Is This The Future of Sports Performance Drinks and Muscle Mass Optimizers Smart Waters and Diet Shakes?

Sports Performance beverages and Sports Supplements have exploded in popularity over the last decade. You can find sports drinks in every retail food store in the country. Gas stations have energy drinks sitting by the cash register. Once confined to the fringes of the food and drink market, functional beverages have vaulted to the front of the line. Sports Supplements have become big business, with Fortune 500 drink manufacturers—once solely known for making sodas—leading the charge.

The recent sales surge of nutrient-enhanced waters as well as Sports Supplements and energy drinks belies one fact: while these products are relatively new, the concept of functional beverages is as old as time. Sports Performance Supplements—defined as supplements that provide more than enhanced health and flavor—have been a revered staple in every civilization. The unfortunate truth is this: today’s mass-marketed Sports Performance Supplements have little in common with the healthy foods our ancestors consumed.

Where Sports Supplements are concerned, we’ve lost our way. Time—and greed—have ruined the best of intentions.

Perhaps the most interesting twist in the evolution of Sports Supplements is how they came to be. Thousands of years ago, “Super foods” existed.

And there’s the rub. When compared to what passes for Sports Performance Supplements today, even the nutrient-enhanced waters, sports drinks and energy drinks—it’s easy to see we’ve lost our way.

The Right Minerals and electrolytes are defined as substances, usually minerals, which contain free ions that make them electrically conductive. Our bodies are finely tuned electrical systems, and electrolytes are depleted when you perspire. It’s important for anyone who leads an active lifestyle to replace those electrolytes.

However, you want to make sure you are replacing them with the right electrolyte minerals. The minerals in Organic Sports Performance Supplements are bound to organic substances in the superfood itself and they are literally a part of it. Contrast this with minerals taken from rocks or are found in their salt forms, which are inorganic and not bound to any organic substance. Research proves these inorganic minerals are not the best form of electrolytes for the body since they are not a normal part of our food chain.

Learn more about professional strength Organic based Sports Performance Supplements here.

Surviving Cancer Statistics Facts and Fiction – What Are Your Best Options For Surviving Cancer part 1

Author: Glen B. Stewart – Alternative Health Researcher

“Man stands in his own shadow and wonders why it’s dark.” – Zen Proverb

Unfortunately – Chemo Therapy, Radiation Therapy and similar highly toxic Cancer therapies cast the darkest shadows of all…

Tough words to start out a much needed post on the Options For Surviving Cancer I agree.

Typically I try my best to gracefully reveal the researched facts and also the fictions on a disease topic. This is to assist my readers into making the most informed decisions on their situation. When it comes to deadly Cancer, that decision can very well be life threatening.

To make it even worse, the medical community is extremely educated in selling a Cancer victim into Chemo Therapy and Radiation Therapy as your ONLY solution to survive deadly cancer.

Today – I will do my best to debunk that blatant fiction that the medical community has bestowed upon us. Trust me, it will not be pretty. Then again you read my acclaimed blog for objective natural health solutions, and not vested interest salesmanship…

The 10 Toughest Facts You Will Need To Know About Doctors and Fighting Cancer

1) Doctors get LEGAL Kickbacks form the Chemo companies of $1,400.00 to $5,000.00.

2) One of those companies, Bayer’s CEO is a Convicted Nazi War Criminal from WW2… God’s honest truth to the implications of the Chemo industry…

3) Sadly 97% of the time, Chemo is Ineffective on Cancer, those are the accurate Proven facts.

4) I know deep in my heart, the Proven Natural Based Protocols All Have a much Better track record than that.

5) I have Been a Passionate Alternative Health Researcher since 1983, your medical doctor in contrast has 0 training in nutrition.

6) To finish Medical School and pass the State’s Medical Exam – A person is Not Required to take a Single Class on Nutrition. Much less Foods and Nutritional Supplements for healing Disease.

7) They are trained by Medical Schools that are “Owned” by Drug Companies.

They are paid thousands of dollars to perscribe Chemo Therapy.

9) A common sense question – If exposure to Radioactive waste causes Cancer, how can more exposure to it possibly Cure it?

10) In my “Cancer Survival 101″ workshop I have over a dozen Medical doctors coming out against Chemo Therapy and Radiation Therapy.

Stay Tuned for Surviving Cancer Statistics Facts and Fiction – What Are Your Best Options For Surviving Cancer part 2 tomorrow.

To get on the notification list for the next Free ”Cancer Survival 101″ workshop preview online seminar, Click here and Fill In your Contact Email Address Now

Author – Glen B. Stewart

How does drinking high quality alkaline ionized water improve your health part 2

Acclaimed Scientist Dr. Robert Young – Author for the PH Miracle, Talks on the value of Alkaline PH Ionizer Water for Disease and Cancer Free Health Vitality.

Dr. Mercola, an accomplished Alternative Health Doctor and peer of mine in Holistic Health Research discusses PH Alkaline Ionizer Water Systems and their benefits with Houston Tomasz. The conversation covers the Pros and Cons of various water ionizers. This is due to the wide spectrum of quality and PH generation ability in the Water Ionizer industry.

Dr. Mercola and Houston Tomasz in part 2 of this revealing discussion on PH Alkaline Ionizer Water Systems and the Pros and Cons of the wide variety systems available. In General – You get what you pay for…

Some Words of Advice on PH Alkaline Ionizer Water Systems ~

Do remember 1 thing – There are PH Alkaline Ionizer Water Systems out there costing $4,000.00 and up that do not deliver the quality I personally recommend. So the priciest in this case, is not the best. There is a lot of junk out there also. I know and I almost bought one that cost a bit less. Then I looked at the Specs. The exotic materials and computer components do not come cheap… An analogy is a True Diamond Ring – does Not cost $149.00 Make sense?

I have done extensive research into the PH Alkaline Water Systems available on the market today. If you are serious about getting a PH Alkaline Ionizer Water System for yourself and your family, expect to spend $2,495.00 and up on the specific brand I recommend. If you are interested – Call me personally at 407-745-1699 and I will get the best one out to you based on your budget and specific needs.

=================================================

Additional Resources on PH Water, Alkaline Water, PH Diet and the Positive Effects Ionized Alkaline Water has on Healing Cancer and Disease:

Read Cancer Survival – What You Do Not Know About A Deadly Cancer Causing Lifestyle Can Kill You Here

==> If you know anyone who has Cancer – Share this lifesaving Cancer Survival 101 Workshop with them.

Additional Resources on Fat Loss and and the Positive Effects Ionized Alkaline Water has on Weight Loss Diet Transformations:

Get a Free Pass to an Online Seminar Event at the acclaimed “Fat Loss Gourmet Workshop” Here

Additional Resources on Sports Training, Sports Diet and the Positive Effects Ionized Alkaline Water has on Sports Performance:

Get a Free Pass to an Online Seminar Event at the acclaimed “Diet Of A Champion” Sports Performance Workshop Here

Additional Resources on Ayurveda Healing and the Positive Effects Ionized Alkaline Water has on Health and Vitality with Ayurveda:

Get a Free Pass to an Online Seminar Event at the acclaimed Ayurveda Mastery Workshop Intensive Here

Author – Glen B. Stewart

How does drinking high quality alkaline ionized water improve your health?

Today, we want to share some quick tips to make it easy to incorporate drinking water into your life if you’re not already in the habit.

How much is enough? The rule of thumb is 8×8 or eight eight-ounce glasses a day, but we recommend that as an absolute minimum.

The Institute of Medicine has determined that the average man should drink three liters (about 13 cups) per day and the average woman 2.2 liters, or about 9 cups. However, if you are overweight, active physically or sweat a lot from living in a hot climate or other reasons, you should drink even more.

Thirteen cups a day can seem like a tall order but with these tips you can do it effortlessly!

1) Start the day with two giant glasses of water before eating breakfast- your body has been using water in its various processes throughout the night and will welcome the replenishment!

2) That could equal about 4 cups, and you’re already ¼ the way there on your daily water intake. It has the added benefit of clearing out your system since you’ll be drinking the water on an empty stomach. If you suffer from constipation, try this before anything else, it works wonders

3) Keep a glass of water or water bottle at your desk or workplace

4) If you keep water handy, you can sip throughout the day. You will feel more refreshed by doing this than by relying on coffee to get you through the day! Staying adequately hydrated prevents fatigue and keeps you sharp.

5) Bring your alkaline, ionized water to work in a BPA free water bottle. BPA is a toxic substance found in some bottles. You can research BPA free bottles on the internet, I recommend this water bottle which is both BPA free and is insulated, so it’s suitable for Hot Beverages as well..

Thermos Nissan FBB1000 34-Ounce Stainless-Steel Vacuum Insulated Briefcase Bottle

6) Cut down on coffee, caffeinated tea, and soft drinks.

7) These can cause dehydration. If you do drink any caffeinated drinks, have a glass of water right after.

8 Drink a glass of water to every glass of another beverage

9) Bring a large water bottle with you and try to drink it on your way to work. If you don’t finish it on the way there, finish it on the way home!

10) Don’t drink soda. Diet Soda is ever worse for your health!

11) Check the color of your urine; it should be clear or nearly clear. If it is too dark you need to up your water intake!

Developing a Taste for Water

Maybe you are a big soda or juice drinker and the idea of a glass of water seems totally bland and unappealing to you. Here are some tips to develop your taste for water, so you can start giving your body more of what it needs.

1) Water ionizer owners agree that their machines produce superior tasting water, so get yourself some healthy antioxidant filled water from a water ionizer to start your water habit.

2) Remember Pavlov’s training experiments on dogs? Even if you don’t you can condition yourself to drink more water by looking at a pleasant image, listening to music you like, or thinking of a special person every time you drink water. That way drinking water will elicit peaceful and happy thoughts in you!

3) Try adding some lemon or lime to add some kick to your agua.

4) Cut out sugary drinks altogether, at least for a little while. Drinking water after a super-sweet juice could leave your taste buds feeling unsatisfied. After you get to liking the taste of water and drinking ample amounts, introduce your old drinks back in, in moderation, if you’d like. You might find they are even too sweet for you with your newly acquired taste for water!

Can You Have Too Much of a Good Thing?

Is there such thing as drinking too much water? Yes, drinking large amounts of water could lead to water intoxication if it upsets the balance of electrolytes. This is normally only found in infants and athletes. As long as you are drinking water steadily throughout the day you should be ok! It is recommended not to drink more than 1 to 1.5 liters (2 to 3 pints) per hour.

We hope you enjoyed these tips and are incorporating them into your daily routine!

Want to know the Best Alkaline Water Ionizer that I personally Recommend? Send me an email with your contact details and I will personally refer you to the right place. Send your contact info to visionsofachampion at gmail.com with the words “Best Alkaline Water Ionizer” in the subject line.

Read How does drinking high quality alkaline ionized water improve your health part 2 Here

==> Frustrated with Being Over Weight and Finding Yourself Always Exhausted? part 1

1) Sign up for my Healer 2.0 newsletter. I am re-opening my “Fat Loss Gourmet” online workshop for students shortly. Nope won’t be a “Weight Loss Diet”… They typically Suck ~ Instead it will be an entire intensive “Gourmet Transformation” workshop… Learn 4 and 5 star Restaurant Recipes that are “Tweaked for Fat Loss”. I also take Secret Recipes from all the popular Restaurants and Tweak them for Fat Loss while Keeping the Mouth-Watering Flavor!!!

2) By Getting on the “Fat Loss Gourmet” Notification List you will get a Free pass to the Grand Opening Online Seminar Event. So if you are not already on the globally acclaimed “Healer 2.0″ Newsletter and Pre-Notification List – Sign Up Now.

Your family will flat dig the recipes… Trust Me!

(I’m already in superb athletic shape and I eat Like a King -w- these Gourmet Recipes!)

See all of you there – This will be a Workshop that sells out quickly…

- Glen 

Glen B. Stewart

Master Trainer

http://Healer2.com

Author – Glen B. Stewart 

Cancer Survival – What You Do Not Know About A Deadly Cancer Causing Lifestyle Can Kill You part 2

Natural News states:
Ever since the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force took a look, finally, at the scientific evidence and announced new recommendations earlier this month for routine mammograms — specifically that women under 50 should avoid them and women over 50 should only get them every other year — the reactions from many women, doctors and the mainstream media have reached the point of near hysteria. Not getting annual mammograms, some say, means countless women will receive a virtual death sentence because their breast tumors won’t be discovered.

But what is rarely discussed about mammograms is this: the tests could actually be causing many cases of breast cancer.
In fact, a new study just presented at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA), concludes the low-dose radiation from annual mammography screening significantly increases breast cancer risk in women with a genetic or familial predisposition to breast cancer. This is particularly worrisome because women who are at high risk for breast cancer are regularly pushed to start mammograms at a younger age — as early as 25 — and that means they are exposed to more radiation from mammography earlier and for more years than women who don’t have breast cancer in their family trees.

“For women at high risk for breast cancer, screening is very important, but a careful approach should be taken when considering mammography for screening young women, particularly under age 30,” Marijke C. Jansen-van der Weide, Ph.D., an epidemiologist in the Department of Epidemiology and Radiology at University Medical Center Groningen in the Netherlands, said in a statement to the media. “Further, repeated exposure to low-dose radiation should be avoided.”

Dr. Jansen-van der Weide and colleagues analyzed peer-reviewed, published medical research to investigate whether low-dose radiation exposure affects breast cancer risk among high-risk women. Out of the six studies included in this analysis, four looked at the effect of exposure to low-dose radiation among breast cancer gene mutation carriers. The other two studies traced the impact of radiation on women with a family history of breast cancer. The researchers took the combined data from all these research projects and then calculated odds ratios to estimate the risk of breast cancer caused by radiation.

The results? All the high-risk women in the study who were exposed to low-dose mammography type radiation had an increased risk of breast cancer that was 1.5 times greater than that of high-risk women who had not been exposed to low-dose radiation. What’s more, women at high risk for breast cancer who had been exposed to low-dose radiation before the age of 20 or who had five or more exposures to low-dose radiation were 2.5 times more likely to develop breast cancer than high-risk women not exposed to low-dose radiation.

Bottom line: any supposed benefit of early tumor detection using mammograms in young women with familial or genetic predisposition to breast cancer is offset by the potential risk of radiation-induced cancer.

“Our findings suggest that low-dose radiation increases breast cancer risk among these young high-risk women, and a careful approach is warranted,” Dr. Jansen-van der Weide said in the press statement.

The mammogram scam exposed

Incredibly, although it is rarely reported in the mainstream media, the new study follows on the heels of several others that have already sounded the warning that mammograms may cause breast cancer. For example, NaturalNews covered a Johns Hopkins study published earlier this year in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute that warned radiation exposure from annual mammograms could trigger breast malignancies in women with a strong family history of breast and/or ovarian cancers who have altered genes (identified as BRCA1 or BRCA2).

And it may not be only women with a familial risk for breast cancer who are at extra risk from mammography radiation. As NaturalNews covered last year, a report published in the American Medical Association’sArchives of Internal Medicine found breast cancer rates increased significantly in four Norwegian counties after women there began getting mammograms every two years. In fact, the start of screening mammography programs throughout Europe has been linked to an increased incidence of breast cancer.

Read Cancer Survival – What You Do Not Know About A Deadly Cancer Causing Lifestyle Can Kill You part 3 Here

Author – Glen B. Stewart

Cancer Survival – What You Do Not Know About A Deadly Cancer Causing Lifestyle Can Kill You part 4

Today, the United States has begun marching millions of airline passengers through the X-ray body scanners, parting ways with countries in Europe and elsewhere that have concluded that such widespread use of even low-level radiation poses an unacceptable health risk. The government is rolling out the X-ray scanners despite having a safer alternative that the Transportation Security Administration says is also highly effective.

A ProPublica/PBS NewsHour investigation of how this decision was made shows that in post-9/11 America, security issues can trump even long-established medical conventions. The final call to deploy the X-ray machines was made not by the FDA, which regulates drugs and medical devices, but by the TSA, an agency whose primary mission is to prevent terrorist attacks.

Research suggests that anywhere from six to 100 U.S. airline passengers each year could get cancer from the machines. Still, the TSA has repeatedly defined the scanners as “safe,” glossing over the accepted scientific view that even low doses of ionizing radiation — the kind beamed directly at the body by the X-ray scanners — increase the risk of cancer.

“Even though it’s a very small risk, when you expose that number of people, there’s a potential for some of them to get cancer,” said Kathleen Kaufman, the former radiation management director in Los Angeles County, who brought the prison X-rays to the FDA panel’s attention.

They 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.

About 250 X-ray scanners are currently in U.S. airports, along with 264 body scanners that use a different technology, a form of low-energy radio waves known as millimeter waves.

Robin Kane, the TSA’s assistant administrator for security technology, said that no one would get cancer because the amount of radiation the X-ray scanners emit is minute. Having both technologies is important to create competition, he added.

“It’s a really, really small amount relative to the security benefit you’re going to get,” Kane said. “Keeping multiple technologies in play is very worthwhile for the U.S. in getting that cost-effective solution — and being able to increase the capabilities of technology because you keep everyone trying to get the better mousetrap.”

Determined to fill a critical hole in its ability to detect explosives, the TSA plans to have one or the other operating at nearly every security lane in America by 2014. The TSA has designated the scanners for “primary” screening: Officers will direct every passenger, including children, to go through either a metal detector or a body scanner, and the passenger’s only alternative will be to request a physical pat-down.

How did the United States swing from considering such X-rays taboo to deeming them safe enough to scan millions of people a year?

A new wave of terrorist attacks using explosives concealed on the body, coupled with the scanners’ low dose of radiation, certainly convinced many radiation experts that the risk was justified.

But other factors helped the machines gain acceptance.

Because of a regulatory Catch-22, the airport X-ray scanners have escaped the oversight required for X-ray machines used in doctors’ offices and hospitals. The reason is that the scanners do not have a medical purpose, so the FDA cannot subject them to the rigorous evaluation it applies to medical devices.

Still, the FDA has limited authority to oversee some non-medical products and can set mandatory safety regulations. But the agency let the scanners fall under voluntary standards set by a nonprofit group heavily influenced by industry.

As for the TSA, it skipped a public comment period required before deploying the scanners. Then, in defending them, it relied on a small body of unpublished research to insist the machines were safe, and ignored contrary opinions from U.S. and European authorities that recommended precautions, especially for pregnant women. Finally, the manufacturer, Rapiscan Systems, unleashed an intense and sophisticated lobbying campaign, ultimately winning large contracts.

Both the FDA and TSA say due diligence has been done to assure the scanners’ safety. Rapiscan says it won the contract because its technology is superior at detecting threats. While the TSA says X-ray and millimeter-wave scanners are both effective, Germany decided earlier this year not to roll out millimeter-wave machines after finding they produced too many false positives.

Most of the news coverage on body scanners has focused on privacy, because the machines can produce images showing breasts and buttocks. But the TSA has since installed software to make the images less graphic. While some accounts have raised the specter of radiation, this is the first report to trace the history of the scanners and document the gaps in regulation that allowed them to avoid rigorous safety evaluation.

Little research on cancer risk of body scanners

Humans are constantly exposed to ionizing radiation, a form of energy that has been shown to strip electrons from atoms, damage DNA and mutate genes, potentially leading to cancer. Most radiation comes from radon, a gas produced from naturally decaying elements in the ground. Another major source is cosmic radiation from outer space. Many common items, such as smoke detectors, contain tiny amounts of radioactive material, as do exit signs in schools and office buildings.

As a result, the cancer risk from any one source of radiation is often small. Outside of nuclear accidents, such as that at Japan’s Fukushima plant, and medical errors, the health risk comes from cumulative exposure.

In Rapiscan’s Secure 1000 scanner, which uses ionizing radiation, a passenger stands between two large blue boxes and is scanned with a pencil X-ray beam that rapidly moves left to right and up and down the body. In the other machine, ProVision, made by defense contractor L-3 Communications, a passenger enters a chamber that looks like a round phone booth and is scanned with millimeter waves, a form of low-energy radio waves, which have not been shown to strip electrons from atoms or cause cancer.

Read Cancer Survival – What You Do Not Know About A Deadly Cancer Causing Lifestyle Can Kill You part 5 Here

Author – Glen B. Stewart

Cancer Survival – What You Do Not Know About A Deadly Cancer Causing Lifestyle Can Kill You part 5

Only a decade ago, many states prohibited X-raying a person for anything other than a medical exam. Even after 9/11, such non-medical X-raying remains taboo in most of the industrialized world. In July, the European Parliament passed a resolution that security “scanners using ionizing radiation should be prohibited” because of health risks. Although the United Kingdom uses the X-ray machine for limited purposes, such as when passengers trigger the metal detector, most developed countries have decided to forgo body scanners altogether or use only the millimeter-wave machines.

While the research on medical X-rays could fill many bookcases, the studies that have been done on the airport X-ray scanners, known as backscatters, fill a file no more than a few inches thick. None of the main studies cited by the TSA has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, the gold standard for scientific research.

Those tests show that the Secure 1000 delivers an extremely low dose of radiation, less than 10 microrems. The dose is roughly one-thousandth of a chest X-ray and equivalent to the cosmic radiation received in a few minutes of flying at typical cruising altitude. The TSA has used those measurements to say the machines are “safe.”

Most of what researchers know about the long-term health effects of low levels of radiation comes from studies of atomic bomb survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. By charting exposure levels and cancer cases, researchers established a linear link that shows the higher the exposure, the greater risk of cancer.

Some scientists argue the danger is exaggerated. They claim low levels stimulate the repair mechanism in cells, meaning that a little radiation might actually be good for the body.

But in the authoritative report on low doses of ionizing radiation, published in 2006, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed the research and concluded that the preponderance of research supported the linear link. It found “no compelling evidence” that there is any level of radiation at which the risk of cancer is zero.

Radiation experts say the dose from the backscatter is negligible when compared to naturally occurring background radiation. Speaking to the 1998 FDA panel, Smith, the inventor, compared the increased risk to choosing to visit Denver instead of San Diego or the decision to wear a sweater versus a sport coat.

Using the linear model, even such trivial amounts increase the number of cancer cases. Rebecca Smith-Bindman, a radiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, estimated 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. David Brenner, director of Columbia University’s Center for Radiological Research, reached a higher number — potentially 100 additional cancers every year.

“Why would we want to put ourselves in this uncertain situation where potentially we’re going to have some cancer cases?” Brenner asked. “It makes me think, really, why don’t we use millimeter waves when we don’t have so much uncertainty?”

But even without the machines, Smith-Bindman said, the same 100 million people would develop 40 million cancers over the course of their lifetimes. In this sea of cancer cases, it would be impossible to identify the patients whose cancer is linked to the backscatter machines.

How the scanners avoided strict oversight

Although they deliberately expose humans to radiation, the airport X-ray scanners are not medical devices, so they are not subject to the stringent regulations required for diagnostic X-ray machines.Â

If they were, the manufacturer would have to submit clinical data showing safety and effectiveness and be approved through a rigorous process by the FDA. If the machines contained radioactive material, they would have to report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

But because it didn’t fit into either category, the Secure 1000 was classified as an electronic product. The FDA does not review or approve the safety of such products. However, manufacturers must provide a brief radiation safety report explaining the dose and notify the agency if any overexposure is discovered. According to the FDA, no such incidents have been reported.

Under its limited oversight of electronic products, the FDA could issue mandatory safety regulations. But it didn’t do so, a decision that flows from its history of supervising electronics.

Regulation of electronic products in the United States began after a series of scandals. From the 1930s to the 1950s, it was common for a child to go to a shoe store and stand underneath an X-ray machine known as a fluoroscope to check whether a shoe was the right fit. But after cases arose of a shoe model’s leg being amputated and store clerks developing dermatitis from putting their hands in the beam to adjust the shoe, the practice ended.

In 1967, General Electric recalled 90,000 color televisions that had been sold without the proper shielding, potentially exposing viewers to dangerous levels of radiation. The scandal prompted the creation of the federal Bureau of Radiological Health.

“That ultimately led to a lot more aggressive program,” said John Villforth, who was the director of the bureau. Over the next decade, the bureau created federal safety standards for televisions, medical X-rays, microwaves, tanning beds, even laser light shows.

But in 1982, the FDA merged the radiological health bureau into its medical-device unit.

“I was concerned that if they were to combine the two centers into one, it would probably mean the ending of the radiation program because the demands for medical-device regulation were becoming increasingly great,” said Villforth, who was put in charge of the new Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “As I sort of guessed, the radiation program took a big hit.”

The new unit became stretched for scarce resources as it tried to deal with everything from tongue depressors to industrial lasers. The government used to have 500 people examining the safety of electronic products emitting radiation. It now has about 20 people. In fact, the FDA has not set a mandatory safety standard for an electronic product since 1985.

As a result, there is an FDA safety regulation for X-rays scanning baggage — but none for X-rays scanning people at airports.

Meanwhile, scientists began developing backscatter X-rays, in which the waves are reflected off an object to a detector, for the security industry.

Read Cancer Survival – What You Do Not Know About A Deadly Cancer Causing Lifestyle Can Kill You part 6 Here

Author – Glen B. Stewart

Cancer Survival – What You Do Not Know About A Deadly Cancer Causing Lifestyle Can Kill You part 9

The Secure 1000 people scanner was invented by Smith in 1991 and later sold to Rapiscan, then a small security firm based in southern California. The first major customer was the California prison system, which began scanning visitors to prevent drugs and weapons from getting in. But the state pulled the devices in 2001 after a group of inmates’ wives filed a class-action lawsuit accusing the prisons of violating their civil liberties.

The U.S. Customs Service deployed backscatter machines for several years but in limited fashion and with strict supervision. Travelers suspected of carrying contraband had to sign a consent form, and Customs policy prohibited the scanning of pregnant women. The agency abandoned them in 2006, not for safety reasons but because smugglers had learned where the machines were installed and adapted their methods to avoid them, said Rick Whitman, the radiation safety officer for Customs until 2008.

Yet, even this limited application of X-ray scanning for security dismayed radiation safety experts. In 1999, the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, a nongovernmental organization, passed a resolution recommending that such screening be stopped immediately.

The backscatter machines had also caught the attention of the 1998 FDA advisory panel, which recommended that the FDA establish government safety regulations for people scanners. Instead, the FDA decided to go with a voluntary standard set by a trade group largely comprising manufacturers and government agencies that wanted to use the machines.

“Establishing a mandatory standard takes an enormous amount of resources and could take a decade to publish,” said Dan Kassiday, a longtime radiation safety engineer at the FDA.

In addition, since the mid-1990s, Congress has directed federal safety agencies to use industry standards wherever possible instead of creating their own.

The FDA delegated the task of establishing the voluntary standards to the American National Standards Institute. A private nonprofit that sets standards for many industries, ANSI convened a committee of the Health Physics Society, a trade group of radiation safety specialists. It was made up of 15 people, including six representatives of manufacturers of X-ray body scanners and five from U.S. Customs and the California prison system. There were few government regulators and no independent scientists.

In contrast, the FDA advisory panel was also made up of 15 people — five representatives from government regulatory agencies, four outside medical experts, one labor representative and five experts from the electronic products industry, but none from the scanner manufacturers themselves.

“I am more comfortable with having a regulatory agency — either federal or the states — develop the standards and enforce them,” Kaufman said. Such regulators, she added, “have only one priority, and that’s public health.”

A representative of the Health Physics Society committee said that was its main priority as well. Most of the committee’s evaluation was completed before 9/11. The standard was published in 2002 and updated with minor changes in 2009.

Ed Bailey, chief of California’s radiological health branch at the time, said he was the lone voice opposing the use of the machines. But after 9/11, his views changed about what was acceptable in pursuit of security.

“The whole climate of their use has changed,” Bailey said. “The consequence of something being smuggled on an airplane is far more serious than somebody getting drugs into a prison.”

Are Inspections Independent?

While the TSA doesn’t regulate the machines, it must seek public input before making major changes to security procedures. In July, a federal appeals court ruled that the agency failed to follow rule-making procedures and solicit public comment before installing body scanners at airports across the country. TSA spokesman Michael McCarthy said the agency couldn’t comment on ongoing litigation.

The TSA asserts there is no need to take additional precautions for sensitive populations, even pregnant women, following the guidance of the congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection & Measurements.

Read Cancer Survival – What You Do Not Know About A Deadly Cancer Causing Lifestyle Can Kill You part 7 Here

Author – Glen B. Stewart

Cancer Survival – What You Do Not Know About A Deadly Cancer Causing Lifestyle Can Kill You part 7

But other authorities have come to the opposite conclusion. A report by France’s radiation safety agency specifically warned against screening pregnant women with the X-ray devices. In addition, the Federal Aviation Administration’s medical institute has advised pregnant pilots and flight attendants that the machine, coupled with their time in the air, could put them over their occupational limit for radiation exposure and that they might want to adjust their work schedules accordingly.

No similar warning has been issued for pregnant frequent fliers.

Even as people scanners became more widespread, government oversight actually weakened in some cases.

Inspections of X-ray equipment in hospitals and industry are the responsibility of state regulators — and before 9/11, many states also had the authority to randomly inspect machines in airports. But that ended when the TSA took over security checkpoints from the airlines.

Instead, annual inspections are done by Rapiscan, the scanners’ manufacturer.

“As a regulator, I think there’s a conflict of interest in having the manufacturer and the facility inspect themselves,” Kaufman said.

Last year, in reaction to public anger from members of Congress, passengers and advocates, the TSA contracted with the Army Public Health Command to do independent radiation surveys. But email messages obtained in a lawsuit brought by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a civil liberties group, raise questions about the independence of the Army surveys.

One email sent by TSA health and safety director Jill Segraves shows that local TSA officials were given advance notice and allowed to “pick and choose” which systems the Army could check.

That email also suggests that Segraves considered the Army inspectors a valuable public-relations asset: “They are our radiation myth busters,” she wrote to a local security director.

Some TSA screeners are concerned about their own radiation exposure from the backscatters, but the TSA has not allowed them to wear badges that could measure it, said Milly Rodriguez, health and safety specialist for the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents TSA officers.

“We have heard from members that sometimes the technicians tell them that the machines are emitting more radiation than is allowed,” she said.

McCarthy, the TSA spokesman, said the machines are physically incapable of producing radiation above the industry standard. On the email, he said, the inspections allow screeners to ask questions about radiation and address concerns about specific machines.

The company’s lobbying campaign

While the TSA maintains that the body scanners are essential to preventing attacks on airplanes, it only began rolling them out nine years after 9/11.

After the attempted shoe-bombing in December 2001, the federal government conducted a trial of a Rapiscan backscatter at the Orlando International Airport. But the revealing images drew protests that the machines amounted to a virtual strip search.

The TSA considered the scanners again after two Chechen women blew up Russian airliners in 2004. Facing a continued outcry over privacy, the TSA instead moved forward with a machine known as a “puffer” because it released several bursts of air on the passengers’ clothes and analyzed the dislodged particles for explosives. But after discovering the machines were ineffective in the field and difficult to maintain, the TSA canceled the program in 2006.

Around that time, Rapiscan began to beef up its lobbying on Capitol Hill. It opened a Washington, D.C., office and, according to required disclosures, more than tripled its lobbying expenditures in two years, from less than $130,000 in 2006 to nearly $420,000 in 2008. It hired former legislative aides to Rep. David Price, D-N.C., then chairman of the homeland security appropriations subcommittee, and to Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss.

It started a political action committee and began contributing heavily to Price; Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., then head of the homeland security committee; Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., also on that committee; and Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., the top Republican on the Senate appropriations committee.

In addition, it opened a new North Carolina plant in Price’s district and expanded its operations in Ocean Springs, Miss., and at its headquarters in Torrance, Calif., in Harman’s district.

Read Cancer Survival – What You Do Not Know About A Deadly Cancer Causing Lifestyle Can Kill You part 8 Here