ALERT -- Europe Bans X-Ray Body Scanners Used at U.S. Airports

By Dr. Mercola

On November 14, 2011 the European Commission banned X-ray body scanners that use "backscatter" technology from airports.
The scanners, which are still in use in the United States, project X-ray beams onto your body using ionizing radiation to create a detailed reflection of your body that is displayed on a monitor viewed by a remotely located officer.
Ionizing radiation causes DNA damage that can lead to cancer, and its effects are cumulative.
This means that every time you pass through an X-ray scanner, your risk of developing cancer, and other unintended adverse effects, increases.
Ever since the machines were introduced, concerns over both privacy and public health have been voiced, which is why the European Commission's decision to take a proactive stance by using alternative scanners to protect their citizens' health is likely to bring the issue front and center once again.

Why Did Europe Ban X-Ray Body Scanners?

The European Commission did not give specifics, only noting:

"In order not to risk jeopardising citizens' health and safety, only security scanners which do not use X-ray technology are added to the list of authorised methods for passenger screening at EU airports."

Most likely, they decided that exposing millions of travelers to radiation for a non-medical reason is simply too big a risk to take, not to mention taboo in much of the world.
While the radiation levels used are reportedly very low, there is concern that the type of radiation used, namely, backscatter radiation, is uniquely toxic to the human body. 
Screening at an airport X-ray scanner reportedly produces .02 microsieverts of radiation. For comparison, you will be exposed to 20 microsieverts of radiation on a typical transcontinental flight at 30,000 feet.
The problem, however, is that we are comparing apples to oranges, and backscatter radiation – being manmade – may have adverse effects far beyond that of the natural background and cosmic radiation to which it is often compared -- as if to say "it's harmless," which it is not.  
There is also the problem that this calculation of radiation risk is based on the reported radiation levels. If we are being lied to then many will be exposing themselves to a health risk they might otherwise reconsider … and there are indications that there might be sound reason to question the reported radiation levels.

Are We Being Lied to About the Scanners' Radiation Levels?

A letter written by five professors revealed that there has not actually been any verifiable scientific testing of the safety of airport scanners -- and that the levels of radiation being used are likely much higher than the public has been led to believe.
These scientists believe that the high-quality images produced cannot possibly be obtained with the low levels of radiation described, and that the actual level may be 45 times higher than what the manufacturer is claiming.
The supposed "testing" of the Rapiscan Secure 1000, the most widely deployed X-ray scanner, was actually performed on a mock-up of spare parts "said to be similar to those that are parts of the Rapiscan system." In addition, none of these tests have ever been peer reviewed -- the data and even the names of the researchers who carried out the tests have been kept secret from the public.
Furthermore, as in so many other instances, our legal and civil rights are being willfully manipulated and trampled for the sake of private and corporate profits.
In this case, the former Homeland Security chief and co-author of the PATRIOT Act, Michael Chertoff, is now one of the primary promoters of full-body scanners, and is a paid consultant for the companies that sell them!
This is an issue that is still being unraveled, so it makes complete sense to use the precautionary approach. After all, we know there is no safe dose of X-ray radiation, and that every time you walk through an airport scanner, you're adding to your body's lifetime radiation load – a genetic time bomb that can detonate in the form of cancer, and other serious diseases, once the burden becomes too high. .

Radiation Technologies Can Malfunction

Even if we're not being lied to, common sense would dictate that we need to proceed with caution and not expose millions of travelers of all ages, and with any number of medical conditions, to unknown risks -- including risks from human error or technological malfunction.
The New York Times published an article in January 2010 about the alarming rise in radiation-related injuries and deaths. People know very little about the harm that can ensue when safety rules are violated and these powerful and technologically complex machines go awry.
For instance, the difference between a routine CT scan, which also uses ionizing radiation, and a debilitating injury is as simple as a computer error causing you to be blasted with errant beams of radiation, leaving you in unspeakable pain, or worse.
How can we be certain that similar errors will not occur with the X-ray scanners when malfunctions are always a risk of using technology? Furthermore, we must keep in mind that even CT scans were once deemed to have far lower levels of radiation than we know they have today.
As Dr. Russell Blaylock says:

"As for the assurances we have been given by such organization as the American College of Radiology, we must keep in mind that they assured us that the CT scans were safe and that the radiation was equal to one chest X-ray.
Forty years later we learn that the dose is extremely high; it is thought to have caused cancer in a significant number of people, and the dose is actually equal to 1,000 chest X-rays."

Indeed, a 2009 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine estimated that .4% of all cancers in the US may be attributable to the radiation from CT studies – confirming how profoundly inaccurate original safety assessments of this technology were, as well as how harmful X-ray-based diagnostic technologies really are.
These errors of the past should indeed serve as cautionary tales when making safety claims for brand new technologies. How many times will a belated "oops!" suffice before we demand the return of the precautionary principle, as is already being followed in Europe?

Radiation from Scanner Beams Concentrates on Your Skin

As summarized by WeWontFly.com, the dosage of radiation from the backscatter X-ray machines is absorbed almost entirely by your skin and the tissue right beneath it. Because of this, the normal way of understanding radiation risk by calculating the absorbed radiation dose across the volume of the entire body vs. the specific organs affected, will not provide an accurate picture of the real world risks involved.
Scientists from The University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) have echoed these concerns. Because the radiation beam from the scanners concentrates on your skin, researchers believe the dose may be up to 20 times higher than is being estimated. Another potential outcome of such exposure is skin cancer.
Dr. Jane M. Orient, M.D. has also brought up this concern. In an article for The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), she details what the medical community considers to be the REAL health hazard of full-body scanners using low-energy backscatter technology.
Dr. Orient explains:

"They use an ingenious low-energy backscatter technique, which is apparently wonderful for identifying explosives in cargo. Since the radiation doesn't penetrate far, it wouldn't affect an unborn baby. But it does concentrate the dose in the skin.
Some scientists warn that this effect has not been properly studied, and one nuclear medicine expert told me that he is going to opt out of the scan. I think this much is clear: if you had a deadly disease, and the scanner were an FDA-regulated device that might save your life, your doctor wouldn't be allowed to use it, because of inadequate study."

Dr. Russell Blaylock has also published his viewpoints on this issue, warning that skin cancer is a very real health risk of these machines.

How to Identify the Two Types of Body Scanners

The U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) began using advanced imaging technology (AIT) in airports nationwide in 2007. Today, there are about 510 AIT units at more than 90 U.S. airports that use one of two types of imaging technology: millimeter wave and backscatter.
Backscatter technology is the type noted above, which uses X-rays (ionizing radiation). This type of machine looks like two large blue boxes (you can view an image on the TSA's web site). The second type of technology, millimeter wave, uses electromagnetic waves to create a generic image of passengers. The millimeter wave unit looks more like a round booth and is subject to less controversy because it does not use ionizing radiation and therefore does not carry the same health risks.
Once you know what each type of machine looks like, you can opt-out accordingly or instead receive a manual pat-down. At this time, Scientific American reported that major airports like Los Angeles International, Chicago O'Hare and John F. Kennedy in New York (among others) use the backscatter machines, while airports in San Francisco, Atlanta and Dallas use millimeter wave technology.
Personally, as a very frequent air traveler, I ALWAYS opt-out of the x-ray scanner. Even if the radiation dose is minute (and that's a big IF), I'm not willing to risk my health by exposing my entire body to any avoidable dose on a regular basis.
Europe has already taken a strong stance against the use of these scanners, and in the United States if we have enough people objecting to this new technology we can get them to stop using it altogether. It is far too man-power intensive for agents to manually inspect everyone with the enhanced pat down.
In 2010, when massive numbers of people were planning on opting out in protest, they shut all the X-ray scanners off that day and ran people through the older ones. If 10 percent of us choose to opt out regularly, my guess is that they will shut the machines off permanently.
Currently the TSA reports that more than 99 percent of passengers choose to be screened by the x-ray scanners, so please remember you CAN make a difference by opting out.

Tips for Reducing Your Cumulative Radiation Load While Flying

If you're exposed to other forms of radiation through CT scans, mammograms and other medical procedures, your exposure could easily reach dangerous levels, and this is why it makes sense to avoid unnecessary radiation exposures as much as possible.
One way to reduce your radiation exposure by 99 percent while traveling by air is to fly at night. Just as it is impossible to get a suntan at night, you will avoid virtually all of the sun's radiation when you fly after sunset.
That's why I try to fly exclusively at night now, or as far away from noon as practically possible—in addition to opting out of the full-body scanner. I also take 8 mg of astaxanthin every day, which is believed to radically limit damage from ionizing radiation.

Source:  Scientific American November 15, 2011

Source:  Time Magazine November 17, 2011

Source:  European Commission Press Release November 14, 2011

Related Links:

  Each Time You are Exposed to This Machine, You Boost Your Risk of Cancer

  What the TSA is NOT Telling You about Full Body Scans...

  The Best Bomb Detectors for Airports - Why Aren't We Using Them?

Doctor Warns: Eat This and You’ll Look 5 Years Older

Posted By Dr. Mercola | December 08 2011

• The majority of soy's health claims are false; fostered by clever marketing to further reduce the cost and nutritional content of your food
• Ninety-four percent of all soy grown in the US is genetically engineered (GE), which virtually guarantees you're consuming GE soy when purchasing soy products and processed foods containing soy derivatives. Genetically engineered foods pose its own separate health risks, including hormone disruption and fertility problems
• Soy derivatives can "hide" under a variety of different names, including mono-diglyceride, soya, soja, yuba, TSF (textured soy flour), TSP (textured soy protein), TVP (textured vegetable protein), lecithin, and MSG
• Soy protein isolate can be found in protein bars, meal replacement shakes, bottled fruit drinks, soups and sauces, meat analogs, baked goods, breakfast cereals and dietary supplements. This hazardous ingredient has been linked to several troubling conditions, including diminished libido and erectile dysfunction
• The only soy foods with health benefits are USDA certified 100% organic, traditionally fermented soy products such as tempeh, miso and natto

 

The Cancer-Causing Mistake 1 in 4 People Over 45 Make

Posted By Dr. Mercola | December 07 2011

• A recent study found that use of any statin drug, in any amount, was associated with a significantly increased risk for prostate cancer
• Findings from previous studies investigating the statin-cancer link have been mixed, but a number of studies over the past 15 years have raised warnings over such a potential link
• Current cholesterol guidelines, which recommend LDL levels of less than 100 or even less than 70 for patients at very high risk of heart disease, are dangerously low, and are likely doing far more harm than good
• While reducing your risk of heart disease is the primary motivation for prescribing statins, these drugs can actually increase your risk of heart disease because they deplete your body of CoQ10, which can lead to heart failure. If you’re on statin drug therapy, you must also take a CoQ10 or ubiquinol supplement to stave off irreparable mitochondrial damage
• Statin drugs do not modulate LDL particle size, and particle size is the factor that can make LDL “bad” in the first place. Small LDL particles get easily stuck and cause chronic inflammation, which raises your risk of heart disease, while large, buoyant LDL particles do not have such adverse effects. Particle size can only be modulated through dietary intervention

 

If You Go to Church, Heed This Warning

Posted By Dr. Mercola | December 06 2011 

• The CDC and HHS held an “off-the-record, not-for-press-purposes” phone conference with church and community leaders.
• They want to administer flu vaccines in churches, synagogues and mosques.
• They are encouraging church leaders to “influence” people to get the shots through clinics run by Walgreens, which would send pharmacists out to places of worship to mass-vaccinate people in the church/synagogue/mosque.

 

Lead Poisoning Alert: This Widely Used Drink is Dangerous

By Dr. Mercola

Jeff Green has been an activist in the movement to eliminate a toxic fluoride from your water supply for the past 15 years.
The practice of adding fluoride to municipal tap water across the U.S. began in 1945.
With more than 60 percent of U.S. water supplies currently fluoridated, chances are you're one of the 170 million Americans who drink fluoride on a daily basis.
Chances are also high that you're unaware of the sordid history that made water fluoridation a reality in the first place, because contrary to popular belief, its origins actually had nothing to do with protecting your dental health.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, you might be unaware that the fluoride added to your water is far from pharmaceutical grade…

The Manhattan Project Gave Birth to More than the Atomic Bomb…

"If you go back, especially if you read some of the books and the information that came from the declassified documents from the Manhattan Project, you see that the primary motivation from the very beginning was liability protection," Green says, referring to the fact that massive amounts of fluoride was manufactured and used for the bomb-making process, which created huge liability once they realized just how toxic it was.
"… [M]ost people don't realize that the magical element [used] to make the bomb was uranium hexafluoride.  It was actually this special aspect that allowed them to separate the uranium isotopes to make the bomb."

The fluoride from this bomb-making process was initially released into the environment—as was fluoride waste products from the aluminum industry—where it ended up killing herds of cattle and wiping out entire orchards. Both the aluminum industry and the Manhattan Project realized they had a major toxic waste problem on their hands that would cost a lot of money to dispose of properly.

"Part of the protection for the liability was to basically put it everywhere and tell everybody it was great," Green says. 

But just how do you do that?
Very shrewdly… Water fluoridation could easily qualify as one of the grandest public health frauds and toxic cover-ups in U.S. history. The deceit has been so effective, you're hard-pressed to find anyone who doesn't automatically say, "But everyone knows fluoride is good for you!"

Why Fluoride HAD to be Declared Safe

Now declassified files of the Manhattan Project and the Atomic Energy Commission shows that the toxicology department at the University of Rochester -- which was under the direction of Harold Hodge -- was asked to produce medical information about fluoride that could help defend the government against lawsuits where they were charged with fluoride pollution.
It is now clear that if water fluoridation were declared harmful to human health, the U.S. nuclear bomb program, as well as many other fluoride-polluting industries such as aluminum plants and fertilizer manufacturers, would have been left open to massive litigation.
The plan?
Declare fluoride not only safe, but beneficial, and sell the troublesome waste to municipalities across the US… 

How the Idea for Water Fluoridation Came about

The brainchild of water fluoridation was Gerald Cox, a researcher with the Mellon Institute in Pittsburg. He received the suggestion to look at fluoride's dental effects from Francis C. Frary, then director of the aluminum laboratory for the Aluminum Company of America. Frary had reasons for the suggestion other than the possibility of protecting tooth enamel, however. He was very concerned about the fluoride pollution being generated by the aluminum plant, as lawsuits from surrounding farmers increased.
Another major player in the creation of this scheme was Harold Hodge, the chief toxicologist of the Manhattan Project. As part of a group of scientists and engineers who helped develop the atomic bomb in World War II, Hodge was responsible for evaluating the toxicity of the chemicals used in the production of the bomb. One of the chemicals, as mentioned, was fluoride. Due to the massive amounts of fluoride required to produce bomb-grade uranium and plutonium for these nuclear weapons, the Manhattan Project also needed some way to avoid potentially crippling lawsuits.
Last but not least, there was Robert Kehoe with the Kettering Laboratory, a private toxicology lab that ended up producing a massive bibliography of abstracts on the soundness of communal water fluoridation, and fluoride's (beneficial) role in public health.
However, this research was not particularly independent or unbiased. Not only was Robert Kehoe working for the Fluorine Lawyers Committee, preparing defenses in fluoride litigation cases, the Kettering report on the health benefits of fluoride was also funded by the National Institute of Dental Research and fluoride-polluting industry-heavyweights like:

The Aluminum company of America (ALCOA)	DuPont	Reynolds Metals
The Aluminum company of Canada	Kaiser Aluminum	U.S. Steel

What's Really Being Added to Your Water Supply?

Originally, the fluoride used to fluoridate water supplies came from the aluminum and atomic bomb industries. A couple of years later, however, they realized there was another fluoride product that was much more readily available.  The reason it was so readily accessible was because it was a truly hazardous waste that was very hard to get rid of, namely hydrogen fluoride from the phosphate fertilizer industry.
This fluoride gas is captured in the scrubber system and turned into hydrofluorosilicic acid—which is the primary source of fluoride used for water fluoridation. This phosphate fertilizer byproduct also typically contains arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury, plus a variety of other contaminants that are part of the phosphate ore.

"And so now you have a product, or a hazardous material, that you can't put in an ocean, you can't put in a river or lake or stream, you can't bury it, and you can't even give it away," says Green. But you can sell it and put it in the commercial water supplies!
"… [T]his is why we hear all of these constant claims of how great it is without any treatment," Green says. "Meaning, it doesn't have to be filtered. It doesn't have to be refined or anything. It can be taken directly all across the United States and dumped in the water—the very place they couldn't put it directly [if it was still considered hazardous waste]."

Fluoride Proponents Never Actually Tested "the Real Thing"

Part of the difficulty when discussing water fluoridation is that many do not realize that the fluoride you find in drugs, for example, while harmful, is not quite as bad as what's being used for water fluoridation.  The fluoride added to your drinking water is not pharmaceutical grade.
It's a toxic industrial waste product.
Deepening the deception is the fact that none of the studies on fluoride actually used the far more toxic hydrofluorosilicic acid that is added to the water supply. Rather they use pharmaceutical grade fluoride, so the health hazards are likely FAR worse than any study has so far discerned.

"So when someone uses the word fluoride, I believe we start with a deception from the very beginning," Green says. "… [T]here is almost a bragging by the promoters of fluoridation that you don't have to study it because they have studied fluoride over and over again, yet they have never looked at the actual product itself until just recently!
In 1998 to 2000, I was able to get a congressional investigation on fluoride.  At that particular time, the House Committee on Science allowed us to write some questions that would be sent out to various entities.  Originally it was to the EPA…  We asked them to send the scientific data they had on the silicofluorides.  They wrote back [saying they] couldn't find any [data] for chronic effects of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid or the silicofluorides. 
They didn't have any at all.
Up until 2010, and now 2011, there have only been two studies that have dealt with the continued use of hydrofluorosilicic acid. 
… [T]hey were able to finally confirm, through these toxicological studies, the very thing they had found through large epidemiological study—that there is a higher amount of lead that shows up in blood.  In the epidemiological study it was 400,000 children.  It showed that there was a tremendous increase... four times as much for Latinos, seven times as much for blacks, and a[n on average] doubling of the danger level of lead in children's blood, when hydrofluorosilicic acid was present in the water."
The importance of that was that it was also compared to having no fluoride added into the water and [pharmaceutical grade] sodium fluoride added into the water.  So there was really a difference between the specific products being placed in there." 

Fluoride Increases Heavy Metal Accumulation in Your Body

These studies also showed that hydrofluorosilicic acid increases lead accumulation in bone, teeth, and other calcium-rich tissues. According to Green, the free fluoride ion actually acts as a transport of heavy metals, allowing them to enter into areas of your body they normally would not be able to go, such as into your brain.

"Industry prizes what we call fluoride compounds," Green says. "What's amazing is there is so much [information] out there that's never explained to the general public.  But [fluoride] is… the most aggressive seeker of another electron.  It's the most electromagnetically negatively charged element in the entire world.  It basically is the most interactive of all the elements… It will give up whatever it's with to be with something else…
So it's prized by industry because it actually disrupts molecular bonds… Industry also wants it because it creates tighter molecular bonds.  So Scotchgard, Stain Master, Gore-Tex, ski gear… These are all fluoride-type compounds as well because they actually make it a tighter molecular bond that is more impervious to penetration. 
… By the time you get to the enzyme activity, and knowing what it can do to disrupt enzyme activity, the effects are so widespread, it's just amazing... Once [people] learn the nature of fluoride, they would never want to put it in their water."

How to Eliminate Water Fluoridation—An Alternative Strategy

Green suggests an alternative strategy for ending water fluoridation. Rather than being "anti" fluoridation, he prefers reframing the issue from a more positive perspective.

"First of all, we always have to determine what our audience is," Green says. "There are certain audiences that you could talk about science to because they are scientists… but for the general public, [you need to] start talking about the nature of fluoride, and broaden the base of their understanding so it isn't just a single-purpose agent that is being placed in the water…
So as an example, fluoride is used in the ceramics business to make ceramics more porous.  Well, it does exactly the same thing to your bones.  Once they have learned all the other uses for fluoride, it becomes very easy to see how it does the same thing to your own calcium-rich tissues."

Join the Fight to Get Fluoride Out of Drinking Water

Earlier this year I joined forces with Dr. Paul Connett to help put an END to water fluoridation in the U.S and Canada. The Fluoride Action Network has a game plan to do just that.  Our fluoride initiative will primarily focus on Canada since 60 percent of Canada is already non-fluoridated. If we can get Calgary and the rest of Canada to stop fluoridating their water, we believe the U.S. will be forced to follow.
I urge you to join the anti-fluoride movement in Canada and United States by contacting the representative for your area below.
Contact Information for Canadian Communities:

1. If you live in Ontario, Canada, please join the ongoing effort by contacting Diane Sprules at diane.sprules@cogeco.ca.
2. The point-of-contact for Toronto, Canada is Aliss Terpstra. You may email her at aliss@nutrimom.ca.

Contact Information for American Communities:
We're also going to address three US communities: New York City, Austin, and San Diego:

1. New York City, NY: The anti-fluoridation movement has a great champion in New York City councilor Peter Vallone, Jr. who introduced legislation on January 18 "prohibiting the addition of fluoride to the water supply."
   
   A victory there could signal the beginning of the end of fluoridation in the U.S. If you live in the New York area I beg you to participate in this effort as your contribution could have a MAJOR difference. Remember that one person can make a difference.
   
   The point person for this area is Carol Kopf, at the New York Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation (NYSCOF). Email her at NYSCOF@aol.com . Please contact her if you're interested in helping with this effort.
2. Austin, Texas: Join the effort by contacting Rae Nadler-Olenick at either: info@fluoridefreeaustin.com or fluoride.info@yahoo.com, or by regular mail or telephone:
   
   

   POB 7486
   Austin, Texas 78713
   Phone: (512) 371-3786

   
   San Diego, California: Contact Patty Ducey-Brooks, publisher of the Presidio Sentinel at pbrooks936@aol.com.

Source:  Video Transcript

Related Links:

  The Toxic Import from China Hidden in This Everyday Beverage...

  The Toxin So Dangerous - Even CDC Now Warns Against Consumption by Infants

  One of the Biggest Health Frauds EVER Perpetrated on the American People...

It Can Destroy Your Immune System and is Like Eating an Insecticide

By Dr. Mercola

In early studies of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), it was shown to be most prevalent in countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States and those in northern Europe.
However, in more recent studies, Canada has suddenly shot to the top of the list as the country with the highest incidence.
In 1981, the incidence of IBD in Alberta, Canada was only 44 per 100,000; less than half that of Olmsted County in Minnesota.
By the year 2000, the incidence in Alberta had skyrocketed to 283 per 100,000; now 63 percent higher than that in Olmstead County in the US.
The question is, why?

Could Widespread Consumption of Splenda Explain Skyrocketing IBD Rates?

It's worth noting here that IBD is different from another condition that sounds very similar, namely irritable bowel syndrome, or IBS.
Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is an autoimmune disease that can have very serious consequences, while IBS is a functional bowel disorder.
Many IBD patients wind up having extensive sections of their colon removed to address the problem when conventional therapies fail and this can result in devastating and life-threatening complications.
A paper published in the Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology theorizes that the increase in this troublesome disease may be related to the impairment of digestive proteases, caused by the inhibition of gut bacteria by dietary chemicals, such as saccharin and sucralose.  Saccharin fails to provide an explanation for the rise of IBD, as Canada adopted stringent standards for the use of saccharin in 1977 -- but this is not the case for sucralose (Splenda).
According to the authors:

"If not saccharin, then what caused the remarkable increase of IBD in Canada? ... [S]ucralose may be the culprit ... In 1991, Canada was the first country to approve the use of sucralose, and it was allowed to be used as a tabletop sweetener in breakfast cereals, beverages, desserts, toppings, fillings, chewing gum, breath mints, fruit spreads, salad dressings, confectionary, bakery products, processed fruits and vegetables, alcoholic beverages, puddings and table syrups."

The theory that Splenda may be a culprit in the rise of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) appears to be a reasonable one, echoing the results from a 2008 study published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, which discovered that Splenda:

• Increases the pH level in your intestines, and 
• Reduces the amount of good bacteria in your intestines by 50 percent!

In the featured paper, the author states that sucralose has a potent inhibitory effect on your gut bacteria and inactivates digestive protease. It also alters gut barrier function. All in all, this may help explain the pronounced increase in IBD in Canada since its introduction into the food supply.
Believe me, if you keep destroying up to half of your gut flora by regularly consuming Splenda, then poor health is virtually guaranteed! Making matters worse, most people are already deficient in healthy bacteria due to excessive consumption of highly processed foods, which is why a high quality probiotic supplement is a good idea for most people. If you add sucralose to an already unbalanced intestinal tract, health problems are very likely to ensue...

The Signs and Symptoms of Sucralose Toxicity

I have done a fair level of literature review on this as I invested several years with four other professionals to write the definitive work on Splenda , which was published by Putnam in 2006.
It's important to understand that despite its misleading slogan, Splenda (sucralose) is nothing like sugar. Rather it's a chlorinated artificial sweetener in line with aspartame and saccharin, and with detrimental health effects to match. In fact, while sucralose starts out as a sugar molecule, by the time the manufacturing process is completed, it more closely resembles DDT than sugar.
It could easily be likened to eating an insecticide...
Unfortunately, many fail to connect the dots between their symptoms and their use of Splenda, or other artificial sweeteners. I recommend reading through the first-hand accounts of my readers, at least one of whom say that Splenda is "worse than chemical warfare" based on the adverse effects she suffered before she figured out the cause. Just as with aspartame, many Splenda users complain of general malaise or "feeling under the weather," along with a variety of neurological changes, such as foggy-headedness, lack of concentration, and "bad mood."
Commonly reported symptoms (usually experienced within 24 hours after consuming Splenda) include:

Eyes – bloodshot, itchy, swollen, or watery eyes and swelling of the eyelids	Joints – aches and pains	Nose – sneezing and runny or stuffy nose
Head – headaches, migraines, and swelling of the face, lips, throat, or tongue	Lungs – cough, tightness, shortness of breath, and wheezing	Skin – blistering, crusting, eruptions, hives, itchiness, redness, swelling, and oozing
Heart – fluttering or palpitations	Neurological – anxiety, depression, dizziness, and decreased ability to concentrate	Stomach – bloating, bloody diarrhea, diarrhea, gas, nausea, pain, and vomiting

If you experience any of these symptoms and have just consumed Splenda, or consume it on a regular basis, I strongly recommend carefully avoiding any further exposure for a few days to a few weeks to see if the symptoms disappear. If they do, you may just have solved your own "health mystery." Likewise, if you have inflammatory bowel disease and consume any kind of Splenda product or other artificial sweetener, you'd be wise to avoid such items in order to improve your condition.
I believe it's important to identify the culprit, as the long-term damage of Splenda consumption is largely unknown. Still, it would probably be a fair guess that long-term exposure is not going to be beneficial to your health—especially if you're having symptoms of toxicity! It's a sad reality that very few appropriate studies have been performed on Splenda. The vast majority of the studies that formed the basis for its approval in the US were done on animals, and they actually found plenty of problems even though they were ultimately dismissed, including:

• Brain lesions
• Decreased red blood cell count and anemia
• Enlarged and calcified kidneys
• Increased mortality
• Male infertility
• Spontaneous abortions in rabbits

Diet Soda May Also Raise Your Stroke Risk

Another recent study, featured by Dr. Sanjay Gupta, reported that diet soda consumption was linked to higher rates of strokes, heart attacks and other lethal vascular events. (The study did not specify any particular artificial sweetener involved, but diet sodas typically use either aspartame or sucralose, sometimes both, and both have similar health hazards.)
The researchers concluded that:

"This study suggests that diet soda is not an optimal substitute for sugar-sweetened beverages, and may be associated with a greater risk of stroke, myocardial infarction, or vascular death than regular soda."

While more research will likely be needed to confirm this potential link, there's plenty of evidence showing that artificial sweeteners such as sucralose and aspartame can be dangerous to your health.

Ready to Kick the Artificial Sweetener Habit?

If you're using an artificial sweetener, it's probably because you're trying to avoid the calories while still craving that sweet taste. Sweet cravings are very common, and quite understandable when you realize that sugar is as addictive as some hard-core street drugs. Unfortunately, switching to artificial sweeteners will neither reduce these cravings nor increase your satiety. On the contrary, you're likely making matters worse.
Your body tends to crave sugary foods when it's lacking proper fuel. Sugar is very quick fuel and can give your body a boost when it's running low. However, using artificial sweeteners will not trick your body into thinking it has had its fill; rather it wants more sweets because it didn't get the energy boost that normally goes along with the sweet taste. In fact, this is part of why artificial sweeteners are associated with increased weight gain rather than weight loss. You're simply confusing your body.
The most powerful solution to help curb your cravings is to eat a wholesome diet of real food, and by 'real food' I mean fresh, whole (preferably organic, as it's more nutrient-dense) foods that have been minimally processed, if at all. Once your body has the fuel it needs to keep going, it doesn't need to "remind" you, in the form of sugar cravings, that it needs an energy boost.
To learn what a "healthful diet" really is, I invite you to review my nutrition plan, which is divided into three steps: beginners, intermediary and advanced, so that you can progress at your own pace.
Earlier this summer, nutrition- and fitness expert Ori Hofmekler also shared a fascinating benefit of caffeine that can be helpful here. If you like coffee, drinking organic black coffee (without sugar or milk) can help eliminate sugar cravings because the caffeine is an opioid receptor antagonist. Sugar binds to the same opioid receptors as cocaine and other addictive substances, but when an opioid receptor antagonist already occupies that receptor, it prohibits you from becoming addicted to something else. Therefore, caffeine may attenuate the addictive impact of sugar.  There are a few caveats to using this strategy however, including:

• Only drink organic coffee (as it's one of the most pesticide-heavy crops there are)
• Drink it black, sans sugar/artificial sweeteners or milk
• Only drink coffee in the morning, prior to exercise
• Limit your consumption to one or two cups

Guidelines for Addressing Inflammatory Bowel Diseases

Since I began this discussion with Splenda's potential impact on inflammatory bowel diseases, I want to address a few of the most important lifestyle factors involved. Now, those with IBD need to strictly limit or eliminate their sugar consumption, but I firmly believe that switching to an artificial sweetener is an unwise move for all the reasons discussed above. While sugar will promote inflammation by increasing your insulin levels, artificial sweeteners will destroy your gut flora and further damage your intestines, and more...
If you have IBD and battle sugar cravings, I urge you to carefully review my 'quitting' recommendations just covered, and address your diet to put an end to those cravings. The following strategies are also important if you're struggling with IBD:

• Take a high quality animal-based omega-3 fat supplement. If you're already taking a plant-based omega-3 such as flax, know that it will not work as your body needs the omega-3 fat DHA to have a serious impact on this disease, not the omega-3 ALA found in flax.
• Avoid all types of sugars, particularly fructose, as these will increase inflammation by increasing your insulin levels.
• Also avoid grains until your symptoms are under control. Many with inflammatory bowel disease have gluten sensitivities. Additionally, the grains tend to increase insulin levels, promoting inflammation.
• Optimize your vitamin D levels. Vitamin D appears to be nearly as effective as animal-based omega-3 fats.
• Get plenty of beneficial bacteria (probiotics) in your diet, as this will help to heal your intestinal tract. You can do this by regularly consuming traditionally fermented foods, or taking a high quality probiotic supplement.

Source:  Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology September, 2011; 25 (9): 511

Source:  Green Med Info

Related Links:

  The Potential Dangers of Sucralose—Reader Testimonials

  The Caloric Mistake that DOUBLES Your Risk of Gaining Pounds

  New Study of Splenda Reveals Shocking Information About Potential Harmful Effects

The Surprising Cause of Melanoma (And No, it's Not Too Much Sun)

By Dr. Mercola

Rates of melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer, have been rising for at least the last three decades, and this increase has been largely blamed on exposure to ultraviolet (UV) light from the sun.
However, research published in the British Journal of Dermatology shows that the sun is likely nothing more than a scapegoat in the development of melanoma, and the sharp increase may actually be "an artifact caused by diagnostic drift."

Melanoma Increases Due to Benign Disease, Not Sunlight

Diagnostic drift, according to the study, refers to a hefty increase in disease that is being fueled by non-cancerous lesions.
In fact, during the study period from 1991 to 2004, there were nearly 4,000 cases of melanoma included in the report, with an annual increase of 9.39 to 13.91 cases per 100,000 per year.
The researchers revealed that, rather than being fueled by increasing exposure to sunlight as is commonly suggested, the increased incidence was almost entirely due to minimal, stage 1 disease.
They noted:

"There was no change in the combined incidence of the other stages of the disease, and the overall mortality only increased from 2.16 to 2.54 cases per 100,000 per year … We therefore conclude that the large increase in reported incidence is likely to be due to diagnostic drift, which classifies benign lesions as stage 1 melanoma."

In other words, people are being diagnosed with melanoma skin cancer even when they have only a minimal, non-cancerous lesion, and these diagnoses appear to be skewing disease rates significantly. Further, adding even more credence to the growing body of evidence showing sun exposure is not the primary cause of melanoma, the researchers noted that the distribution of the lesions reported did not correspond to the sites of lesions caused by sun exposure.
They concluded:

"These findings should lead to a reconsideration of the treatment of 'early' lesions, a search for better diagnostic methods to distinguish them from truly malignant melanomas, re-evaluation of the role of ultraviolet radiation and recommendations for protection from it, as well as the need for a new direction in the search for the cause of melanoma."

Is Lack of Sunlight a More Likely Culprit?

Despite all the bad press linking sun exposure to skin cancer, there's almost no evidence at all to support it. There is, however, plenty of evidence to the contrary. Over the years, several studies have confirmed that appropriate sun exposure actually helps prevent skin cancer. In fact, melanoma occurrence has been found to decrease with greater sun exposure, and can be increased by sunscreens.
One of the most important facts you should know is that an epidemic of the disease has in fact broken out among indoor workers. These workers get three to nine times LESS solar UV exposure than outdoor workers get, yet only indoor workers have increasing rates of melanoma -- and the rates have been increasing since before 1940.
There are two major factors that help explain this, and the first has to do with the type of UV exposure.
There are two primary types of UV rays from sunlight, the vitamin-D-producing UVB rays and the skin-damaging UVA light. Both UVA and UVB can cause tanning and burning, although UVB does so far more rapidly. UVA, however, penetrates your skin more deeply than UVB, and may be a much more important factor in photoaging, wrinkles and skin cancers.
A study in Medical Hypotheses suggested that indoor workers may have increased rates of melanoma because they're exposed to sunlight through windows, and only UVA light, unlike UVB, can pass through window glass. At the same time, these indoor workers are missing out on exposure to the beneficial UVB rays, and have lower levels of vitamin D.
Researchers wrote:

"We hypothesize that one factor involves indoor exposures to UVA (321–400nm) passing through windows, which can cause mutations and can break down vitamin D3 formed after outdoor UVB (290–320nm) exposure, and the other factor involves low levels of cutaneous vitamin D3.
After vitamin D3 forms, melanoma cells can convert it to the hormone, 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3, or calcitriol, which causes growth inhibition and apoptotic cell death in vitro and in vivo. 
… We agree that intense, intermittent outdoor UV overexposures and sunburns initiate CMM [cutaneous malignant melanoma]; we now propose that increased UVA exposures and inadequately maintained cutaneous levels of vitamin D3 promotes CMM."

To put it simply, UVB appears to be protective against melanoma -- or rather, the vitamin D your body produces in response to UVB radiation is protective.
As written in The Lancet:

"Paradoxically, outdoor workers have a decreased risk of melanoma compared with indoor workers, suggesting that chronic sunlight exposure can have a protective effect."

Vitamin D Helps Protect You Against Cancer

Vitamin D is a steroid hormone that influences virtually every cell in your body, and is easily one of nature's most potent cancer fighters. So I want to stress again that if you are shunning all sun exposure, you are missing out on this natural cancer protection.
Your organs can convert the vitamin D in your bloodstream into calcitriol, which is the hormonal or activated version of vitamin D. Your organs then use it to repair damage, including damage from cancer cells and tumors. Vitamin D's protective effect against cancer works in multiple ways, including:

• Increasing the self-destruction of mutated cells (which, if allowed to replicate, could lead to cancer)
• Reducing the spread and reproduction of cancer cells
• Causing cells to become differentiated (cancer cells often lack differentiation)
• Reducing the growth of new blood vessels from pre-existing ones, which is a step in the transition of dormant tumors turning cancerous

This applies not only to skin cancer but other types of cancer as well. Theories linking vitamin D to certain cancers have been tested and confirmed in more than 200 epidemiological studies, and understanding of its physiological basis stems from more than 2,500 laboratory studies, according to epidemiologist Cedric Garland, DrPH, professor of family and preventive medicine at the UC San Diego School of Medicine.
Here are just a few highlights into some of the most noteworthy findings:

• Some 600,000 cases of breast and colorectal cancers could be prevented each year if vitamin D levels among populations worldwide were increased, according to previous research by Dr. Garland and colleagues.
• Optimizing your vitamin D levels could help you to prevent at least 16 different types of cancer including pancreatic, lung, ovarian, prostate, and skin cancers.
• A large-scale, randomized, placebo-controlled study on vitamin D and cancer showed that vitamin D can cut overall cancer risk by as much as 60 percent. This was such groundbreaking news that the Canadian Cancer Society has actually begun endorsing the vitamin as a cancer-prevention therapy.
• Light-skinned women who had high amounts of long-term sun exposure had half the risk of developing advanced breast cancer (cancer that spreads beyond your breast) as women with lower amounts of regular sun exposure, according to a study in the American Journal of Epidemiology.
• A study by Dr. William Grant, Ph.D., internationally recognized research scientist and vitamin D expert, found that about 30 percent of cancer deaths -- which amounts to 2 million worldwide and 200,000 in the United States -- could be prevented each year with higher levels of vitamin D.

When Using the Sun to Fight Cancer, the Dose is What Matters

When I recommend using the sun therapeutically, this means getting the proper dosage to optimize your vitamin D levels. This typically means exposing enough of your unclothed skin surface to get a slight pink color on your skin. Your exact time will vary radically depending on many variables, such as you skin color, time of day, season, clouds, altitude and age.  The key principle is to never get burned, while still spending as much time as you can in the sun during the peak hours, as it is virtually impossible to overdose as long as you don't get burned.
A common myth is that occasional exposure of your face and hands to sunlight is "sufficient" for vitamin D nutrition. For most of us, this is an absolutely inadequate exposure to move vitamin D levels to the healthy range. Further, if you use sunscreen, you will block your body's ability to produce vitamin D!
And, contrary to popular belief, the best time to be in the sun for vitamin D production is actually as near to solar noon as possible which is 1 PM in the summer for most (due to Daylight Saving Time).. The more damaging UVA rays are quite constant during ALL hours of daylight, throughout the entire year -- unlike UVB, which are low in morning and evening and high at midday.
When using the sun to maximize your vitamin D production and minimize your risk of malignant melanoma, the middle of the day (roughly between 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m.) is the best and safest time. During this time you need the shortest exposure time to produce vitamin D because UVB rays are most intense at this time. Plus, when the sun goes down toward the horizon, the UVB is filtered out much more than the dangerous UVA.
Once you reach this point your body will  peak at about 10,000-40,000 units of vitamin D. Any additional exposure will only cause harm and damage to your skin. Most people with fair skin will max out their vitamin D production in just 10-20 minutes, or, again, when your skin starts turning the lightest shade of pink. Some will need less, others more. The darker your skin, the longer exposure you will need to optimize your vitamin D production.

Why Not Just Take Vitamin D from a Supplement?

You can get vitamin D3 in supplement form, and if sunlight or a safe tanning bed is not an option, this is a better choice than getting no vitamin D at all. If you do use a supplement, it now appears as though most adults need about 8,000 IU's of vitamin D a day in order to get their serum levels above 40 ng/ml.
However, sunlight is really the superior source for vitamin D, as when you expose your skin to sunshine, your skin synthesizes vitamin D3 sulfate. This form of vitamin D is water soluble, unlike oral vitamin D3 supplements, which is unsulfated. The water-soluble form can travel freely in your bloodstream, whereas the unsulfated form needs LDL (the so-called "bad" cholesterol) as a vehicle of transport.
The oral non-sulfated form of vitamin D may not provide all of the same benefits as the vitamin D created in your skin from sun exposure, because it cannot be converted to vitamin D sulfate.
I believe this is a very compelling reason to really make a concerted effort to get your vitamin D requirements from exposure to sunshine, or by using a safe tanning bed (one with electronic ballasts rather than magnetic ballasts, to avoid unnecessary exposure to EMF fields). Safe tanning beds also have less of the dangerous UVA than sunlight, while unsafe ones have more UVA than sunlight. If neither of these are feasible options, then you should take an oral vitamin D3 supplement.

What Should Your Vitamin D Levels be for Cancer Protection?

In 2007 the recommended level was between 40 to 60 nanograms per milliliter (ng/ml). Since then, the optimal vitamin D level has been raised to 50-70 ng/ml, and when treating cancer or heart disease, as high as 70-100 ng/ml.

I recommend you have your levels tested and regularly monitored to make sure they are in the therapeutic range. Your physician can do this for you, or another alternative is to join the D*Action study. D*Action is a worldwide public health campaign aiming to solve the vitamin D deficiency epidemic through focus on testing, education, and grassroots word of mouth.
When you join D*action, you agree to test your vitamin D levels twice a year during a five-year program, and share your health status to demonstrate the public health impact of this nutrient. There is a $60 fee each 6 months ($120/year) for your sponsorship of the project, which includes a complete new test kit to be used at home, and electronic reports on your ongoing progress.
You will get a follow up email every six months reminding you "it's time for your next test and health survey." To join now, please follow this link to the sign up form. 

Natural Treatment for Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer

Melanoma skin cancer is the deadliest form, but far more common are non-melanoma skin cancers, which impact millions of Americans every year.
If you or someone you love is affected, a cream containing eggplant extract, known as BEC and BEC5, appears to cure and eliminate most non-melanoma skin cancers in several weeks time. Unlike conventional skin-cancer treatment, which is often surgery, the eggplant-extract cream leaves no scarring and no visible sign a tumor or lesion was ever present. The eggplant extract appears to be exceptionally safe and only kills cancerous cells, leaving healthy cells untouched, and causes only minor side effects, such as itching and burning.
The leading researcher in this area today is Dr. Bill E. Cham, who reported as early as 1991 in Cancer Letters that:

"A cream formulation containing high concentrations (10%) of a standard mixture of solasodine glycosides (BEC) has been shown to be effective in the treatment of malignant and benign human skin tumors.
We now report that a preparation … which contains very low concentrations of BEC (0.005%) is effective in the treatment of keratoses, basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) and squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) of the skin of humans. In an open study, clinical and histological observations indicated that all lesions (56 keratoses, 39 BCCs and 29 SCCs) treated with [the preparation] had regressed."

Dr. Cham's latest study was published in the International Journal of Clinical Medicine this year. The paper includes two impressive case reports of 60-something men who were suffering from large basal cell carcinoma (BCC) or squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), which had plagued them for years.  The results upon treatment with a cream formulation of BEC (eggplant extract) twice a day are astounding, and you can view the pictures here.
Unfortunately, simply eating eggplant, tomatoes, peppers or similar veggies, while beneficial for many reasons, will not induce this same effect because the active components are not able to effectively penetrate your cells. This requires the addition of glycosides, molecules with various simple sugars attached to them that can latch on to receptors found on skin cancer cells.

Simple Skin Cancer Prevention Strategies

What's even better than an inexpensive, safe and natural cure for skin cancer is, of course, preventing it in the first place. Your body is made to be in the sun, and, when done properly, sun exposure will be one of the best ways you can help reduce your risk of skin, and many other forms of, cancer. Along with optimizing your vitamin D levels, the carotenoid astaxanthin has also piqued the interest of researchers due to its ability to reduce signs of aging by helping protect your skin from sun damage. I personally take 8 mg every day to help limit any potential damage from sun exposure as most of the year I am able to spend one to two hours a day in the sun.
Consuming a healthy diet full of natural antioxidants is another useful strategy to avoid sun damage to your skin, as fresh, raw, unprocessed foods deliver the nutrients that your body needs to maintain a healthy balance of omega-6 and omega-3 oils in your skin, which is your first line of defense against sunburn.
Fresh, raw vegetables also provide your body with an abundance of powerful antioxidants that will help you fight the free radicals caused by sun damage that can lead to burns and cancer.

Source:  British Journal of Dermatology September 2009; 161(3): 630-634

Related Links:

  Does Sun Exposure Really Cause Melanoma?

  Sun CAN Actually Help Protect You Against Skin Cancer

  How Supermodel Gisele Bundchen "Infuriated Cancer Experts"...