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
NIKOLA
MILJKOVIC
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!
And see
DISGRUNTLED SITE ADMINS PLEASE NOTE –
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!
