Category Archives: Radiation

40 Women With Breast Cancer Had This “Cosmetic Ingredient” in their Tissues

Posted on by
Reply

By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com

New research has detected the presence of paraben esters in 99 percent of breast cancer tissues sampled.

The study examined 40 women who were being treated for primary breast cancer.

In 60 percent of cases, five of the different esters were present.

Parabens are chemicals with estrogen-like properties, and estrogen is one of the hormones involved in the development of breast cancer.

The study notes that:

“Variation was notable with respect to individual paraben esters, location within one breast and similar locations in different breasts.

Overall median values in nanograms per gram tissue for the 160 tissue samples were highest for n-propylparaben and methylparaben; levels were lower for n-butylparaben, ethylparaben  and isobutylparaben…

The source of the paraben cannot be identified, but paraben was measured in the 7/40 patients who reported never having used underarm cosmetics in their lifetime.”

Sources and Dangers of Parabens

Deodorants and antiperspirants are some of the primary sources of parabens, but the fact that even those who reportedly never used them still had parabens in their breast tissue clearly demonstrates that these chemicals, regardless of what products they’re added to, can, and apparently will, accumulate in breast tissue.

It’s important to recognize that whatever you spread on your skin can be absorbed into your body and potentially cause serious damage over time, as this research demonstrates.

(To learn more about the potential toxicity of your cosmetics, I urge you to review the EWG’s extensive Skin Deep Report. ) Parabens inhibit the growth of bacteria, yeast, and molds, and are used as preservatives. On the label they may be listed as:

These chemicals are commonly used in:

Studies have shown that parabens can affect your body much like the estrogens, which can lead to diminished muscle mass, extra fat storage, and male gynecomastia (breast growth). Other studies besides the one featured here have also linked parabens to breast cancer. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has linked methyl parabens in particular to metabolic, developmental, hormonal, and neurological disorders, as well as various cancers.

How to Avoid Some of the Most Common Culprits

Avoiding parabens and other harmful chemicals requires becoming an avid label reader. Beware that products boasting “all-natural” labels can still contain harmful chemicals, including parabens, so make sure to check the list of ingredients. Another alternative is to make your own personal care products. In many cases it’s much easier than you might think. Michael DeJong, environmentalist and author of books on green living has a book called Clean Cures, which is chockfull of affordable, easy, natural remedies you can prepare at home to treat ordinary ailments with items you have in your own refrigerator and pantry.

When it comes to deodorants, one option is to skip it altogether. Simple soap and water has served me quite well. For some additional odor-protection, try a pinch of baking soda mixed with a small amount of water.

Beware: There’s a Brand NEW Class of Cancer-Causing “Estrogens”…

Recent research has also confirmed the existence of a previously unknown class of cancer-causing materials that can be found in thousands of consumer products. Some of them are even added to supplements and foods as “nutrients”. These estrogen-mimicking compounds are: metals.

Yes, a broad range of metals have been shown to act as “metalloestrogens” with the potential to add to the estrogenic burden of the human breast, thereby increasing the risk of breast cancer. The following metals have been identified as being capable of binding to cellular estrogen receptors and then mimicking the actions of physiological estrogens:

According to Green Med Info :

“… [E]xposure to sodium selenite (and sodium selenate) is difficult to avoid, as it is the primary source of supplemental selenium in mass market vitamins, foods, beverages, etc. The same is true for inorganic forms of chromium, copper, nickel, tin and and vanadium, which you will find on the labels of many mass market multivitamins. Another daily source of metalloestrogen exposure for millions of consumers is aluminum-based antiperspirants.”

Cadmium Linked to Higher Breast Cancer Risk

A recent study published in the journal Cancer Research indicates that women whose diets contain higher levels of cadmium are at a greater risk of developing breast cancer. Cadmium is a heavy metal long known to be carcinogenic, and, as you can see by its inclusion on the list above, it’s also been identified as a metal that can bind to estrogen receptors, effectively mimicking the female hormone estrogen. The study found that among close to 56,000 women, those with the highest intakes of cadmium were 21 percent more likely to develop breast cancer .

Cadmium leaches into crops from fertilizers, or when rainfall or sewage sludge deposit it onto farmland. Potatoes and whole grains are a couple of the primary sources cadmium, but it’s also present in air pollution from the burning of fossil fuel, and can therefore also be inhaled. According to the Los Angeles Times :

“The study offers new evidence in a large human population that environmental chemicals that mimic the effects of the female hormone estrogen may contribute to women’s risk of certain cancers, including endometrial and breast cancers…. The finding comes just three months after the Institute of Medicine, a prestigious body of independent biomedical researchers, concluded that a host of other factors — most within a woman’s power to control, such as obesity and hormone-replacement medication — were the most important sources of breast cancer risk.

The report they’re referring to is Breast Cancer and the Environment: A Life Course Approach by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) issued in December of last year, which discusses environmental impacts on breast cancer risk.

The report is a step in the right direction, as it recognizes the need to further investigate the role environmental toxins play in the development of breast cancer. This is important, because while individuals can do their best to avoid harmful chemicals, if we really want to quell the rise in cancers of all kinds, we must remove chemicals linked with cancer from consumer products, manufacturing, and other sources of exposure. Furthermore, the IOM report also identifies ionizing radiation as one of the primary contributors to breast cancer, which of course includes mammograms…

Could More Women Be Harmed than Helped with Mammography?

Mammograms expose a woman’s body to radiation that can be 1,000 times greater than that from a chest x-ray, which increases the risk of cancer. Mammography also compresses breasts tightly (and often painfully), which could lead to a lethal spread of cancerous cells, should they exist.

Earlier this year, the Nordic Cochrane Collaboration issued a report stating that mammography screening may cause more harm than good. Their informative leaflet, Screening for Breast Cancer with Mammography , is an important read for every woman. Even more provocative is the new book, Mammography Screening: Truth, Lies and Controversy by Peter C. Gøtzsche, Professor of Clinical Research Design and Analysis Director at The Nordic Cochrane Centre, and Chief Physician. The very first paragraph of the book’s ad reads :

“The most effective way to decrease women’s risk of becoming a breast cancer patient is to avoid attending screening.”

While this may sound too shocking to be true for some, the available data fully supports that conclusion. According to the Cochrane Collaboration, for every 2,000 women invited for screening over the course of 10 years, just ONE woman will have her life prolonged. Meanwhile, 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed with cancer had it not been for the mammography screening, will be misdiagnosed as having breast cancer, and will be treated unnecessarily. Additionally, more than 200 women will experience significant psychological distress for many months due to false positives.

The Cancer Industry is Fraught with Corruption…

There’s plenty of damning information out there that can, and ultimately will, be used to call for a congressional hearing on the mammography cover-up. As far back as 1974, professor Malcolm C. Pike at the University of Southern California School of Medicine warned the National Cancer Institute (NCI) that a number of specialists had concluded that “giving a women under age 50 a mammogram on a routine basis is close to unethical.” In the 1990′s, Dr. Samuel Epstein warned about the dangers of mammography, stating:

“The premenopausal breast is highly sensitive to radiation, each 1 rad exposure increasing breast cancer risk by about 1 percent, with a cumulative 10 percent increased risk for each breast over a decade’s screening… The high sensitivity of the breast, especially in young women, to radiation-induced cancer was known by 1970. Nevertheless, the establishment then screened some 300,000 women with X-ray dosages so high as to increase breast cancer risk by up to 20 percent in women aged 40 to 50 who were mammogramed annually.”

Yet despite all the evidence against the routine use of it, mammography has remained the number one recommended “prevention” strategy for all women over the age of 40. Alarmingly, there’s evidence indicating the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been negligent (to put it mildly) in their approval of a number of cancer-detecting devices. It recently became known that whistleblowerswithin the agency had been secretly monitored for two years; all of whom worked in the office responsible for reviewing medical devices, including cancer screening devices. The monitored employees had warned Congress that the agency was approving medical devices that posed unacceptable risks to patients.

Jeffrey Shuren, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health has repeatedly tried to take action against the employees, claiming they had disclosed information that undermined the integrity and mission of the FDA. Shuren is also the official who oversees mercury dental fillings, which they have been fraudulently referring to as ‘silver fillings.’ Shuren promised to make an announcement about dental amalgam by the end of 2011, but just before the end of the work year, the agency conceded that no announcement was forthcoming – not in 2011, and maybe not at all.

Again and again, Mr. Shuren demonstrates loyalty to industry interests rather than public health and safety… But he’s not the only one. In a 2009 letter from an unknown number of FDA employees to President Obama’s transition team, the authors clearly spell out the need for a complete overhaul of the agency due to deep-rooted systemic corruption at the highest levels. They write:

“Currently there is an atmosphere at FDA in which the honest employee fears the dishonest employee, and not the other way around. Disturbingly, the atmosphere does not yet exist at FDA where honest employees committed to integrity and the FDA mission can act without fear of reprisal. … America urgently needs change at FDA because FDA is fundamentally broken, failing to fulfill its mission, and because re-establishing a proper and effectively functioning FDA is vital to the physical and economic health of the nation.”

Mammograms No Longer Recommended for Women in Their 40′s

The US Preventative Task Force revised its recommendations on mammograms in October 2009, stating that women in their 40′s should no longer get routine mammograms for early detection of breast cancer. Instead, the panel recommended waiting until the age of 50, and only doing one mammogram every other year rather than annually. The Canadian task force followed suit in November last year.

While many cancer organizations were outraged and have shunned the task forces’ new directive, it’s important to realize that the main reasons for this change in guidelines were the documented dangers and short-comings of mammographic screening. All in all, there’s convincing evidence that mammography is not all it’s cracked up to be, and the FDA is not doing its stated job to protect your health. Instead, they’re busy catering to industry and skirting the boundaries of the law to protect a lucrative business model. This is a tragedy, considering how many alternatives there are that could help stem the tide of cancer…

There’s a wide variety of prevention and treatment strategies that appear to be both safer and more effective than conventional strategies like mammograms and the “cut-poison-burn” model of cancer treatment…

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

Warning: Why You Should Avoid Using Your Laptop as Recommended

Posted on by
Reply

By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com

Using your laptop computer on your lap is, paradoxically, not a safe way to use it.

Just as research is emerging showing that cell phones should not actually be held right next to your head (for instance, the iPhone manual states the phone must be at least 5/8 inch away from your body or ear for “safe operation”), research is showing that spending long hours with a laptop on your lap — the use for which it is intended – is likely harmful.

Ironic, isn’t it?

Researchers Warn Laptop Computers Should be Renamed to Protect Users’ Health

New research published in the Archives of Environmental and Occupational Health evaluated five commonly used laptops of different brands.

After measuring the EMF exposure produced, researchers found EMF values were within the guidelines put forth by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), but “considerably higher than the values recommended by 2 recent guidelines for computer monitors magnetic field emissions, MPR II (Swedish Board for Technical Accreditation) and TCO (Swedish Confederation of Professional Employees), and those considered risky for tumor development.”

Further they noted that the EMF values became alarmingly high when the laptop was used close to the body:

“When close to the body, the laptop induces currents that are within 34.2% to 49.8% ICNIRP recommendations, but not negligible, to the adult’s body and to the fetus (in pregnant women).

On the contrary, the power supply induces strong intracorporal electric current densities in the fetus and in the adult subject, which are respectively 182-263% and 71-483% higher than ICNIRP 98 basic restriction recommended to prevent adverse health effects.”

This led them to conclude:

“Laptop is paradoxically an improper site for the use of a LTC, which consequently should be renamed to not induce customers towards an improper use.”

Even Typing on a Laptop May Expose You to Unsafe Levels of EMFs

If you use your laptop on a desk, as opposed to your lap, does this mean you’re safe? If you want to be sure your health is not at risk, not only should your laptop not be put on your lap, but you should not type on it either. As I explain below, I have used a gauss meter on many notebook computers, and found EMF levels higher than 100 milligauss on most of them; safe ranges are less than 0.3.

My Personal Experience with Laptops

I have used a 13-inch notebook for many years as I travel. It was a marvelous way to keep productive during my travels on a plane and as a passenger in a car. For some reason it never occurred to me to measure the EMF radiation coming from the device. Recently I used a gauss meter on my notebook computer, and on those of a number of my staff.

I was shocked to find that the EMF levels were off the chart on the device and most readings were higher than 100 milligauss. Safe ranges are less than 0.3. I do still use my notebook computer, but needless to say I have made some VERY serious adjustments to using it — and I would strongly encourage you to do the same. Most of the radiation decreases about 2-3 inches away from the computer. So I have been using an external keyboard ever since I found out that the readings were so high. I never put the device on my lap unless there is a 1-foot cushion under the notebook, as that is about how far the field extends out.

If you don’t believe me on this one I would strongly encourage you to get a gauss meter and measure your own notebook computer and see for yourself. Fortunately my favorite gadget, the iPad, measures within acceptable ranges so I continue to use that without an external keyboard.

However there are additional considerations on using a notebook computer, which I discuss below.

Why Your Reproductive Health May be Especially at Risk

If you’re a man who uses a laptop often, and you would like to have children in the future, or simply protect your reproductive health, consider this a warning … In the first study to evaluate the direct impact of laptop use on human sperm, published in the journal Fertility and Sterility, those exposed to a wireless internet-connected laptop showed a significant decrease in sperm motility and an increase in sperm DNA fragmentation. And this was after just four hours of exposure. Researchers concluded:

“We speculate that keeping a laptop connected wirelessly to the internet on the lap near the testes may result in decreased male fertility.”

The culprit? Once again, it appears the electromagnetic radiation generated during use of wireless devices, similar to that generated during cell phone use, may have a devastating impact on your fertility.

Previous studies have found that laptop use may damage sperm through a thermal effect, that is, by heating up the scrotum during use (this occurred even when a lap pad was used, most likely because the mens’ closed leg position, required to balance the laptop, also contributed to the heating effect). However the current study found laptop use also leads to non-thermal adverse effects, which means even if you manage to avoid the heating effect, laptop use, on your lap, may still damage your fertility.

This is an area that deserves immediate and serious attention, considering use of wireless technologies is growing at an exponential rate. And it’s not only laptops that are the problem … According to a study published in Fertility and Sterility in 2008, statistically significant changes were found in mens’ sperm count and health of the sperm based on cell phone use, too. Their conclusion?

“Use of cell phones decreases the semen quality in men by decreasing the sperm count, motility, viability and normal morphology. The decrease in sperm parameters was dependent on the duration of daily exposure to cell phones, and independent of the initial semen quality.”

EMFs Well-Known to Cause DNA Damage

Dr. Martin Blank, PhD, of Columbia University and one of the most experienced researchers of the cellular and molecular effects of EMFs in the United States, gave an informative speech at the November 18, 2010 Commonwealth Club of California program, “The Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields,” co-sponsored by ElectromagneticHealth.org.

Dr. Blank spoke with deep experience and commanding authority on the impact of EMFs on cells and DNA, and explained why your DNA, with its ‘coil of coils’ structure, is especially vulnerable to electromagnetic fields of all kinds. As described in the International Journal of Radiation Biology, DNA possesses the two structural characteristics of fractal antennas, electronic conduction and self-symmetry.

These properties contribute to greater reactivity of DNA to electromagnetic fields than other tissues, making the long-term consequences of repeated microwave exposures to our genetic material of great concern. Dr. Blank is adamant when he says that there IS evidence of harm, and that the harm can be significant. He also points out that the science showing harmful effects has been peer-reviewed, published, and that the results have been replicated, evaluated and “judged by scientists capable of judging it.”

Even barring all the scientific evidence, it simply makes sense that laptops, cell phones and other wireless technology can impact the human body once you understand that your body is bioelectric. Your body contains electrons that keep an electrical current flowing, and inside every cell are mitochondria, the ‘power plants’ of the cell that respond to the body’s natural electromagnetic fields.

As Dr. Maret explains in an interview with ElectromagneticHealth.org, your body is a complex communication system where cells, tissues, organs, and organisms “talk” — it’s a veritable “electronic symphony in your body.” This communication includes finely tuned bio-electrical transmitters and receivers, which are tuned like tuning into a radio station. And when you expose a radio antenna to a significant amount of external noise, you get static, and that is what is happening to your body in today’s EMF-saturated environment.

Why it May be Better to Use a Battery-Powered Laptop

Laptop computers are a high-energy source of both electric- and magnetic fields, so, as mentioned, avoid putting a laptop directly on your lap. You can block the thermal effects by using a lap pad if you also avoid sitting with your legs held closely together, and you can shield against the electric field by adding a reflective material or metal to it, but you cannot block the magnetic field component …

What’s worse is that computer-charging devices are ungrounded, so ideally you’ll only want to use a laptop when it’s running on battery — not when it’s plugged into an outlet and charging. The same goes for iPads, Kindle’s and even cell phones. Pregnant women should be especially careful using these types of technologies while plugged in.  According to Vickie Warren, former executive director of the Bau-Biologie Group for the United States, the amount of EMF you’re exposed to from a laptop that is plugged in compared to a laptop that is running on battery is about 100 times higher!

The current Archives of Environmental and Occupational Health study also suggested that the power supply from a laptop induces strong electric current densities in the fetus when the laptop is used at close contact with a woman’s womb, so taken together the research suggests that both men and women should use due care when considering whether or not to use a laptop, especially in close proximity to their bodies.

However, my measurements show that the EMF coming from the device is still unacceptable even when it is plugged in, so, as I mentioned above, I would strongly encourage you to only use your notebook computer with an external keyboard.

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

Why More Thyroid Cancer? Fluoridated Water, X-Rays, and Radiation are all to Blame

Posted on by

By: Ethan A. Huff
Source: NaturalNews.com

According to a recent report in USA Today, cases of thyroid cancer have risen 6.5 percent over the past several years, and many medical experts are at a loss for explaining why this is occurring. But mainstream science is ignoring all the most obvious factors that contribute to the disease — fluoride chemicals added to drinking water; excessive medical x-rays; and radiation from cells phones, computers, naked body scanners, and nuclear disasters like Fukushima.

Perhaps one of the most misunderstood organs in the body, the thyroid gland purifies the blood and detoxifies the body by taking up iodine nutrients and using them to cleanse the blood, which in turn lowers the amount of toxins run through the liver. But the thyroid gland’s iodine receptors also take up harmful radiation like the kind emitted from modern communication devices, x-rays, and nuclear accidents, as well as toxic fluoride chemicals added to drinking water supplies across the country.

The causes of thyroid disease are all around us

It is truly amazing, in the most negative sense, that the medical profession is unable or unwilling to properly connect the dots between thyroid disease and these toxic factors. Fluoride chemicals, for instance, have been shown to impair thyroid function by replacing iodine in the body. Fluoride, after all, comes from the same chemical family as iodine.

X-rays, and particularly dental x-rays, are another major factor in thyroid problems that most in the medical community fail to address. Most dentists, for instance, will not provide their patients with neck shields while administering dental x-rays. The thyroid gland is located in the neck area, and every time this area is blasted with ionizing radiation, the thyroid gland absorbs it.

Then, there are the more obvious sources of radiation exposure like the Fukushima nuclear disaster, which sent plumes of deadly radiation across the globe. Fukushima emitted one toxic radionuclide in particular, iodine-131, that is known to absorb directly into the thyroid gland. This is why many experts recommend taking high doses of nutritive iodine during a nuclear emergency in order to displace radioactive iodine in the thyroid gland.

Mobile phones, laptop computers, compact fluorescent (CFL) light bulbs, and now US Transportation Security Administration (TSA) naked body scanners are all daily radioactive threats as well. It is more than likely that regular and repeated exposure to these smaller doses of radiation is also contributing to thyroid cancer.

This sampling of thyroid cancer contributors just goes to show that modern medicine, which denies any awareness of what could be causing an uptick in thyroid cancer, has its head in the sand about this important issue. But the question still remains whether this denial is deliberate and willful, or whether it is birthed out of pure ignorance.

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

Microwave Cooking – The Risks and Hazards

Posted on by

By Andreas Moritz

Microwave cooking technology was originally developed in Nazi Germany in the early 1940s. The motivation for the development related to logistics of the war effort. If food for troops being deployed to distant locations could be cooked easily and quickly with microwave energy, it would eliminate the need to transport fuels needed for conventional ovens.

At the conclusion of the war, both the Russians and the Americans obtained microwave cooking equipment along with data from tests that had been conducted by the Germans. In Russia, extensive testing related to microwave cooking began about 1957. As the tests ensued, the mounting volumes of data related to the negative impact on human health were so disturbing that in 1974 Russia banned the use of microwaves for cooking in that country, and issued an international warning about its dangers. The April 1992 Journal of Pediatrics reported that researchers at the Stanford University Medical Center discovered significant changes in human breast milk that was microwaved just enough to warm it. The changes included the destruction of 98% of its immunogloban-A antibodies and 96% of its liposome activity, which inhibits bacterial infections.

Dr. Lita Lee, of Hawaii, reported in the December 9, 1989 issue of Lancet: “Microwaving baby formulas converted certain trans-amino acids into their synthetic cis-isomers. Synthetic isomers, whether cis-amino acids or trans-fatty acids, are not biologically active. Further, one of the amino acids, L-proline, was converted to its d-isomer, which is known to be neurotoxic (poisonous to the nervous system) and nephrotoxic (poisonous to the kidneys). It’s bad enough that many babies are not nursed, but now they are given fake milk (baby formula) made even more toxic via microwaving.”

In 1991 there was a lawsuit in Oklahoma concerning a woman who had undergone a routine hip surgery. After the surgery, a blood transfusion was administered to her. Blood for transfusions is routinely warmed, but not in microwave ovens. In this particular case however, the nurse, unaware of the risks, did warm the blood in a microwave oven. The patient died 90 minutes after the transfusion. It seems obvious from this case that microwave ovens are doing something to substances other than warming them.

The concerns related to microwave cooking fall into 4 categories:

  1. The effects of microwave radiation on people who are in the vicinity of the microwave oven while it is being used
  2. The potential negative impact on the nutritional value of food that has been cooked in a microwave oven
  3. The potential of carcinogens and other health-endangering agents being created within the food as a result of being bombarded by microwave energy
  4. The effects on human health as a result of eating food that has been cooked in a microwave oven

Microwave Radiation

The dangers of microwave radiation are well known. The hazards first became apparent in conjunction with the development and use of radar, which utilizes bursts of microwave radiation at very high power levels. Until the effects were better understood, and appropriate precautions taken for workers in the vicinity of radar systems, microwave radiation resulted in numerous cases of severe illness and even death.

Although radiation standards have been established for the manufacture of microwave ovens, nobody really knows for certain what levels of radiation can be considered ‘safe’. One thing that is known about the harmful effects of microwave radiation is that they are cumulative. So radiation levels that may be relatively ‘safe’ based on infrequent or occasional use, may not be at all safe for someone who uses a microwave oven on a daily basis. There are special dangers for pregnant women. A U.S. government agency has acknowledged that the human fetus is “probably the most sensitive segment of the population potentially exposed to radiation”. Children represent another sensitive segment of the population.

The intensity of microwave radiation varies exponentially according to the distance from the source. The standard established in the U.S. in 1971 for maximum radiation ‘leakage’ from a microwave oven is 1 milliwatt per square centimeter at a distance of 2 inches from the oven surface for new microwave ovens (prior to sale), and 5 milliwatts per square centimeter thereafter. At the 5 milliwatt level, the radiation would be down to 0.05 milliwatts at a distance of 20 inches, and only 0.005 millawatts at a distance of 5 feet. The message here is simple: NEVER stand close to a microwave oven when it is in operation. This is especially important for children.

Unfortunately, microwave ovens tend to be located in kitchens based on convenience, rather than safety. Oftentimes this means they are located at eye level, resulting in the greatest radiation exposure to the head. This is particularly disconcerting in view of the fact that one of the common effects of excessive microwave radiation reported by the Russians is a degeneration of brain circuitry and increased levels of disturbance in alpha-, delta-, and theta-wave signal patterns.

Obviously, the safest alternative is to not even have a microwave oven in your house!

——————————
This is an excerpt from the book SIMPLE STEPS TO TOTAL HEALTH by Andreas Moritz & John Hornecker

——————————
You may share or republish this article provided you clearly mention the name of Andreas Moritz and paste a hyper link back to the web page

Every Moment Is A Precious Opportunity

Posted on by

By Andreas Moritz 

Since we are in the midst of the most profound period of transformation that humankind has ever been involved in, each moment is now loaded with priceless significance. If it comes disguised as a negative event, you can take it for granted that it will reveal itself as a precious opportunity, provided of course that you see it that way. Rinaldo S. Brutoco once said: “There is no such thing as a negative occurrence… It’s all just useful information.” Thomas Edison had an extraordinary ability to see great value in disaster. He knew from within that nothing happens in God’s world by mistake. What follows is a description of the experiences he had during a destructive fire, taken from Good Tidings.

Fire virtually destroyed Thomas Edison’s laboratory in December 1914. Although the damage exceeded $2 million, the buildings were only insured for $238,000 because they were made of concrete and were thought to be fireproof. Much of Edison’s life’s work went up in spectacular flames that December night. At the height of the fire, Edison’s 24-year old son Charles frantically searched for his father among the smoke and debris. He finally found him, calmly watching the scene, his face glowing in the reflection, his white hair blowing in the wind.

“My heart ached for him,” said Charles. “He was 67 – no longer a young man – and everything was going up in flames. When he saw me, he shouted, “Charles, where’s your mother?” When I told him I didn’t know, he said, “Find her. Bring her here. She will never see anything like this as long as she lives.”

The next morning, Edison looked at the ruins and said, “There is great value in disaster. All our mistakes are burned up. Thank God we can start anew.” Three weeks after the fire, Edison managed to deliver his first phonograph.

Similar to the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle where each seemingly meaningless piece is needed to form a meaningful picture, all life experiences are important for completing the picture of life; yet we so often fail to recognize their true value.

Several years ago, I spent a very joyful week in Eilat, Israel, diving with and being around a group of dolphins. Before and after this delightful experience I became involved in four extensive security checks (up to an hour and a half each) at two Israeli airports. My first reaction was: “What a nuisance and waste of time!” but then accepted the view that the Israelis did not want to take any risks. During my second encounter with the tough-looking security staff, I started to feel somewhat intimidated and became quite annoyed after they broke a very expensive electric appliance of mine. I wondered what possible good could there be in all this. The answer to my question was certainly not what I had expected.

My reward for going through this ‘inconvenience’ was the discovery of a simple method to neutralize harmful energies instantly. Since I was going to stay in a hotel apartment, I had taken several food items, fruits, and a bottle of water with me. After each item had been X-rayed (about three times during the first security check alone), I felt these goods were highly polluted and incompatible with my body’s energy and digestive system. When I tested them with a dowsing instrument called ‘oekotensor’, they all emitted strong negative energies and were no longer fit for human consumption.

As ‘coincidence’ would have it, I carried a small, clear quartz crystal with me (which I had never done before). Just before going on this trip, I had cleansed it and programmed it for the purpose of neutralizing harmful energies and amplifying good ones (which again I never had done before). I rotated my crystal above the contaminated (irradiated) foods and drinks a few times in a clockwise direction (something I never thought of doing before, either). When I checked their energy output and compatibility with my body, the goods were all clear of harmful effects and once again useful to me.

Soon I discovered that all natural foods and beverages that are treated with chemical fertilizers, or have been in contact with electromagnetic fields produced by electric cookers, stoves, mixers, juicers, toasters, refrigerators, food processing machines, trucks, airplanes, or that contain chemical additives, etc., produce a strong distorted, negative energy. Since the human cells cannot utilize this kind of energy, such processed foods are ‘dead’ and very difficult to digest and assimilate and can therefore become a major cause for food intolerance, allergies, and disease. Yet after applying the above crystal method, they lose their harmful features and become ‘alive’ again. Even bottled water, which is lifeless, can be brought back to life in this way. There are only a few foods that a quartz crystal cannot make wholesome again. They include heavily sprayed foods such as grapes and tomatoes, refined oils, and most junk foods. You may try the above method and see for yourself how it can change the digestibility of foods and even their taste.

About a year later, my partner Lillian and I received the ability to facilitate the creation of what we call ‘Ionized Stones.’ The stones are an integral part of the ‘New Medicine’ that is helping mankind and the Earth in the transition to the higher dimensions. The stones are capable of cleansing foods and drinks, instantly balancing all chakras (energy centers) in the body, clearing any kind of unsuitable energies in the auric field, house or environment – doing what quartz crystals do but on a much more intensified scale – protecting against electromagnetic fields from computers, TV, electric wires, re-energizing water that comes out of faucets, and much more. Without the ‘annoying’ security checks at the Israeli airports, I would not have discovered or understood the value of crystals and ionized stones.

What I learned from this and other similar incidences is that all difficulties in life are encoded with hidden messages; it is up to us to decipher and use them for the enhancement of our personal growth and our service to mankind and to our planetary home. As always, our difficulties are also our opportunities. Stepping back and taking a moment to see why something ‘inconvenient’ or ‘unfortunate’ happens to us can change our attitude towards it and turn it into something entirely different. Every instance in life is a non-coincidental occurrence and is marked with a unique opportunity of some kind. To benefit from our problems, whether their nature is physical, emotional, interpersonal, social, environmental, etc., we must see them from a new perspective. The proverb: “All’s well that ends well” best sums up the following simple lesson of life, given to us by an unknown author:

A farmer’s horse ran away. In response, a neighbor said, “What a shame, your horse ran away!”

“We’ll see,” said the farmer.

One day, the farmer’s son spotted the horse and broke his leg running after it to try to catch it. “How sad that your horse ran off and your son broke his leg!” sympathized the neighbor.

“We’ll see,” said the farmer.

War was declared and the farmer’s son was drafted, but, due to his wounded leg, he couldn’t pass the physical. Many young men were lost, but the farmer’s son was spared.

Blessings often come masked as disaster.

——————————
This is an excerpt from my book LIFTING THE VEIL OF DUALITY

——————————
You may share or republish this article provided you clearly mention the name of Andreas Moritz and paste a hyperlink back to the web page

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

Posted on by

By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com

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, weknow 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.

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

Cell Phones More Dangerous than Cigarette Smoking

Posted on by

By Andreas Moritz 

Cell Phones More Dangerous Than Cigarette Smoking

An increasing number of medical researchers, environment protection agencies, governments and individuals are concerned that wireless technology may be causing serious harm to people and the environment:

  • The country of Germany has recently (2007) warned the population to avoid wireless devices.
  • In September 2007, the EU’s European Environment Agency (EEA) has issued warnings to all European citizens advising them to stop using WiFi and cell phones, citing fears that the ever-present use of wireless technology has the potential to become the next public health disaster on the level of tobacco smoking, asbestos, and lead in automobile gas (as reported by The BioInitiative Working Group).
  • The Israeli government recently banned the placement of antennas used for cell phone reception on residential buildings.
  • As little as 10 minutes on a cell phone can trigger changes in brain cells linked to cell division and cancer, suggests a new study conducted by researchers from the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel and published in the Biochemical Journal. The changes they observed were not caused by heating of tissues.
  • Regular cell phone use raises the risk of developing a brain tumor for many users, according to a new Finnish study published online in the International Journal of Cancer. The study, conducted by numerous researchers from many universities, found firm corollary evidence that using a cell phone causes the risk of getting a brain tumor called a glioma to rise by 40 to 270 percent on the side of the head preferred for using the phone. (Those who used modern cellular phones for more than 2,000 hours in their lifetime had the highest risk increase. Surprisingly, the risk was highest among people under the age of 20.) This is the same type of brain tumor doctors discovered in Ted Kennedy’s head. Malignant glioma is the most common primary brain tumor, accounting for more than half of the 18,000 primary malignant brain tumors diagnosed each year in the United States, according to the National Cancer Institute.
  • Prolonged cell phone use may damage sperm in male users, suggests a study by researchers at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine at Case Western Reserve University, Ohio. The discovery was made during an ongoing study of 51,000 male health professionals in the United States.
  • Pregnant mothers, who use cell phones 2-3 times per day, are found to give birth to children with malfunctioning cells. Also young children exposed to cell phone radiation are found to develop serious growth problems.

The media industry is the largest and most lucrative industry in the world, way bigger than oil. Almost every significant company is run, owned or heavily influenced by the 5 – 6 media giants. Cell phones make up a huge junk of that. Any attempt to blame cell phones for the massive increase of cancers in the world is ridiculed and squashed, just like cigarette smoking was not too long ago. Some people are OK with waiting until finally there is solid “evidence” that radio waves can cause cancer before they give up their beloved cell phones. Others continue using them just as many continue smoking, although the risks for the latter are known. It is really up to each individual to decide what to do about it. For me personally, there is no question about it. I detect harmful energies from a distance, and certainly when they come as close to my body as a cell phone does. I use my cell phone very rarely, and if I do, it’s just for a minute or two. I never felt comfortable with them, long before research began to indicate that they are not harmless at all.

On a different note, certain US-States and countries in Europe are banning the use of cell phones while driving. In England, where cell phone use is prohibited while driving, is about to implement a new law that prohibits the use of hands-free phones as well. The government found that the phone use disorients the driver and increases the risk of accidents. The disorientation lasts for up to 10 minutes after use. In comparison, a conversation with another person in the car showed no such adverse effects. This may indicate that it is not the conversation (using hands-free car phones) that interferes with concentration, reaction and focused attention, but the brain’s exposure to harmful rays. You are still exposed to these rays 2 to 3 feet away from you. The other explanation is that speaking to another person who is not physically present requires your brain to create an image of that person in your mind. Since the brain cannot compute and sustain two visuals at the same time, disorientation results. In other words, you can no longer focus on your driving and you may not react as readily, especially in situations of heavy traffic. Holding a phone to your ear also restrictions your peripheral vision, and you may not be able to see a car that is coming at you from the side.

Most users of cell phones and other wireless devices have no idea what low radiation can do to them, since it isn’t tangible and only very few sensitive people experience a negative effect from them. Only when you stand in front of a radar device will you start perspiring/cooking from the inside out, just like food is cooked in the microwave oven. The heat is generated by the rapid movement of molecules (friction) and the braking down of molecular bonds. Each year, millions of birds are killed when they get too close to, or sit on, cell towers. And apparently, the same can happen to the human body when it is exposed to this type of radiation on a regular basis. After all, human cells are made of molecules and molecular bonds are broken and destroyed when exposed to radiation. Strong radiation can literally burn off the entire skin of a person from the inside out. Weak radiation does this more slowly and less dramatically. But as you may know, X- rays, CT-scans and microwaves are accumulative, and you can never tell when the body responds with a healing crisis, such as cancer.

Many people are very unsuspecting, unconcerned or naive with regard to their health. The incidence of chronic disease has moved from 10% to 90% in just 100 years. In may not be just one thing that causes these degenerative diseases, but a combination of factors. But yes, each factor becomes significant when combined with others.

Everyone must make their own choices and decide what’s good for them and what isn’t. There is no point trying to persuade someone, for this can cause resentment, a much more serious cause of illness than radio waves or cigarette smoking.

I am currently researching a simple device that can protect the body from the harmful rays and electromagnetic fields almost constantly surround and bombard us (e.g., cars, computers, cell phones, electric appliances, cell towers, fluorescent lights, harmful chemicals in foods and the environments, and other common stress factors). The device works instantly, and it may have enormous implications for the health and wellbeing of individuals and families. In the past 12 years I have tested nearly a dozen methods or devices that supposedly protect against cell phone radiation, with disappointing results. However, I am extremely exited about this one. In a few weeks I will have completed my research and I will inform you about the results. I will also post them on my web site.

 

The Neutralizer is a revolutionary scientific breakthrough and the first and only product of its kind proven to be 100% effective in eliminating the harmful effects of Electro Magnetic Field and Radio Frequency (EMF/RF) radiation emitted by cell phones and other electronic devices.

——————————
You may share or republish this article provided you clearly mention the name of Andreas Moritz and paste a hyper link back to the web page

The Harmful Side-Effects Of X-Rays Often Pose a Greater Risk than the Original Health Problem

Posted on by

By Andreas Moritz 

One of the riskiest of all diagnostic tools is the X-ray machine. Most people who visit a doctor will experience at least one exposure to these high-frequency waves of ionizing radiation (X-rays). These are the facts that have been discovered so far about the adverse effects of X-rays:

    • If children are exposed to X-rays while still in the mother’s womb (in utero), their risk of all cancers increases by 40 percent, of tumors of the nervous system by 50 percent, and of leukemias by 70 percent.
    • Today there are thousands of people with damaged thyroid glands, many of them with cancer, who were radiated with X-rays on the head, neck, shoulder, or upper chest 20-30 years ago.
    • Ten X-ray shots at the dentist’s are sufficient to produce cancer of the thyroid.
    • Multiple X-rays have been linked with multiple myeloma – a form of bone marrow cancer.
    • Scientists have told the American Congress that X-radiation of the lower abdominal region puts a person at risk for developing genetic damage that can be passed on to the next generation. They also linked the ‘typical diseases of aging’ such as diabetes, high blood pressure, coronary heart disease, strokes and cataracts with previous exposure to X-rays.
    • It is estimated that at least 4,000 Americans die each year from X-ray related illnesses.
    • In the U.K., one fifth to one half of all X-rays given to patients are without real necessity. In the U.S., the FDA reports that as much as a third of all radiation is unnecessary.
    • In the U.K., X-rays ordered by doctors account for over 90 percent of the total radiation exposure of the population (Cambridge University Press, 1993).
    • In Canada, almost everyone gets an annual X-ray of one sort or another.
    • Old X-ray equipment still used in many hospitals gives off 20 to 30 times as high a dose of radiation as is necessary for diagnostic purposes.

Unless it is for a real emergency situation, X-rays should be avoided as far as possible because their harmful side effects may pose a greater health risk than does the original problem. As a patient you have the right to refuse X-ray diagnosis. By discussing your specific health problem with your physician, you can find out whether exposure to X-rays is really necessary or not. Many physicians today share this concern with their patients and try to find other ways to determine their exact condition.

——————————
This is an excerpt from my book TIMELESS SECRETS OF HEALTH & REJUVENATION

——————————
You may share or republish this article provided you clearly mention the name of Andreas Moritz and paste a hyper link back to the web page

Mammography – Yes or No?

Posted on by

By Andreas Moritz

A recent study showed that mammography – a diagnostic tool that uses x-rays to detect breast cancer in women – is highly inaccurate. Only 1 to 10 out of 100 ‘positive’ mammography tests are truly positive, which means that there is a 90 to 99 percent chance of a woman being diagnosed with breast cancer who doesn’t have it. Since these tests are not taken only once in a lifetime, the chances of becoming a victim of false diagnosis for breast cancer are very high.

In Great Britain, about 100,000 women per year receive a false diagnosis for breast cancer (not excluding other forms of diagnoses). The women undergo many unnecessary biopsies and an unknown number of mastectomies (breast amputations). Many of the women suffer unnecessarily from depression, desperation, and fear of dying as a result of the diagnosis. In the United States, mastectomies have skyrocketed since mammography became the most popular ‘preventive’ method for diagnosing breast cancer.

The medical establishment is very nervous that the truth about the mammogram technology is finally beginning to surface. After all, it is a huge moneymaker. Peter Gotzsche, M.D. – a researcher at the Nordic Cochrane Center in Denmark – and his associates recently published a peer-reviewed study that found major fault with the results of a large trial that reported a 31 percent reduction in breast cancer mortality as a result of mammogram screening. After carefully reviewing the data, Dr. Gotzsche’s team discovered that a large number of breast cancer deaths in the original data had ‘somehow’ been left out of the final report. The Gotzsche study was originally published last in an online edition of the European Journal of Cancer (EJC). Three weeks later, the study vanished from their web site. Apparently, EJC editors removed his study because they received complaints from pro-mammogram doctors.

To suggest mammography to be a diagnostic tool for detecting pre-symptomatic stages of cancer is deceptive and dubious. In most cases of breast cancer, it is irrelevant whether breast cancer is detected at an early or late stage. It is rather the type of cancer and whether it tends to metastasize (‘spread to’, which in reality means ‘develop in’ other parts of the body as well) at an early stage, that determines the outcome of the disease. Contrary to common belief, early detection has not shown to lower mortality rates for these types of cancer. Also by having many mammograms performed, a woman may put herself at risk for developing the very disease mammography is supposed to prevent, or worsen it if it is already present. Mammograms certainly aren’t the ‘magic bullet’ for breast cancer prevention that everyone seems to think they are. For one thing, mammograms are of very limited effectiveness because they seem only to be able to detect tumors of a size that is large enough to signify a rather advanced stage of cancer.

What is most disturbing about this diagnostic method is the excessive compression of the breast that is required during a routine mammogram. To produce good pictures and to avoid being sued for missing a tumor, the technician squeezes the breast extra hard. Squeezing can rupture internal tissue, including tumor tissue. If there is a tumor in the breast, performing a mammogram can actually break apart cancerous cell masses, spill the deadly poisons they contain and cause the disease to develop in other organs. New research shows that small tumors are especially prone to such potentially fatal damage.

Forcible flattening of a breast during a mammogram cannot be considered an acceptable risk, especially when the test is so ineffective anyway. A large body of research suggests that mammograms may be only marginally more effective (if at all) than physical exams in detecting breast cancer. So why use a method that can exacerbate a disease unnecessarily? Mammography is a major-league moneymaker for hospitals, doctors and cancer clinics nationwide. The unsuspecting women believe that the screening reduces their risk of death from breast cancer by 50-75 percent! In truth, according to research conducted by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, it would be necessary to screen over 1,200 women aged 40-74 every year for 14 years to prevent even one death from breast cancer.

Fortunately for women, the massive increase in lawsuits as a result of missed tumors is contributing to an increasing reluctance among doctors and clinics that once offered mammography to continue doing so.

A 1997 report by the American National Cancer Institutestated that mammograms showed no mortality benefit unless women in their 40s had been followed for 10 years. Other studies have shown that women who have mammograms suffer about the same rates of death due to breast cancer as women who do not have mammograms. Despite the fact that over 90 percent of the abnormalities discovered by mammography have been benign (not cancerous), 63 percent of U.S. women in their 40s keep having a mammogram every one or two years. This poses a great risk on healthy women who wish to prevent developing breast cancer in the future. Given the powerful cancer-inducing effects of mammograms, there is little if any benefit having a yearly mammogram.

Prevention of breast cancer does not begin with having a mammogram; it starts with taking active responsibility for one’s body and mind. It can be said that most natural foods have a cancer preventive effect, and this includes food. Commenting on a recently released study on the prevention of cancer, John Pezzuto, leader of a food research group at the University of Illinois in Chicago, U.S.A, said, “…the study does show that a diet loaded with fruits and vegetables is a good defense against cancer.” Research has identified a substance in grapes called resveratol that keeps cells from turning cancerous and inhibits the spread of cells that are malignant already. Most other natural foods contain similar or even more powerful cancer-fighting substances.

Women don’t need to rely on mammography to feel safeguarded against breast cancer, especially since it is highly unreliable as a diagnostic tool. A series of liver, kidney and colon cleanses are often enough to prevent, stop and regress any type of cancer.

——————————
You may share or republish this article provided you clearly mention the name of Andreas Moritz and paste a hyper link back to the web page

Microwave Cooked Food Is Nutritionally Deficient ‘Nuclear Waste’

Posted on by

By Andreas Moritz

Did you ever wonder what microwaves can do to water, food and your body? Russian researchers have found decreased nutritional value, cancer-making compounds and brain-damaging radiolytics in virtually all microwave-prepared foods. Eating microwave-prepared meals can also cause loss of memory, concentration, emotional instability and a decline in intelligence, according to the research. The Russian scientists also found decreased nutritional value – or significant dimming of their ‘vital energy field’ – in up to 90 percent of all microwave-prepared foods.

In addition, the B complex, C and E vitamins linked with stress-reduction and the prevention of cancer and heart disease, as well as the essential trace minerals needed for optimum brain and body functioning, were all rendered useless by microwaves, even at short cooking durations. Microwave-cooked food is basically reduced to the nutritional equivalent of cardboard. If you don’t want to develop nutrient deficiencies, you may be better off throwing this appliance out of your kitchen. The radiation has been found to accumulate in the kitchen furniture, becoming a constant source of radiation in itself.

Microwave usage in the preparation of food has been found to lead to lymphatic disorders and an inability to protect the body against certain cancers. The research found increased rates of cancer cell formation in the blood of people eating microwave-cooked meals. The Russians also reported increased rates of stomach and intestinal cancers, as well as digestive and excretive disorders, plus a higher percentage of cell tumors, including sarcoma.

Microwaves rip apart the molecular bonds that make food to be ‘food’. Microwave ovens hurl high-frequency microwaves that boil the moisture within food and its packaging by whipsawing water molecules dizzyingly back-and-forth at more than a billion reversals per second. This frantic friction fractures food molecules, rearranging their chemical composition into weird new configurations unrecognizable as food by human bodies. By destroying the molecular structures of food, the body cannot help but turn the food into waste, but not harmless waste, rather, ‘nuclear waste’.

Other side effects of microwaves than just making food useless and ‘wasteful’ include high blood pressure, migraine, dizziness, stomach pain, anxiety, hair loss, appendicitis, cataracts, reproductive disorders, adrenaline exhaustion, heart disease, memory loss, attention disorders, increased crankiness, depression, disconnected thoughts, sleep disturbance and brain damage.

Eating microwave-damaged foods can lead to a considerable stress response in the body, and thereby, alter the blood chemistry. While eating organic vegetables zapped by microwaves, you will send your cholesterol soaring. According to Swiss scientist Hertel, “Blood cholesterol levels are less influenced by cholesterol content of the food than by stress factors.” The Russian government had banned microwave ovens for over 50 years, but they were recently introduced to the Russian market (for ‘economic’ reasons). Microwave ovens have taken over the cooking chores in nine out of ten American homes, and American and Chinese microwave manufacturers hope that the same will happen in Russia.

Reporting for the Forensic Research Document of AREC Research, William P. Kopp now states: “The effects of microwaved food byproducts are long-term, permanent within the human body. Minerals, vitamins, and nutrients of all microwaved food is reduced or altered so that the human body gets little or no benefit, or the human body absorbs altered compounds that cannot be broken down.”

In a classical experiment 2,000 cats were given only food and water that were previously placed in the microwave oven, even for just one minute. The foods selected were the most nutritious and natural ones available. Within six weeks, all cats mysteriously died. While investigating the surprising result of the test, it was discovered that, although the cats looked well fed, the cells in their bodies virtually contained no trace of nutrient-components. The cats literally starved to death, despite all the nutritious foods. Microwaves turned their food into deadly poison. Seeing the unprecedented sickness epidemic in the U.S. and other countries that largely rely on microwaves to cook their foods, it may be wise if we followed the example of some countries where healthy cooking methods are still mainstream, such as Russia, Greece, Italy and France, as well as most developing countries.

——————————
You may share or republish this article provided you clearly mention the name of Andreas Moritz and paste a hyper link back to the web page

How to Deal With Electro-Pollution

Posted on by

By Andreas Moritz

Environmental changes, earth changes, and living in unhealthy homes and congested cities have all lowered our intake of magnetic energy. Magnetic energy keeps our cells alive and our minds coherent. In addition to living in a disturbed magnetic field, we are also exposed to the harmful low frequency Electromagnetic (EM) fields of 50-60 cycles per second (HZ) that are generated by electricity. This man-made electric current produces ‘electro-pollution’ emitted by computer equipment, TV transmissions, AM radio waves, mobile telephones, and the various home and industrial appliances such as hairdryers, electric toasters, and microwave ovens.

If you happen to sleep in a room that has a television set connected to the power circuit, your body may be building up an electric charge of up to 105 Volts! The same occurs when you lie next to an electronic alarm clock or a bedside light. A switched-on electric blanket can even double or triple the electric charge in your body. While lying in your bed, your feet are not in direct contact with the floor. This practically prevents you from dispersing that charge. Regular exposure to such abnormal voltages can create chaos in the body’s electric circuitry, suppress proper immune activity and lead to disorders such as cancer.

Badly shielded electric cables within the walls or under the floor can have similar effects. Therefore, it is best to move all electrical appliances or equipment out of the bedroom, or ideally turn off the fuse for the entire room during the night, especially if you have trouble sleeping. If you are not sure whether your electric cables are safe or not, choose the latter solution, or otherwise you may want to hire an expert who can measure the safety of your most immediate environment. When I tested for electro-pollution in one of my previous homes, I was surprised that the worst culprit wasn’t my computer but the ungrounded electrical strip lights. The use of Ener-chi Ionized Stones as explained in section 13 can help protect you against the harmful effects of a low frequency EM field and also balance the magnetic field around you.

Electromagnetic disturbance in the body can also be triggered by overexposure to chemical pollution. As you may know, the degree of indoor pollution in most modern homes and work places is many times higher than outdoor pollution. Add to these pollutants the harmful chemicals contained in the cosmetics, deodorants and perfumes, clothes, food, water and air that enter our bodies every day, and even a healthy body will eventually succumb to the overdose of such forms of stress and duress. Although many of us cannot completely avoid living in a polluted environment, we still can reduce our direct exposure to it to the least possible degree We have control over what we wear, eat, drink, put on our skin and hair, and how much time we spend outside in the fresh air.

——————————
You may share or republish this article provided you clearly mention the name of Andreas Moritz and paste a hyper link back to the web page

New Evidence: Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer Causes Brain Damage

Posted on by

By: S. L. Baker
Source: NaturalNews.com

Primary breast cancer (meaning a breast malignancy that hasn’t spread to other parts of the body) isn’t usually thought of as causing neurological problems. After all, if cancer hasn’t spread to the brain, why would it? Researchers have been forced to wonder about the answer to that question because a growing body of evidence over the past several years strongly suggests that women with breast cancer are at increased risk for not only problems with brain function but with actual alterations in their brain structure, too.

It turns out, according to a report just published in the November issue of the Archives of Neurology, that it’s not the cancer but the treatment for breast cancer — specifically chemotherapy — that could be causing a significant amount of the neurological impairment with poor outcomes seen in women with breast cancer.

Shelli R. Kesler, Ph.D., and colleagues at Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, conducted an observational study to investigate whether patterns of brain activation differed between breast cancer survivors who were treated with chemotherapy and those who didn’t have chemo. The research team also compared the brain activity of these breast cancer survivors to the brain activity of healthy women who were cancer-free.

In all, the study involved 25 women with breast cancer who received chemotherapy, 19 women with breast cancer who did not undergo chemotherapy, and 18 healthy female controls. All the research subjects were matched for age and other variables. The women were asked to perform a variety of tasks while the scientists used functional MRIs to measure and document activation in several areas of the women’s brains.

Imaging tests showed specific areas of brain injury

“Women with breast cancer demonstrated significantly reduced activation in the left middle dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and premotor cortex compared with healthy controls,” the authors reported in the paper. “The chemotherapy group also demonstrated significantly reduced left caudal lateral prefrontal cortex activation and increased perseverative errors and reduced processing speed compared with the other two groups.”

So what does this mean in plain English? The researchers concluded that primary breast cancer may cause measurable brain injury but chemotherapy clearly showed significant negative effects on brain function. The damage caused by chemotherapy was more likely to be increased in older women and those with less education, too.

“Women treated with chemotherapy may show additional prefrontal deficits and have difficulty compensating for neurobiological changes such that they also show impaired executive function,” the scientists concluded in their research paper.

This is very worrisome because executive function is a critical part of normal brain function. The components of executive function include working memory and recall (holding facts in your mind while working on a problem and accessing facts stored in long-term memory); paying attention and completing tasks; emotional control, such as thinking before acting and speaking; using self-talk to control behavior; and complex problem solving including analyzing issues and coming up with new ideas.

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

Never Buy Meat, Potatoes or Herbs With This Label on it

Posted on by

By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com

Irradiated herbs, seasonings and spices are exposed to HALF A BILLION chest X-ray’s worth of gamma radiation. This information is clearly publicized by the USDA and FDA.

The FDA presently supports the use of Cobalt-60 culled from nuclear reactors on all domestically produced conventional food.

The level of gamma-radiation used starts at 1 KiloGray — equivalent to 16,700,000 chest x-rays — and goes all the way up to 30KiloGray (500,000,000 chest x-rays or 10,000 times a human lethal dose).

According to Green Med Info:

“Despite the irresponsible promotion of this process as safe, food irradiation destroys much of the vitamin content of food, produces a number of toxic byproducts: formaldehyde, benzene, and formic acid, as well as unique radiolytic products, e.g. 2-alklycyclobutanoes, that have been demonstrated to be cytotoxic (damages cells), genotoxic (damages DNA), and carcinogenic (causes cancer) in test tube and animal studies.”

By Dr. Mercola

You’re probably well aware that certain foods, like milk and juices, at your grocery store are pasteurized – a process that uses heat to kill off bacteria from your food, and in the process destroys nutrients and denatures the food.

But you may not know that foods may also be irradiated — a process that exposes your food to radiant energy, including gamma rays, electron beams and X-rays.

Irradiation was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1963, and today is used on more than 40 food products dispersed throughout 37 countries. If this sounds a bit alarming to you, you are not alone.

After nuclear disasters like the Fukushima meltdown in Japan,radiation poisoning to food is one of the primary health concerns. So how is it that food processors can expose your food to radiation on purpose, in the name of food safety?

Are There Health Risks to Eating Irradiated Food?

The FDA claims, “Irradiation is an important food safety tool in fighting foodborne illness,” noting that the sources and amounts of radiation applied to foods are not strong enough to cause the food to become radioactive. They also state that “food irradiation does not significantly change the nutrient content, flavor, or texture of food.” However, as Sayer Ji, found of GreenMedInfo.com, states:

“The FDA presently supports and actively promotes the use of Cobalt-60 culled from Nuclear Reactors as a form of “electronic pasteurization” on all domestically produced conventional food.

The use of euphemisms like “food additive” and “pasteurization” to describe the process of blasting food with high levels of gamma-radiation cannot obviate the fact that the very same death-rays generated by thermonuclear warfare to destroy life are now being applied to food to “make it safer” …

This is not a hypochondriac’s rantings, as we aren’t talking here about small amounts of radiation. The level of gamma-radiation used starts at 1KiloGray (equivalent to 16,700,000 chest x-rays or 333 times a human lethal dose) and goes all the way up to 30KiloGray (500,000,000 chest x-rays or 10,000 times a human lethal dose).”

As you might suspect, exposing food to the equivalent of hundreds of millions of x-rays does not appear to be an innocuous act. Alternatively, evidence to date suggests it may be having a detrimental effect on the health of those who consume it.

A New Class of Food Contaminants

2-alkylcyclobutanones (2-ACBs) are radiolytic derivatives of triglycerides found exclusively in irradiated food. The compounds are generated proportionally to fat content of the food and the dose of absorbed radiation.

Research in animals suggests the compounds may promote tumor growth and colon cancer, and studies show 2-alkylcyclobutanones are able to cross the intestinal barrier, enter into the bloodstream, and be stored in the fat tissue of an animal. The compounds have also been shown to be cytotoxic and genotoxic, which means they may damage cells and DNA, respectively. Studies on human cells also revealed potential cancer-causing effects, with researchers concluding “this compound may be regarded as a possible risk factor for processes in colon carcinogenesis related to initiation and progression.”

More Reasons to be Wary of Irradiation

Needless to say, the research to date is raising major red flags that irradiation is NOT as safe as food safety officials would have you believe. In addition to the formation of potentially toxic 2-ACBs, irradiation leads to the formation of furan from ascorbic acid, fructose, sucrose, or glucose. Furan in foods has been linked to liver toxicity, including carcinogenicity.

Another study found that cats developed “mysterious” and “remarkable” severe neurological dysfunction, including movement disorders, vision loss and paralysis, after being fed a diet of irradiated foods during gestation. When they were taken off the irradiated foods, they slowly recovered. This is a major clue that irradiated foods deserve some serious regulatory scrutiny, but unfortunately they have already infiltrated the food system. And it’s not as though this concerning evidence was just recently brought to light. One paper on potential dangers, prepared for the meeting of the Joint FAO/IAEA/WHO Expert Committee on Irradiated Food, dates back to 1969. The author stated:

” … irradiation can bring about chemical transformations in food and food components resulting in the formation of potential mutagens.”

Does Irradiation Actually Mask Filthy Food Production?

The FDA is quick to state that “Irradiation is not a substitute for good sanitation and process control in meat and poultry plants. It is an added layer of safety.” But it is, in essence, a tool to wipe out bacteria, parasites and other potential pathogens that linger in food. This means food manufacturers have an out of sorts … After all, they’re going to nuke everything later anyway, so why go to the trouble of actually growing your food in sanitary conditions to begin with?

Irradiation is essentially a very effective medium for masking filthy conditions in slaughterhouses and food processing plants. The foundational solution to this problem lies in preventing contamination at the source — on the farm, during processing and shipping, and so on — not in wiping out pathogens later using questionable technological interventions like radiation! There simply shouldn’t be any need for irradiation, as there simply shouldn’t be E. coli in your lettuce or Salmonella in your poultry in the first place.

So why is there?

Our “global food system,” which encourages farming on a massive scale, poses steep problems for food safety. Not only can one batch of contaminated spinach or peppers easily sicken people across an entire country, but it’s very difficult to trace a contaminated food back to its source … and even harder to then pinpoint the source of the contamination.

Public health agencies like the FDA use the term “field-to-fork continuum” to describe the path any given food takes on the way to your plate, and during any of the following steps, contamination is possible:

  • Open field production
  • Harvesting
  • Field packing
  • Greenhouse production
  • Packinghouse or field packing
  • Repacking and other distribution operations
  • Fresh-cut/value-added processing
  • Food service and retail
  • Consumer

As you can see, the more steps your food goes through before it reaches your plate, the greater your chances of contamination becomes.

But again, the solution is not to subject your foods to radiation to make them “safe” … they should be safe from the get-go, and this is one of the primary reasons why I encourage you to think long and hard about the sources of your food. If you are able to get your food directly from the field or after harvest, such as directly from a farmer or farmer’s market, you knock out five potential operations that could expose your food to contamination, not to mention you’ll have assurance the food has not been irradiated.

Do You Want to Avoid Irradiated Foods?

In the United States, the following foods may be irradiated:

Fortunately, the FDA currently requires that irradiated foods include labeling with the statement “treated with radiation” or “treated by irradiation” and the international symbol for irradiation, the radura:

However, there are exceptions:

  • Irradiated meat used in another product (such as sausage) does not have to contain the radura image on the package (it does have to list irradiated meat in the ingredients, though).
  • Restaurants are not required to disclose the use of irradiated foods. So be aware that any time you eat out, you have no way of knowing if your food has been irradiated.

You can also avoid irradiation by choosing locally grown, organic foods as much as possible. Certified organic foods may not be irradiated, and foods from a small, local farm are unlikely to be either. So, as I’ve said many times before, supporting the small farmers in your area and, as much as possible, getting your food from these types of high-quality, small-scale local sources is one of the simplest ways to access pure, unadulterated food.

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

Avoid Body Scanners at Airports

Posted on by

   Avoid body scanners at airports

Hi, this question relates to the body scanners that they are used in American and international airports around the world and these TSA scanners or full body scanners also called naked body scanners, in fact, have never been tested properly, objectively, for the potentially negative effects that they have, in terms of radiating people with harmful non-ionizing radiation. And what has been found is that, these tests that were actually published, they were fake tests that were conducted by secret researchers with secret methods that were not disclosed, in secret places, so, and these tests were conducted on different parts of these machines not on the actual machines the way you find them in airports.

So there is actually a group of scientists that clubbed together, these are physics professors and professors of biophysics and biochemistry that were from the University of California, San Francisco and Arizona State University and they discovered that the radiation that is emanating from these machines is at least forty-five  times higher than that had been provided in the data by the TSA.

So, there is something going on there that the TSA does not want the population to know about otherwise they would have disclosed any significant parts of the so called tests, safety tests, which have created more doubts than assurance.

So, I would definitely advice anyone to stay away from these machines and to opt out, it does not matter if that takes you a little longer to get through the security, but to make sure that you do not get hefty doses of radiation, particularly when you have had radiation exposure beforehand through medical radiation, x-rays, cat scans, mammograms and so on, because radiation accumulates in the body and there is no way of telling when you have reached that level of saturation for something more disturbing to develop from there.

So, I would in no way encourage you to take the short cut and let yourself be radiated because you can never know what you are going to get since there is a complete absence of any objective scientific testing that has ever been done on these machines.

Thanks and wish you good travels.

——————————
You may share or republish this article provided you clearly mention the name of Andreas Moritz and paste a hyper link back to the web page

How to Eliminate Harmful Radiation Effects of X-Rays

Posted on by

How to eliminate harmful radiation effects of x-rays

Hi, this is a question from a person who has received dozens of full body X-rays and is wondering if there is anything that can be done to reduce or eliminate the accumulated radiation in the body.

And certainly there are quite a few things one can do. First of all make sure you avoid future exposures such as from mammograms which are turning out to be a leading cause of cancer of the breast and other forms of radiation that are more often given for reasons that do not require such diagnostic approaches. However the ones who have accumulated a certain amount of radiation there are a number of things you can take internally or externally.

You can take baths that are utilizing hydrogen peroxide or wax it is a good combination to use bentonite clay in the bath, if you cannot take a full bath with bentonite clay then at least take a couple of foot baths which can also pull radiation… because of their metallic nature, their ionic nature… that they literally pull radiation out through the bottom of the feet.

Now there is ceolite clay or known as ceolite which is very-very useful to decontaminate the body and they have been used in instances where exposure to nuclear power plants have created radiation poisoning. So ceolite C-E-O-L-I-T-E is very, very useful, put that on top of the list. The green clay is also very useful, green French clay which is more prevalent in Europe. Then there is baking soda which is a very, very effective way of reducing eliminating radiation particularly from the kidneys so it can be taken internally for a while, I would suggest no longer than two to three weeks, even a half a teaspoon in a day in some water will help to decontaminate body from radiation. Then there is bowen, bowen is quite effective and has been shown to eliminate radiation.

And besides that there are obviously certain foods which can help with removing radiation and that’s anything from brown rice to sea weed, kelp, kelp has been definitely shown to help with radiation problems. Miso soup which is very popular in Japan, that is a very helpful for people with radiation problems. Pumpkin turns out to be quite effective too and pumpkin seeds are which you can find in most stores. Spirulina which is a green blue algae type… rich… also catches radiation and eliminates it from the system. Wheat grass… some people do wheat grass juicing… I recommend to do that only for couple of days in a row and then give it a break for a couple of days so that you do not get overexposed to the plant antibodies which are quite toxic, that can irritate or cause issues with the immune system that could lead to allergies to those particular antibodies.

So there are some herbs as well which are very useful, cilantro, basil, sweet basil and rosemary, a very popular herb which is also known to diminish radiation accumulation in the body. Ginger is a very popular food that can be added to cooked food or salads in grated form, very effective for radiation. Then some people like alpha – alpha sprouts, if it is not genetically modified, then go ahead with that. It has also shown benefits. And olive oil is a very good thing to add because olive oil has been shown to transport radiation out of the body too. Anything that is green, leafy vegetables, very good. Cruciferous vegetables like broccoli are very effective scavengers of radiation. And the other thing that has been shown to be quite effective is eating apples, so the old saying ‘an apple a day keeps the doctor away’ this applies also to ‘keeps the radiation away’, so it is a good protective measure you can take on a day to day basis. Have an apple a day and that keeps the radiation away.

I hope this is helpful to you, particularly who has had undergone major radiation poisoning, and that is a serious issue nowadays because you do not just get radiation from medical technologies but also from the atmosphere, from contamination, from the experiments that are being done in various places underground in the background and nuclear base material making its way into the water lines and water ways and into soil, and from there into our food supply and so it is good to eat foods that are immune first of all to radiation and to remove radiation once it has occurs in our body.

Thank you.

——————————
You may share or republish this article provided you clearly mention the name of Andreas Moritz and paste a hyper link back to the web page

Protecting Yourself from Chemtrails

Posted on by

 Protecting yourself from chemtrails

Hi, this is a question with regard to chemtrails and Nairoli, she is asking how the knowledge that I provide can be applied to chemtrails that have been sprayed on us almost on a day to day basis.

Now whenever you look up in the sky and you see these chemtrails these are not just water vapor or ice crystals that come out at such high altitudes when airplanes fly in the sky, these are chemicals that are being released from tanks within aircraft, often military aircraft that on purpose does spray those chemicals.

This is part of the weather control programs that the government is using throughout… governments throughout the world are… you can find these chemtrails in nearly in all developed countries or wealthy countries. You do not find them in places like Costa Rica where there is no military and you will not find chemtrails in very poor countries, in African nations for example. Now these chemtrails contain aluminum oxides, barium and many other chemicals that descend on us, they get on our skin, we inhale them and they get into the soil and into our drinking water, for example, Manchester which has a lot of pure water coming out from the streams in the rivers and the lakes, beautiful crystal clear lakes, and they are now polluted with aluminum oxide at a rate of several hundred percent more than admissible by the environmental protective agencies.

So the poisoning of the population with these chemicals in order to, according to their theory, in order to create artificial clouds that then would reflect sunlight so as to reduce the global warming, this intentional poisoning of the population is designed to reduce the population. It affects the reproductive systems, it creates estrogenic effects in people that is why, in heavily sprayed places like California, you go to schools and you find that most of the children are female, they are girls and boys are getting less and less, eventually there would be hardly any boys left because all those chemicals increase the estrogens and they have reduced the male hormones in the body. So a lot of things are happening in the skies.

There are ways to protect ourselves and obviously the best way is to keep the liver clean, make sure that any of those poisons, toxins that accumulate in the liver or in the tissues get removed by cleaning out the liver that allows the blood to be clean and to be able to pick up, take out, other toxins in the rest of the body and to excrete them from the system. Also it is good to keep the kidneys clean, so a kidney cleanse once every three, four, six, eight months will be sufficient to help from that end, and keeping the colon clean obviously because most toxins end up going through the large intestine.

Taking a foot bath with bentonite clay can take these toxins out of the system as well. There are Epsom salts that can be put in bath water, that also helps and there are other wonderful substances in nature that you find in foods, certain vitamins and minerals which are very helpful in cleansing these toxins out of the system, particularly those found in vegetables like broccoli and asparagus which is a great cleanser, and then of course other cruciferous vegetables like cabbages. Cabbages remove radiation toxins so I would highly recommend those. Green leafy vegetables are also very good. Try to get the organic forms of those vegetables as much as you can, because otherwise you just put new chemical toxins into the system, you want to eliminate them and organically grown foods are great cleansers in that respect. And, make sure you drink enough water that can flush out toxins pretty well as long as you do not drink more than two liters of water a day otherwise kidneys which are designed to take back a certain number of minerals and vitamins they will not be able to do that. So if you drink like three liters of water,  you may just flush out these minerals and vitamins which makes it more difficult for the body to function in a heath balanced way.

——————————
You may share or republish this article provided you clearly mention the name of Andreas Moritz and paste a hyper link back to the web page

Microwave Cooking Destroys Food and Destroys You!

Posted on by

Microwave cooking destroys food and destroys you!

You can perform a simple experiment, just water plants that you have at home and, or, grow some plants, put some seeds in the soil and water one with regular water and the other one with water that had been exposed to microwaves in a microwave oven and do that over a couple of days and you will start seeing a difference.The plant that has been watered with microwaved water will not develop properly and eventually it with wither and die and the other plant will thrive. So if that applies to plant cells it will also apply to the human cells, not just plant cells. So it is something to consider, there is a lot of research that has been done by the Russian and the Swiss scientists who have discovered that microwaves are, in fact, not just useless (for making food palatable and making food useful for the body) but actually they are harmful.

Microwaves were used first by the Germans during world war II and they used microwaves first to warm the soldiers who were very, very cold in the winter when they were at the battlefields, and they were given these microwave generating devices, and they were huddling around these microwave devices because that warmed them up so they felt cozy and warm around these things, but suddenly the German military discovered that all those people who were hanging around this microwave devices, they were getting sick and they died from leukemia, from blood cancers. And blood cancers, by the way, they can develop very,very quickly it is not like the other tumors that grow in the tissues that take sometimes years and years to grow but in blood cancer it can literally happen from almost like, in one week to the next.

And then they retracted, they basically took these devices back and they banned them and then some, a few years later, still during the war, they discovered they wanted to put out microwaves, the first microwaves, to warm up food for the soldiers, so that might be working, at least we can give them warm food, because they are so cold in Russian or wherever, so they warmed up food with these microwaves and the soldiers felt great having warm food in the battle grounds, that was luxury because, otherwise they would never have access to warm food, so that fared well, but,  a couple of weeks later, these soldiers started dying and getting very,very sick so once again they found that microwaved foods cause leukemias.

Now when you look at the statistics of when microwaves became extremely popular, that’s when leukemia rates started going up as well dramatically, so it was a very, very rare form of cancer hardly ever known before and so, with the onset of these devices, leukemia rates shot up. So it is again something to consider when the Germans noticed that microwaves were, microwave cooked foods were causing cancers and they once again banned them. The Russians were much, much smarter than the Americans because they banned them outright; they did not allow them for thirty-forty years because they knew about the cancer-causing effects of microwave ovens.

In America it was allowed, even though, when you buy a microwave oven, there are warnings that there are risks involved in using it because there is always some rays that come out of the devices and they get into the furniture in the kitchen and then they constantly radiate back into your body. So that is one thing to be very, very concerned about. Also, the microwaved food is basically destroyed, it is not that it is cooked through an external heat source, there is no external heat source, what happens is that the microwaves are creating friction between the atoms and the atoms move very, very fast and that creates heat, and that heat will basically tear apart the molecular bonds, the molecular structure, that makes the food useful.

So, when you destroy the molecular bonds between, let’s say, amino acids and carbohydrates, and it just breaks it apart, the body will not make good use of any of that because it can only read food as molecular bonds that can be utilized or converted, but if you tear it all apart then that food is basically not of much use. So it will be fairly undigested and so, the individuals who eat a lot of microwaved food, they will find themselves to start craving more and more foods, because they are in a state of mal-nourishment, under-nourishment and you will find that they will start putting on a lot of weight.

They are unable to get rid of all the waste matter that has been accumulated because of not digesting these foods properly, and obesity rates are very clearly related, to a large extent, to the use of microwave ovens. In countries where you do not have microwave ovens, people tend to be thin, having light body weights. It is again one of those modern appliances that nobody seems to have a problem with, that is one of the main reasons for people getting sick in this country in America here.

So I definitely do not recommend use of microwaves, there is far too much evidence that it goes against the human physiology. Why put radiations – whether it is low frequency radiation or ionizing radiation – from medical devices like CT scans, now ultrasounds which is also related to leukemia, x rays definitely are known to cause leukemia and other cancers.  So it is very important to be, very, very extra careful of radiation of any kind unless it is direct sunlight which is a different kind of radiation which the body has a natural contact with but these unnatural forms of radiation exposures is definitely something  to be very concerned about, and I would never ever turn a microwave on in my own home. And you use that to create a shortcut to sort of saving time to cook which in the long term, will cost you a lot more of your life, in terms of time, you do not save any time, you lose a lot of time. So I do not recommend it.

——————————
You may share or republish this article provided you clearly mention the name of Andreas Moritz and paste a hyper link back to the web page