is harmlessly pelted with extremely high frequency radio waves which reflect a picture back to the device — and backscatter X-ray (shown above) — which measures low-powered reflective X-rays to produce clearer body shots, shots that can reveal alarmingly precise anatomical detail. According to CNET, the U.S. Marshals Service admitted this week that it had saved thousands of images that had been recorded from a security checkpoint in a Florida courthouse. The revelation comes at a tense time. Two weeks ago, when Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said such scanners would appear in every major airport, privacy advocates such as the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington D.C. filed a lawsuit to stop the device rollout. The reason? Because the devices were "designed and deployed in a way that allows the images to be routinely stored and recorded," EPIC executive director Marc Rotenberg told CNET, adding that this "is exactly what the Marshals Service is doing." As CNET's Declan McCullagh explains, it's the mystery of the devices' potential that is most unnerving: "This trickle of disclosures about the true capabilities of body scanners — and how they're being used in practice — is probably what alarms privacy advocates more than anything else," he wrote. The TSA maintains that body scanning is "constitutional" and the CNET 7/17/10 New body-scanner software to show only stick figures Boston's Logan International Airport hopes to be the first airport in the country to get new software that should eliminate privacy concerns over full-body scanners at security checkpoints. The software would produce stick-figure images of passengers instead of the more revealing images currently viewed by operators at remote stations. The software would detect suspicious objects on passengers that require further attention - such as possible weapons or explosives - allowing Transportation Security Administration screeners and explosive weapons specialists to hone in on them and determine whether they pose a danger. 6/29/10  Airport body scanners deliver radiation dose 20 times higher than first thought, warns expert: June 29, 2010 Airport body scanners deliver radiation dose 20 times higher than first thought, warns expert 30 Jun 2010 Full body scanners at airports could increase your risk of skin cancer, experts warn. The X-ray machines have been brought in at Manchester, Gatwick and Heathrow. Scientists say that the low level beam does deliver a small dose of radiation to the body but because the beam concentrates on the skin - one of the most radiation-sensitive organs of the human body - that dose may be up to 20 times higher than first estimated. 1/11/10 Airport Scanners Save and Transmit Scanners, ordered by TSA Better airport security in Israel 1/5/10 Updates re: Scanner Scam http://www.thestar.com/iphone/news/world/article/744199---israelification-high-security-little-bother http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/01/airport-scanner-scam 1/3/10 - "Body scanner wouldn't have foiled syringe bomber, says MP who worked on new machines" Read complete article T-Waves: A new model of the way the THz waves interact with DNA explains how the damage is done... " Drawing on sources like The Mayo Clinic and The Radiological Society of North America as well as interviews with prominent radiologists, molecular biologists, and medical doctors, ionizing (penetrating) radiation in any dose, no matter how tiny, causes genetic mutations, which set all living cells exposed on the path to cancer. X-rays are considered ionizing radiation."  Read complete article  12/29/09 - While India rejected airport sreening in the past, the Netherlands has adopted the process for flights to the US.  As this happens people wonder if there is anyone in charge at TSA and/or DHS ( a department we could rightfully have done without and one that now should be abandoned - think of all the trillions we'd save ) and Obama says no one at DHS is doing thier job. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This was originally Posted in 2006, based on 2005 reports, but seems to be current discussions, and needs to be considered by those who have concerns about their health. 10 second exposure with backscatter=2 minutes in cabin radiation exposure. FMI: Whole Body Imaging Technology, see what the x-ray machine sees. ---------------------------------------------------------- from repost in 10/2008: At the same time as the US Homeland Security Department is pushing for airport x-ray machines that expose your privacy, Germany is calling a halt to this non-sense. Probably it is worth your consideration to consider using some protective measures and to help clear the radiation exposure effects (iodine, kelp baths, our bath salt blend for chemo/radiation patients) if you're planning to travel by air. Germany says full-body airport scanner "nonsense" BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany will not participate in EU proposals for airports to use full-body scanner security checks, which have raised privacy issues, its interior ministry said on Friday. "I can tell you in all clarity that we will not take part in this nonsense," a spokeswoman for the interior ministry told a regular news conference. The executive European Commission proposed last month to add body scanners to a list of security measures that can be used at airports in the 27-country bloc. EU lawmakers criticized the scanners in a resolution on Thursday, saying they were equivalent to "a virtual strip search" and raised serious human rights concerns. The lawmakers called for a detailed study of the technology before it is used. The Commission says a number of EU states including the Netherlands already use body scanners and the EU executive wanted to harmonize conditions in which they can be operated. The scanners do not exist at German airports and have sparked vivid criticism by politicians across the political spectrum. (Reporting by Kerstin Gehmlich; Editing by Matthew Jones) This was posted in 2006. I've noticed a number of inquiries on the topic of airport x-rays, so I am posting it again. So you plan to take an airplane trip in the future you say. Well now that the illustrious Department of Homeland Security is going to force you to be X-rayed, what is it that they have told you about the cumulative effects of exposure to gamma radiation in their so-called 'security" screener? How much more cancer risk do you need? And just what long term studies have been done, especially when considering frequent flyer risk. I guess I would want more data. LOS ANGELES (Dec. 20) - A woman mistakenly put her 1-month-old grandson through an X-ray machine at Los Angeles International Airport, authorities said. Security stations at Los Angeles International Airport Damian Dovarganes, AP A woman mistakenly put her infant grandson through a security X-ray at Los Angeles International Airport Saturday. Doctors said the 1-month-old did not receive a dangerous dose of radiation. A startled security worker noticed the shape of a child on the carry-on baggage screening monitor and immediately pulled him out, the Los Angeles Times reported for a story in Wednesday's editions. The infant was taken to a local hospital, where doctors determined he did not receive a dangerous dose of radiation. "This was an innocent mistake by an obviously inexperienced traveler," said Paul Haney, deputy executive director of airports and security for the city's airport agency. The incident happened early Saturday, airport officials said. Haney said in 1988, an infant in a car seat went through an X-ray machine at the Los Angeles airport. Copyright 2006 The Associated Press.

Read more »

Posted in: airport x-ray,health,health news,natural,natural health news,natural news,privacy,radiation,x-ray

The Usefulness of Iodine

Originally posted 4/11/08

Something already exists to help protect you from radiation, and it has been around for a very long time. It is often avoided in allopathic medicine these days because docs think you might want to take too much, which could be harmful. Seems that is a funny assumption because most people aren't interested in doing more harm to themselves that doctors already do with radiation.

A note to women on this issues is important because screening mammography is just more radiation to promote breast cancer, and isn't the rate going up, instead of getting better?

This rather inexpensive protection would be a boon to soldiers or people exposed to depleted uranium.

The substance I refer to is called Iodine. Famous as Lugol's solution, it is also a very effective antimicrobial. Today, in most US states, Lugol's requires a prescription. It may be more available in other countries, or from veterinary supply stores.

Potassium Iodide is another form as is protein bound iodine.

This can also be very useful in the prevention or treatment of dementia.

I always encourage people to keep this health-protecting remedy on hand. Iodine containing products, (ask about Lugol's) can be ordered from us.

More on Iodine's usefulness...

New drug protects against radiation damage: study Fri Apr 11, 2008

Researchers have developed a new drug that can protect healthy cells and bone marrow against anti-cancer radiation therapy and maybe even against the effects of a nuclear bomb, a study has shown.

While radiation therapy is used effectively to destroy cancerous tumors, it can have a devastating effect on healthy cells, noted the study published in the April 11 edition of the American review Science.

But a new drug protects gastrointestinal cells and bone marrow in mice and monkeys from radiation without reducing the treatment's effectiveness, lead author Lyudmila Burdelya of New York state's Roswell Park Cancer Institute said.

Dr Richard Kolesnick, of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, said the research represented "a breakthrough in an issue that has challenged the scientific community."

Dr Preet Chaudhary, an oncologist at the University of Pennsylvania, said the work could have wide implications for the fight against cancer.

The drug, CBLB502, works by activating a well-known molecular pathway that some cancer cells use to stave off cell death, Burdelya and colleagues said.

A single dose given to the animals shortly before receiving radiation therapy significantly reduced the radiation damage caused to bone marrow and gastrointestinal cells and prolonged the animals' survival, the researchers said.

They said the drug might also be a useful protection against radiation exposure from a nuclear plant malfunction or nuclear bomb, adding that clinical trials on humans could begin this summer.

Copyright © 2008 Agence France Presse.

Selections from Natural Health News (30+)

A Valuable Supplement

Mar 24, 2009

While the current US government limits on iodine intake (RDI) is extremely low, at 0.15 mg. or 150 mcg. daily, the best levels seem to be equal to the standard amount of iodine ingested by the Japanese at about 14 mg.; the best health ...

Breast Health Awareness Education and Advocacy Campaign

Oct 01, 2009

Iodine is extremely important for breast health and health in general. If you happen to live in northern latitudes it is much more important as well as if you live in US western states bordering with Canada. In this area low selenium ...

Pregnancy and Nutrition

Jan 05, 2009

Study Abstract: The fetus is the most vulnerable to severe iodine deficiency and hypothyroidism during pregnancy. The effects of mild iodine deficiency and subclinical hypothyroidism are poorly known. The present study assesses the ...

Read more »

Posted in: first natural health news,first natural news,iodine,radiation,thyroid

Non-Ionizing Radiation Ramps Up Health Risks

Overwhelming evidence shows that RF can cause DNA damage, and DNA damage is a necessary precursor to cancer.

Of course the cell phone and WIFI proponents don't want you to know what they know, but now a critical mass of data is available, with more scientific proof coming daily, to get you to the point where - if corporations won't - you can take the precautionary position.


If you are a regular reader of Natural Health News you are aware that we have been covering this issue since 1998.  Here is a new report that might make you pay a bit more attention.  More so if you have an idea to hook your children up with a cell phone, or are using baby monitors at home.

Is Your Health on the Line?

 

Read more »

Posted in: baby monitors,EMF,radiation,WIFI

Low Dose Electromagnetic Radiation Depletes Key Nutrients

For years I have been alerting skeptics to the fact that non-ionizing radiation indeed has a negative impact, and it can take many forms.

This report is enlightening because it looks at important nutrients and the impact on health.

If you're a consumer of EMF in its many forms, you might wish to look too.

Researchers found these key nutrients to be affected -

Calcium is essential for proper bone formation and teeth, as well as certain hormones and muscle contraction. A deficiency of calcium leads to muscle cramps, eye twitching, sleep disorders, and bone disorders like osteoporosis.

Magnesium deficiency has been linked to heart arrhythmias, visual deficiency, anxiety, confusion. agitation, restless leg syndrome (RLS), sleep disorders, irritability, nausea and vomiting, low blood pressure, muscle spasms, and seizures.

Zinc is required for normal immune function, fertility, and protein synthesis. Insufficient zinc can lead to sleep disorders, behavioral problems, diarrhea, skin rashes, hair loss, hyperactivity, allergies, bowel disease, and reduced fertility.

Ulku R, Akdag MZ, Erdogan S, Akkus Z, Dasdag S.  Extremely Low-Frequency Magnetic Field Decreased Calcium, Zinc and Magnesium Levels in Costa of Rat. Biol Trace Elem Res. 2010 Sep 25. [Epub ahead of print]

SOURCE

Read more »

Posted in: calcium,electromagnetic fields,low dose radiation,magnesium,radiation,zinc

Ginkgo Found to Protect Against Radiation Damage

This is good news for women, and men, who are exposed to radiation via mammogram, MRI and other scans in standard breast screening and therapy.

Of course we hope that more will stand up to the status quo and demand access to thermography, but in the interim, this information certainly can be of help.

It is also good news for our military, now known to be over exposed to DU.

A report published and October, 2009 issue of the International Journal of Low Radiation added evidence to a protective effect for Ginkgo biloba against radiation damage. Ginkgo biloba is a tree species whose leaves have been used for centuries in Chinese medicine. Ginkgo leaf extract contains antioxidant compounds called ginkgolides and bilobalides which help scavenge free radicals that attack nearly all components of the cell, including DNA.

In their article, Chang-Mo Kang of the Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences in Taegu and colleagues describe their use of an assay for radiation-induced programmed cell death (apoptosis) to evaluate the protective effect of ginkgo extract against radiation exposure that occurs during accidents or occupational overexposure. In one experiment, white blood cells from human donors aged 18 to 50 were treated with one of four concentrations of ginkgo extract or a 9 percent saline solution before being exposed to gamma rays.

The researchers found a significant dose-dependent reduction in apoptotic cells among those treated with ginkgo. While radiation-induced apoptosis occurred in nearly one third of irradiated cells not treated with ginkgo, the number declined to 5 percent or less in cells treated with the herb.

In another experiment, mice were treated with ginkgo extract or saline before and after receiving whole body ionizing radiation. Mice that did not undergo radiation served as controls. Examination of the animals' spleens found that treatment with ginkgo maintained organ size comparable with that of animals that did not receive radiation, while spleens in irradiated animals that did not receive ginkgo were significantly smaller.

In their discussion of the findings, the authors note that cell-damaging free radicals and reactive oxygen species can be generated in excess under numerous conditions, including exposure to environmental chemicals, specific drugs, and during normal aging.

"These results indicate that the radioprotective effects of ginkgo extracts administered prior to radiation are due to the OH radical scavenging activity," the authors write. "Therefore, ginkgo extract should be useful for the protection of radiosensitive organs against free radicals.

Read more »

Posted in: breast cancer awareness,breast health,Gingko,natural health news,radiation

Why You Should Say NO to Annual Screening Mammogram

"Being exposed to worrisome amounts of radiation from medical scans that increase the risk of cancer, U.S. researchers said on Wednesday.
They said the cumulative risk of repeated exposure to radiation from medical scans is a public health threat that needs to be addressed."

Complete article

The above is a quote from an article about cumulative exposure to radiation. While the report refers to x-ray and related radiologic exams (like the dentist or chiropractor), cell phone, wi-fi and microwave cooking radiation exposure should be included in this group.

At the very least this supports the argument first proposed by John Gofman, PhD, MD, that annual mammogram is a major factor in the incidence of breast cancer.

Remember that 29 percent of all breast cancer occurs in women younger than 49.

Instead of mammogram, opt for Thermography.

American College of Clinical Thermology

Read more »

Posted in: Cancer,mammogram,radiation

Doctors zapping patients with too much radiation

Please recall that exposure to radiation is cumulative and that it is a known cause of cancer. For women who are propagandized to comply with annual mammogram this is an extremely important issue to consider. The annual mammogram is a major component of rising breast cancer rates. Dental and chiropractic x-rays are also a factor as is the airport screening x-ray.
See other articles here at Natural Health News on the risks of screening mammogram.

A new study says that the average American is exposed to six times more radiation from medical tests than in the early 1980s, prompting warnings that physicians may be upping patients' cancer risk by giving them unnecessary exams.

A study by The National Council of Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) shows that the average American's overall radiation exposure jumped from 3.6 millisieverts (mSv) to 6.2 mSv per year -- almost entirely a result of radiation-based medical tests. These tests, once responsible for only 15 percent of Americans' exposure to radiation, now account for nearly 50 percent. In contrast, there was almost no change in so-called background radiation, which naturally emanates from soil, rocks and other environmental substances.

The increase in medical radiation exposure (from 0.53 mSv to 3.0 mSv) stemmed primarily from a rise in the use of computer tomography (CT) scans (which use x-rays to create cross sectional images of inside the body to spot tumors, clogged arteries, among other things), and nuclear imaging tests, which involve injecting radioactive chemicals into the bloodstream that can be picked up by special instruments and used to create images of the body's inner structures.

The advantage of these tests is that they are generally better for diagnosing conditions than older technologies [such as standard x-rays, which expose patients to much less radiation], says Arl Van Moore, president of the American College of Radiology. "But we are concerned about the overuse of radiation through self-referral," or doctors ordering exams that can be done in their own offices for their own financial benefit, he says.

Need medical tests and worried about radiation exposure? Walter Huda, a medical physicist at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, advises that you press your doc on why he or she has ordered the exams – and ask whether the clinic is certified by the American College of Radiology to perform the tests.

One tidbit of good news from the report, says physicist David Schauer, NCRP's executive director: ***occupational exposure has been sliced in half during the same period. The major reason: employers have taken steps to protect them, such as installing lead-coated pipes in nuclear plants to prevent the escape of harmful radiation.
http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=are-doctors-zapping-patients-with-t-2009-03-05

*** As for occupational exposure, do not overlook the impact of the ever increasing EMF-ELF ElectroSmog issues related to DTV, WIFI and cell/mobile use are exposure. In one city I lived in the Public Works Department requires anyone climbing the water towers there to wear a radiation detection badge (like radiologists and techs use in health care) to track exposure. Yes, non-ionizing radiation is harmful too.

Read more »

Posted in: 2009,airport x-ray,Cancer,CT scans,mammogram causes breast cancer,natural health news,natural news,nuclear imaging,radiation,x-ray

Radiation of any kind increases cancer risk

UPDATE: 19 January, 2009 -More mammography madness, women's health really not a priority - Thermography needs to become the treatment of choice and women should not be subjected to high risk of harm or breast cancer (along with heart and thyroid damage from the screening). This is why for more than a decade we have been saying THINK Before You Pink! Women's Health Month is March, and that is not too far away.

FDA Warns of Potential of Serious Side Effects with Topical Numbing Agents
By Todd Neale, Staff Writer, MedPage Today, Published: January 16, 2009

ROCKVILLE, Md., Jan. 16 -- The FDA has issued a second warning about the potential dangers of using topical anesthetics for relieving pain from medical tests and conditions.

The latest advisory was prompted by a report last summer on the results of a randomized trial evaluating the use of lidocaine for the pain and discomfort of mammography. (See: Pre-Mammography Painkiller May Ease the Pinch)

The researchers found that women using lidocaine -- which was spread over the breasts and chest wall and covered with plastic wrap for a total absorption time of about 45 minutes -- reported significantly less discomfort than those using acetaminophen, ibuprofen, or placebo.

"Although no serious side effects were reported in this study," the FDA warning read, "it was not large enough to evaluate whether uncommon but serious reactions could occur with this use.

"FDA remains concerned about the potential for topical anesthetics to cause serious and life-threatening adverse effects when applied to a large area of skin or when the area of application is covered," the advisory read.

The agency said that some of the topical medication can pass into the blood stream upon application.

Under certain circumstances -- if a large area of skin is covered, the drug is applied to broken skin, or skin temperature increases -- the amount of medication entering the blood stream may be toxic, causing irregular heartbeat, seizures, breathing difficulties, coma, and death, the agency said.

This latest warning repeats the concerns of an advisory issued in February 2007 following the deaths of two women, ages 22 and 25, who applied topical anesthetics to their legs and covered them in plastic wrap to numb the anticipated pain of laser hair removal.

Both women had seizures, fell into a coma, and subsequently died because of the drugs' toxic effects.

The drugs involved were lidocaine and tetracaine.

The FDA advised physicians to determine whether a topical anesthetic would create the necessary pain relief when considering its use for any purpose and whether an alternate treatment would be as effective.

If a topical anesthetic is determined to be the best choice, the agency recommended using the lowest amounts possible, applying the medications as sparingly as possible, avoiding broken or irritated skin, and being aware that wrapping or applying heat to the areas treated with the medications can increase the risk of serious side effects.

and

Breast Imaging Premedication to Reduce Discomfort during Screening Mammography1
Colleen K. Lambertz, MSN, MBA, FNP, Christopher J. Johnson, MPH, Paul G. Montgomery, MD, and James R. Maxwell, MD

1 From the St Luke's Mountain States Tumor Institute (C.K.L., P.G.M.), 100 E Idaho St, Boise, ID 83712; Cancer Data Registry of Idaho, Boise, Idaho (C.J.J.); and St Luke's Regional Medical Center, Boise, Idaho (J.R.M.). Received August 27, 2007; revision requested November 1; final revision received November 29; accepted January 24, 2008; final revision accepted March 4. Supported by the Mountain States Tumor Medical Research Institute grant. Address correspondence to C.K.L. (e-mail: lambertc{at}slrmc.org).

Purpose: To test the hypothesis that premedication with acetaminophen, ibuprofen, and/or 4% lidocaine gel would decrease discomfort and improve satisfaction with screening mammography in women who expect a higher level of discomfort.

Materials and Methods: In this HIPAA-compliant, institutional review board–approved, prospective, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial, 418 women aged 32–89 years who expected substantial discomfort with screening mammography were randomly divided to receive premedication with acetaminophen, ibuprofen, and/or 4% lidocaine gel. Subjects provided informed written consent. The primary outcome was discomfort. Secondary outcomes were satisfaction and plans for future mammography on the basis of discomfort. Subjects completed structured questionnaires with visual analog scales to measure discomfort and satisfaction. A generalized linear mixed-models framework was used to assess the effect of medications on discomfort during mammography, and satisfaction with technologist and machine combinations was included as a random effect. The "plans for mammography next year" outcome was modeled by using a binary distribution and logit link function.

Results: Discomfort was significantly lower in the lidocaine gel group (P = .01). Satisfaction was significantly negatively correlated with discomfort (P < .001). Satisfaction and whether or not the subject had delayed her mammography because of fear of discomfort had significant effects on plans to undergo mammography next year (P < .001 for both). There were significant differences in discomfort between different combinations of technologists and machines.

Conclusion: Premedication with 4% lidocaine gel significantly reduced discomfort during screening mammography, and reduced discomfort may improve the likelihood of future mammographic screening and early detection of breast cancer.
(Radiology 2008;248:765-772.)© RSNA, 2008

Originally posted 9/5/08, Our new paper is linked with facts you do want to know.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each year, about 800,000 women around the world are diagnosed with early breast cancer.

It amazes me that there is so much closed minded "research" aiming at co-opting women to believe that mammogram or other radiation exposure is good for them to detect cancer earlier and better.

The fact is that tumours picked up on mammogram are at least 8-10 years old. If you are 40 and get a mammogram (x-ray) every year, the risk of your getting cancer rises exponentially. Why aren't you being told this?

Other less intrusive and decidedly less risky diagnostic techniques have been around for a long time. Ultrasound is one, but that still relies on EMF or radio waves, but it is a far sight safer than X-RAY.

Another health impact that seems to be overlooked in this allegedly novel approach is that radioactive "tracers" or dyes are in use. Often there is no pre-test screening to determine if you have an allergy to the substance. These allergies may elicit anaphylactic reactions and death. Other considerations is the impact of radioactive substances on your endocrine system, especially your thyroid gland.

Mammography does not save or extend lives and is not a justifiable practice. So how much money do insurance companies and consumers pay out for radiation treatment of breast cancer? This practice results in only a less than 1% chance of improving survival. Is this worth such a large investment when so many medical claims are denied and there is virtually zero coverage of preventive practices? from the Lancet 2000; 355: 129-134.

and versus MBI
One drawback of MBI: It uses about 8 to 10 times the radiation of mammograms, a dose that engineers like Hruska are trying to lower with newer technology. Other medical centers also are testing MBI.

and they are again experimenting with an unproven technology that may be exciting to the researchers, but harmful to your health as there are no long term studies. Once again the lab rats are lining up to be experimented on, and paying to do so.

And by the way, don't overlook the fact that it is you that become the lab rat in this an in many other mainstream medical situations.

Thermography is really your better bet. Stand up for your health and demand this test.

Study: New way to spot breast cancer shows promise
By MARILYNN MARCHIONE, AP Medical Writer
Wed Sep 3, 2008

A radioactive tracer that "lights up" cancer hiding inside dense breasts showed promise in its first big test against mammograms, revealing more tumors and giving fewer false alarms, doctors reported Wednesday.

The experimental method — molecular breast imaging, or MBI — would not replace mammograms for women at average risk of the disease.

But it might become an additional tool for higher risk women with a lot of dense tissue that makes tumors hard to spot on mammograms, and it could be done at less cost than an MRI, or magnetic resonance imaging. About one-fourth of women 40 and older have dense breasts.

"MBI is a promising technology" that is already in advanced testing, said Carrie Hruska, a biomedical engineer at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., which has been working on it for six years.

She gave results in a telephone news briefing Wednesday and will present them later this week at an American Society of Clinical Oncology conference in Washington, D.C.

Mammograms — a type of X-ray — are the chief way now to check for breast cancer. MBI uses radiation, too, but in a different way. Women are given an intravenous dose of a short-acting tracer that is absorbed more by abnormal cells than healthy ones. Special cameras collect the "glow" these cells give off, and doctors look at the picture to spot tumors.

Researchers tried both methods, on 940 women who had dense breasts and a high risk of cancer because of family history, bad genes or other reasons.

Thirteen tumors were found in 12 women — eight by MBI alone, one by mammography alone, two by both methods and two by neither. (The two missed cancers were found on subsequent annual mammograms, physical exams or other imaging tests.)

Looked at another way, MBI found 10 out of 13 tumors, missing three; mammograms detected three out of 13 tumors and missed 10. Using both methods, 11 out of 13 tumors would have been detected.

"These images are quite striking. You can see how the cancers would be hidden on the mammograms," Hruska said.

Mammograms gave false alarms — led doctors to conclude that cancer was present when it was not — in about 9 percent of patients, compared to only 7 percent for MBI. The MBI tests led to more biopsies than mammograms did, but they more often revealed cancer.

The Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation and Bristol-Myers Squibb, which makes the imaging agent used in the study, paid for the work.

The next test will be to see how MBI stacks up against MRI. The federal government is paying for a new study Mayo is leading that compares the two in 120 high-risk women with dense breasts.

MRI is often used now for women with dense breasts, but it gives many false alarms that lead to unnecessary biopsies. Doctors hope MBI will prove more accurate and cost less — under $500 versus more than $1,000 for an MRI.

"We all know that mammography is, in and of itself, an imperfect tool, and we clearly need to do better in the future," said Dr. Eric Winer of the Dana-Farber Cancer Center in Boston, a spokesman for the oncology group. "It is fair to say that MRI will not solve all problems either."

One drawback of MBI: It uses about 8 to 10 times the radiation of mammograms, a dose that engineers like Hruska are trying to lower with newer technology. Other medical centers also are testing MBI.

"We're just beginning to see what this technology can do," she said.
___

On the Net:
Cancer conference: http://www.asco.org and http://www.cancer.net
Mayo Clinic: http://tinyurl.com/5rrwx3
Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press.

Related articles

Read more »

Posted in: independent health news,mammogram,mammogram causes breast cancer,mammogram hazards,natural health expert,natural health news,radiation,thermography

Old News Makes the Rounds Again

I'm slowly updating my original web site that went on-line in the early 1990s. I'm working on it a few pages at a time. I do hope to have some help from two students at one of my colleges very soon.

While updating I found this news from early 2005. I'm sure it was known well before that time. Now in 2008, are we there yet. Instant replay yes, but where was implementation back in the day?

D. Mail 3.8.05 "VITAMIN D CAN REDUCE PROSTATE RISK"
A new study reveals Vitamin D cuts a man's risk of prostate cancer by almost half. Researchers in Boston analysed blood & found men with the highest vit D had a 45% less risk of prostate cancer. They believe vit D inhibits cell growth & has anti-cancer properties. Vit D is lower in older men who are most prone to prostate cancer. The recommended daily amount of vit D is 400 iu but some experts think that is low.

And today we learn that this remarkable (fat soluable) vitamin might protect from low level radiation.

Our center offers high quality, high dose Vitamin D in several potencies. All profits help support our work.

Read more »

Posted in: breast cancer,health news,natural health news,natural news,prostate health,radiation,Vitamin D

Another Pink Charade Almost Over

I am so moved when I see how many people are finally catching on to the Pink Charade that comes along every so often throughout the year. If you are a follower of my work you know it has been quite a long time (a few decades) that I've been promoting education and prevention (more like full disclosure) so that women aren't the lab rats for drugs or other therapy they are told to be the only option available (not).

One big concern is the falsity of mammogram. I personally have my long-time friend and his excellent research to thank for this enlightenment (John Gofman, MD).

I don't think I have to say more until next March or next October, so read the numerous posts in my blog and on my web site about these issues. Your health really does depend on knowing the facts.

There are others who believe in the same things and you can refer to them as well -

The Biggest Breast Cancer Risk Factor That No One Is Talking About

Read more »

Posted in: breast cancer,breast cancer awareness,October,pink,radiation,x-ray