SSRI Drugs in Pregnancy Linked to Heart Abnormalities

UPDATE: 6 July 2011

It has been announced that prescribing antidepressants to pregnant women are at risk for their child to develop autism.

Children born to mothers who received a prescription for any antidepressant in the year before delivery were twice as likely to have an ASD (6.7% versus 3.3%; OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.2 to 3.6), according to Lisa Croen, PhD, of Kaiser Permanente Northern California in Oakland, and colleagues. SOURCE

It also speaks of the push to durg all pregnant women in a ridiculous effort to try to prevent  postpartum depression. In this sense it probably has more to do with causing PPD.

Nutritional and thyroid issues do not seem to be considered in the way of very closed minded and limited thinking.

Find more than 30 posts related to this topic using our search box.

Originally posted 11/2008

Prozac use has shown that women who took the SSRI (and fluoride based) antidepressant during the first three months of pregnancy gave birth to four times as many babies with heart problems as women who did not. The levels were three times higher in women taking paroxetine(Paxil, also containing fluoride).

Two Antidepressants Taken During Pregnancy Linked To Heart Anomalies In Babies

ScienceDaily (2008-11-26) -- Women who took the antidepressant fluoxetine during the first three months of pregnancy gave birth to four times as many babies with heart problems as women who did not and the levels were three times higher in women taking paroxetine. ... > read full article

Once again, if you regularly follow the topics of discussion on Natural Health News you will recall that we posted these two articles earlier this year.

Fluoride is not a cure for mothers or babies, March 2008

Nutrition and Preventing Post Partum Depression, May 2008

We would also like to call your attention to the top 14 drugs identified by the FDA as requiring much more study for off label use. Of these 14, nine are SSRI or similar antidepressants (excepting Trazodone, a triazolopyridine derivative, which has its own unique set of problems). 

14 Drugs Identified As Most Urgently Needing Study For Off-label Use

ScienceDaily (2008-11-26) -- Physicians and policy-makers know that drugs are frequently prescribed to treat certain diseases despite a lack of FDA approval, a practice known as off-label prescribing. Now researchers have developed a list of 14 widely prescribed medications most urgently in need of additional study to determine how effective and safe they are for their off-label uses. Antidepressants and antipsychotics are the most prominent classes of drugs on the list. ... > read full article

We do hope that Tom Daschle and Barack Obama take note of these additional damage points for the proposed use of SSRI antidepressants to allegedly meet some crazy notion that the drug use will stave off post partum depression.

Mr Obama, just like Oprah, as we have said, you can do better!

Airport X-Ray Machines: UPDATE

UPDATE: 18 January 2012 -

TSA workers to wear monitoring devices to test if scanners have dangerous levels of radiation

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2087419/TSA-workers-wear-monitoring-devices-test-scanners-dangerous-levels-radiation.html#ixzz1jlI8gmj4

17 May 2011 - 

Scientists Cast Doubt on TSA Tests of Full-Body Scanners

by Michael Grabell ProPublica, May 16, 2011, 2:11 p.m.
The Transportation Security Administration says its full-body X-ray scanners are safe and that radiation from a scan is equivalent to what's received in about two minutes of flying. The company that makes them says it's safer than eating a banana [1].
But some scientists with expertise in imaging and cancer say the evidence made public to support those claims is unreliable. And in a new letter [2] sent to White House science adviser John Holdren, they question why the TSA won't make the scanners available for independent testing by outside scientists.
The machines, which are designed to reveal objects hidden under clothing, have the potential to close a significant security gap for the TSA because metal detectors can't find explosives or ceramic knives, which can be just as sharp as the box cutters that hijackers used on 9/11.
They are also important for TSA's public relations battle over the alternative, the "enhanced pat-down," which has bred an epidemic of viral videos: A 6-year-old girl [3] is touched from head to toe. A former Miss USA [4] says she was violated. A software programmer warns a screener, "If you touch my junk [5], I'm going to have you arrested."
After the underwear bomber tried to blow up a Northwest Airlines plane on Christmas Day 2009, the TSA ramped up deployment of full-body scanners and plans to have them at nearly every security line by 2014.
There are two types of body scanners [6]. Millimeter wave machines emit a radio frequency similar to cellphones. Backscatters work like a fast-moving X-ray. In the latter, the rays bounce off the skin and create a fuzzy white image [7] of the passenger's body. Because the beam doesn't go through the body, most of its radiation is received by the skin.
The TSA says the backscatter technology has been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration [8], the National Institute for Standards and Technology [9] and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory [10]. Survey teams are using radiation-detecting dosimeters to check the machines at airports. The TSA says the results have all confirmed that the scanners don't pose a significant risk to public health.
According to the agency and many radiation experts, the dose is so low, even for children or cancer patients, that someone would have to pass through the machines more than a thousand times before approaching the annual limit set by radiation safety organizations.
But the letter to the White House science adviser, signed by five professors at University of California, San Francisco, and one at Arizona State University, points out several flaws in the tests. Studies published in scientific journals in the last few months have also cast doubt on the radiation dose and the machines' ability to find explosives.
A number of scientists, including some who believe the radiation is trivial, say more testing should be done given the government's plans to put millions of passengers through the machines. And they have been disturbed by the TSA's reluctance to do so.
"There's no real data on these machines, and in fact, the best guess of the dose is much, much higher than certainly what the public thinks," said John Sedat, a professor emeritus in biochemistry and biophysics at UCSF and the primary author of the letter.
The same group stirred controversy last year when it sent a letter to Holdren [11] arguing that while the overall dose to the body may be low, the TSA hadn't quantified the dose to the skin. Last fall, FDA and TSA officials released a study [12] that estimated the dose to the skin to be twice the dose to the body, though still extremely low.
In the most recent letter sent to Holdren on April 28, the professors note that the Johns Hopkins lab didn't test an actual airport machine. Instead, the tests were done on a model built by the manufacturer, Rapiscan [13], and configured to resemble a system previously tested by the TSA.
The researchers' names have been kept secret, and the report on the tests is so "heavily redacted" that "there is no way to repeat any of these measurements," they wrote.
The physics and medical professors also took issue with the device used to measure the radiation. Although the device, known as an ion chamber, is commonly used to test medical equipment, they argue that the detector gets overwhelmed by the amount of radiation the backscatter deposits in a short time and might not provide accurate readings.
Helen Worth, a spokeswoman for the Johns Hopkins lab, referred questions to the TSA.
Part of the trouble is that there is no ideal device for measuring the radiation dose given by backscatter X-rays, said David Brenner, director of the Columbia University Center for Radiological Research. The machines emit a pencil beam that rapidly moves across and up and down the body, he said.
"We are one of the oldest and biggest radiological research centers in the country, and we find this to be a very hard technical problem," said Brenner, who was not involved with the letter.
Another issue is that there is a lot of uncertainty with the model used to estimate cancer risk from radiation exposure to the skin, said Rebecca Smith-Bindman, a UCSF radiologist who also was not involved in the letter.
Smith-Bindman, who has testified before Congress about excessive radiation from medical scans, studied the TSA reports and said she wasn't concerned about the airport X-rays.
The risks are "truly trivial," she wrote in an article [14] for the Archives of Internal Medicine. A passenger would have to undergo 50 airport scans to reach the level of a dental X-ray, 1,000 for a chest X-ray, and 4,000 for a mammogram.
Though imperfect, the available models predict that the backscatters would lead to only six cancers over the course of a lifetime among the approximately 100 million people who fly every year, Smith-Bindman concluded.
"There's really unnecessary fear related to these scans," she said. "What I'm not as comfortable with is that there has not been access to these machines. They are not being tested on the same regulatory basis that we see on medical equipment."
After her article was published, Smith-Bindman was contacted by a TSA public affairs officer. During the conversation, she suggested that she or other outside scientists be allowed to test the machine. The official was shocked by the suggestion and said such access could tip off people who want to avoid detection, Smith-Bindman said.
"It was not appreciating that there's legitimate scientific questions that have to be balanced against the security questions," she said.
The TSA did not respond to ProPublica's questions about why it wouldn't allow outside testing. But at a congressional hearing [15] in March, Robin Kane, assistant administrator for security technology, said doing so would expose a lot of sensitive information the agency wouldn't normally share publicly. The machines had already been tested several times, he said, and if set up securely, the agency would allow more testing.
The available information leaves scientists with little to work with. Peter Rez, the Arizona State physics professor who signed the letter to Holdren, has tried to calculate the radiation by examining the handful of backscatter images that have been released publicly.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center [16], a civil liberties group, sued the Department of Homeland Security, TSA's parent agency, in federal court seeking release of 2,000 backscatter images used in testing. But it has not been successful.
The few images that have been made public do not reveal faces or detailed private features. The TSA says the images Rez used are out of date, but Rez says the current image on TSA's website is unusable.
Using the earlier images, Rez concluded [17] in the Radiation Protection Dosimetry journal that it was highly unlikely the machines could have produced such high-quality images with doses of radiation as low as those described by TSA. He estimated the dose, while still very small, is 45 times higher than the results measured by Johns Hopkins.
Applying Rez's numbers, Brenner wrote a paper [18] for the journal Radiology, estimating that 100 additional cancers would develop for every 1 billion scans.
For Rez, the real danger occurs if the machine stops in the middle of a scan, allowing the beam to focus on a tiny area for several seconds. Given that the backscatter works with a wheel rotating at a high speed, and that the agency plans to use the scanners continuously 365 days a year, mechanical failures are likely, he said.
The TSA says that the scanners have safety systems, such as automatic shutoffs and emergency stop buttons, that will kill the beam in the event of any problem that could result in abnormal radiation. How those fail-safe systems work isn't entirely clear.
When Johns Hopkins researchers visited the Rapiscan facility, the automatic termination appeared to work. But the full results of the shutoff tests are redacted.
What's more, the test system didn't have an emergency stop button.

14 March 2011 -

The Transportation Security Administration announced Friday that it would retest every full-body X-ray scanner that emits ionizing radiation — 247 machines at 38 airports — after maintenance records on some of the devices showed radiation levels 10 times higher than expected. Complete article

Is there something that tells you this may be too little, too late?  Typical government approach.

21 December 2010 -  NO Proof Scanner Are Safe

If you believe the government, you have little to worry about from the radiation beam flitting over the front and back of your body in airport watchdogs' search for explosives and other hidden implements of terror this holiday season.


The Transportation Security Administration says that when working properly, the backscatter Advance Imaging Technology X-ray scanners emit an infinitesimal, virtually harmless amount of radiation.


The problem is that the TSA offers no proof that anyone is checking to see if the machines are "working properly."  Complete article

17 December - Leading Scientists Say Airport Full Body Scanners Easily Duped

by Fran Golden

Two respected scientists say they have discovered a flaw in airport full body scanners that could potentially allow terrorists to outsmart the machines.

In research published in the Journal of Transportation Security, physicists Leon Kaufman and Joseph W. Carlson of the University of California San Francisco say body scanner machines can easily be duped.


While the purpose of the scanners is to find contraband hidden on the body, some weapons and explosives would not be visible to the devices say the researchers, who are known for their work in creating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) machines used in hospitals.


That's because the human body and benign objects add "structured noise that interferes with signal averaging," the scientists say.


A "pancake" of explosives with beveled edges, taped to the abdomen, for instance, "would be invisible to this technology, ironically, because of its large volume, since it is easily confused with normal anatomy," the scientists report.


"It is also easy to see that an object such as a wire or a boxcutter blade, taped to the side of the body, or even a small gun in the same location, will be invisible," Kaufman and Carlson write.


Increasing radiation exposure to get a better image from the body scanning technology won't help, the scientists say. "Even if exposure were to be increased significantly, normal anatomy would make a dangerous amount of plastic explosive with tapered edges difficult if not impossible to detect."


In reaching their conclusions, the scientists used simulations (computational algorithms). They refer in their research to some photos of full body scanners not deployed in the U.S., but used at airports elsewhere.


The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) responds to the latest report with the same pat response it has given to other criticism about full body scanners, a spokesman telling AOL Travel News, "While there is no silver bullet, advanced imaging technology is a proven, highly-effective tool that safely detects both metallic and non-metallic items concealed on the body that could be used to threaten the security of airplanes."


The TSA adds that full body scanners are just one of the airport security methods it has in place.


Critics of full body scanners have raised privacy concerns about "naked" images and questioned whether radiation from the machines could potentially pose a cancer risk, among other things.


This week the TSA also took steps to debunk a rumor that airport body scanner images of "Baywatch" star Donna D'Errico -- who has criticized the TSA for singling out attractive celebrities to go through body scans – are in circulation. The TSA says it's impossible for anyone to capture scanner images given safeguards it has in place.

Sing Along with the Scanner


13 December - Inside TSA scanners: How terahertz waves tear apart human DNA


When Natural Health News first looked at the issue of the airport x-ray scanners it was 2006.  Even then we reported that there was a health risk f40m x-ray exposure and T waves.  In light of US government talking heads we know that this has not been properly addressed.


Now Dr. Russell Blaylock gives us his helpful opinion and read more interesting material  here and here

Dr. Blaylock: Body Scanners More Dangerous Than Feds Admit
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 9:58 AM
By Dr. Russell Blaylock. a nationally recognized board-certified neurosurgeon


The growing outrage over the Transportation Security Administrations new policy of backscatter scanning of airline passengers and enhanced pat-downs brings to mind these wise words from President Ronald Reagan: The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: Im from the government and Im here to help you.
So, what is all the concern really about - will these radiation scanners increase your risk of cancer or other diseases? A group of scientists and professors from the University of California at San Francisco voiced their concern to Obama's science and technology adviser John Holdren in a well-stated letter back in April.
The group included experts in radiation biology, biophysics, and imaging, who expressed serious concerns about the dangerously high dose of radiation to the skin.
Radiation increases cancer risk by damaging the DNA and various components within the cells. Much of the damage is caused by high concentrations of free radicals generated by the radiation. Most scientists think that the most damaging radiation types are those that have high penetration, such as gamma-rays, but in fact, some of the most damaging radiation barely penetrates the skin.
One of the main concerns is that most of the energy from the airport scanners is concentrated on the surface of the skin and a few millimeters into the skin. Some very radiation-sensitive tissues are close to the skin - such as the testes, eyes, and circulating blood cells in the skin.
This is why defenders using such analogies as the dose being 1,000-times less than a chest X-ray and far less than what passengers are exposed to in-flight are deceptive. Radiation damage depends on the volume of tissue exposed. Chest X-rays and gamma-radiation from outer space is diffused over the entire body so that the dose to the skin is extremely small. Of note, outer space radiation does increase cancer rates in passengers, pilots, and flight attendants.
We also know that certain groups of people are at a much higher risk than others. These include babies, small children, pregnant women, the elderly, people with impaired immunity (those with HIV infection, cancer patients, people with immune deficiency diseases, and people with abnormal DNA repair mechanism, just to name a few).
As we grow older, our DNA accumulates a considerable amount of unrepaired damage, and under such circumstances even low doses of radiation can trigger the development of skin cancers, including the deadly melanoma. I would also be concerned about exposing the eyes, since this could increase ones risk of developing cataracts.
About 5 percent of the population have undiagnosed abnormal DNA repair mechanism. When exposed to radiation, this can put them at a cancer risk hundreds of times greater than normal people.
It also has been determined that when skin is next to certain metals, such as gold, the radiation dose is magnified 100-fold higher. What if you have a mole next to your gold jewelry? Will the radiation convert it to a melanoma? Deficiencies in certain vitamins can dramatically increase your sensitivity to radiation carcinogenesis, as can certain prescription medications.
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.
Based on these assurances, tens of thousands of children have been exposed to radiation doses from CT scanners, which will ruin the children's lives. I have two friends who were high-ranking Environmental Protection Agency scientists, and they assure me that in government safety agencies, politics most often override the scientists real concerns about such issues.
This government shares House Speaker Nancy Pelosis view when she urged passage of the Obamacare bill sight unseen - Lets just pass the bill, and we will find out what is in it later.
When the real effects of these scanners on health become known, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and the rest of the gang who insist the scanners are safe will be long gone.

(November 26) --  I started covering the issue of the airport x-ray scanner four years or so ago.  Since that time many have hopped on the band wagon to speak out against this intrusive, expensive, and health-risky device.  Most researchers now tell us that it isn't really as effective as Chertoff and his minions wish you to believe.


One of my health colleagues added more information today, and it might interest you

Dressing for Scanners  Daisy Nguyen, Associated Press, November 23, 2010

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- It was no crime of fashion, but Wendy Gigliotti's bulky sweater and ankle-length skirt made her a target of airport screeners.
A female Transportation Security Administration officer at Sacramento International Airport told her, "We can't tell if there's something under your skirt." She was then frisked in a way she said felt more intrusive than a physical exam.
"I felt not only like a criminal, I felt absolutely violated," said Gigliotti.
Gigliotti is among the travelers feeling mortified or even outraged by the more thorough security pat-downs the TSA began using this month as the holiday travel season begins.
Travel experts say the new scrutiny underscores the need for better airport fashion choices that can help people breeze through screenings with their dignity intact.

(Nov. 24) -- Deborah Hastings

Man Sues TSA, Claims Pat-Down Violates His Rights

An Arkansas man is taking the Transportation Security Administration to court, claiming new screening searches violate the Constitution.


Robert Dean filed a federal lawsuit in Little Rock this week, even though the city's airport doesn't have the new scanners that have sparked outrage across the country. Dean's suit asks for a federal ban against the machines and full-body searches.


On a recent trip to Chicago, Dean claims that being subjected to a full-body scan and being patted down by TSA personnel harmed his "emotional, psychological and mental well-being," The Associated Press reported.
The security agency said it does not comment on pending litigation, according to the AP.


"Filing for an injunction will stop these types of invasive measures until we can get a ruling on the constitutionality of this," Dean said, according to FOX 16 TV in Arkansas.


The invasive procedures violate the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, Dean says.


"The physical aspects of it weren't that traumatic," he said of his experience in Chicago. "I think it's the thought of somebody sitting behind a screen looking at your naked body doing these examinations," he told KTHV TV in Little Rock.

Tagged:  full body scanner, full body scanners, full body scans, pat downs, patdown, patdowns, robert dean, tsa sued

22 November: From I want to give Congress a pay cut.

Adam KokeshNovember 17, 2010 at 10:39pm Subject: Help Spread the Message - National Opt-Out Day! National Opt-Out Day represents an exciting opportunity for all Americans. This very simple, straightforward act of civil disobedience is one that everyone can get behind. Help spread the message and make sure everyone knows this is something they can support and participate in! Share this video and do what you can to inform people about this issue. http://www.facebook.com/l/5f40cB64tVwUeCceIhhCDFBq2HA;www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFlvg0qyCkA Love, faith, respect, Adam Kokesh TSA has met the enemy — and they are us 12 November - More on Airport X-Ray Scanners, as the battle heats up more than your body - I can't imagine people being so unaware of the risk of exposure to these x-ray scanners going in at just about every airport without the benefit of your health care provider discussing with you the risk/benefit analysis of this kind of exposure to your body. Obviously some of the smarter bears around town look like the airline pilots association and Peter Rez, a physics professorat Arizona State University. Rez has independently calculated the radiation dose of backscatter scanners  was higher than TSA has said. Leave it to DSA to spend millions on unproven technology like Chertoff's border detection system from Boeing.  Maybe Boeing and Chertoff need to make some payments to the treasury fro this big goof!  It might go a long way toward getting us out of the financial muck & mire we seem to be rolling  through. Read Complete Article At least someone is thinking outside the box, maybe you should too. 16 September - TSA Testing Privacy Upgrades for Full Body Scanners 4 August - Police agencies admit to saving body scan images  Capabilities of the checkpoint security machines are still shrouded in mystery http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38561251/ns/technology_and_science-security Despite claims by the TSA that electronic body scan images "cannot be stored or recorded," some federal police agencies are in fact saving tens of thousands of images, according to a report by CNET News. The body scanners, increasingly found in airports, courthouses and other places where security is high, use an assortment of technologies. These include millimeter wave scanners (shown below) — in which the subject is harmlessly pelted with extremely high frequency radio waves which reflect a picture back to the device — and backscatter X-ray (shown above) — which measures low-powered reflective X-rays to produce clearer body shots, shots that can reveal alarmingly precise anatomical detail. According to CNET, the U.S. Marshals Service admitted this week that it had saved thousands of images that had been recorded from a security checkpoint in a Florida courthouse. The revelation comes at a tense time. Two weeks ago, when Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said such scanners would appear in every major airport, privacy advocates such as the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington D.C. filed a lawsuit to stop the device rollout. The reason? Because the devices were "designed and deployed in a way that allows the images to be routinely stored and recorded," EPIC executive director Marc Rotenberg told CNET, adding that this "is exactly what the Marshals Service is doing." As CNET's Declan McCullagh explains, it's the mystery of the devices' potential that is most unnerving: "This trickle of disclosures about the true capabilities of body scanners — and how they're being used in practice — is probably what alarms privacy advocates more than anything else," he wrote. The TSA maintains that body scanning is "constitutional" and the CNET 7/17/10 New body-scanner software to show only stick figures Boston's Logan International Airport hopes to be the first airport in the country to get new software that should eliminate privacy concerns over full-body scanners at security checkpoints. The software would produce stick-figure images of passengers instead of the more revealing images currently viewed by operators at remote stations. The software would detect suspicious objects on passengers that require further attention - such as possible weapons or explosives - allowing Transportation Security Administration screeners and explosive weapons specialists to hone in on them and determine whether they pose a danger. 6/29/10  Airport body scanners deliver radiation dose 20 times higher than first thought, warns expert: June 29, 2010 Airport body scanners deliver radiation dose 20 times higher than first thought, warns expert 30 Jun 2010 Full body scanners at airports could increase your risk of skin cancer, experts warn. The X-ray machines have been brought in at Manchester, Gatwick and Heathrow. Scientists say that the low level beam does deliver a small dose of radiation to the body but because the beam concentrates on the skin - one of the most radiation-sensitive organs of the human body - that dose may be up to 20 times higher than first estimated. 1/11/10 Airport Scanners Save and Transmit Scanners, ordered by TSA Better airport security in Israel 1/5/10 Updates re: Scanner Scam http://www.thestar.com/iphone/news/world/article/744199---israelification-high-security-little-bother http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/01/airport-scanner-scam 1/3/10 - "Body scanner wouldn't have foiled syringe bomber, says MP who worked on new machines" Read complete article T-Waves: A new model of the way the THz waves interact with DNA explains how the damage is done... " Drawing on sources like The Mayo Clinic and The Radiological Society of North America as well as interviews with prominent radiologists, molecular biologists, and medical doctors, ionizing (penetrating) radiation in any dose, no matter how tiny, causes genetic mutations, which set all living cells exposed on the path to cancer. X-rays are considered ionizing radiation."  Read complete article  12/29/09 - While India rejected airport sreening in the past, the Netherlands has adopted the process for flights to the US.  As this happens people wonder if there is anyone in charge at TSA and/or DHS ( a department we could rightfully have done without and one that now should be abandoned - think of all the trillions we'd save ) and Obama says no one at DHS is doing thier job. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This was originally Posted in 2006, based on 2005 reports, but seems to be current discussions, and needs to be considered by those who have concerns about their health. 10 second exposure with backscatter=2 minutes in cabin radiation exposure. FMI: Whole Body Imaging Technology, see what the x-ray machine sees. ---------------------------------------------------------- from repost in 10/2008: At the same time as the US Homeland Security Department is pushing for airport x-ray machines that expose your privacy, Germany is calling a halt to this non-sense. Probably it is worth your consideration to consider using some protective measures and to help clear the radiation exposure effects (iodine, kelp baths, our bath salt blend for chemo/radiation patients) if you're planning to travel by air. Germany says full-body airport scanner "nonsense" BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany will not participate in EU proposals for airports to use full-body scanner security checks, which have raised privacy issues, its interior ministry said on Friday. "I can tell you in all clarity that we will not take part in this nonsense," a spokeswoman for the interior ministry told a regular news conference. The executive European Commission proposed last month to add body scanners to a list of security measures that can be used at airports in the 27-country bloc. EU lawmakers criticized the scanners in a resolution on Thursday, saying they were equivalent to "a virtual strip search" and raised serious human rights concerns. The lawmakers called for a detailed study of the technology before it is used. The Commission says a number of EU states including the Netherlands already use body scanners and the EU executive wanted to harmonize conditions in which they can be operated. The scanners do not exist at German airports and have sparked vivid criticism by politicians across the political spectrum. (Reporting by Kerstin Gehmlich; Editing by Matthew Jones) This was posted in 2006. I've noticed a number of inquiries on the topic of airport x-rays, so I am posting it again. So you plan to take an airplane trip in the future you say. Well now that the illustrious Department of Homeland Security is going to force you to be X-rayed, what is it that they have told you about the cumulative effects of exposure to gamma radiation in their so-called 'security" screener? How much more cancer risk do you need? And just what long term studies have been done, especially when considering frequent flyer risk. I guess I would want more data. LOS ANGELES (Dec. 20) - A woman mistakenly put her 1-month-old grandson through an X-ray machine at Los Angeles International Airport, authorities said. Security stations at Los Angeles International Airport Damian Dovarganes, AP A woman mistakenly put her infant grandson through a security X-ray at Los Angeles International Airport Saturday. Doctors said the 1-month-old did not receive a dangerous dose of radiation. A startled security worker noticed the shape of a child on the carry-on baggage screening monitor and immediately pulled him out, the Los Angeles Times reported for a story in Wednesday's editions. The infant was taken to a local hospital, where doctors determined he did not receive a dangerous dose of radiation. "This was an innocent mistake by an obviously inexperienced traveler," said Paul Haney, deputy executive director of airports and security for the city's airport agency. The incident happened early Saturday, airport officials said. Haney said in 1988, an infant in a car seat went through an X-ray machine at the Los Angeles airport. Copyright 2006 The Associated Press.

Electromagnetic Radiation Kills Thyroid Cells

Several years ago I was invited to speak to a group of breast cancer patients and survivors.  Many in this group had their pink cell phone, and everyone owned a cell phone.

When it came to speak about the risks of EMF, thyroid, and cell phone use all of these women look at me as if they had walked into a fog.

The sad part of this is that as soon as I was leaving I noticed they all started making some kind of use of their cellphone.

While it is hard to change, it seems that if you have good information you might just want to think about it.

In some case though you rely on glitzy web sites that muddle the facts, just like the Pied Piper and his flute.

Int J Radiat Biol. 2010 Dec;86(12):1106-16. Epub 2010 Sep 1.

Pulse modulated 900 MHz radiation induces hypothyroidism and apoptosis in thyroid cells: a light, electron microscopy and immunohistochemical study.

Eşmekaya MA, Seyhan N, Ömeroğlu S. Department of Biophysics, Faculty of Medicine & Gazi Non-ionizing Radiation Protection (GNRP) Center, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey. mericarda@yahoo.com http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20807179

PURPOSE: In the present study we investigated the possible histopathological effects of pulse modulated Radiofrequency (RF) fields on the thyroid gland using light microscopy, electron microscopy and immunohistochemical methods.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two months old male Wistar rats were exposed to a 900 MHz pulse-modulated RF radiation at a specific absorption rate (SAR) of 1.35 Watt/kg for 20 min/day for three weeks. The RF signals were pulse modulated by rectangular pulses with a repetition frequency of 217 Hz and a duty cycle of 1:8 (pulse width 0.576 ms). To assess thyroid endocrine disruption and estimate the degree of the pathology of the gland, we analysed structural alterations in follicular and colloidal diameters and areas, colloid content of the follicles, and height of the follicular epithelium. Apoptosis was confirmed by Transmission Electron Microscopy and assessing the activites of an initiator (caspase-9) and an effector (caspase-3) caspases that are important markers of cells undergoing apoptosis.

RESULTS: Morphological analyses revealed hypothyrophy of the gland in the 900 MHz RF exposure group. The results indicated that thyroid hormone secretion was inhibited by the RF radiation. In addition, we also observed formation of apoptotic bodies and increased caspase-3 and caspase-9 activities in thyroid cells of the rats that were exposed to modulated RF fields.

CONCLUSION: The overall findings indicated that whole body exposure to pulse-modulated RF radiation that is similar to that emitted by global system for mobile communications (GSM) mobile phones can cause pathological changes in the thyroid gland by altering the gland structure and enhancing caspase-dependent pathways of apoptosis.

As an aside, Diagnoses of cancer in this gland in the neck are increasing about 6% a year, faster than cancers found anywhere else, according to one National Cancer Institute analysis. Data on increase in thyroid and neck cancer from http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/painter/2009-08-16-yourhealth17_N.htm .

Selections from 30+ posts found on Natural Health News

Cell phone-cancer link found

Feb 16, 2008

Sadetzki, a physician, epidemiologist and lecturer at Tel Aviv University, published the results of a study recently in the American Journal of Epidemiology, in which she and her colleagues found that heavy cell phone users were subject ...

The Rising Incidence of Cell Phone Tumours

Jan 30, 2010

In this instance nothing in her campaign addresses the increased risk of breast cancer associated with cell phone use as well as the damage it can do to your thyroid gland, your heart, adrenal glands, kidneys, and your bones. ...

Natural Health News: Health Risk: Cell Phone Danger Exposed At Last

Oct 11, 2010

Several years ago I was working with a fellow who had been in the construction industry and was an early-on cell phone user. He developed a parotid tumour on the side of his face that was exposed to his cell phone. ...

Cordless Phones, like WIFI, Boost Heart Risk

Dec 27, 2010

The report highlights a study that found significantly increased risk of brain tumors from 10 or more years of cell phone or cordless phone use. Also, the BioInitiative Working Group, an international group of scientists, . ...

Natural Health News: Allergy Season: What Makes It Worse

Feb 25, 2011

Remember too that cell phone and other wireless devices that are so popular contribute to this problem by creating electrolytically charged pollen and pollutant particles which makes it easier for these to stick to the mucous membrane ...

Natural Health News: Your Eyes and Cell Phone Damage

Jun 26, 2010

VADODARA/ANAND: While scientists across the globe are still debating whether usage of cell phones results in heart diseases, a new study carried out by scientists at Charotar University of Science and Technology (CHARUSAT) has revealed ...

Problems with New Sweetener

UPDATE: August 2010
Here's a toxic sweetener you most likely had never heard of, but I would caution you to make sure you do not ingest it:

^{HealthEdge's NaturallySweet} 

This is manufactured by these folks.

Truvia, Purevia, Zevia, Zerose, Zsweet are marketing names for this artificially blended  erythritol and rebiana mix.  Rebiana is a chemically modified form of  stevia, it is NOT pure stevia.

UPDATE 4, Consumer complaints regarding Truvia

UPDATE 3, 23 December 08: A reader comments on Erythritol as not causing her any problems as noted in our researcher's report. Just like all substances, the ingestion of a substance needs to be in the right form, the right amount, et al, and the effect and outcomes are individual. Please realize that our researcher is a former FDA investigator who has an indepth background in the sciences necessary to make such statements. Please note that the artificial sweeteners referred to, Truvia (Cargill) and PureVia(Whole Earth Sweeteners) are manufactured by these agribusness corporations with an extract of stevia (rebiana)and erythritol and are NOT whole leaf stevia or pure(whole leaf)stevia extract.

UPDATE 2, 22 December 08: Please note that contrary to other reports you may be reading, the FDA DID NOT APPROVE STEVIA. The FDA, in cahoots with Cargill and Coke, approved a synthesized product - as reported originally in this article - manufactured with rebiana (an extract from Stevia) and erythritol (a sugar alcohol).

As Dr. Evangelista states (quoted below): "DO NOT CONFUSE REBIANA (TRUVIA) WITH STEVIA"

UPDATE 1, 20 December 08: Zerose is the Cargill synthesized artificial sweetener made from stevia and erythritol. Zsweet is a similar product in UK and EU. There are numerous scientific studies presenting that this, and related products such as Truvia, may lead to calcium, potassium and phosphate loss with calcification (and lesions) in the kidneys (just like Splenda) and bowel alterations. Please read more.

As to Zevia soda, it seems to me to be quite irresponsible on the part of the company CEO (an attorney)to make the following quote, "Why not supplement a steady breast milk diet with some refreshing ZEVIA?" This quote is associated with a photo of an infant being fed soda by the mother on the company blog. I would suggest the mother is irresponsible as well. While the company web site does not state that Zerose is the sweetener used in their products it does mention that eryrithritol is an ingredient.

I am sure this fellow was not in my 'Social Responsibility of Business' class in grad school.

We suggest Just Like Sugar, unaltered Stevia (order the extract via the Starwest link on this page) and Agave.

We do not endorse the use aspartame or sucralose or any forms of these chemicals, first developed as inseticides, or any products containing them, as they are known toxins to human health, nor do we endorse the use of acesulfame K.
----------------------------------------
12-19-08
The news this morning on NPR seems to be focused on helping you be in the spin on 'rebiana'(Truvia) and how it is "just stevia".

Coke (using Truvia) and Pepsi (using PureVia) are marketing this new artificial sweetener in their beverages but apparently aren't open to presenting both sides of the story.

Even the one TV ad I saw recently for "Truvia" would lead you to believe that this is a safe and natural additive.

Zevia(a soda), because it contains erythritol, may also have similar problems.

The problem is that is may come from natural sources but it is an extracted and modified chemical when it comes out the other end.

DO NOT CONFUSE REBIANA (TRUVIA) WITH STEVIA
Do not confuse this with pure stevia, it is a combination of chemicals with a dab of the stevia plant. Stevia itself is a sweetener and yet they are using Erythritol which is a sugar alcohol known to cause such things as bloating, diarrhea and cramps. That tells you they are not using much stevia. Nor are they removing the poisonous aspartame from Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi. They are simply trying to satisfy a part of the population that knows how deadly aspartame is and wants to use something else.

Notice this sentence: "Stevia was not approved as a food additive by U.S. regulators, but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued letters to the companies on Wednesday saying it had no objections to their sweeteners, which are derived from the plant." The FDA has made themselves clear. Industry can do anything they please but they have no intention of approving something safe for the general public. They don't want to displease the aspartame industry who is powerful and takes care of those who defend their poison. Make sure you understand this is a combination of sweeteners and chemicals and not real stevia. The pop companies feel "a dab will do you, so just buy our product regardless of how its made". The public again will be the guinea pigs and lab rats. Also, see the admission that Pepsi's Purevia is being developed with Merisant, an aspartame manufacturer. Nobody should use these products until they are analyzed. Industry is constantly adding small amounts of aspartame because its addictive. If they do this to these products aspartame victims will react because aspartame is so poisonous it causes chemical hypersensitization.

Lab Tests Point to Problems with New Sweetener
Consumer group says product can increase cancer risk
September 2, 2008

A consumer group says a new commercial sweetner, said to be 200 times sweeter than sugar, may cause health problems and needs more study. Coca-Cola and Pepsi are planning to introduce new drinks made with the sweetner, rebiana, an extract of stevia leaves.

In a letter to the Food and Drug Administration, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) says the agency should require additional tests, including a key animal study, before accepting rebiana as Generally Regarded as Safe, or GRAS.

The letter cites a new 26-page report by toxicologists at the University of California, Los Angeles, several, though not all, laboratory tests show that the sweetener causes mutations and DNA damage, which raises the prospect that it causes cancer.

"A safe, natural, high-potency sweetener would be a welcome addition to the food supply," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "But the FDA needs to be as sure as possible that rebiana is safe before allowing it into foods that would be consumed by tens of millions of people. It would be tragic if the sweetener turned out to cause cancer or other problems."

One key animal study has not been conducted, according to the UCLA experts and CSPI. The FDA's guidelines advise testing prospective major new food additives on two rodent species, usually rats and mice. The new sweetener has only been tested on rats, but not mice.

The toxicologists' report said that because several studies found mutations and DNA damage, a lifetime mouse study designed to evaluate the risk of carcinogenicity and other health problems was particularly important.

The UCLA toxicologists emphasized the need for more genotoxicity tests, because of the evidence that derivatives of stevia that are closely related to rebiana damage DNA and chromosomes.

Their report noted that much of the recent research on rebiana was sponsored by Cargill and urged the FDA to obtain independently conducted tests to ensure that corporate biases don't influence the design, conduct, or results of the tests.

Rebiana is shorthand for rebaudioside A, a component of stevia. It is obtained from the leaves of a shrub native to Brazil and Paraguay. Coke, Pepsi, and other companies are excited about rebiana, because it supposedly tastes better than crude stevia, which is sold as a dietary supplement in health-food stores.

After all the controversies pertaining to saccharin, aspartame, and other artificial sweeteners, the food industry expects many calorie-conscious consumers to eagerly opt for this natural sweetener.

Two companies -- Cargill and Merisant -- have told the FDA that rebiana should be considered GRAS, a category given less scrutiny by the FDA than ordinary food additives. A third company, Wisdom Natural Brands, has declared that its stevia-based sweetener is GRAS and will market it without giving evidence to, or even notifying, the FDA. That company gave CSPI only a heavily redacted report prepared by scientists it hired to declare its stevia derivative, which is of unknown purity, is safe.

Stevia is legal in foods in Japan and several other countries, but the United States, Canada, and the European Union bar stevia in foods because of older tests that suggested it might interfere with reproduction. New tests sponsored by Cargill did not find such problems.

"I am not saying that rebiana is harmful, but it should not be marketed until new studies establish that it is safe," Jacobson said.

Cargill's version of rebiana is called Truvia and would be used by Coca-Cola. Pepsi's version is called PureVia and is produced by Merisant's Whole Earth Sweetener division. Merisant is best known for marketing the Equal brand of aspartame.

CSPI has not questioned the safety of two artificial sweeteners, sucralose (Splenda) and neotame, but says that suggestive evidence indicates that saccharin, aspartame (Equal, NutraSweet), and acesulfame-K pose small risks of cancer.

"The whole issue of what gets GRAS status needs to be reviewed by Congress," Jacobson said. "It's crazy that companies can just hire a few consultants to bless their new ingredients and rush them to market without any opportunity for the FDA and the public to review all the safety evidence."

Two of the most harmful ingredients in the food supply are considered GRAS: salt, which raises blood pressure and causes thousands of unnecessary heart attacks and strokes every year, and partially hydrogenated oil, which is the source of artery-clogging artificial trans fat. CSPI has long campaigned to get partially hydrogenated oil out of the food supply and to reduce salt to safe levels.
From Consumer Affairs