"All the World's a Stage We Pass Through" R. Ayana

Sunday, 27 October 2013

Cancer Officially Number One Cause of Childhood Death in U.S.

Cancer Officially Number One Cause of Childhood Death in U.S.



The number one reason blamed for childhood deaths in America used to be accidents; now it’s cancer.



ABC News is reporting that cancer has officially outranked every other cause of childhood death in this country:

Cancer is the leading cause of childhood death in the United States, with 13,500 new diagnoses each year according to the American Cancer Institute. One out of every 300 boys and one out of every 333 girls will develop cancer before their 20th birthday, according to the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Cancer in America has seen a sharp increase over the last 100 years across all age groups. Data from the U.S. Public Health Service estimates that cancer death rates in 1900 were around 64 per 100,000; that number has increased almost threefold to 188.7 per 100,000 in 2005.


In fact, the chances of an American being diagnosed with some type of cancer in his or her lifetime is now one in two.

This dramatic increase over a relatively short span of time obviously suggests environmental factors are at play here. So why haven’t all these charitable “run for the cure” cancer drives — fundraisers that happen year after year after year as cancer rates only continue to grow — ever cured anything?

The Cancer Prevention Coalition (CPC) notes that cancer equals big business in this country:

Winning the war on cancer means preventing cancer. Yet cancer is a multi-billion dollar business. Isn’t preventing cancer bad for business? It is for the pharmaceutical and mammography businesses. These industries have intricate ties to U. S. policy makers, directing research funds to ensure their continued profits in cancer diagnosis/treatment.

If prevention is key to crushing cancer, then finding out what is actually causing this cancer epidemic from independent studies not funded by the very companies that stand to profit off pointing fingers in the wrong direction is the first step.

What is causing all this cancer, especially the rise in children? Two big factors may be chemicals and electromagnetic radiation.

A whopping 70-90% of any average U.S. grocery store is filled with processed foods full of chemical additives and preservatives, many of which are genetically modified, in addition to the fact that a vast majority of U.S. food is tainted with pesticides.

The CPC discusses multiple studies that have come to the same conclusion: continual exposure to the multitude of carcinogenic pesticides in this country’s food supply is killing our kids:

As documented by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), residues of numerous carcinogenic pesticides are commonly found in most fruits and vegetables. Additionally, milk and other dairy products are often laden with carcinogenic pesticides and antibiotics. Factory farm meat, particularly liver, veal, frankfurters and hamburgers, are also contaminated with carcinogenic pesticides, besides growth-stimulating sex hormones and other feed additives.

The Bush [Sr.] Administration has flung open the floodgates to carcinogens in our food. With active support of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has in effect revoked the 1958 Delaney law, which banned intentional contamination of food with any level of carcinogen.

Instead, the EPA now allows residues of any carcinogenic pesticide in any food at levels posing allegedly “acceptable” or “negligible risk,” as determined by manipulated numbers.

Should pesticide in our food really ever be considered “acceptable”?

Michael Taylor, former Monsanto Vice President for Public Policy and our current Food Safety Czar in this Twilight Zone we all live in, wrote “The De Minimis Interpretation of the Delaney Clause: Legal and Policy Rationale” advocating a change in the interpretation of the 1958 Delaney Clause back in 1988. On it’s face, Delaney literally stated that no carcinogenic agents could be added to processed foods. Taylor’s interpretation paved the way to altering Delaney to be interpreted so that small amounts of known carcinogens could be added to our food, all without regard to the cumulative negative health effects.

Taylor wrote this, by the way, while working at a law firm contracted by Monsanto.

Another potential factor is the continual bathing of our growing children’s brains and bodies in electromagnetic radiation (EMR). Estimates show that those of us living in modern-day America are experiencing 100,000,000 times more electromagnetic frequency (EMF) than our grandparents did simply by existing. Incidents of brain tumors have also been found to be higher in Western, developed nations. Everything from cell phones to cell towers going up everywhere to household appliances to computers…even cars emit EMF. Many of these technologies were never tested for potential harmful effects. Research has found EMF does have an adverse effect on tissues and cells, and this non-ionizing radiation has been classified as a carcinogen or potential carcinogen.

The top two childhood cancers are leukemia and cancers of the brain and nervous system. Studies have linked both EMF exposure and childhood leukemia (for a few examples, see here, here, here and here), and EMF exposure to childhood brain tumors (see here, here and here). Belgium just banned cell phones specifically designed for children up to age 7 based on this risk.

Armed with this information, recommendations have been suggested for limiting a child’s exposure to pressing cell phones up to their skulls via hands-free devices or even using speakerphone options. WI-FI exposure in the house can be limited by opting to hard wire computers to modems and unplugging computers and modems at night or when not in use.

In a pediatric nursing article “Cell Phones and Children: Follow the Precautionary Road” Suzanne Rosenberg wrote, “While the government has deemed RF radiation to be safe, there is no current significant research to make this claim.” Just like the abundance of chemicals in our food, there is a vested interest in keeping a lid on information regarding just how dangerous this continual radiation exposure could be.

Cancer rates have risen to epidemic levels if estimates now show one in two adults will get cancer sometime in their lifetime. With childhood cancer as the number one child killer, what kind of cancer odds will our children face in their future? Forget racing for the cure; we have to start focusing on the cause.

From Truthstream Media @ http://truthstreammedia.com/cancer-officially-number-one-cause-of-childhood-death-in-u-s/  

Report Finds “Probably Carcinogenic” Chemicals in All Municipal Water Samples Tested


By Dr. Mercola

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) has once again released a report that should grab your attention. After analyzing water samples from 201 municipal water systems from 43 states, EWG found chemicals considered “probable human carcinogens” in every single water system they tested.

The watchdog organization wants the government to clean up the sources of public drinking water, thereby reducing the need for chemical treatment.1

The report “Water Treatment Contaminants: Toxic Trash in Drinking Water” was sparked by concerns about water contamination in the wake of Superstorm Sandy, which spilled tens of millions of gallons of sewage into waterways along the East Coast.

But the results of their analysis clearly indicate a far more widespread and concerning problem that superstorms merely inflame.

The problem is that chlorine and other water treatment chemicals, in addition to being somewhat toxic in and of themselves, react with ordinary organic particles in the water ( manure from livestock, dead animals, fallen leaves, etc.) to create hundreds of extremely toxic byproducts, which aren’t monitored or regulated at all.

These toxic byproducts have been labeled “disinfection byproducts,” or “DBPs,” and there are 600 we know about and probably hundreds more that we don’t, says EWG’s senior scientist Renee Sharp.2

Most people are not aware that DBPs are actually 1,000 times more toxic than chlorine. Just like with ionizing radiation and mercury, any exposure at all in concerning and potentially toxic; there is no safe level.

The Byproducts of Chlorination May Be Deadly

Chlorine is the only disinfectant that has been extensively studied, but now many water treatment plants are using another disinfectant called chloramine, the health effects of which are largely unknown. Chloramine is a combination of chlorine and ammonia.3 More than one in five Americans are drinking tap water treated with chloramine.

Chloramine stays in the water system longer than chlorine and is difficult to remove—it can’t be removed by boiling, distilling, or by standing uncovered. Its vapors can accumulate in indoor air and concentrate in an enclosed area, such as your shower stall, bathroom, kitchen, or apartment.

Chloramines combine with organic matter in water supplies to create iodoacids and nitrosamines, which are extremely toxic. According to David Sedlak of UC Berkeley:4

“Nitrosamines are the compounds that people warned you about when they told you shouldn’t be eating those nitrite-cured hot dogs... They’re about a thousand times more carcinogenic than the disinfection byproducts that we’d been worried about with regular old chlorine.”

There are three principal types of chlorination byproducts, known to produce dangerous health effects:

  • Trihalomethanes (THMs): Found to cause cancer in laboratory animals, and trigger the production of free radicals in your body; chloroform is an example of a trihalomethane; THMs are associated with bladder cancer, gestational and developmental problems

  • Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): Lead to central nervous system depression and drowsiness, and can irritate your skin and mucous membranes

  • Haloacetic Acids (HAAs): May cause liver disease in test animals at very high levels, and is a class B2 probable human carcinogen associated with neurological problems, growth retardation, low birth weight, and sperm toxicity

Why I Recommend Filtering Your Tub and Shower Water...

Scientists now suspect trihalomethanes in your tap water may be responsible for thousands of cases of bladder cancer each year, based on mounting evidence from multiple studies. But the risk to pregnant women and their unborn babies is also very concerning. Trihalomethanes are associated with numerous developmental and reproductive abnormalities, including stillbirth, miscarriage, low birth weight, and neural tube defects. The neural tube refers to the anatomical structure that develops into your baby’s brain and spinal cord.

Just the simple act of showering in treated water, in which you have absorption through both your skin and lungs, may pose a significant health risk to you—and to your unborn child, if you are pregnant. Numerous studies have shown that showering and bathing are important routes of exposure for trihalomethanes and may actually represent MORE of your total exposure than the water you drink.

According to EWG:

“The EPA standard for trihalomethanes is based on preventing bladder cancer, but the agency has noted that these chemicals may present reproductive and developmental risks as well. A spike that lasts three months exposes a pregnant woman and her fetus to excessive trihalomethane for an entire trimester, a critical window of development. Scientific research has shown that such intensive exposure can have serious consequences for the child.”

Analysts have found that trihalomethane levels in public water systems vary throughout the year, depending on factors such as farming cycles. But the EPA regulates the chemicals based on an annual average, which means that spikes in the byproducts may go undetected.

EPA-Regulated Chemicals are Just a Drop in the Bucket

As concerning as trihalomethanes are, they are just the tip of the iceberg—there are hundreds of other chemicals finding their way into your water supply. The EPA regulates only nine pollutants generated by chlorine or chloramine treatment—four trihalomethanes and five haloacetic acids. These nine regulated chemicals represent less than two percent of the more than 600 unwanted chemicals created by the interaction of water treatment disinfectants and pollutants in source water.

The legal limits for the nine regulated chemicals are not what either the agency or many independent scientists believe is truly safe. Rather, the regulations represent political compromises that take into account the costs and feasibility of treatment.

When you add up the total chemicals contaminating public drinking water, the number is beyond staggering. According to William Marks, author of Water Voices from Around the World, there are more than 116,000 human-made chemicals now detected in public water systems!

In much of the country, farming is a major source of organic pollution in drinking water and a contributor to water treatment contamination. However, with the exception of large confined animal feeding operations, farm businesses are exempt from the pollution control requirements of the federal Clean Water Act. Few states have the authority to compel farms to adopt practices that would reduce agricultural pollution reaching rivers, lakes and bays.

Shockingly, raising concerns about the quality of your local drinking water without verifiable evidence of your claims may now be considered “an act of terrorism” according to Sherwin Smith, deputy director of the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC). As recently reported by StoryLeak.com:5

“According to Smith, you better make sure your claims can be verified by the water department employees before submitting them. In the video recording, which was posted following the outrage from citizens over the entire event, Smith is heard saying: 'But you need to make sure that when you make water quality complaints you have a basis, because federally, if there’s no water quality issues, that can be considered under Homeland Security an act of terrorism.'”

Other Chemicals You Can’t See or Taste

Besides DBPs, American drinking water has also been found to contain a host of toxic chemicals, many of which are hormonally active in humans. Some of the most common chemical contaminants include:

  • MTBE (Methyl-tert-butyl Ether): A chemical added to fuel to raise octane number; a potential human carcinogen at high doses

  • Atrazine: According to the documentary FLOW, this US herbicide, banned in the European Union, is the most common water contaminant in the US. Atrazine is an endocrine disruptor known to feminize animals, and is linked with numerous reproductive problems, breast and prostate cancer, and impaired immune function in humans

  • Pharmaceutical Drugs: A 2008 report found a multitude of drugs in the drinking water of at least 51 million Americans, including pain relievers, cancer drugs, antidepressants, oral contraceptives, blood pressure and cholesterol drugs

  • Glyphosate (Roundup): This toxic herbicide is carcinogenic in minute amounts and is linked to more than 20 adverse health effects, including cancer, birth defects and infertility; unfortunately, glyphosate is turning up in the bloodstreams of people all over the world

  • Hexavalent Chromium (Chromium-6): Otherwise known as the “Erin Brockovich chemical,” hexavalent chromium is classified as another “probable carcinogen;” EWG found it in the drinking water of 89 percent of the cities sampled

Don’t Be Duped by Bottled Water!

Consumers are frequently mislead into thinking bottled water is safer than tap water, but sometimes it’s even MORE contaminated, as bottled water is less regulated than tap water. Studies reveal that about 40 percent of bottled water is actually tap water, possibly with no additional filtering. When testing bottled water, EWG discovered 38 contaminants in 10 brands, including DBPs, nitrates, caffeine, arsenic, Tylenol, bacteria and industrial chemicals.

Disposable plastic water bottles are massively polluting our planet. According to the Container Recycling Institute, in the US alone more than 67 million plastic water bottles are discarded each day, adding to an enormous plastic garbage patch swirling around in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Bottled water is a serious environmental hazard.

What is the BEST Water You Can Drink?

The finest sources of water in the world are gravity-fed mountain springs, accessed directly frowhere they emerge from the earth. This water is naturally filtered and structured by the earth itself, and even contains beneficial living organisms, like certain types of algae.

If you're up to the task, you can collect your own spring water to meet your drinking water needs. There is a Find a Spring website that helps you locate the spring nearest you. The website also allows you to add a spring that is not currently in the database. If you don't live near a mountain, don't despair, as just about any spring is better than all other available options.

Typically, natural springs are monitored for contaminants by local municipalities and, best of all, most of these springs are FREE! You can easily store 10 five-gallon jugs in most cars, which can be purchased online. Glass is best, but it is heavy, so you want to use three-gallon glass jars instead. Just remember to wrap glass bottles with some blankets or towels so they don't bang against each other in your car, and break.

Recommendations for In-Home Water Filtration

If collecting natural spring water is not an option, you can filter your water at home. The best solution is to install a whole house water filtration system. This not only protects your body (inside and out), but also your appliances. I recommend systems that use at least 60 pounds of filter media and are capable of generating eight or more gallons per minute, which makes it possible to handle multiple water applications simultaneously (showers, laundry, and kitchen). This size serves up to a 3,200 square foot home. Of course, if your home is larger, you may need more than one house filtration system. I also recommend looking for a whole house water filter that has three separate stages of contaminant removal:

  • Stage one removes sediment

  • Stage two removes chlorine and heavy metals

  • Stage three removes hormones, drug residues, chemicals, pesticides, and herbicides with a heavy-duty carbon filter

In terms of the carbon filter, choose granular carbon, not a solid block of carbon. Granular carbon allows for better water flow, better water pressure and improved filtration overall. Also look for NSF certification, which ensures your water filter is meeting national standards. NSF certification is not granted before a product can prove it removes everything it claims to remove. It's also good to make sure all particles under 0.8 microns are being filtered out of the water. A lower number is actually better, but I recommend 0.8 microns because that covers most bacteria, viruses and VOCs.

If you can’t afford a whole-house filtering system, then at least filter your shower water, since that’s going to be your most significant source of contamination, for the reasons already discussed.

Final Thoughts

Given the information in the EWG’s latest water report, chances are close to 100 percent that your tap water contains carcinogenic pollutants. In addition to the chemical disinfectants themselves, tap water contains disinfection byproducts that, in some cases, are 1,000 times as toxic as the contaminants they are designed to remove. These contaminants have been associated with bladder cancer, birth defects, miscarriage, and a number of other very serious health problems.

Showering or bathing in contaminated tap water poses even more of a risk to your health than drinking it, so it isn’t enough to simply filter the water you drink. Optimally, you may opt to install in a whole home water filtration system. If you test your water, you’ll want to do it more than once, as DBPs can fluctuate throughout the year, depending on factors such as farming cycles.

From Dr Mercola @ http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/08/21/tap-water-carcinogens.aspx

Cancer risk linked to radiation levels in fish species after Fukushima



Two-and-a-half years after Fukushima, many fish species still have highly elevated amounts of radioactive cesium from the stricken plant, including species that Japan exports to Canada, according to the Japanese Fisheries Agency’s tests on fish catches.

And Japanese fish and seafood exports to Canada have grown significantly since Fukushima, with $24 million in exports in 2012, up 20 percent from $20 million in 2010, according to Statistics Canada data.

In July this year, a sea bass caught in Japan had 1,000 becquerels per kilogram of radioactive cesium—10 times Japan’s ceiling of 100 becquerels per kilo in food. It was the second-highest amount found in a sea bass since the disaster occurred.

And in February, a greenling in the harbour of the Fukushima plant had a record 740,000 becquerels per kilo of cesium—7,400 times Japan’s ceiling. Two in five fish tested in July had detectable levels of cesium 134 or cesium 137, radioactive isotopes released from Fukushima.

On average, fish in the 33,000 tests since March 2011 had 18 becquerels per kilo of cesium. In March and April 2011, fish also had 65 becquerels per kilo of iodine 131. (The Straight didn’t count in these averages any fish caught in Fukushima prefecture, where most species are banned from the market.)

Fish caught far out in the Pacific had an average of two becquerels of cesium per kilo.

The Straight used these levels to determine how much radiation the public has been exposed to in Japan and elsewhere, based on fishery data from the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization.

The average radiation levels are below Japan’s ceiling and Health Canada’s much higher ceiling of 1,000 becquerels per kilo for cesium and iodine 131.

But the radiation detected can still cause cancer, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s cancer-risk formula, a leading international standard for forecasting cancer risks from radiation. The

What’s more, the EPA formula underestimates cancer impacts because it doesn’t fully include all research on radiation impacts, in the estimate of Daniel Hirsch, a UC Santa Cruz nuclear expert.

(Also according to Hirsch, Health Canada uses a less accepted cancer-risk formula that underestimates the dangers even more.)

Hirsch helped preside over a study of nuclear-power workers in the 1990s that found cancer rates at least six to eight times higher than predicted by official formulas.

From Straight @ http://www.straight.com/life/497651/cancer-risk-linked-radiation-levels-fish-species-after-fukushima

For more information about carcinogens see http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com/search/label/carcinogen  
- See ‘Older Posts’ at the end of each section

This is a ‘not for profit’ site -
But if you like what we do please buy us a meal or drink if you can
Donate any amount and receive at least one New Illuminati eBook!

For further enlightening information enter a word or phrase into the random synchronistic search box @ http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

And see

 New Illuminati on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/the.new.illuminati

New Illuminati Youtube Channel - http://www.youtube.com/user/newilluminati/feed

New Illuminati on Twitter @ www.twitter.com/new_illuminati

The Her(m)etic Hermit - http://hermetic.blog.com

The Prince of Centraxis - http://centraxis.blogspot.com (Be Aware! This link leads to implicate & xplicit concepts & images!)

We provide a live link to your original material on your site - which raises your ranking on search engines and helps spread your info further! This site is published under Creative Commons Fair Use Copyright (unless an individual article or other item is declared otherwise by copyright holder) – reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged, if you give attribution to the work & author - and please include a (preferably active) link to the original (along with this or a similar notice).
Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember attribution! If you like what you see, please send a donation (no amount is too small or too large) or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

Live long and prosper!

From the New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com


No comments:

Post a Comment

Add your perspective to the conscious collective