WARREN KING, L.Ac.

Sugar Addiction

When Unhealthy Foods Hijack Your Brain

In a recently published book, former FDA chief Dr. David Kessler brings to consumers the disturbing conclusion of numerous brain studies — some people really do have a harder time resisting bad foods.

At issue is how the brain becomes primed by different stimuli. Neuroscientists increasingly report that fat-and-sugar combinations in particular light up the brain’s dopamine pathway — its pleasure-sensing spot.  This is the same pathway that conditions people to alcohol or drugs.

The culprits foods are “layered and loaded” with combinations of fat, sugar and salt, and they are often so processed that you don’t even have to chew much.

Overeaters must take responsibility, too, and basically retrain their brains to resist the lure, says Kessler.

Many people can relate to what David Kessler, the former FDA chief, calls “conditioned hypereating” — a drive to eat sugary, greasy processed foods that has nothing to do with hunger.

It can happen when you walk by a vending machine, drive by one of your favorite restaurants or bakeries, or even when you’re sitting at home watching TV. Suddenly you get a craving for something you know isn’t good for you — cookies, French fries, ice cream, potato chips, that sort of thing — and your willpower seems to crumble.

This is an epidemic problem, as in the United States 90 percent of the money Americans spend on food is for processed food, and junk food is available just about everywhere, including in hospitals and schools.

It’s clear that something about these foods is able to wield an incredibly strong force over many of us, to the point that obesity has been named the fastest growing health threat in the United States, and two-thirds of adults are already overweight or obese.

So what is going on here? What about these foods compel people to overeat them at the expense of their waistline, and more importantly their health?

Why It’s So Easy to Be Addicted to Junk Food and Fast Food

Taste, convenience and cost certainly play a role in making junk foods appealing, but there’s more to it than that. The large amounts of sugar, salt and grease in junk foods are clearly addictive.

In one study, rats fed a diet containing 25 percent sugar became anxious when the sugar was removed — displaying symptoms similar to people going through drug withdrawals, such as chattering teeth and the shakes.

A link was found between opioids, or your brain’s ‘pleasure chemicals,’ and a craving for sweet, salty and fatty foods. It is thought that high-fat foods stimulate the opioids, as when researchers stimulated rats’ brains with a synthetic version of the natural opioid enkephalin, the rats ate up to six times their normal intake of fat.

Further, long-lasting changes in rats’ brain chemistry, similar to those caused by morphine or heroin use, were also noted. According to researchers, this means that even simple exposure to pleasurable foods is enough to change gene expression, which suggests an addiction to the food.

Your Genes Remember When You Eat Sugar

When you eat sugar, not only do your genes turn off controls designed to protect you from heart disease and diabetes, but the impact lasts for two weeks!

Even more concerning, if you eat poorly for a long time your DNA may become permanently altered and the effects could be passed on to your children and grandchildren.

In other words, you are born with a set of genes, but the expression of those genes is not set in stone. Your genes can be either activated or silenced by various factors including your diet and even your mind. It is not your genes that dictate your future health, but rather the expression of those genes that matter.

So in the case of eating sugar, it’s now known that this switches off good genes that protect your body from disease. This is just one of many reasons why you may want to seriously limit or eliminate sugar from your diet.

Sugar is Incredibly Addictive

Another reason we know that people’s love for sugar goes far beyond taste is because of its addictive properties.

Refined sugar is far more addictive than cocaine — it is one of the most addictive and harmful substances currently known. In fact, an astonishing 94 percent of rats who were allowed to choose between sugar, water and cocaine, chose sugar.

Even rats who were addicted to cocaine quickly switched their preference to sugar, once it was offered as a choice.

The researchers speculate that the sweet receptors (two protein receptors located on your tongue), which evolved in ancestral times when diets were very low in sugar, have not adapted to modern times’ high sugar consumption.

Therefore, the abnormally high stimulation of these receptors by our sugar-rich diets generates excessive reward signals in your brain, which have the potential to override normal self-control mechanisms, and thus lead to addiction.

Your Emotions Play a Major Role, Too

As Kessler said, “Once you know what’s driving your behavior, you can put steps into place” to change it.

What this means is whenever you feel the desire to binge on junk foods, it’s necessary that you have a system in place to help curb those cravings.

There has been a lot of debate in the press about the government decision to suggest that woman between age 40 and 50 do not need yearly mammograms. This may not be from a desire to save money, but because mammograms do not improve breast cancer survival rates over just getting a careful physical examination alone.

 

A mammogram can expose your body to radiation that can be 1000 times greater than that from a chest x-ray. Moreover research has shown that high risk women who have gotten mammograms are at a 1.5 times elevated risk for breast cancer than high risk women who were not exposed to low dose radiation. What’s more, women at high risk for breast cancer who had been exposed to low-dose radiation before age 20 or who had five or more mammograms were 2.5 times more likely to develop breast cancer compared to those who were not exposed.

 

Fortunately there is a never and safer cancer screening tool. It a technique that can visualize inflammation which has now been shown to be a precursor to cancer and many other diseases. This new diagnostic tool is called thermal imaging or thermography. Basically it crates a digital map of your body that illustrates heat patterns. The images created will show if there is a hot spot or thermal asymmetry in the body. Thermography can detect irregular patterns in the breast, conditions that occur before a noticeable lump s formed.

 

Since on in eight women will get breast cancer at some point in their life, it behooves you to do something that can detects this scourge as early as possible. You can get a baseline of your “thermal signature” then get annual thermograms to allow you to map changes in your body’s heat patterns over time.

 

You can also get a scan done of your whole body. It is the best methods to find hidden inflammation such as painful areas or hidden sinus or digestive inflammation, or dental issues. It can detect inflammation in areas like the carotid arteries, which can help prevent a blood clot or stroke.

 

Here are the simple steps you’ll follow when you get a thermogram:

Step 1: You sit in a temperature-controlled room to allow your body to cool from any external conditions. At that time, you’ll complete some simple paperwork, including a health survey.

Step 2: You’re positioned in front of a Thermal Imaging Camera, and the technician takes digital pictures (5-15 minutes). You will be able to see yourself “live” on the computer screen, which can help give you a better understanding of your body.

Step 3: Your pictures are sent out to a certified physician for analysis of 1) the amount of heat and 2) the symmetry of the heat patterns. Heat patterns may indicate inflammation, infection, or a variance from your body’s norm.

Step 4: You’ll receive a report of findings in your mail shortly thereafter. This will help you and your doctor determine any next steps. We also provide recommendations for ways to reduce inflammation, if present, and provide personal health coaching programs if desired.

Step 5: It is recommended that you return for thermograms annually to monitor your health and watch for changes. Since everybody’s body is different, the best way to detect problems is to measure changes from your own body’s norm.

 

Valerie Zumbusch will be in my office periodically for anyone interested in getting thermography done. Call the office at 952-930-3575 to set up an appointment.

Water: Our Main Ingredient
By Warren King L.Ac.

There is nothing more refreshing when you are hot and thirsty than clear, cold spring water. Water is not only refreshing but absolutely essential to life. The only nutrient that is more important to the body than water is oxygen. Our bodies are made up of about 80% water.

Water is the crucial ingredient in our body’s self-cleansing system. We are very aware of the body’s normal elimination processes, but may not realize that unwanted substances are also eliminated through perspiration, which also require water. Certainly our kidneys will not be able to cleanse efficiently if there is not enough water in our system to carry away the waste.

Finding pure drinking water is becoming a challenge. Our increasingly polluted world has made it necessary for the Environmental Protection Agency to set water standards. The EPA screens for the presence of suspended solids, oil and grease, fecal coiform bacteria, chemicals and heavy metals. Unfortunately, the major source of pollution (65% in 1990) comes not from industrial sites which can be regulated, but from storm water run-off. Rainfall coming in contact with pollutants from agricultural operations absorb these chemicals and transports them into lakes and rivers. Only 9% of water pollution came from actual industrial sites in 1990.

Municipal water should be avoided if possible. Most municipal waters have a high ppm (parts per million) concentrations of aluminum due to the use of aluminum hydroxide as an accepted method of water treatment. Moreover, the addition of chlorine results in the creation of cancer-causing chemicals when dissolved organic solids are chemically altered by chlorination. While there is a trend toward replacing chlorination with peroxide treatment of water, it will be decades beforeperoxide is adopted as a standard. Fluoride is another toxic chemical added to most municipal water supplies. Chlorosporidium is a parasite cyst commonly found in tap water. Recently a law was passed that the consumers are to be mailed a copy of lab finding of toxins in the water. In my district it said that due to copper pipes, there was excess copper in the tap water so they were going to add a chemical to help reduce copper. MBTE is a chemical gasoline additive that has been found in most city water and is a potent carcinogen.

We may turn to expensive bottled waters, but regulation in this industry is vague. Regardless of cost, the bottled water you buy may simply be tap water put through a filtration process. You may wish to invest in a water purifier for your home.

The ideal amount of water to consume is half your body weight in ounces per day. That means if you weigh 160 pounds, you should drink 80 ounces of water (or about ten 8-ounce glasses per day). Avoid drinking any chlorinated water.

I find that reverse osmosis water tests the best on most people for general health, some minerals are retained, and it has more life force than water sitting in plastic jugs. Bottled spring water is can also be good, the large 5 gallon bottle seem to leach less plastic. Chippewa Springs is a great local brand. Do not use Britta filters, they tend to harbor microorganisms. Water is best drunk warm or at room temperature; cold, chilled or iced water tends to shock the stomach and stop digestion. It is hard to carry enough bottles or filtered water from a store to have enough to use in cooking also, so a filter is a worthwhile investment.

Microwave Cooking
By Warren King L.Ac.

Ninety percent of modern households have microwave ovens. Microwave ovens vibrate at over 2 million cycles per second (compared to 60 cycles for electric stoves), and the intense vibration can affect the cellular integrity of food as well as be absorbed by those who eat it. Salmonella bacteria , a main cause of food poisoning, have been found to survive in cold spots that do not fully cook.

In a study by Dr. Radwan Farag of Cairo University, it was discovered that just two seconds of microwave energy destroys all the enzymes in a food, thus increasing our enzyme deficiency and altering the frequency of the food. Heating proteins in the microwave for 10 minutes or more may create a new, harmful species of protein. Research showed that microwaved food produced major changes in the subjects’ blood and immune function. These included a decrease in the red blood cells that carry oxygen and take out carbon dioxide; an increase in the percentage of red blood cells and eleukocytes; higher cholesterol; and a decrease in lymphocytes. You may decide that this is a high price to pay for convenience.

And then there is this to think about: the University of Minnesota warned that microwaving a baby’s bottle can cause slight changes in the milk. In the case of a hip-surgery patient in Oklahoma, microwaving blood for a transfusion killed the patient. California scientists found that microwaved cow’s milk grew E. coli bacteria, associated with food poisoning, 18 times more than regular milk.

In another research project, two groups of subjects were fed steamed food or microwaved food. After 10 days, stool samples were taken and analyzed. The group given the steamed food had normal stools while the group given the microwaved food showed stools with a plastic -like texture, altered enzymes, and protein with altered molecular structure which could not be absorbed. Furthermore, ultrasound scans showed adhesive food particles stuck to the stomach wall.

Also, the chemicals used in plastic containers or other microwave packaging can migrate into the food. Dimethyl terephthalate, a suspected carcinogen, is commonly used for microwaved popcorn, pizza, French fries, fishsticks and Belgian waffles. There is also the danger of radiation leaking out of the microwave which could disrupt the delicate balances in our cellular growth. Our bodies are regulated by electrical frequencies and electromagnetic fields. It would be wise to avoid disrupting these frequencies.

Sugar: Sweet Nothing
By Warren King L.Ac.

The following is a letter I wrote to my children’s school when they were considering a no sugar policy. A a result children are encouraged not to eat sugar at school. Even birthday parties are celebrated with skewered fruit, which the children enjoy more than the old birthday cakes.

I was very excited to read your letter asking for a discussion of sugar, a topic very important to me, the children at school, and truly to this entire society and future. As a practitioner of natural medicine I treat children practically every day and I have hardly found one that can tolerate that white purified chemical we sweetly call sugar.

Maria Montessori developed a wonderful system that enables us to bring out the fullest potential of children, which is nothing less than genius. But that genius absorbent mind must work through a physical brain and body. I would think that parents who would place their children into a specially prepared environment with specially trained teachers, instead of regular nursery or public schools, are expecting their children to become something more than ordinary. So it makes sense that we would want our children at the peak of health, mental acuity, and emotional stability so that can maximize their growth and learning. Sugar is one of the key factors that prevents just these things. Can you imagine investing in a very expensive thoroughbred stallion and put coke, and cakes and candy in it’s feed bag, instead of the oats that it was made to thrive on.

Simple sugar, which we think of as white table sugar has many forms: corn syrup, corn sweetener, lactose, fructose, dextrose, brown sugar, turbinado sugar, organic cane juice, honey, and molasses. Simple sugar is absorbed very quickly into the blood stream, giving a precipitous rise in blood sugar, resulting in the feel of a surge of energy. This signals the pancreas to pour out insulin, making the level plunge again. In turn the adrenals respond by releasing epinephrine as a signal to the liver to break down it’s stored starch, glycogen, and pump out more sugar, raising the blood sugar again.

These sudden drops in blood sugar evoke the condition known as hypoglycemia, in which messages from the brain controlling mood, motivation and learning are perpetually disrupted. The result may be a sudden burst of temper, aggression, antisocial behavior, as well as depression, changes of mood, confusion, fatigue and irritability. As an attempt to balance this chronic body and brain chemistry imbalance the person will resort to caffeine, alcohol (fermented sugar), cigarettes (approximately 30-50% sugar), or legal (prozac, ritalin) or illegal drugs (usually starting with marijuana).

Sugars require various vitamins and minerals for their digestion. These refined sugars, being stripped of other complementary nutrients found in naturally occurring foods, must borrow from other parts of the body to aid in digestion. Therefore the simple sugars contribute to the depletion of calcium, magnesium, manganese, chromium, and zinc, as well as the B- complex vitamins. Over time this can result in osteoporosis, irritability and stress, heart rhythm problems, elevated cholesterol and obesity. Hypoglycemia can proceed into diabetes if the pancreas gets overworked enough. Sugar paralyzes white blood cells for many hours after ingested.

Eliminating it from the diet may prevent colds, flus, ear infections, etc….

From birth to age 20 the average American child consumes between 2 and 2 and 1/2 tons of refined white sugar and numerous tons of junk food. The average soda contributes 7 to 8 tsp. of sugar to a person’s diet. Can you imagine putting 7 teaspoons or more of sugar into a glass of water and drinking it. Not to mention the caffeine in sodas to counteract the down the drinker would receive in 20 minutes without it. Many of our teens are now coffee addicts which will have devastating effects in the years to come as we see an entire generation of chronic fatigue syndrome cases.

The brain consumes 25 percent of the body’s glucose, it’s only food, but it requires it delivered in a calm and steady supply. This is ensured by consuming a diet high in complex carbohydrates, amply supplied in whole grains like brown rice, oats, rye, barley, millet, etc., sweet vegetables like carrots, winter squash, and onions, beans and fruits, especially the non-tropical fruits like apples and berries. Too much juice can also be a source of sugar, and children should get used to drinking pure water as the main source of liquid.

Children are often raised to associate pain, pleasure, reward and behavior modification with sugar and treats. Adults often use treats to pacify, discipline, or bribe children. Chocolate is especially pernicious due to it’s unique drug content, caffeine with theobromine (meaning ‘food of the gods’). The brain produces theobromine when we are in love or being loved. Can a box of chocolates on Valentine’s day substitute for the real thing? When I help adults lose weight and regain their health, it is very hard to work against a lifetime of these addictions, especially due to the association of sugar and chocolate with love. What a cheap substitute, the exact opposite of love…disease and fatigue.

Of course children need the sweet taste. Most healthy food, especially if grain and vegetable based is sweet. I have hundreds of recipes for any kind a dessert using wholesome natural ingredients. Cookies, cakes, pies and puddings can all be made with whole grain flour, and fruit, fruit juices, rice syrup, barley malt or maple syrup which enter the blood stream at a more even rate than regular sugar.

These children deserve a clear brain and body. Let us start this next generation off right. Let them know they are loved by not giving substitutes, but giving real love, and the food that God has made to feed his children, of whom we are caretakers that this earth might head in a new direction of wholeness.

Parasite-Related Problems

• Gas and bloating 
• Psoriasis Eczema 
• Adult acne 
• Allergies 
• Asthma 
• Sinus 
• Urinary Tract Infections 
• Irritable Bowel Syndrome 
• Crohns Disease 
• Enteritis Tonsilitis 
• Chronic ear infections 
• Pelvic Inflammatory Disease 
• Vaginal and uterus irritations (need check partner) 
• Gingivitis Thrush 
• Periodontal disease 
• Prostatis, Benign prostatic hypertrophy 
• Chronic Herpes 
• CFS (Chronic Fatiuge Syndrome) 
• (virus in parasite) EI, 
• Environmental Illness 
• Fibromyalgia 
• Chronic bladder infections 
• Chronic sinusitis (bacteria is secondary) 
• Interstitial cycstitis 
• HIV/Aids clear parasites then can kill weak virus 
• Cervial Dysplasia/HPV 
• Human papiloma virus inside parasite 
• Chronic mono Hepatitis (virus in parasite in GB that reinfects liver) 
• Emphysema Dyslexia/ADD Infertility (man carries in prostate) no symptoms but later prostatitis and Cancer 
• Vitiligo 
• Learning disbilities 
• Hyperactivity, toxins from parasite throws off corpus callosum 
• Diaper rash (fungus, from parasite) 
• Colic

Root Canals Pose Health Threat
An Interview with George Meinig, D.D.S. 

Dr. Meinig brings a most curious perspective to an expose of latent dangers of root canal therapy – fifty years ago he was one of the founders of the American Association of Endodontists (root canal specialists)! So he’s filled his share of root canals. And when he wasn’t filling canals himself, he was teaching the technique to dentists across the country at weekend seminars and clinics. About two years ago, having recently retired, he decided to read all 1174 pages of the detailed research of Dr. Weston Price, (D.D.S). Dr. Meinig was startled and shocked. Here was valid documentation of systemic illnesses resulting from latent infections lingering in filled roots. He has since written a book, Root Canal Cover-Up EXPOSED – Many Illnesses Result, and is devoting himself to radio, TV, and personal appearances before groups in an attempt to blow the whistle and alert the public.

MJ: Please explain what the problem is with root canal therapy.

GM: First, let me note that my book is based on Dr. Weston Price’s twenty-five years of careful, impeccable research. He led a 60-man team of researchers whose findings -suppressed until now rank right up there with the greatest medical discoveries of all time. This is not the usual medical story of a prolonged search for the difficult-to-find causative agent of some devastating disease. Rather, it’s the story of how a “cast of millions” (of bacteria) become entrenched inside the structure of teeth and end up causing the largest number of diseases ever traced to a single source.

MJ: What diseases? Can you give us some examples?

GM: Yes, a high percentage of chronic degenerative diseases can originate from root filled teeth. The most frequent were heart and circulatory diseases and he found 16 different causative agents for these. The next most common diseases were those of the joints, arthritis and rheumatism. In third place – but almost tied for second – were diseases of the brain and nervous system. After that, any disease you can name might (and in some cases has) come from root filled teeth.

Let me tell you about the research itself. Dr. Price undertook his investigations in 1900. He continued until 1925, and published his work in two volumes in 1923. In 1915 the National Dental Association (which changed its name a few years later to The American Dental Association) was so impressed with his work that they appointed Dr. Price their first Research Director. His Advisory Board read like a Who’s Who in medicine and dentistry for that era. They represented the fields of bacteriology, pathology, rheumatology, surgery, chemistry, and cardiology. At one point in his writings Dr. Price made this observation: “Dr. Frank Billings (M.D.), probably more than any other American internist, is due credit for the early recognition of the importance of streptococcal focal infections in systemic involvements.”

What’s really unfortunate here is that very valuable information was covered up and totally buried some 70 years ago by a minority group of autocratic doctors who just didn’t believe or couldn’t grasp – the focal infection theory.

MJ: What is the “focal infection” theory?

GM: This states that germs from a central focal infection – such as teeth, teeth roots, inflamed gum tissues, or maybe tonsils – metastasize to hearts, eyes, lungs, kidneys, or other organs, glands and tissues, establishing new areas of the same infection. Hardly theory any more, this has been proven and demonstrated many times over. It’s 100% accepted today. But it was revolutionary thinking during World War I days, and the early 1920’s!

Today, both patients and physicians have been “brain washed” to think that infections are less serious because we now have antibiotics. Well, yes and no. In the case of root-filled teeth, the no longer-living tooth lacks a blood supply to its interior. So circulating antibiotics don’t faze the bacteria living there because they can’t get at them.

MJ: You’re assuming that ALL root-filled teeth harbor bacteria and/or other infective agents?

GM: Yes. No matter what material or technique is used – and this is just as true today – the root filling shrinks minutely, perhaps microscopically. Further and this is key – the bulk of solid appearing teeth, called the dentin, actually consists of miles of tiny tubules. Microscopic organisms lurking in the maze of tubules simply migrate into the interior of the tooth and set up housekeeping. A filled root seems to be a favorite spot to start a new colony.

One of the things that makes this difficult to understand is that large, relatively harmless bacteria common to the mouth, change and adapt to new conditions. They shrink in size to fit the cramped quarters and even learn how to exist (and thrive!) on very little food. Those that need oxygen mutate and become able to get along without it. In the process of adaptation these formerly friendly “normal” organisms become pathogenic (capable of producing disease) and more virulent (stronger) and they produce much more potent toxins.

Today’s bacteriologists are confirming the discoveries of the Price team of bacteriologists. Both isolated in root canals the same strains of streptococcus, staphylococcus and spirochetes.

MJ: Is everyone who has ever had a root canal filled made ill by it?

GM: No. We believe now that every root canal filling does leak and bacteria do invade the structure. But the variable factor is the strength of the person’s immune system. Some healthy people are able to control the germs that escape from their teeth into other areas of the body. We think this happens because their immune system lymphocytes (white blood cells) and other disease fighters aren’t constantly compromised by other ailments. In other words, they are able to prevent those new colonies from taking hold in other tissues throughout the body. But over time, most people with root filled teeth do seem to develop some kinds of systemic symptoms they didn’t have before.

MJ: It’s really difficult to grasp that bacteria are imbedded deep in the structure of seemingly-hard, solid looking teeth.

GM: I know. Physicians and dentists have that same problem, too. You really have to visualize the tooth structure – all of those microscopic tubules running through the dentin. In a healthy tooth, those tubules transport a fluid that carries nourishment to the inside. For perspective, if the tubules of a front single-root tooth, were stretched out on the ground they’d stretch for three miles!

A root filled tooth no longer has any fluid circulating through it, but the maze of tubules remains. The anaerobic bacteria that live there seem remarkably safe from antibiotics. The bacteria can migrate out into surrounding tissue where they can “hitch hike” to other locations in the body via the bloodstream. The new location can be any organ or gland or tissue, and the new colony will be the next focus of infection in a body plagued by recurrent or chronic infections.

All of the “building up” done to try to enhance the patient’s ability to fight infections – to strengthen their immune system – is only a holding action. Many patients won’t be well until the source of infection – the root canal tooth – is removed.

MJ: I don’t doubt what you’re saying, but can you tell us more about how Dr. Price could be sure that arthritis or other systemic conditions and illnesses really originated in the teeth – or in a single tooth?

GM: Yes. Many investigations start with the researcher just being curious about something – and then being scientifically careful enough to discover an answer, and then prove it’s so, many times over. Dr. Price’s first case is very well documented. He removed an infected tooth from a woman who suffered from severe arthritis. As soon as he finished with the patient, he implanted the tooth beneath the skin of a healthy rabbit. Within 48 hours the rabbit was crippled with arthritis!

Further, once the tooth was removed the patient’s arthritis improved dramatically. This clearly suggested that the presence of the infected tooth was a causative agent for both that patient’s and the rabbit’s – arthritis.

Editor’s Note: Here’s the story of that first patient from Dr. Meinig’s book:

“(Dr. Price) had a sense that, even when (root canal therapy) appeared successful, teeth containing root fillings remained infected. That thought kept prying on his mind, haunting him each time a patient consulted him for relief from some severe debilitating disease for which the medical profession could find no answer. Then one day while treating a woman who had been confined to a wheelchair for six years from severe arthritis, he recalled how bacterial cultures were taken from patients who were ill and then inoculated into animals in an effort to reproduce the disease and test the effectiveness of drugs on the disease.

With this thought in mind, although her (root filled) tooth looked fine, he advised this arthritic patient, to have it extracted. He told her he was going to find out what it was about this root filled tooth that was responsible for her suffering. “All dentists know that sometimes arthritis and other illnesses clear up if bad teeth are extracted. However, in this case, all of her teeth appeared in satisfactory condition and the one containing this rootcanal filling showed no evidence or symptoms of infection. Besides, it looked normal on x-ray pictures.

“Immediately after Dr. Price extracted the tooth he dismissed the patient and embedded her tooth under the skin of a rabbit. In two days the rabbit developed the same kind of crippling arthritis as the patient – and in ten days it died.

“..The patient made a successful recovery after the tooth’s removal! She could then walk without a cane and could even do fine needlework again. That success led Dr. Price to advise other patients, afflicted with a wide variety of treatment defying illnesses, to have any root filled teeth out.”]

In the years that followed, he repeated this procedure many hundreds of times. He later implanted only a portion of the tooth to see if that produced the same results. It did. He then dried the tooth, ground it into powder and injected a tiny bit into several rabbits. Same results, this time producing the same symptoms in multiple animals.

Dr. Price eventually grew cultures of the bacteria and injected them into the animals. Then he went a step further. He put the solution containing the bacteria through a filter small enough to catch the bacteria. So when he injected the resulting liquid it was free of any infecting bacteria. Did the test animals develop the illness? Yes. The only explanation was that the liquid had to contain toxins from the bacteria, and the toxins were also capable of causing disease.

Dr. Price became curious about which was the more potent infective agent, the bacteria or the toxin. He repeated that last experiment, injecting half the animals with the toxin-containing liquid and half of them with the bacteria from the filter. Both groups became ill, but the group injected with the toxins got sicker and died sooner than the bacteria injected animals.

MJ: That’s amazing. Did the rabbits always develop the same disease the patient had?

GM: Mostly, yes. If the patient had heart disease the rabbit got heart disease. If the patient had kidney disease the rabbit got kidney disease, and so on. Only occasionally did a rabbit develop a different disease – and then the pathology would be quite similar, in a different location.

MJ: If extraction proves necessary for anyone reading this, do you want to summarize what’s special about the extraction technique?

GM: Just pulling the tooth is not enough when removal proves necessary. Dr. Price found bacteria in the tissues and bone just adjacent to the tooth’s root. So we now recommend slow-speed drilling with a burr, to remove one millimeter of the entire bony socket. The purpose is to remove the periodontal ligament (which is always infected with toxins produced by streptococcus bacteria living in the dentin tubules) and the first millimeter of bone that lines the socket (which is usually infected).

There’s a whole protocol involved, including irrigating with sterile saline to assure removal of the contaminated bone chips, and treating the socket to stimulate and encourage infection-free healing. I describe the procedure in detail, step by step, in my book [pages 185 and 186].

MJ: Perhaps we should back up and talk about oral health – to PREVENT needing an extraction. Caries or inflamed gums seem much more common than root canals. Do they pose any threat?

GM: Yes, they absolutely do. But let me point out that we can’t talk about oral health apart from total health. The problem is that patients and dentists alike haven’t come around to seeing that dental caries reflect systemic – meaning “whole body” – illness. Dentists have learned to restore teeth so expertly that both they and their patients have come to regard tooth decay as a trivial matter. It isn’t. Small cavities too often become big cavities. Big cavities too often lead to further destruction and the eventual need for root canal treatment.

MJ: Then talk to us about prevention.

GM: The only scientific way to prevent tooth decay is through diet and nutrition. Dr. Ralph Steinman did some outstanding, landmark research at Loma Linda University. He injected a glucose solution into mice – into their bodies, so the glucose didn’t even touch their teeth. Then he observed the teeth for any changes. What he found was truly astonishing. The glucose reversed the normal flow of fluid in the dentin tubules, resulting in all of the test animals developing severe tooth decay! Dr. Steinman demonstrated dramatically what I said a minute ago: Dental caries reflect systemic illness.

Let’s take a closer look to see how this might happen. Once a tooth gets infected and the cavity gets into the nerve and blood vessels, bacteria find their way into those tiny tubules of the dentin. Then no matter what we do by way of treatment, we’re never going to completely eradicate the bacteria hiding in the miles of tubules. In time the bacteria can migrate through lateral canals into the surrounding bony socket that supports the tooth. Now the host not only has a cavity in a tooth, plus an underlying infection of supporting tissue to deal with, but the bacteria also exude potent systemic toxins. These toxins circulate throughout the body triggering activity by the immune system – and probably causing the host to feel less well. This host response can vary from just dragging around and feeling less energetic, to overt illness – of almost any kind. Certainly, such a person will be more vulnerable to whatever “bugs” are going around, because his/her body is already under constant challenge and the immune system continues to be “turned on” by either the infective agent or its toxins – or both.

MJ: What a fascinating concept. Can you tell us more about the protective nutrition you mentioned?

GM: Yes. Dr. Price traveled all over the world doing his research on primitive peoples who still lived in their native ways. He found fourteen cultural pockets scattered all over the globe where the natives had no access to “civilization” – and ate no refined foods.

Dr. Price studied their diets carefully. He found they varied greatly, but the one thing they had in common was that they ate whole, unrefined foods. With absolutely no access to tooth brushes, floss, fluoridated water or tooth paste, the primitive peoples studied were almost 100% free of tooth decay. Further – and not unrelated – they were also almost 100% free of all the degenerative diseases we suffer – problems with the heart, lungs, kidneys, liver, joints, skin (allergies), and the whole gamut of illnesses that plague Mankind. No one food proved to be magic as a preventive food. I believe we can thrive best by eating a wide variety of whole foods.

MJ: Amazing. So by “diet and nutrition” for oral (and total) health you meant eating a pretty basic diet of whole foods?

GM: Exactly. And no sugar or white flour. These are (and always have been) the first culprits. Tragically, when the primitives were introduced to sugar and white flour their superior level of health deteriorated rapidly. This has been demonstrated time and again. During the last sixty or more years we have added in increasing amounts, highly refined and fabricated cereals and boxed mixes of all kinds, soft drinks, refined vegetable oils and a whole host of other foodless “foods”. It is also during those same years that we as a nation have installed more and more root canal fillings – and degenerative diseases have become rampant. I believe – and Dr. Price certainly proved to my satisfaction – that these simultaneous factors are NOT coincidences.

MJ: I certainly understand what you are saying. But I’m still a little shocked to talk with a dentist who doesn’t stress oral hygiene.

GM: Well, I’m not against oral hygiene. Of course, hygiene practices are preventive, and help minimize the destructive effect of our “civilized”, refined diet. But the real issue is still diet. The natives Dr. Price tracked down and studied weren’t free of cavities, inflamed gums, and degenerative diseases because they had better tooth brushes!

It’s so easy to lose sight of the significance of what Dr. Price discovered. We tend to sweep it under the rug – we’d actually prefer to hear that if we would just brush better, longer, or more often, we too could be free of dental problems.

Certainly, part of the purpose of my book is to stimulate dental research into finding a way to sterilize dentin tubules. Only then can dentists really learn to save teeth for a lifetime. But the bottom line remains: A primitive diet of whole unrefined foods is the only thing that has been found to actually prevent both tooth decay and degenerative diseases.

To order, Root Canal Cover-Up EXPOSED – Many Illnesses Result, by Dr. Meinig, send your check or money order (U.S. funds) for $19.95 + $2.00 shipping ($2.50 to Canada, $3.00 to other countries), California residents add $1.45 for state sales tax. Send to Bion Publishing, 323 E. Matilija 110-151, Ojai, CA 93023.

12 Points on Mercury in “Silver” Dental Fillings
By Dr. John Whitman Ray N.D., M.D. (M.A.) 

1. I have had the pleasure of testing several hundred patients and students in my field of Body Electronics with the Jerome Mercury Vapor Analyzer. I have found only two people in all my testing who have not evidenced a continual toxic exposure to mercury vapor emanating from silver amalgam dental fillings under normal chewing compression. The amount of mercury vapor emitted under normal chewing compression exceeded in ten seconds what the maximum allowable mercury exposure would be in industry in a 40 hour work week as is indicated by both Russian and U.S.A. standards. This amount of exposure to mercury vapor is totally unacceptable to the scientific mind.

2. Dentists have been educated to believe that once mercury has been combined into the filling material, it remains “locked in” and can’t come out. The sad fact is that there is absolutely no scientific research in existence to support this hypothesis. To the contrary, all evidence indicates that silver amalgam containing approximately 50% mercury is a source of extremely toxic elemental mercury adversely affecting the health of the human body.

3. Evidence now demonstrates that surface particles of the amalgam filling material are being chemically broken down and released into the oral cavity. These minute particles of mercury filling are acted upon by oral and intestinal bacteria to produce methyl mercury, an even more toxic form of mercury than elemental mercury with target areas being primarily the pituitary gland, thyroid gland, and the brain.

4. It has been demonstrated that dissimilar metals in the mouth can also contribute to electrical activity and corrosion (much like a battery) and can result in unexplained pain, ulcerations, inflammation and disruption of corresponding meridians in the body. This may result in a wide range of unexplained symptoms and disease.

5. The presence of mercury in dental amalgam fillings has been shown conclusively to adversely affect the body’s immune response. It has been shown that after amalgam removal the red and white blood cell levels tend to seek normal range with a corresponding increase in the body’s immune response as evidenced by Tlymphocyte count increase.

6. Research has indicated that mercury is the single most toxic metal that has been investigated, even more toxic than lead, cadmium or arsenic.

7. The International Conference on Biocompatibility of Materials was held in November 1988 in Colorado Springs, Colorado, U.S.A. Many of the world authorities on mercury and mercury toxicity met to discuss the issue of dental amalgam and other materials used in dentistry. Their official conclusion was drafted and signed which read: Based on the known toxic potential of mercury and its documented release from dental amalgams, usage of mercury containing amalgam increases the health risk of the patients, the dentists and the dental personnel.

8. Autopsy studies from Sweden and Germany show a positive statistical correlation between the number of occlusal surfaces of dental amalgam and mercury levels in the brain and kidney cortex. It would be wise to point out that both elemental mercury and organic methyl mercury were found in brain tissue upon autopsy.

9. Dr. David Eggleston of the University of California, found a Tlymphocyte count of 47% (ideal levels are between 7980%) in patients with silver amalgam fillings. After removal of the amalgams the Tlymphocyte count rose to 73%.

10. Multiple Sclerosis patients have been found to have 8 times higher levels of mercury in the cerebrospinal fluid compared to neurologically healthy controls. Inorganic mercury is capable of producing symptoms which are indistinguishable from those of multiple sclerosis.

11. It is the responsibility of every dentist and doctor to inform and educate their patients to the effect that:

i. Mercury is contained in most dental filling material and all silver amalgam material. 
ii. Mercury in fillings can have toxic effects on some persons. Manifestations of the disease of mercury poisoning only starts to become apparent three to ten years after the insertion of the mercury. 
iii. There are alternative materials that could be used for dental filling that could have after effects on the individual. 
iv. The patient has the right to insist that an alternative material be used. 
v. The freedom of individual choice in health care shall be inherently respected and preserved as an individual right and responsibility of free men everywhere.

12. One must remember that the diagnosis of mercury intoxication is extremely difficult to ascertain because of the insidious nature of the onset of symptoms and because of most physicians’ unfamiliarity or misinformation concerning proper testing techniques. Unfortunately, mercury is so toxic to the human organism, that there can be cell death or irreversible chemical damage long before clinical observable symptoms appear indicating that something is wrong. Since organic mercury in some body tissues (e.g. brain) has a half life of over 25 years (i.e. it takes the body 25 years to get rid of 1/2 of a single dose of mercury under normal circumstances) it is only a matter of time and degree of exposure until some form of symptomology appears. With all this in mind we cannot fool with mercury toxicity or delay the “safe” removal of silver amalgam fillings by the hands of a knowledgeable and responsible dentist. Please feel free to copy, duplicate and/or pass this information on the next party. Our health collectively is dependent upon this type of information or else we succumb to disinformation.

Electromagnetic Fields and Health
By Richard W. Woodley – Bridlewood Residents Hydro Line Committee 

Ionizing and non-ionizing radiation are separated on the electromagnetic spectrum by visible light – a frequency of roughly 500 trillion cycles a second. Above that frequency is ionizing radiation which contains enough energy to physically alter the atoms it strikes, changing them into charged particles called ions. Below visible light the low frequency waves are non-ionizing – they do not possess enough energy to charge atoms. Ionizing radiation, such as nuclear radiation and X-rays, have long been known to be harmful. However, the question of the health effects of electromagnetic radiation, which is non- ionizing is a controversial one.

Some of the first warnings came in 1972 when scientists in the Soviet Union reported strange health effects in switchyard workers who were routinely exposed to high levels of electromagnetic fields. The workers experienced increased heart disease, nervous disorders, blood pressure changes, recurring headaches, fatigue, stress and chronic depression.

Although concerns had been raised earlier, one of the first epidemiological studies to indicate a health risk was a 1979 University of Colorado study by Dr. Nancy Wertheimer and Ed Leeper which reported a two to three fold increase in cancer deaths among children living near high current power lines in Denver, Colorado.

In November 1986 Dr. David Savitz, of the University of North Carolina, reported the results of a study done as part of the New York Power Lines Project which confirmed Wertheimer and Leeper’s findings. The study found increased incidences of childhood cancer and leukemia associated with EMF exposures above 2.5 mG. Dr. Savitz’s final report to the New York State Health Department stated: The degree of confidence placed in these findings is open to varying interpretation, but the tentative conclusion that the study is supportive of an association of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and cancer risk is warranted.

Dr. David Carpenter, the Executive Secretary of the New York Power Lines Project, in response to statements that the Project revealed no evidence that magnetic fields pose a health hazard stated: Any logical person cannot conclude that there are no effects. He said It’s just wrong to imply that there are no hazards. A second New York Power Lines Project was soon planned.

The findings of the Wertheimer and Leeper and Savitz studies were confirmed by a 1991 study by S.J. London et al., published in the American Journal of Epidemiology.

A University of Southern California study undertaken by John Peters and colleagues and published in the American Journal of Epidemiology in November 1991 also confirmed these findings. Public Power Weekly reported on January 28 1992 that: The most comprehensive study to date of childhood leukemia and exposure to electromagnetic fields offers additional evidence that proximity to power lines may increase leukemia risk.

When wire codes were used to measure exposure, the risk of leukemia among children with the highest exposure to magnetic fields was about two times greater than the risk of leukemia among children with the least risk.

There was no clear association shown when direct measurements of magnetic fields in the children’s residences were used as an indication of exposure. However the discrepancy between results based on measurements and those using wire codes may mean that wire codes are a more accurate predictor of magnetic fields, according to the researchers. They stated: Although magnetic fields are imperfectly approximated by wiring configuration, the wiring configuration is determined with little error, is unlikely to change over time within a residence, and therefore, may actually be a superior indication of long-time field exposure than the measurements taken. Even though our 24-hour measurements were longer than measurements made in previous studies, they’re still just snapshots, said Peters. The estimates based on wiring configuration may better reflect the long-term exposure.

These findings were further confirmed by a 1992 Swedish study by Maria Feychting and Anders Ahlbom which reported a higher relative risk of 2.7 times for childhood leukemia and 1.7 times for leukemia in adults for subjects exposed to higher magnetic field levels compared with the control group in the study.

Christine Gorman in the October 26, 1992 issue of Time, stated: One of the most telling results was that the cancer risk grew in proportion to the strength of the electromagnetic field. She reported that children with constant exposures to the weakest fields (less than 1 mG) had the lowest incidence of cancer. Those exposed to 2 mG had a threefold increase in risk and those exposed to 3 mG had a fourfold increase in the risk of leukemia. As Gorman stated: Such a clear progression makes it difficult to argue that factors other than exposure to the electromagnetic field were responsible for the extra cases of leukemia.

As well a 1992 Danish study conducted by Dr. Jorgen H. Olsen found a five-fold increase in the risk of childhood leukemia, lymphomas and brain tumours where children living near power lines were exposed to 4 mG.

Children are not the only ones at risk. Microwave News reported in March/April 1990 that there are now at least 12 studies pointing to an EMF-brain tumour risk. Researcher Dr. Samuel Milham Jr. stated: There are far too many positive studies to dismiss an EMF-brain tumour connection.

As well, Microwave News reported in July/August 1990 that epidemiologists at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, WA, had uncovered new evidence for an association between occupational exposures to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and the development of male breast cancer. The study supports the preliminary findings of a Johns Hopkins University (JHU) study, reported last year, showing an increased risk of male breast cancer among young New York telephone workers.

Paul Demers, working with Dr. David Thomas’s research group at the Hutchinson center, has found that telephone linemen, electricians and electric power workers have six times the expected rate of male breast cancer – a statistically significant increase. For radio and communications workers, the risk was almost tripled. Overall there was a doubling of the cancer risk for all EMF-exposed workers.

A further Norwegian study found twice the expected rate of breast cancer in men in occupations which involved exposure to electro- magnetic fields.

As well, a study by University of North Carolina researcher Dana Loomis published in the June 15, 1994 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, found that women in electrical occupations are 38% more likely to die of breast cancer than other working women. The study found the breast cancer death rate was more than twice as high among female telephone installers, repairers and line workers, compared with women in non-electrical occupations. The results support four previous studies that found elevated breast cancer rates among male electrical workers.

Another study, conducted by Dr. Tora Tynes of the Cancer Registry of Norway, found that in a sampling of over 2,000 female licensed ship radio operators born between 1934 and 1969, the risk of develop- ing breast cancer was almost twice that of other Norwegian women.

Another occupational study, funded by Hydro-Quebec, Ontario Hydro and Electricite de France, was released at the end of March 1994. It found a link between the magnetic fields generated by electrical currents and an increased incidence of leukemia among utility workers. These findings confirm the results of a 1991 study by Genevieve Matanoski that found telephone workers employed by AT&T with higher EMF exposures had 2.5 times the rate of leukemia as employees with lower exposures.

We believe our results speak for an association between occupational exposure to magnetic fields and at least one type of leukemia conclude the authors, led by Dr. Gilles Theriault of Montreal’s McGill University.

They found that workers with above-average exposure to magnetic fields were three times more likely to develop acute myeloid leukemia than less-exposed workers. Acute myeloid leukemia is one of the most common types of leukemia among adults.

A University of North Carolina School of Public Health study conducted by Dr. David Savitz and Dr. Dana P. Loomis published in January 1995 in the American Journal of Epidemiology found that utility workers have a greater chance of dying of brain cancer. The results demonstrated that workers with the highest EMF exposures had more than a two-and-a-half times greater chance of dying of brain cancer than the least exposed workers. The researchers also observed a strong exposure-response relationship for brain tumours.

Over 40 occupational studies have shown that adults who were routinely exposed to high EMFs in their work environment had a significantly increased chance of dying of cancer when compared to other workers.

In The Great Power-Line Cover-Up, published in 1993, Paul Brodeur cites a review of 51 epidemiological studies of electromagnetic field exposure and cancer risk published in a California Department of Health Services handbook. It found that 28 studies (55%) reported a statistically significant risk, 15 studies (29%) reported elevated but nonstatistically significant risk, and 8 studies (16%) reported no association.

In the same book Brodeur also refers to remarks made by Dr. David Carpenter, the Executive Secretary of the New York Power Lines Project, in the keynote speech at a conference on electromagnetic fields in Meriden, Connecticut on July 28, 1992. Dr. Carpenter, was responding to a June 1992 report of the Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering which stated that there was not enough evidence to support a conclusion that electromagnetic fields could cause cancer.

Brodeur states:

Pointing to the consistency of results between several childhood cancer studies and more than two dozen occupational studies, he declared that the weight of the evidence clearly showed that people exposed to power-line frequency fields at home and at work were experiencing an increased risk of developing leukemia and brain cancer. He said that recent studies showing increased breast cancer in men who were occupationally exposed to power-frequency fields were particularly worrisome, and he warned that if breast cancer and other reproductive cancers in women were also found to be associated with magnetic-field exposure, the nation would be facing a major public health hazard…. He added that to do nothing about the problem was unacceptable because `we are where we were with cigarette smoking twenty five years ago’.

In 1994 three new epidemiological reports were released. One indicated a tie between occupational exposure to EMFs and Alzheimer’s disease, another indicated a link with Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), and another indicated a tie with Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

In a case-control study of 387 Alzheimer’s patients and 475 controls, Dr. Eugene Sobel of the University of Southern California School of Medicine and colleagues found an association between occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and Alzheimer’s disease. The study was made up of two Finnish groups and one American group of subjects. Researchers found that the overall odds ratio of subjects occupationally exposed to high and medium levels of EMFs developing Alzheimer’s was 3.0 (p<0.0003) compared to subjects exposed to low levels of EMFs.

A researcher at Coghill Research Labs in England recently reported the results of a study on the relationship between Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) and EMFs. This study examined the location of all SIDS cases in Inner North London between January 1986 and July 1988 in relation to obvious sources of EMFs. The researcher found that not only were SIDS infants living significantly nearer to EMF sources than controls, but the nearer the EMF sources, the younger in age did the infants die. The author concluded that there is a correlation between chronic EM field exposure and SIDS.

Laboratory studies have also shown health effects from electromagnetic radiation. Cass Peterson, writing in The Washington Post, states: Similarly, numerous animal studies have demonstrated neurological or reproductive effects from low frequency electro- magnetic fields. Chick embryos show a higher rate of abnormalities when exposed to low-frequency fields, mice suffer a higher rate of abortion and abnormal fetuses when exposed to slightly higher frequencies, approximating those emitted by video display terminals.Peterson further stated: In separate experiments, scientists at the Cancer Therapy and Research Centre in San Antonio discovered human cancer cells exposed to 60 Hz fields (the frequency of a high-voltage line) grew as much as 24 times as fast as unexposed cells and showed ‘greatly increased resistance to destruction by the cells of the body’s defense system.’

While doing research for the New York State Power Lines Project Dr. Jerry Phillips and Dr. Wendell Winters discovered that human cancer cells proliferated like crazy when exposed to magnetic fields. As well, the exposed cells became increasingly resistant to the body’s immune system. Drs. Phillips and Winters stated that their observations led them to believe that it was possible that magnetic fields stimulate the rate of cancer cell growth, or act as a cancer promoter.

Research into how magnetic fields are linked to cancer is also being undertaken. For example, Dr. Russell Reiter believes that a variety of different cancers may be promoted by magnetic fields. In a paper presented in November 1993 at a United States Department of Energy meeting, he explained that the suppression of melatonin by magnetic fields could result in a higher incidence of cancer in any tissue, This effect could clear up one of the mysteries of the magnetic field/cancer issue, that is, the large number of different types that have reportedly increased, he suggested. A leaked United States National Council on Radiation Protection report (discussed later in this article) supports this theory.

A recent study suggests another possible cause. A British study conducted by Denis Henshaw and colleagues at the University of Bristol, published in the International Journal of Radiation Biology on February 14, 1996, found that power lines attract particles from radon gas, a known carcinogen. They have found evidence that the harmful concentrations of radon products may be present around overhead power lines. The electromagnetic fields associated with the lines can therefore concentrate a cocktail of potential carcinogens.

We only have room here to cite a sampling of the hundreds of laboratory studies that have shown a link between EMFs and health effects.

The utility industry’s latest strategy is to argue that we cannot prove that there is a health risk from electromagnetic fields until we know exactly how magnetic fields cause cancer, leukemia or other diseases. This is a false argument as Paul Brodeur clearly points out in his 1993 book The Great Power-Line Cover-Up. He states: What industry spokespeople conveniently overlooked, of course, was that thirty years after definitive epidemiology had been conducted to show that asbestos was a potent cancer-producing agent, scientists still do not know the mechanism by which an inhaled asbestos fibre reacts in lung tissue to cause cancer. Nor do they understand the mechanism by which cigarette smoke reacts in lung tissue to cause cancer. Or how the chemical pesticide DDT operates in breast tissue to cause breast cancer. Suffice it to say, if public health authorities had been required to wait for the cancer-producing mechanisms of these agents to be fully understood, regulations governing asbestos exposure would not have been implemented; warnings on cigarette smoking would not have been issued; and the twenty-year old ban on DDT would not have been imposed.

In the United States several courts have ruled on the health risk issue.

In late 1985, after parents brought suit, a Texas court ruled that Houston Lighting & Power had shown callous disregard of their children’s health by siting a 345 kV line within 200 feet of a school and playground. The court ordered the utility to relocate the line.

In June 1989 a Florida judge ruled that children may not play in a Boca Raton school yard which borders on high voltage power lines. The suit was brought by three local parents who sought to close the Sandpiper Shores school because of potential electromagnetic field health hazards.

The judge noted that children have no choice about going to school and therefore EMF exposure at school is an involuntary risk: He stated that a 1% chance that there is substantial danger is unacceptable.

Official recognition of the health hazards of electromagnetic radiation is slowly coming. In a report issued June 19, 1989 the United States Congressional Office of Technology Assessment stated: Electric and magnetic fields produced by electric power systems may pose public health hazards. The report states that a growing amount of evidence now indicates that, under certain circumstances, even relatively weak extremely low frequency (ELF) fields can cause biological changes and that, although the implications are stillunclear, there are legitimate reasons for concern.

Among the report’s proposals is a strategy of prudent avoidance: attempting to route new transmission lines so that they avoid people; widening transmission line rights-of-way; developing designs for distribution systems – including new grounding procedures – which would reduce the associated fields; and redesigning appliances to minimize or eliminate fields.

Further official recognition comes from a United States Environmental Protection Agency draft report which, according to The New York Times (May 23, 1990), says that there is a possible link between cancer and the electromagnetic fields generated by power lines. In particular, the agency’s survey of existing human health studies found that children exposed to such radiation seemed to face a higher than normal risk of developing leukemia.

The findings on the possible health effects of exposure to radiation from electromagnetic fields generally agree with those in the report issued previously by Congress’s Office of Technology Assessment.

Of the EPA report, Time magazine reported, on July 30, 1990, that Louis Slesin of Microwave News, has printed what may be his greatest scoop: the key paragraph of a two-year Environmental Protection Agency study recommending that so-called extremely low-frequency fields be classified as probable human carcinogens alongside such notorious chemical toxins as PCBs, formaldehyde and dioxin. The recommendation, which could have set off a costly chain of regulatory actions, was deleted from the final draft after review by the White House Office of Policy Development. The EPA thing is a stunner, says Paul Brodeur, a writer for the New Yorker. It’s a clear case of suppression and politicization of a major health issue by the White House.

Paul Brodeur wrote of the EPA report in The New Yorker: In spite of the deletion, the summary-and-conclusions section of the draft EPA report contained a persuasive indictment of power-line magnetic fields as a cancer-producing agent. Its authors stated that five of the six case-control studies published in the peer-reviewed medical literature showed that children who lived near power lines giving off strong magnetic fields were developing cancer more readily than children who did not live near power lines.

Further official recognition came on June 29, 1994 when Washington State’s Department of Labor and Industries ruled that a former smelter employee of Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation in Tacoma was entitled to worker’s compensation for cancer he claims was caused by exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) on the job. This is the first ruling by a U.S. government body acknowledging a link between EMF exposure and cancer. The complaint filed by James Brewer pointed out that eight Kaiser employees out of the 90 who worked with him in the smelter’s pot room had developed lymphoma or leukemia and died. Aluminum smelting requires unusually high levels of electrical power and consequently workers are exposed to high magnetic field levels during the manufacturing process. In the pot room Brewer was also frequently exposed to intense heat and noxious chemicals including benzene and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

Mr. Brewer’s physician, Dr. Samuel Milham, has asserted a link between EMF and cancer in aluminum smelters in his research. Dr. Milham studied Kaiser’s aluminum plant during the 1980s and found way too many cases of leukemia and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma among workers there. The high incidence of cancer in the Kaiser workers coincides with similar findings in other aluminum plants.

The latest official recognition of the health risk comes in a leaked United States National Council on Radiation Protection report funded by the Environmental Protection Agency and written by eleven leading American experts in EMFs. Bob Edwards, in the October 7, 1995 issue of New Scientist, writes that the report recommends an EMF safety limit of 2 mG (0.2 microteslas). He writes:

EPA officials say the report is the most comprehensive study ever on the health effects of low-frequency EMFs. Its findings represent a fundamental challenge to the electricity industry. The authors say that their recommendations, if accepted, could force `complex and costly’ changes in society`s use of electricity.

The committee`s chairman, Ross Adey, a neurologist from the Veterans Affairs Medical Centre in Loma Linda, California, says there is now a `powerful body of impressive evidence’ to suggest that very low exposure to EMFs has subtle, long-term effects on human health. `The sensitivity of the brain and its mechanisms to these fields is the key to understanding this issue,’ he told New Scientist.

The report recommends that future developments adopt a safety limit of 0.2 microteslas. This is a very weak magnetic field, and stronger fields are common around electricity pylons and close to electrical appliances. New nurseries, schools and houses should not be built where EMF exposures breach that guideline, says the report, and power lines should be kept away from residential areas. Offices should be designed to keep workers’exposure from computers, photocopiers and printers below o.2 microteslas.

Public health officials are now beginning to take a position on the EMF issue.

Patti Miller, who is in charge of the Washington State Department of Health EMF Task Force, is quoted by Ellen Sugarman in Warning: The Electricity Around You May Be Hazardous to Your Health as stating: In the Department of Health, we’ve been answering questions about the dangers by telling people to avoid fields at the level of 3 mG. The utilities recently complained to the governor’s office about it and the governor has tried to make us stop saying this when people call. But we feel strongly that we can’t just pass the buck the way they do. After all, we’re responsible for the public health.

Dr. David Carpenter, former Executive Secretary of the New York Power Lines Project and now Dean of the State of New York School of Public Health, is quoted by Ellen Sugarman as stating:

I am now convinced that EMFs pose a health hazard. There is a statistical association between magnetic fields and cancer that goes beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. I think there is clear evidence that exposure to EMFs increases the risk for cancer. This is most clear with leukemia and brain tumours, but in the residential studies, statistical significance increased for all kinds of cancer. And we’re just beginning to have a whole body of evidence that reproductive cancers are increased by exposure.

The World Health Organization has, in early 1996, initiated a 5 year $3.33 million project to assess the health and environmental effects of exposure to electric and magnetic fields. An International Advisory Committee will oversee the project.

Perhaps the most significant new factor concerning the EMF health factor is the increasing public awareness. The January 1-3, 1993 issue of USA Weekend, a Sunday supplement magazine with a readership of thirty-three and a half million, contained a poll that asked readers to select what they considered to be the United States number one environmental health priority. The results were announced in the February 19-21, 1993 issue of the magazine. Electromagnetic fields were selected as the number one priority by 35% of the readers; 17% chose chemicals in food; 12% chose indoor air quality, and 36% listed other environmental concerns.

The Bridlewood Residents Hydro Line maintains a Bibliography on Electromagnetic Radiation and Health which currently contains over 1,000 entries consisting of scientific reports and journal articles, government and official reports, newspaper and magazine articles, books, and non-print media such as videotapes and TV programs.

Another extensive review of the the health effects of EMFs is provided in the Safe Technologies Corporation file in the Other EMF Organizations menu.

Fluoride 

Have you looked at the small print on a tube of Crest lately, here’s what it says, ‘keep out of reach of children under 6 years of age. If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or contact a poison control center immediately.’

Summary of what is unacceptable about water fluoridation:

1) Uncontrolled random dosages.

It is impossible to consistently supply any medication through the drinking water. People are very unique in their sensitivity to drugs and resent being medicated without their consent. Adding fluoride to drinking water invariably leads to uncontrolled random dosages. Infants and adults who drink more beverages will be overdosed. There are many well documented scientifically verified negative side-effects from exposure to fluoride.

2) No margin for safety.

There is a negative margin of safety between the “therapeutic” dose and onset of adverse health effects. Increased hip fractures are found at levels 1/10th the “recommended” 1 ppm fluoride level.

3) We are getting too much already!

Excessive fluoride accumulates in the biosphere and results in ever Increasing levels in soil, food and water. Beverages such as grape juice may have 6.8 ppm. This grossly exceeds the level of fluoride that has adverse health effects. Soft drinks and beers manufactured in fluoridated communities will contain fluoride as well.

4) Fluoride is a human carcinogen.

Fluoride has repeatedly been shown to be a carcinogen in cell cultures, animals and humans. In 1956 Dr. John Chaffey, a professor of clinical pediatrics at the College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, noted cortical defects in the bone x-rays of 13.5% of the children living in fluoridated Newburgh, compared to only 7.5% in the neighboring nonfluoridated Kingston. He also noted the lesions were strikingly similar to osteosarcoma. Studies have now confirmed a dramatic increase in osteosarcoma (bone cancer) in young males exposed to fluoride during growth of the bones and a 5% increase in all types of cancers in fluoridated communities.

5) Fluoridation does not reduce tooth decay.

Adding fluoride to drinking water has not been shown to be effective in reducing tooth decay. In blinded animal studies there was no correlation to the amount of fluoride and tooth decay. In the human populations fluoridation was not effective in reducing tooth decay. In fact, tooth decay has decreased more in some nonfluoridated communities than in fluoridated ones.

6) Fluorosis is a disease (health effect) caused by fluoride.

According to the National Research Council fluorosis affects 8 to 51% and sometimes as many as 80% of the children growing up in areas where drinking water contains one part per million (1 ppm) fluoride. Fluoride also can have a deleterious effect on bone growth and cause premature joint and ligament aging. The visible damage to tooth surfaces results in mottled, brittle teeth that are prone to fracture and may cost many thousands of dollars to cosmetically repair.

7) Fluoridation is very expensive.

There are enormous health care costs associated with injury from fluoridation. Adverse health affects include; hip fracture, joint and ligament calcification, bone cancers, other cancers, allergy, accidental poisonings and death.