AddThis Feed Button "Frequently Copied, Never Duplicated"

Friday, February 25, 2005

The Diesel Opportunity

This week it has been warm and dry in the Inland NW, and air quality is poor. Add this to the lowered environmnetal standards fostered by the current White House agenda, and there's trouble. Pollen starts blooming now and mold will certainly increase in the water logged California counties beseiged by heavy rain.

There is a reason to be able to breathe clean air.


The deadly effects of breathing diesel fumes came into sharp focus this week when the Clean Air Task Force (CATF) released a report[1]estimating that diesel fumes kill about 21,000 U.S. citizens each year.

Furthermore, diesel fumes cause 27,000 nonfatal heart attacks and 410,000 asthma attacks in U.S. adults each year, plus roughly 12,000 cases of chronic bronchitis, 15,000 hospital admissions, 2.4 million lost-work days, and 14 million restricted activity days.

And that is almost certainly not the worst of it. The Clean Air Task Force report cites numerous studies revealing that diesel soot
** degrades the immune system (the system that protects us all from bacteria, viruses and cancers)

** interferes with our hormones, reducing sperm production, masculinizing female rats, altering the development of baby rats(changing their bones, thymus, and nervous systems), modifying their adrenal and reproductive hormones

** causes serious, permanent impairment of the nervous system in diesel-exposed railroad workers

** induces allergic reactions, not limited to asthma, causing children to miss thousands upon thousands of school-days -- a primary cause of school dropout, consequent low self-esteem, and subsequent life-failure.

The new report is based on the most recent available data from the federal EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) combined with EPA risk models, with calculations carried out by Abt Associates, a consulting firm that frequently performs contract studies for the EPA.[2]

The key findings of the report should come as no surprise. The dangers of breathing diesel fumes have been known for at least two decades. More than 20 years ago, numerous researchers confirmed and reconfirmed that they could cause lung cancer in laboratory animals breathing air laced with diesel fumes.

To anyone taking a precautionary approach, this confirmed knowledge of diesel's ill effects on animals would have jump-started a search for alternative ways to power on-road and off-road machines, to phase out diesel in an orderly step-wise fashion.

But the National Academy of Sciences did not take a precautionary approach. The New York Times reported Dec. 23, 1981, that the Academy acknowledged that diesel soot is known to contain suspected cancer-causing substances. But the Academy said, "no convincing epidemiological evidence exists" that there is "a connection between diesel fumes and human cancer." In other words, let's not act on the animal evidence -- let's hunker down and wait until we can line up the dead humans. This is the risk-based approach to public health. It is the opposite of a precautionary approach.

Twenty years ago, in the spring of 1985, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) issued a scientific report about the dangers of diesel fumes in New York. The New York Times reported May 18, 1985: "Diesel emissions are probably the single most important air-quality threat in New York City today," said Eric A. Goldstein, a lawyer for the environmental group and an author of the report. "But city, state and Federal agencies have not yet mounted a broad-based counterattack." The Times reported then that a spokesperson for the New York State Environmental Conservation Department acknowledged that diesel fumes cause lung cancer in humans but, he said, the state was "not yet sure" how big the problem was. The state had no plan for dealing with diesel because "we have not identified the extent of the problem," he said.

This is a classic example of the risk-based approach. Ignore the evidence so long as it is not 100% airtight. Use uncertainty as an excuse to delay. Wait for the dead bodies to pile up, then slowly acknowledge the need for action.

By 1985, there was no doubt that dead bodies were piling up. But the exact number of corpses remained uncertain, so the risk-based approach allowed "business as usual" to continue.

From a precautionary perspective, knowing that a technology causes lung cancer, and knowing that hundreds of millions of people are exposed to it, just naturally kicks off a search for less-harmful alternatives. But no one in 1985 was taking a precautionary approach.

In 1988 the federal government's Robert A. Taft Laboratory inCincinnati published NIOSH report 88-116, officially confirming that exposure to diesel fumes causes lung cancer in humans.

Read more by clicking on the link above

See an earlier post on this BLOG abount ionising particulate matter adhering to lung tissue from cellular EMF/ELF

Government forced to disclose locations of test sites of biopharmaceutical crops

February 8, 2005

HONOLULU -- In a first step toward public disclosure of test sites of biopharmaceutical crops, the U.S. Department of Agriculture was forced by court order on February 4 to reveal the locations of these sites in Hawai`i.

Following the ruling, representatives of the USDA handed over to Earthjustice attorneys information on the precise locations of open-air field tests of biopharmaceutical crops genetically engineered to produce industrial chemicals and drugs. This marks the first time the federal government has been forced to disclose the location of field tests of genetically engineered crops since it began systematically hiding these locations from the public.

Earthjustice, representing citizen groups Center for Food Safety (CFS), Friends of the Earth, Pesticide Action Network North America, and KAHEA: The Hawaiian-Environmental Alliance, filed a lawsuit in November 2003 in federal district court, seeking to compel USDA to review the environmental and public health impacts of such activities. In August 2004, District Court Judge David A. Ezra ordered the disclosure, rejecting the government's and the Biotechnology Industry Organization's claims of potential "espionage," "vandalism," and "civil unrest." The government and industry resisted disclosure since that ruling through a series of delay requests. At a hearing Friday, Judge Ezra denied their latest motion for a stay of disclosure, and the government handed the information to plaintiffs' counsel.

"This ruling is an important first step toward the day when citizens can find out if biopharmaceutical crops are growing near their food crops or their back yards," said Paul Achitoff, an Earthjustice attorney. "No one wants to accidentally get contraceptives in their corn flakes. Given the potentially disastrous effects these experiments could have on human health and the environment, we hope this ruling will result in lifting the veil of secrecy."

The plaintiffs sought information on the locations of these field tests in response to the government's arguments that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue because they had not specified the precise locations of the field tests. Magistrate Judge Barry M. Kurren originally ordered discovery of the locations in April 2004, ruling that the mere locations of the field tests were not confidential business information.

JudgeEzra affirmed the ruling in August, but preliminarily limited disclosure to plaintiffs only, and allowed the government and industry 90 days to come up with better support for denying public access to the information. The industry submitted supplemental arguments, to which plaintiffs responded, but the court has not yet ruled on the public disclosure issue. Until then, plaintiffs cannot reveal the informationto the public at large.

"Allowing food crops to be engineered to produce chemicals or drugs is bad enough," said Peter Jenkins of CFS, "but hiding the location of the test fields from an at-risk public is indefensible. Yet we find our own government fighting on the side of the biotech industry to keep the public in the dark about drug-laced food crops."

Plaintiffs' attorneys are still reviewing the information to see whether it complies with the court's order. This latest development should allow plaintiffs' November 2003 lawsuit calling for long-overdue environmental reviews to move forward.

"With this order," added Jenkins, "we may at last be able to find out how close these experiments are to conventional food crops, ecologically sensitive areas, and our homes and schools. The next step will be to compel our government to investigate the impacts from these biotech crops."

Thursday, February 24, 2005

You Don't Deserve Brain Cancer -

You Deserve The Facts
By Amy Worthington


Some people appear to have an almost pathological emotional attachment to their cell phones and there is a fascinating suggestion that cell radiation pulses might actually be addictive to the human brain.. We can't save those who would rather die than switch. But ethics compelled us to ensure that all reasonable people have access to the basic scientific facts.

Your cell phone is a microwave transmitter and it should bear a cancer warning! Microwave energy oscillates at millions to billions of cycles per second. The Journal of Cellular Biochemistry reports that these frequencies cause cancer and other diseases by interfering with cellular DNA and its repairmechanisms. Microwave promotes rapid cell aging. Italian scientists have recently demonstrated that cell phone radiation makes cancerous cells grow aggressively. Cordless phones marked 900 megahertz or 2.4 gigahertz emit the same dangerous microwave radiation as cell phones.


Wednesday, February 23, 2005


When aspartame was news, Dr. H. J. Roberts in a press conference foretold that in 5 or 10 years we would have a global plague. And it was Dr. Roberts who declared Aspartame Disease to be a global plague and published the medical text in 2001, Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic, or 1 800 827 7991.
His chapter on drug interaction goes into Coumadin, Dilantin, antidepressants and other psychotropic agents, Inderal, Aldomet, hormones and insulin. He says aspartame interacts with all cardiac medication and even discusses drug reactions after the cessation of aspartame.

In his general considerations he discusses that aspartame may either reduce or potentiate drug action by various mechanisms. He lists a few of the possibilities.
* Alteration of the blood proteins to which drugs attach.
* Alteration of drug receptors on cell membranes.
* Changes in the sites at which impulses are transmitted along nerves and to muscle.
* Metabolic abnormalities in the elderly that are known to enhance their vulnerability to drug reactions (Weber l986). This problem increases in the case of persons taking multiple drugs ("polypharmacy") prescribed by several physicians.
* Interference with drug action by amino acids and protein. An example is the erratic therapeutic effects when patients with parkinsonism who were controlled on levodopa began to use aspartame products. The antagonism of levodopa by dietary protein presumably reflects impaired transport from serum across the blood brain barrier by neutral amino acids (Pincus l986).
Dr. Roberts also discusses Lidocaine (Xylocaine) which he says is an important drug used for local anesthesia and the treatment of ventricular arrhythmias in intensive care units. Alterations of its pharmacology by aspartame require study. He says: "Kim et al (l987) reported that the intraperitoneal administration of aspartame significantly reduced the 50% convulsion dose of lidocaine. They indicated that PKU patients and asymptomatic PKU heterozygotes may be more sensitive to the toxic effects of this and related local anesthetics."

Today Dr. Roberts explained: "An interaction should be suspect with virtually every drug if the patient is using aspartame."

This goes along with Dr. James Bowen who says because aspartame damages the mitocondria of the cell it will interact with all drugs, and as a chemical hypersensitization agent will interact with vaccines, unsafe sweeteners like Splenda (sucralose, a chlorinated hydrocarbon) and toxins.

excerpt from Dr. Betty Martini

Tuesday, February 22, 2005


Flu Shots Do Not Save Lives

It will come as no surprise to vaccine critics that flu vaccination does not result in a decreased incidence of deaths in the elderly. In my book The Vaccine Guide (North Atlantic Books, 2002) I stated that, "The primary targeted population for flu vaccine is the elderly, yet the vaccine is notoriously ineffective in preventing disease in that population." Now a report published in the Archives of Internal Medicine confirms that the flu vaccine has no ability to prevent deaths in people over 65.

The authors of that study examined vaccination rates and death rates that could be attributed to the flu between the years 1968 and 2001. The campaign for flu vaccination in the elderly resulted in a significant increase in people vaccinated. Flu vaccine coverage among people 65 or older increased from between 15% and 20% before 1980 to 65% in 2001. Despite the increased number of vaccinated people in this age group the mortality rates in flu seasons remained the same during these two decades. The authors conclude, "We could not correlate increasing vaccination coverage after 1980 with declining mortality rates in any age group." These findings contradicted all assumptions and predictions about the protective effect of flu vaccines. Estimates from clinical trials suggest that increased flu vaccine coverage should substantially reduce deaths from the flu.

"If vaccination reduces influenza-related mortality by 70% to 80%, then the 50-percentage-point increase in vaccination coverage among the elderly after 1980 should have reduced... mortality by about 35% to 40%. We found no evidence to indicate that such a reduction had occurred... in any elderly age group."

These findings should result in a change in the prevention strategies we adopt for the flu season. Strengthening the immune system and maintaining a high level of health through the use of natural forms of treatment that stimulate healing should have a much greater impact on flu related deaths than vaccination campaigns.

For suggestions about better ways to prevent and treat the flu see my book FLU: Alternative Treatments and Prevention (North Atlantic Books, 2005).

Simonsen L, et al. Impact of influenza vaccination on seasonal mortality in the US elderly population. Archives of Internal Medicine 2005; 165:265-272.

Bird Flu Update

Concerns about the ability of flu viruses to jump the gap between domestic animals and humans have alarmed the public health world for many years. It is well recognized that severe flu epidemics and worldwide pandemics occur when birds or pigs pass flu viruses to humans. If such an animal virus develops the ability to spread between humans, then a deadly flu season can occur. Health authorities predict millions of deaths with such a scenario. This year Vietnam has experienced 29 confirmed deaths from an outbreak of bird flu. Possibly many more unreported cases have occurred. Several confirmed cases have also documented the spread of bird flu between humans. This has led to the announcement that Vietnam's largest cities will slaughter all of their poultry in an attempt to halt the spread of bird flu.

Thank you to Randall Neustaedter OMD for his work on the vaccination hoax.

Cancer causing red dye in food, welcome to globalisation

D. Mail 21.2.05 "WATCHDOG WITH NO BARK & NO BITE" by Geoffrey Lean.

Sudan 1 has been known to be dangerous for nearly 100 years. It appears it has been used in foods for months without detection. It's known in the industry as 'Red devil' because of its side-effects.

Sudan 1 in food came to light in June 03 - when a French lab. spotted some suspiciously red chili powder & did a full chemical screening on it.


Few who eat processed food will have avoided cancer-causing red dye Sudan 1, which was used to adulterate poor quality chilli powder. This was added to Worcester sauce used to flavour over 350 ready-meals, sauces & other foods sold by main supermarkets, food manufacturers & restaurants. It is in many foods from vegetable soup, lasagne, shepherds pie, sausages, prawn cocktail, tuna mayonnaise, pickles etc.

There was an alert about Sudan 1 in 2003 but there has been a 2 year gap between the authorities first discovering the adulteration & the re-call attempt yesterday. They failed to discover it was in so many foods.

Sudan 1 dye is meant to be used in boot & floor polish, industrial solvents & petrol etc.

This chemical family was banned in foods in 1995.

The Food Commission said controls of food ingredients are not good enough & that this is one of the problems of a globalised food system.

It is a genotoxin which damages DNA & causes cell mutations such as cancer.

Saturday, February 19, 2005

CHELATION VICTORY in Connecticut...

Chelation therapy is now completely legal in Connecticut.

The Connecticut Medical Board, on Tuesday February 15th, 2005, was presented with a negotiated settlement in the Connecticut Health Department versus Robban Sica MD case.

The parties recommending this settlement were the Connecticut Department of Health (DOPH), the Connecticut Attorney General, Robban Sica MD and her attorneys, the International College of Integrative Medicine (ICIM), and the American College for the Advancement of Medicine (ACAM). The board accepted the recommendation.

Read more about the history of chelation at

Proof of mobile health risk

By Mark Prigg Science Correspondent, Evening Standard

Doctors today claim to have found the first proof of health problems caused by mobile phones.

They say up to five per cent of the population could be suffering headaches, mood swings and hearing problems caused by radiation from handsets.

Experts are advising people - especially children - to limit their use of phones if they experience headaches or other symptoms.

The research, by the Irish Doctors Environmental Association (IDEA), was carried out on 16 people who had complained of symptoms from using mobile phones and were particularly sensitive to electromagnetic radiation.

The 16 were studied over several months. They were examined by doctors, filled in detailed questionnaires charting their use of mobile phones, and underwent medical tests including blood and liver analysis.

It was found 13 suffered symptoms including nausea, headaches and dizziness which researchers believe are a clear indication of radiation. IDEA chairman Dr Philip Michael said: "This is causing disabilities in a large section of the population.

"We are working on funding for a far larger study which will use blind testing to prove beyond doubt that mobile phones are responsible, but we believe the evidence is now overwhelming.

"These problems can get very difficult to deal with - we had one person in our study who was basically confined to their house because of the symptoms."

He advised anyone suffering from the symptoms the study describes to limit the time they spend on their mobile, and to try to stay away from mobile phone masts.

The research was this week presentedto a select committee of Irish MPs, who, it is hoped, will back plans for further research.

Other experts in the field said they were not surprised by the results of the study. Dr Michael Maier of Imperial College said more research was needed, adding: "There is so much anecdotal evidence I think more findings along these lines are inevitable.

"The biggest problem is that it is hard to measure any effects as people use their phones so differently.

"But the brain is an electrical instrument, and the frequency of radiation produced is very close to that used in the brain, so it's no big surprise to find a phone is interfering with that frequency, causing headaches, nausea and the other problems."

Last month experts advising the Government warned that children under eight should not be given mobile phones because of the potential health risks.

Sir William Stewart, chairman of the Health Protection Agency, said: "I don't think we can put our hands on our hearts and say mobile phones are safe. If there are risks, and we think there may be risks, then the people who are going to be most affected are children."

That study, by the National Radiological Protection Board, found no firm conclusion could be reached on the impact of mobile phones.

IDEA is made up of 30 leading Irish doctors, and is affiliated with the World Health Organisation. It is part of a group awarded the Nobel prize for physics in 1985. Members include Dr Patrick Hillery, the ex-President of Ireland and an EU commissioner.

Find this story at
©2005 Associated New Media

Sunday, February 06, 2005

Your Money or Your Life

Read this enlightening article by Dan Frosch, and you will see how health care is failing the every day person, while embellishing corporate welfare.