Posts Tagged ‘ radiation ’

Apr.27.11-Avoid Milk & Veggies due to Radiation levels.

Originally published April 12 2011

Europeans warned to avoid drinking milk or eating vegetables due to high radiation levels
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) The radiation risk from Fukushima is “no longer negligable,” says CRIIRAD, the French research authority on radioactivity. It is now warning expectant mothers and young children to avoid drinking milk or rainwater. They should also avoid certain types of vegetables and cheese due to the dangerously high levels of radiation they may contain thanks to the radioactive fallout spreading across the globe (http://www.euractiv.com/en/health/r…).

CRIIRAD now says that eating these items qualifies as “risky behavior.” And yet, in practically the same sentence, the organization claims there is “absolutely no need” for anyone to take iodine tablets.

That’s right: There’s so much radiation in the food that you probably shouldn’t eat it. But all that radiation is so harmless that you don’t need to protect yourself from it with iodine. It’s amazing how these people think they can have it both ways.

The institute goes on to say that drinking rainwater might be dangerous, but standing in the rain is perfectly safe. There’s actually some sense to this, as ingesting radioactive water is indeed far more dangerous than merely being drenched in it. But U.S. nuclear authorities make no such distinction, by the way.
Here comes the mass irradiation of the food supply
Despite these warnings, the real issue that few are willing to acknowledge so far is that Fukushima fallout will continue for many more months. And during this fallout, there will be a cumulative load of radiation raining down upon the grasses, fruits and vegetables that make up the global food supply. How high those levels get is anyone’s guess, and those animals that feed upon those grasses — such as cattle, goats and sheep — will tend to further concentrate the radioactivity, producing milk and meat products that are far more radioactive than the grasses upon which they fed.

This is a very sad circumstance, of course, because it means that the corn-fed, factory-farmed cattle will probably be LESS radioactive than the open-range grass-fed cattle whose beef products are usually far better for you. Although I’m not personally someone who consumes beef, I’m a big supporter of those who choose grass-fed beef over the corn-fed factory farmed beef.
Bring your Geiger counter to the fresh produce section
What I’m beginning to wonder in all this, however, is how high the radioactivity of the entire food supply is going to become. Are we looking toward a day when we have to being Geiger counters to the grocery store?

Will we soon have two bins of apples at the store called “Pre-Fukushima” and “Post-Fukushima?”

And for all those people who have already stored food, good for you! All the food you stored before Fukushima is obviously not radioactive, and there may come a day when non-radioactive food commands a huge price premium.

For those still looking to acquire and store non-radioactive healthy foods, check out www.StorableOrganics.com where you can find organic foods and superfoods sealed in steel cans for long-term emergency preparedness. The entire inventory there is “Pre-Fukushima,” by the way.

For those who haven’t stored any food, you might start thinking about what you’re going to eat if Fukushima suffers yet another explosion and a massive cloud of radioactive isotopes gets dropped onto the food production lands of the world. This situation will only get worse before it gets better.

And sadly, even growing your own food is no solution to all this, because your own gardens are just as susceptible to radiation fallout as commercial crop lands. Only those who grow food in greenhouses will be largely protected from the fallout. Maybe it’s a good time to buy some sprouting seeds, too, because you can sprout seeds in your own kitchen and grow them free of radiation. In just 3 days, you can turn a pile of seeds into a nutritious sprout salad. Add some avocado and balsamic vinegar and you have a delicious lunch!

To Download this Article: Avoid Milk and Veggies due to Radiation Levels

Mar.9.11-Cellphone Radiation Changes Brain Activity

Study Finds Cellphone Radiation Changes Brain Activity
Claudia Kalb Claudia Kalb Tue Feb 22, 4:36 pm ET
NEW YORK –A groundbreaking study published today by one of the world’s leading neuroscientists challenges the longstanding conviction that radiation emitted from cellphones is too weak to have an effect on the brain. You can think of cellphone saturation as one giant, uncontrolled human experiment. There are now 293 million wireless connections in use in the United States, according to the trade group CTIA-The Wireless Association. And Americans log a staggering 2.26 trillion minutes yakking on those mobile devices every year—all at a time when the biological effects of cellphones remain controversial and the research on those effects often of dubious quality.
A study published today by leading researchers in the premiere medical journal JAMA hasn’t found a smoking gun, but it does challenge the longstanding conviction that radiation emitted from cellphones is too weak to have an effect on the brain. It is notable not only for that finding and for appearing in a top journal—it is also turning heads because the lead researcher is Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse and one of the world’s leading brain scientists. She and colleagues from the Department of Energy’s Brookhaven National Laboratory took brain scans of 47 healthy participants after they held a cellphone to their ears for 50 minutes. Significantly, the phone was muted; that ruled out the possibility that any changes in brain activity reflected listening to or thinking about the incoming speech. Yet with the phone simply “on,” the scientists found a significant change in brain activity in the areas closest to its antenna. The research team “is on the brink of resolving a longstanding dispute with enormous implications for public health,” argues Louis Slesin, who as editor of Microwave News has followed the subject since 1981.
“What’s the impact of a cellphone on a child’s ability to learn? Does it impact cognitive ability?”
Cancer is the big concern, but research in this area has been inconsistent and, in some cases, flat-out confounding. Prime example: Interphone, a massive 10-year study of 10,751 subjects by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer published in May 2010, found that cellphone use decreased the risk of glioma, a form of brain cancer, by 19 percent—a finding that suggests a methodological flaw, because nobody believes cellphones can actually protect your brain. Some scientists continue to believe that there’s a link and have postulated a variety of theories about how cancer might be induced; others stand by the dogma that low radiation equals no cancer. “Our study does not enlighten this controversy at all, sorry to tell you that,” says Volkow. “What it does say is that our brains are sensitive to this electromagnetic radiation, which is fascinating.”
To document brain activity, Volkow’s team measured glucose metabolism in the brain and found that it was 7 percent higher in people who were exposed to a cellphone in the “on” position. Neuroscientists are used to tracking glucose metabolism to study brain regions responsible for everyday activities, like talking, moving, and listening to music. Hook your participant up, play some Beethoven, and voila! The music-loving part of the brain lights up. That’s a normal physiological response. But Volkow’s team saw the brain light up in response to a cellphone that was on but muted—a disturbance by an external force. “That’s a very unusual finding,” says Dr. Keith Black, chairman of neurosurgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. And the disturbance showed up in the brain areas closest to where the phone is typically held: the right orbito-frontal cortex and parts of the temporal lobe, which is responsible for memory, language, and vision. As we spend more and more time on our cellphones, Black asks, will our ability to manipulate language suffer over the long run? Will our long-term memory loss be affected as we age? “That becomes the concern,” he says. And even more so for children, whose thinner scalps and skulls will absorb more radiation. “What’s the impact of a cellphone on a child’s ability to learn? Does it impact cognitive ability?” Black asks. “Those are things we just don’t understand.”
The research will generate plenty of questions and plenty of buzz. It is, after all, about cellphones, it appears in JAMA, and, as Slesin points out, Volkow is “something of a science superstar.” CTIA-The Wireless Association, issued a statement in response saying that “peer-reviewed scientific evidence has overwhelmingly indicated that wireless devices, within the limits established by the FCC, do not pose a public-health risk or cause any adverse health effects.” In fact, peer-reviewed science has been all over the map on the question of the biological effects of cellphone radiation, with some studies finding that the radiation kills, slows, or otherwise harms sperm, that it affects testicular function or structure, that it increases the risk of brain cancer—and other studies finding the opposite. Henry Lai, who co-wrote an editorial accompanying the study and is a research professor in the bioengineering department at the University of Washington, says that while the data in the new study are preliminary, there is an effect on the brain and “phone radiation is not completely safe.”
Volkow isn’t stopping here. She wants to study the long-term effects of cellphone use, though she acknowledges this would be an expensive and lengthy endeavor. “It’s very difficult, but we’re going to try to tackle that,” she says. In the meantime, she’s adjusting her mobile behavior. She’s not ditching her phone, but she’s now using an ear piece or speaker phone. “Even though I don’t know that there are any adverse effects, it’s so simple to avoid the radiation exposure,” she says. “My perspective on this is, ‘why not?’”

To Download this Article: Cellphone Radiation Changes Brain Activity

Mar.21.11-Radiation Poisoning

Can a Pill Save You From Radiation Poisoning?
By Lisa Collier Cool

Faster than merchants can keep it stocked, potassium iodide (KI), the so-called “anti-radiation” pill, is flying off drugstore shelves in the U.S., especially along the West Coast. One supplier, Nukepills.com, reportedly sold out its entire supply of 250,000 pills over the weekend and has back-ordered another 1 million pills. The KI was purchased by pharmacies, corporations, hospitals and nuclear labs serving Americans who, in spite of assurances by the U.S. government that its citizens are safe, fear that radiation from the damaged Japanese nuclear reactors will travel across the Pacific Ocean and contaminate them and their families. A company spokesman told the Wall Street Journal that Nukepills has donated 50,000 pills to Japan.
Only two U.S. companies are approved by the FDA to manufacture KI. The other producer, Virginia-based Anbex Inc., is reported to have sold its entire supply of 10,000 packages, each containing 14 pills and selling for $10, on Saturday. Anbex says their offices are getting about three orders per minute for their KI pills, sold under the brand name of Iosat.
Radiation Exposure and Japan
What is potassium iodide (KI)?
Actually a salt of stable iodine—a substance our bodies need in order to produce thyroid hormones—KI is a tablet or liquid medicine that protects the thyroid from absorbing radioactive iodine, which is released into the air following a nuclear event.  It is able to block radioactive iodine because the thyroid recognizes both KI and radioactive iodine as the same substance. KI “fills up” the organ with its daily iodine quota, thus blocking the radioactive version from being absorbed. For this reason, people are generally advised to take KI as soon as the possibility of radiation contamination is known, before the damage can occur. Without such protection, the thyroid gland would quickly absorb the radioactive iodine, an internal injury that often results in thyroid cancer.
However, KI protects only the thyroid. It does not prevent radioactive iodine from entering the body through breathing, or by eating contaminated food. KI also does not protect other parts of the body besides the thyroid, and it cannot protect even the thyroid from other radioactive materials besides iodine. Nor can it reverse damage once the thyroid has been exposed to radioactive iodine. One dose of KI is effective for 24 hours.
Using Potassium Iodide After a Nuclear Radiation Emergency
Although iodized table salt also contains iodine, it doesn’t contain enough to block radioactive iodine and should not be used as a substitute for KI.
In most instances of radiation exposure, the benefits of taking KI outweigh any known risks or side effects. Newborn infants taking a repeat dose of KI increase their risk of developing hypothyroidism, or underactive thyroid.
KI is available over-the-counter and is sold without a prescription.
Radioactive poisoning.
Radiation exposure produces a number of symptoms, including hair loss, skin redness, radiation burns and, in extreme cases, acute radiation syndrome (ARS). A common effect is an increased cancer risk that can continue more than a decade after the exposure. After the atomic bomb was dropped over Japan during World War II, some survivors developed leukemia within a few years.
In the event of a nuclear accident, no one who is advised to take KI should hesitate to do so. It’s especially important for pregnant women, whose thyroids absorb radioactive iodine more quickly than those of other adults—and when the mother protects herself with KI, the thyroid of the fetus is protected as well.

To Download this Article: Radiation Poisoning