Author – Glen B. Stewart

Depression – Are Everyday Foods In Your Kitchen Crippling Your Life part 1 

Millions of people in the Western world suffer from severe depression everyday.

Yet if we go to our doctor, typically we will be given a prescription for antidepressants. Sadly these antidepressant drugs are not the solution and many times can make depression even more severe.

In holistic or natural healing practice the practitioner is taught to identify the source of the health ailments instead of masking the symptoms with a pharmaceutical drug.

What are the sources of depression?

Depression is typically manifested by one of 5 things.

1) Tragic or unfortunate life experiences.

2) Drug or prescription side effects.

3) Food allergies.

4) Food and pesticide toxicity.

5) Man-made toxin reactions.

In this brief article I will reveal in further detail the research behind depression and the toxic and allergenic foods we eat on a daily basis.

What I’m about to share with you will indeed surprise you, please do not take these well researched findings lightly. I am saying this to prepare you properly because many of the foods you dearly crave are in fact highly toxic to your body. The startling truth is that allergenic foods are also highly addictive, in fact you will be shocked to know that most allergenic foods are more addictive than heroin.

It is critical however that once these foods are revealed to you that you totally eliminate them from your diet completely. The 1st 2 to 3 weeks will be the toughest in fact doing this elimination process. Your body and your mind will experience withdrawal symptoms from eliminating these toxic foods.

You will experience mild to severe mood swings, inability to focus, irrational and perhaps even temporarily violent behavior. In addition you may feel weak and overcome with flulike symptoms. I encourage you to persevere through these trying moments because when you do the results will be truly life-changing.

The fact is that depression, anxiety, violence, inability to focus, frequent colds, vulnerability to disease and even cancer is directly associated with food allergies and toxic foods.

What is happening is that many of these foods that are wrecking havoc with your emotions and health are considered comfort foods. Comfort foods meaning when you are experiencing bouts of anxiety or depression you seem to feel temporarily better after you have gorged yourself with these foods.

As a tragic consequence however the same comfort foods are re-creating yet more allergic reactions that re-manifest themselves as anxiety, depression and the severe immune system disorders I mentioned.

So how does one eliminate this nightmare of mood swings and acute depression along with severe health problems?

Eliminate the following highly allergenic and toxic foods from your lifestyle completely:

1) Wheat – either whole grain or white flour, pasta, noodles, breads, bakery sweets etc.

2) Corn – corn on the cob, canned corn and “high fructose corn syrup” which is in many processed foods.

3) All other gluten containing grains such as rye and barley etc.

4) Potatoes

5) Shellfish

6) Eggs

7) Milk and milk products such as butter and cheese.

8 Rice and other grains.

9) Commercially raised grain fed beef, chicken and pork.

10) Commercially grown vegetables which are heavily sprayed with pesticides.

11) Genetically modified foods or GMO foods which are highly allergenic and toxic.

Now you know why I mentioned the severe implications of allergenic and toxic foods before I mention the particular health stealing suspects. This was because these foods are typically primary foods of your daily life. I know how you feel.

It is not your fault.

The horrible truth is the fact that these allergenic foods are much more severe in their devastation to the human body than they were back in the 50s and 60s. What is happened is that the commercial food industry has created genetically modified foods which are highly toxic to the human body. This was done to eliminate crop damage from pests. It was also devised for these particular crops to be pesticide and weed herbicide resistant to being chemically sprayed with the Roundup weed killer products. In addition these grains in the livestock eating these grains are producing pesticides themselves.

So what are you up against? One shocking example would be the fact that eating just 3 grams of wheat has a toxic effect on the human brain. There are 28 g to an ounce!

In essence this highly toxic effect on the human brain is numbing your brain and part of the experience is the “comfort food affect”. Unfortunately as I mentioned this temporary brain numbing experience has absolutely catastrophic effects on your mood, bouts of depression and ultimately the ability to survive disease and cancer.

In a follow-up to this food and depression series on my globally acclaimed blog  I will delve further into this nightmare that the majority of the Western world is now facing. In addition I will share the 10 commercial vegetables and fruits to avoid because they contain the highest amount of pesticides. These fruits and vegetables you would definitely want to consume only if they were grown organically.

In closing, find comfort in realizing it is not your fault that you are experiencing depression. I have been there myself and as a child doctors did not have an answer for me. I had to repeat 1st grade twice in fact due to extreme food allergy related illnesses.

Fortunately as I have revealed depression can be dissipated and even eliminated through self-help and life transforming changes. If you know the value of living a depression free lifestyle and wish to transform yourself away from these highly allergenic and toxic foods, become a subscriber to http://healer2.com. You will discover many delicious alternatives to suffering from depression because of choosing the wrong foods to eat.

Glen B. Stewart

Glen B Stewart is the globally acclaimed author of “Visions Of A Champion” available on Amazon. Glen transforms the lives of people from world-class athletes and children in sports to disease ridden and cancer stricken individuals worldwide.

Depression Resources:

http://Healer2.com

http://CancerSurvival101.com

Author – Glen B. Stewart

Cancer Survival – What You Do Not Know About A Deadly Cancer Causing Lifestyle Can Kill You part 1

“My cancer scare changed my life.  I’m grateful for every new, healthy day I have. It has helped me prioritize my life”  ~ Olivia Newton-John

To be told that you or someone you love has cancer has to be one of the most profound things you will ever hear.

Your initial reactions are likely to be shock, denial that this is happening, a feeling of loss of control over your emotions and circumstances and a resounding question of why?

“Cancer is a word, not a sentence”  ~ John Diamond (British Journalist)

When You Look At Surviving Cancer ~ Statistics Can Appear Mind Blowing 

According to GLOBOCAN nearly 12.7 million new cancer cases and 7.6 million cancer deaths occurred in 2008 worldwide.

Statistics are confusing!  Broken down into new cases between countries, different cancers, men compared to women, age groups, demographic comparisons………

It is perfectly natural to feel overwhelmed by facts and figures especially at times like these.

One in Two Men and One in Three Women will Develop Cancer

The Nationwide Cancer Information (ncipoet.org) of America advise that one out of two men and one out of three women in the United States will develop some type of cancer during their lifetime.  In 2011 approximately 1,368,030 Americans will be diagnosed with cancer.  The NCI estimate that cigarette smoke is the primary cause in the development of at least 30% of all cancers.

Since 1940 incidents of breast cancer in women in the States has more than doubled.

Lung cancer causes more deaths than any other type of cancer and 80-90% of these deaths are caused by smoking ~ so almost preventable.

Surviving Cancer ~ Proof  That Cancer is a Man Made Disease

Dr Mercola in his article shows that Cancer is a man made disease.  

“Studies have proven that cancer tumours were rare until recent times when pollution and poor diet became issues.

Researchers searched for signs in the fossil records and mummified bodies. Despite examining tissue from hundreds of Egyptian mummies, they confirmed only one case of cancer.

Research shows Cancer is Not a Natural Disease

“Research of the ancients show that cancer is not a natural disease and nor are genetics a primary factor

Statistics compiled by the American Heart Association show that cancer is the top killer among Americans between the age of 45 – 74.  Cancer rates from various cancers are on the rise and environmental/lifestyle factors are increasingly being pinpointed as the culprits such as:

Pesticides and other chemical exposures

Pharmaceutical drugs

Processed and artificial food (and chemicals in the packaging)

Wireless technologies, dirty electricity and medical diagnostic radiation exposure

Obesity, stress and poor sleeping habits

Lack of sunshine exposure and use of sunscreens

This list is not all-inclusive”

Research into Cancer 

Dr Mercola’s report (March 2011) advised that President Nixon and Congress declared war on cancer in 1971.

‘So what has happened in the 40 years since?’, Dr Mercola continues..’After weeding out the hype and filling in the actual statistics, it turns out, not much’.

‘War on Cancer Has Not Gone Well’ says the article’s author, Reynold Spector….’This is in marked contrast to death rates from stroke and cardiovascular disease which have fallen by 74% and 64 % respectively from 1950 – 2006 and by 60% and 52% from 1975 and 2006…Cancer therapy is clearly decades behind.

Surviving Cancer Statistics Vary Depending on Country & Treatment

According to GLOBOCAN, a number of common cancers  such as prostate, breast and colorectal are associated with reasonably high survival rates in developed countries.  Whereas several common cancers with poorer prognoses ~ liver, stomach and oesophageal cancer are more common in less developed areas.

The Physical Effects of Cancer on the Body

A recent article in the New York Times highlights the physical effects of cancer on the body

There is risk of nutritional deficiencies which may be the result of the cancer itself or side effects of cancer treatments such as chemotherapy, radiation therapy or surgery.

Cancer changes the body’s metabolism causing patients to lose their appetite.

Energy use in the body is increased which means more calories are needed to maintain current weight and lean body mass.

Loss of appetite is probably the result of physical changes but also due to a psychological response to the disease.

Cancer causes individual changes in the body’s ability to break down carbohydrates, fats and protein ~ these changes lead to the loss of muscle and fat.

The NY Times goes on to further explain that several things may contribute to the type and degree of nutrient deficiencies:

Where in the body the cancer occurs.

How severe the cancer is at the time of diagnosis.

What symptoms are presenting.

The type of cancer treatment and how often received.

Side effects associated with the cancer treatment.

How the cancer affects your ability to eat and tolerate food and nutrients.

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

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 3

Mammogram pushers now have nothing left to stand on. The complete and utter hoax of mammography has now been wholly discredited through a flurry of groundbreaking studies performed by conventional medicine researchers! Yes, even the industry’s own former advocates now admit mammography harms far more women than it helps. Why? Because mammography causes the very disease it claims to “detect”. It’s much like a clever sleight-of-hand magician’s trick where they reach for your ear and suddenly produce a coin that was presumably hidden there. But as everybody knows, they put it there themselves!

Mammograms offer a similar kind of sleight-of-hand trick (or sleight-of-breast, as the case may be) by actually generating the very disease they claim to find. If so many women hadn’t already been harmed by mammography, the whole thing would be quite hysterical.”Early detection saves lives,” they say. Except they stupidly forget to tell women the other side of the story: “Mammograms cause cancer.” And if you’re gullible enough to actually irradiate your breasts every year, don’t be surprised — shocked! — if they someday find tumors in them.

I recently read the headline from Prevent Disease:
“Governments Quickly Dismissed Cancer Concerns To Roll Out Airport X-Ray Scanners”

And was shocked. The expose went on to say:

One after another, experts convened by health authorities raised questions about X-Ray machines because they violated a longstanding principle in radiation safety — that humans shouldn’t be X-rayed unless there is a medical benefit.They’ve been approved all over the world. The U.S., U.K., Russia, Australia, Europe and Canada. Scanners which have potentially devastating health effects have received the blessing of top governments.

“I think this is really a slippery slope,” said Jill Lipoti, who was the director of New Jersey’s radiation protection program. The device was already deployed in prisons; what was next, she and others asked — courthouses, schools, airports? “I am concerned … with expanding this type of product for the traveling public,” said another panelist, Stanley Savic, the vice president for safety at a large electronics company. “I think that would take this thing to an entirely different level of public health risk.

”The machine’s inventor, Steven W. Smith, assured the panelists that it was highly unlikely that the device would see widespread use in the near future. At the time, only 20 machines were in operation in the entire country. “The places I think you are not going to see these in the next five years is lower-security facilities, particularly power plants, embassies, courthouses, airports and governments,” Smith said. “I would be extremely surprised in the next five to 10 years if the Secure 1000 is sold to any of these.”

An influential international radiation safety organization has warned that the naked body scanners currently being rolled out in airports across the world increase the risk of cancer and birth defects and should not be used on pregnant women or children.

“The Committee cited the IAEA’s 1996 Basic Safety Standards agreement, drafted over three decades, that protects people from radiation. Frequent exposure to low doses of radiation can lead to cancer and birth defects, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,” reported Bloomberg.

Despite the fact that the level of radiation the passenger is exposed to is relatively low, repeated exposure for frequent flyers would undoubtedly increase cancer risks.

The report issued by the IACRS encompasses the work of the European Commission, International Atomic Energy Agency, Nuclear Energy Agency and the World Health Organization.

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

Author – Glen B. Stewart

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

“Less than a month after U.S. Senator Trent Lott and other local leaders helped officially open Rapiscan Systems’ new Ocean Springs factory,” Lott’s office announced in a news release in late 2006, “the company has won a $9.1 million Department of Defense contract.”

But Rapiscan still hadn’t landed a major contract to roll out its X-ray body scanners in commercial airports. Indeed, in 2007, with new privacy filters in place, the TSA began a trial of millimeter-wave and backscatter machines at several major airports, after which the agency opted to go with the millimeter-wave machines. The agency said health concerns weren’t a factor.

But with the 2009 federal stimulus package, which provided $300 million for checkpoint security machines, the TSA began deploying backscatters as well. Rapiscan won a $173 million, multiyear contract for the backscatters, with an initial $25 million order for 150 systems to be made in Mississippi.

Three other companies — American Science & Engineering, Tek84 Engineering Group and Valley Forge Composite Technologies — make X-ray scanners, but none are used by the TSA.Peter Kant, executive vice president for Rapiscan, said the company expanded its lobbying because its business was increasingly affected by the government.

“There’s a lot of misinformation about the technology; there’s a lot of questions about how various inspection technologies work,” he said. “And we needed a way to be able to provide that information and explain the technology and how it works, and that’s what lobbying is.”

The lawmakers either declined to comment or said the lobbying, campaign contributions and local connections had nothing to do with the TSA’s decision to purchase Rapiscan machines. The TSA said the contract was bid competitively and that the winning machines had to undergo comprehensive research and testing phases before being deployed.

While the scanners were appearing in more and more airports, few passengers went through them, because they were used mostly for random screening or to resolve alarms from the metal detector.

That changed on Christmas Day 2009, when a Nigerian man flying to Detroit tried to ignite a pouch of explosives hidden in his underwear.

Following the foiled “Great Balls of Fire” suicide bombing, as the New York Postdubbed it, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano ramped up plans to roll out body scanners nationwide. Members of Congress and aviation security experts also pushed heavily for the TSA to install more machines that could detect explosives on passengers.

Harman sent a letter to Napolitano, noting that Rapiscan was in her district.

“I urge you to expedite installation of scanning machines in key airports,” Harman wrote in the letter, which was first reported by the website CounterPunch. “If you need additional funds, I am ready to help.”

Michael Chertoff, who had supported body scanners while secretary of Homeland Security, appeared frequently on TV advocating their use. In one interview, he disclosed that his consulting firm, Chertoff Group, had done work for Rapiscan, sparking accusations that he was trying to profit from his time as a government servant.

Despite the criticism, little has been revealed about the relationship. Rapiscan dismissed it, asserting that the consulting work had to do with international cargo and port security issues — not aviation.

“There was nothing that was not above board,” Kant said. “His comments about passenger screening and these machines were simply his own and was nothing that we had engaged the Chertoff Group for.”

In a statement, the Chertoff Group said it “played no role in the sale of whole body imaging technology to TSA” and that Chertoff “was in no way compensated for his public statements.”

A public records request by ProPublica turned up empty: The Department of Homeland Security said it could not find any correspondence to or from Chertoff related to body scanners. DHS also said Chertoff did not use email.

The TSA plans to deploy 1,275 backscatter and millimeter-wave scanners covering more than half its security lanes by the end of 2012 and 1,800 covering nearly all the lanes by 2014.

According to annual reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, OSI Systems, the parent company of Rapiscan, has seen revenue from its security division more than double since 2006 to nearly $300 million in fiscal year 2011.

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

Author – Glen B. Stewart

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

Now that you realize there are many Cancer Causing culprits surrounding us on a daily basis. Next let’s discuss what happens if you decide to get conventional medical assistance for cancer therapy.

The Harsh Reality of Conventional Treatments 

“The greatest mistake in the treatment of diseases is that there are physicians for the body and physicians for the soul, although the two cannot be separated.”  ~ Plato

When you or someone you love is diagnosed with cancer you enter a world of overwhelming facts and realisations.

You will be presented with the most difficult decisions you have ever needed to make ~ whether to have chemotherapy, radiation therapy or surgery amongst others.

The specialist will discuss the options, give you the facts and await your decision.  The reality is not always as it may appear however.

In fact according to Dr Mercola’s article introducing Dr Ralph Moss:

Most Chemotherapists would not Take Chemotherapy themselves

“Chemotherapists acknowledge that the treatment is the most toxic substance ever put deliberately into the human body and furthermore, they are known and designed poisons”.

The Man Who Questions Chemotherapy: Dr. Ralph Moss

Dr Moss questions chemotherapy closely and has written 8 books on the subject of cancer.  He reveals some astounding facts on:

“The ineffectiveness of chemotherapy in treating most types of cancer and the fact that it fails to eliminate the disease in 96%-98% of cancers.

Further, chemotherapy usually doesn’t cure cancer or extend life and really doesn’t improve the quality of life either although Doctors advise otherwise”.

Dr Moss reviewed thousands of studies for his book and not one study supports the claim that chemotherapy works but does highlight the devastating side effects.

Surviving Cancer ~ The Devastating Side Effects of Chemotherapy

Chronic fatigue, bowel problems, anaemia, weight loss, vomiting are a few of the recognised side effects of chemotherapy reported by the National Cancer Institute (NCI).

More Than 80% of U.S. Cancer Doctors would NOT have Chemotherapy

CANCER active, a cancer charity based in England advise of a survey undertaken where 128 U.S. Cancer doctors stated if they contracted cancer more than 80% of them would NOT have chemotherapy.

The Doctors advised that “the risks and side effects far outweighed the likely benefits and although chemotherapy can be very effective, the success rate varies and in certain cancers can be as low as one per cent”.

Surviving Cancer ~ Surgery  “A Tumour Is No Clearer In Hindsight”

“Was Steve Jobs a smart guy who made a stupid decision when it came to his health”?  

The New York Times asked recently

The world is still mourning the inspirational Apple CEO, Steve Jobs and The New York Times looks at the choices he made through his journey with pancreatic cancer.

In particular “regarding surgery and conventional treatment when he was first diagnosed with a cancerous tumour in his pancreas following a CT scan in 2003.

Doctors urged him to have an operation to remove the tumour but Mr Jobs put it off to seek other opinions.   Nine months later the tumour had grown and he then agreed to surgery during which the doctors found it had spread to his liver.

Numerous articles based on 20/20 hindsight, speculating if Mr Jobs had had surgery straight away the doctors could have saved him.

“His Decision not to have surgery may not have been as ill considered as it seems”

Given the type of tumour Steve Jobs had and the way it was found his decision not to have surgery straight away may not have been ill considered”.

Surgery in Surviving Cancer Carries High Risks

The American Cancer Society states that: 

Surgery in cases of cancer carries high risks and that possible complications may be caused by the surgery itself.

Drugs used (anaesthesia), underlying disease, the health & weight of the patient.  The more complex the surgery the greater the risk.   Bleeding during surgery may cause the need for blood transfusions and these carry their own risks many of them serious.

Damage may also be caused to internal organs and blood vessels.

Surviving Cancer ~ The Truth About Radiation Therapy

´Patients should be made aware of possible side effects (of radiation therapy) as ´these are not insignificant´ ~ The Lancet Medical Journal

Studies by the NCI (National Cancer Institute) show that over 50% of cancer patients will receive radiation therapy during their cancer treatment.

Once again as with chemotherapy, the side effects of radiation therapy have to be compared against the risks.

Recent reports show secondary cancers appearing years after radiation therapy.  There is proven damage on the heart and lungs especially in breast cancer patients and damage to bones in womb or pelvis cases.

Of concern is the fact that radiation therapy can go on working for up to four to six weeks after the treatment has stopped.

There are Alternatives To Conventional Medicine – Great News

With so many varied statistics and heavy evidence against the effects of chemotherapy and radiation therapy you might be wondering what your next step may be.

The great news is there are many alternatives to the devastation of chemotherapy and radiation therapy.

Your journey of Alternative Healing for Fighting Cancer discovery starts here…

Read Cancer Survival – What You Do Not Know About A Deadly Cancer Causing Lifestyle Can Kill You part 10 Here