Bobbie Steele 1974

Bobbie Steele 1974

When I began shooting models in 1974, I found this gorgeous beauty who instinctively fell in love with the camera.

How To Tell A Cold From The Flu

The common cold and flu are caused by different viruses but can have some similar symptoms, making them tough to tell apart.  In general, the flu is worse and symptoms are more intense.

COLDS:  Usual symptoms include stuffy or runny nose, sore throat and sneezing.  Coughs are hacking and productive.  It's unusual to have fever, chills, headaches and body aches, and if they do occur, they are mild.

FLU:  Fever is usually present, along with chills, headache and moderate-to-severe body aches and tiredness.  Symptoms can come on rapidly, within three to six hours.  Coughs are dry and unproductive and sore throats are less common.

PREVENTION:  To avoid colds and flu, wash your hands with warm water and soap after you've been out in public or around sick people.  In a public restroom, wash your hands before you do your business.  Don't share cups or utensils.

TREATMENT:  People with colds or mild cases of the flu should get plenty of rest and fluids.  Those with severe symptoms, such as a high fever or difficulty breathing, should see a doctor and may be prescribed antiviral drugs or other medications.  Children should NOT be given aspirin without a doctor's approval.

Source: US Centers for Disease Control

Is America Getting Senile?

The other day I read that "America is the only nation in all of history that passed from infancy to senility without ever reaching maturity."

Here are some of the symptoms of our senility: riots and union organized strikes have replaced responsibility, inflation has replace fiscal integrity, welfarism and handouts have replaced enterprise, pandering has replaced patriotism, anarchy is replacing constitutional law and order.

People educated to the true meanings of the Constitution and individual responsibility have consistently opposed senile trends.  It's time for more people to be made aware of the decadence of socialistic welfareism.

What's the Problem with Stress?

We live in stressful times. The economy is tough, global conflicts rage, severe weather events are affecting people in every corner of the globe, and our numerous technological devices don't seem to be making things any easier. Of course, this is nothing new. Every generation thinks theirs is the best of times and the worst of times. But the result is that people everywhere have high levels of stress.

Sometimes stress is a good thing. Mechanical stress, such as exercise, causes your muscles and bones to become stronger and your nerve system to become smarter. Taking on a new assignment at work or taking a challenging class in school may be stressful, but the effort involved in achieving a successful result will cause you to grow and develop in ways that you might not have imagined. After all, the great philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche famously said "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger."

But chronic, ongoing physical and mental stress, the kind that affects us every day, is not good for us. Chronic stress causes real psychological and physical problems. People undergoing chronic stress may develop anxiety, which if not managed effectively may lead to depression. Chronic stress may lead to a variety of disorders and diseases, including arthritis, inflammatory conditions such as Crohn's disease, gastrointestinal problems such as peptic ulcer, diabetes,¹ high blood pressure,² and even heart attacks and stroke.³ As we are all subject to numerous stresses every day, both personal and work-related, it's very important for us to develop strategies that will be successful in helping us manage ongoing stresses.

The most important method for managing stress is to attempt to focus your point-of-view, your frame of reference, on the present moment. Our minds are constantly in motion, constantly at work creating new thoughts and new scenarios regarding some potentially stressful situation, or rehashing old conversations, old conflicts, and old problems. The result is that we're almost never at peace. When we try to sit down and relax for a bit, it's never too long before our minds start bringing up the exact things we'd like to be able to forget or ignore, at least for a little while. Most of us can't flip a metaphorical switch and shut off our incessant stream of mostly negative self-talk. But we can learn to remind ourselves to return to the present, to come back to this moment, the one that's happening now.

The best way to do this is to ask yourself, "is this [what I'm thinking about] happening right now?" If you can see that what's happening now is that you're sitting in a chair reading the newspaper, you have a good chance of being able to let go of what your mind is talking to you about. Say to yourself, "I'm right here, right now, and none of that other stuff is actually happening right now." This will help you create some distance from your self-talk, and the self-talk may even recede into the background for a while. The feeling of calm you might then experience is one you can build on. The more you practice returning to the moment, the more power you gain in being able to manage the stress in your life.

¹Bener A, et al: Association between psychological distress and gastrointestinal symptoms in diabetes mellitus. World J Diabetes 3(6):123-129, 2012

²van Dijk, AE, et al: The association between prenatal psychosocial stress and blood pressure in the child at age 5-7 years. PLoS One 7(8):e43548, 2012

³Pereira VH, et al: Stressed brain, diseased heart: A review on the pathophysiologic mechanisms of neurocardiology. Int J Cardiol 2012 Apr 20 [Epub ahead of print]

Mammograms

Almost 68% of Women over 40 Have Fallen for This Trap 

Only about 1 in 8 women whose breast cancer was identified during a routine mammogram actually had their lives “saved” by the screening, a recent analysis estimated – and this does not accurately account for how many women will fall victim to mammogram-induced breast cancer. Many of these tumors would have grown very slowly, if at all, and never would have threatened or decreased the quality of the woman's life. Many invasive breast cancers “spontaneously regress” when left undiagnosed and untreated, according to new research published in The Lancet Oncology. X-ray mammography uses a uniquely harmful type of ionizing radiation which has been linked to the development of invasive breast cancer. The intense push for breast screenings has many women believing, falsely, that the technology actually “prevents” breast cancer, distracting them from other, truly preventive and effective strategies. Mammograms are widely promoted as a "life-saving" tool for helping women detect breast cancer in its earliest stages. The message has so thoroughly saturated the public mind that nearly 68 percent of women over the age of 40 have had a mammogram in the past two years -- and most of these women believe doing so will help them avoid dying from breast cancer. Unfortunately, women have largely been sold a false bill of goods, as the science tells a very different story about the ability of mammograms to save lives. 

In Most Cases, Mammograms Don't Save Lives 

Considering that mammograms are regarded as the "gold standard" for breast cancer prevention in the conventional medical establishment, you may have assumed they save lives. Well, researchers from Dartmouth College had a novel idea -- they decided to determine how often lives were actually saved by mammography screening vs. breast cancer industry generated statistics and their marketing propaganda. And what they found should make even the staunchest mammography proponent give pause. Using breast cancer data from The National Cancer Institute and The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, researchers calculated a 50-year-old woman's likelihood of developing breast cancer in the next 10 years, the odds the cancer would be detected by mammography, and her risk of dying from the cancer over 20 years. They found that a mammogram has, at best, only a 13 percent probability of saving her life, and that the probability may actually be as low as 3 percent. No matter what analyses they used, including considering women of different ages, the probability of a mammogram saving a life remained below 25 percent. Researchers concluded: "Most women with screen-detected breast cancer have not had their life saved by screening. They are instead either diagnosed early (with no effect on their mortality) or over-diagnosed." This bears repeating: Mammograms often diagnose tumors that may never threaten a woman's life. They also often result in false positives that lead to over-treatment, i.e. misdiagnosed women often undergo unnecessary mastectomies, lumpectomies, radiation treatments and chemotherapy, which can have a devastating effect on both the quality and length of their lives. 

Up to 50 Percent of Breast Cancer "Diagnoses" are Not Actually Cancer 

As Sayer Ji, founder of GreenMedInfo.com, explained in a recent article, between 30-50% of new breast cancer diagnoses obtained through mammography screenings are classified as Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS), which may not be cancer at all. DCIS refers to the abnormal growth of cells within the milk ducts of the breast forming a calcified lesion commonly between 1-1.5 cm in diameter, and is considered non-invasive or "stage zero breast cancer" -- with some experts arguing for its complete re-classification as a non-cancerous condition. Many conventional physicians view DCIS as "pre-cancerous" and argue that, because it could cause harm if left untreated it should be treated in the same aggressive manner as invasive cancer; however the rate at which DCIS progresses to invasive cancer is still largely unknown, with the weight of evidence suggesting it is significantly less than 50% -- perhaps as low as 2-4%. Amazingly, there are no diagnostic standards for DCIS, and there are no requirements that the pathologists doing the readings have specialized expertise. Dr. Shahla Masood, the head of pathology at The University of Florida College of Medicine in Jacksonville, told the New York Times: "There are studies that show that diagnosing these borderline breast lesions occasionally comes down to the flip of a coin." The New York Times also reported on several other concerning findings about the frequency of misdiagnosis of DCIS: *A 2006 study funded by Susan G. Komen for the Cure estimated that in 90,000 cases where women were diagnosed with DCIS or invasive breast cancer, they either did not have the disease or they received an unnecessary treatment due to a pathologist's error. *A 2002 study at Northwestern University Medical Center found that nearly 8 percent of 340 breast cancer cases "had errors serious enough to change plans for surgery." *Dr. Lagios, a pathologist at St. Mary's Medical Center in San Francisco, reviewed nearly 600 breast cases in 2007 and 2008 and found discrepancies in 141 of them. *The Times stated, "Dr. Lagios says that based on his experience, microscopic core needle biopsies of low-grade D.C.I.S. and benign lesions, called atypical ductal hyperplasia, or A.D.H., may be misread 20 percent of the time." So, if you are a woman considering going in for a mammogram, you need to be aware of the fact that mammograms often detect breast abnormalities (lesions) that -- while being diagnosed as "early cancer" and treated as if aggressive, invasive cancers -- will often never progress to actual cancer if left to run their natural course. In fact, groundbreaking new research published in The Lancet Oncology shows that many actually invasive breast cancers spontaneously regress when left underdiagnosed and untreated. The authors of the study concluded: We believe that many invasive breast cancers detected by repeated mammography screening do not persist to be detected by screening at the end of 6 years, suggesting that the natural course of many of the screen-detected invasive breast cancers is to spontaneously regress. When you consider that mammography screenings often result in the diagnosis of what may be an inherently benign breast lesion, DCIS, and that the diagnosis itself may come down to a "coin's flip" worth of certainty – and then, you add in the fact that even so-called 'invasive breast cancer' may "spontaneously regress," the entire justification for mammography screening seems to fall apart. After all, is exposing the breast to carcinogenic radiation once a year really a wise decision, given that the screening process itself is so obviously inaccurate and misleading? Also, considering that self-examination, examination by a trained professional and screening with radiation-free thermography provide sound alternatives, it is important that women at least be provided with an informed choice. 

Annual Mammograms Increase Your Risk of False Positives, Unnecessary Biopsies 

Research funded by the National Cancer Institute and published in the Annals of Internal Medicine revealed that getting an annual mammogram leads to an increased risk of false-positive results and unnecessary biopsies compared to getting a mammogram every other year. After analyzing more than 386,000 mammograms from close to 170,000 women over a 10-year period, the study found 61 percent of those who received annual mammograms would be called back in for a follow-up, at least once, when in fact they did not have cancer. An additional 7-9 percent would receive an unnecessary biopsy. This is compared to 42 percent and 5-6 percent of the women, respectively, who had a mammogram every other year. Furthermore, the research showed that annual mammograms were not more effective at identifying late-stage cancers compared to the every-other-year group. The overall results led lead researcher Rebecca Hubbard to say that false positives are simply "part of the process of screening mammography." Unfortunately, this also means many women are exposed to increased stress as well as potentially invasive and potentially harmful treatments for absolutely no reason. Even still, The American Cancer Society (ACS) advises women age 40 and older to undergo a mammogram screening every year, and continue to do so for as long as they are in good health, despite updated guidelines set forth by The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which state that women in their 40s should NOT get routine mammograms for early detection of breast cancer. ACS' role in the promotion of mammography is far from altruistic, of course, as they have numerous ties to the mammography industry itself. 

Mammograms Expose You to Serious Cancer-Causing Radiation 

False positives, lack of life-saving results and over-diagnosis aside, there's yet another reason why you may want to carefully analyze your decision to receive a mammogram, and that is the serious health risks associated with diagnostic radiation exposure. A mammogram uses ionizing radiation which, in and of itself, can contribute to the development of breast cancer. In fact, mammograms expose your body to doses of radiation that can be 1,000 times greater than that from a chest x-ray, which we know poses a cancer risk. What is so confusing is that the type of X-rays used in mammography are called "low-energy," radiating at around 30 Peak kilovoltage (kVp) vs. 200 kVp and above for "high-energy" radiation. Commonsense would seem to dictate that "low-energy" means lower harm. Indeed, It has become conventional wisdom within radiobiology and radiology that the "lower energy" rays used in x-ray mammography are far less dangerous to DNA than those associated with the spectrum of radiation released by atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki – so-called "high energy" X-rays. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. An accumulating body of clinical evidence indicates that the 30 kVp range of "low-energy" radiation used in breast screenings is up to 400% more damaging to the DNA – and therefore 400% more carcinogenic – than the "high energy" radiation it is often compared to. 

Making Sense of All the Radiation Numbers 

What this means is a potential sea change for the breast screening industry, which will no longer be able to justify its already horrible track record of "early detection" and "saving lives," nor its industry-friendly and highly skewed risk-benefit analyses -- based as they are on a completely inaccurate radiation risk model which minimizes the risk at the expense of women's health. Keep in mind that The Cochrane Database Review determined in 2009 that for every woman whose life is prolonged through mammography screening diagnosis 10 women are "unnecessarily treated," i.e. their life is shortened. What is so tragic is that this does not take into account the fact that the "low-energy" radiation being used in x-ray mammography, is planting the genetic seed for invasive breast cancer in countless women who would not have otherwise developed cancer, had they not been exposed to the radiation through screening in the first place. It is already commonly accepted by the medical establishment that x-ray mammography screenings do cause breast cancer – they just do not realize, or are not willing to admit, how severe the problem is. For example, research published in The Journal Radiology showed that annual mammography screening of 100,000 women from age 40-55, and biennial screening after that to age 74, would cause 86 radiation-induced cancers, including 11 fatalities and 136 life years lost. If we adjust for the new radiation risk model, required by acknowledging the difference between "low" and "high" energy radiation, we must multiply the harms caused by a factor of four to get a more realistic estimate of the iatrogenic damage: namely, 344 radiation-induced cancers, including 44 fatalities and 544 life years lost. And remember, research has already been performed clearly showing that adding an annual mammogram to a careful physical examination of the breasts does not improve breast cancer survival rates over getting the examination alone. So it comes down to an assessment of risk versus benefit, and even the mainstream press is beginning to report researchers' sentiments that: "It's generally a really close call." As Dr. H. Gilbert Welch, a professor of medicine at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, told TIME: "Women need to understand their trade-offs here. The reason to be screened isn't because you've heard a lot of survivor stories. Some of those women have not benefited [from screening]." And, as was revealed by a study in the Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews, breast cancer screening using x-ray mammography led to 30 percent overdiagnosis and overtreatment, or an absolute risk increase of 0.5 percent! 

What Really Will Reduce Your Risk of Dying from Breast Cancer? 

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among U.S. women, and one in eight will be diagnosed with it during their lifetime. Unfortunately, the aggressive push for mammography has many women equating actual preventive measures (e.g. lifestyle, diet and nutrition changes, as well as avoiding chemical exposures) with annual breast screenings, which do nothing to prevent cancer, and may actually contribute to it. Unfortunately, medical organizations like The American Cancer Society do very little to spread the word about the many ways women can help prevent breast cancer in the first place. A healthy diet, regular physical exercise, and an effective way to manage your emotional health are the cornerstones of just about any cancer prevention program, including breast cancer. The following lifestyle strategies will also help to further lower your risk: *Radically reduce your sugar/fructose intake. Normalizing your insulin levels by avoiding sugar and fructose is one of the most powerful physical actions you can take to lower your risk of cancer. Unfortunately, very few oncologists appreciate or apply this knowledge today. The Cancer Centers of America is one of the few exceptions, where strict dietary measures are included in their cancer treatment program. Fructose is especially dangerous, as research shows it actually speeds up cancer growth. *Optimize your vitamin D level. Ideally it should be over 50 ng/ml, but levels from 60-80 ng/ml will radically reduce your cancer risk. Safe sun exposure is the most effective way to increase your levels, followed by safe tanning beds and then oral vitamin D3 supplementation as a last resort if no other option is available. *Maintain a healthy body weight. This will come naturally when you begin eating right for your nutritional type and exercising using high-intensity burst-type activities like Peak Fitness. It’s important to lose excess weight because estrogen, a hormone produced excessively in fat tissue, may trigger and/or feed breast cancer. *Get plenty of high quality animal-based omega-3 fats, such as those from krill oil. Omega-3 deficiency is a common underlying factor for cancer. *Avoid drinking alcohol, or limit your drinks to one a day for women. *Breastfeed exclusively for at least six months. Research shows this will reduce your breast cancer risk. *Watch out for excessive iron levels. This is actually very common once women stop menstruating. The extra iron actually works as a powerful oxidant, increasing free radicals and raising your risk of cancer. So if you are a post-menopausal woman or have breast cancer you will certainly want to have your Ferritin levels drawn. Ferritin is the iron transport protein and should not be above 80. If it is elevated you can simply donate your blood to reduce it. *Avoid charring your meats. Charcoal or flame broiled meat is linked with increased breast cancer risk. Acrylamide—a carcinogen created when starchy foods are baked, roasted or fried—has been found to increase breast cancer risk as well. *Avoid unfermented soy products. Unfermented soy is high in plant estrogens, or phytoestrogens, also known as isoflavones. In some studies, soy appears to work in concert with human estrogen to increase breast cell proliferation. Source: Time Magazine October 25, 2011 Source: Archives of Internal Medicine October 24, 2011

Memory Loss Can be Reversed

Moderate physical activity performed in midlife or later appears to be associated with a reduced risk of mild cognitive impairment -- and a six-month high-intensity aerobic exercise program can improve cognitive function in individuals who already have the condition.

Each year, 10 percent to 15 percent of individuals with mild cognitive impairment will develop dementia, as compared with 1 percent to 2 percent of the general population.

Physical exercise may protect against mild cognitive impairment by means of the production of nerve-protecting compounds, greater blood flow to the brain, improved development and survival of neurons and the decreased risk of heart and blood vessel diseases.
Sources: Eurekalert January 11, 2010, Archives of Neurology January 2010;67(1):71 9, Archives of Neurology January 2010;67(1):80-6

There is an old proverb that says: “Those who do not find time for exercise will have to find time for illness.”

It is virtually impossible to achieve optimal health without some type of regular exercise program. As you age, there is the potential for your brain function to steadily decline, leaving you confused and unable to care for yourself. However, your lifestyle, and specifically your dedication to regular exercise, can do wonders to keep your brain in top form, even later in life.

Impressive Brain Benefits from ExerciseIn the latest pair of studies to document the positive effects that physical exercise has on brain function, it was found that performing moderate exercise, such as aerobics, yoga and strength training during midlife lead to a 39 percent decreased risk of developing mild cognitive impairment.

Moderate exercise late in life was associated with a 32 percent lower risk. The second study even found that high-intensity aerobic exercise for six months was enough to improve brain function in those already suffering from mild cognitive impairment -- without the extra cost and dangerous side effects that occur when drugs are used instead. The authors stated: "Six months of a behavioral intervention involving regular intervals of increased heart rate was sufficient to improve cognitive performance for an at-risk group without the cost and adverse effects associated with most pharmaceutical therapies."

These are impressive results, considering that mild cognitive impairment affects about 20 percent of people over 70, according to the American College of Physicians. This condition often causes memory problems and blips in language, reasoning, judgment, and even reading and writing.

Mild cognitive impairment is often described as a transitory phase between normal brain function and more serious problems like dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. While 1 percent to 2 percent of people develop dementia, this rate rises to 10-15 percent among those with mild cognitive impairment. Thus, the more you can do to keep your brain functioning at its peak, and avoid any type of cognitive impairment whatsoever, the better off you will be.

How Does Exercise Protect Your Brain?Exercise encourages your brain to work at optimum capacity by causing your nerve cells to multiply, strengthening their interconnections and protecting them from damage.

Lab tests on animals have shown that during exercise, their nerve cells release proteins known as neurotrophic factors. One in particular, called brain-derived neurotrophic factor or BDNF, triggers numerous other chemicals that promote neural health. Further, exercise provides protective effects to your brain through:

*The production of nerve-protecting compounds
*Greater blood flow to your brain
*Improved development and survival of neurons
*Decreased risk of heart and blood vessel diseases

A regular exercise program can also slow the development of Alzheimer's disease by altering the way damaging proteins reside in your brain. In animal studies, significantly fewer damaging plaques and fewer bits of beta-amyloid peptides, associated with Alzheimer's, were found in mice that exercised.

Four Principles of ExerciseYour body is an efficient machine, and if you do the same type of exercise day after day, you’ll become quite good at it. However, when exercise becomes easy to complete, it’s a sign you need to work a little harder and give your body a new challenge.

So when you’re planning your exercise routine, make sure it incorporates the following types of exercise:

*Aerobic Jogging, using an elliptical machine, and walking fast are all examples of aerobic exercise. As you get your heart pumping, the amount of oxygen in your blood improves, and endorphins, which act as natural painkillers, increase. Meanwhile, aerobic exercise activates your immune system, helps your heart pump blood more efficiently, and increases your stamina over time.

*Interval (Anaerobic) Training: Research is showing that the BEST way to condition your heart and burn fat is NOT to jog or walk steadily for an hour. Instead, it’s to alternate short bursts of high-intensity exercise with gentle recovery periods.

This type of exercise, known as interval training or burst type training, can dramatically improve your cardiovascular fitness and fat-burning capabilities. Another major benefit of this approach is that it radically decreases the amount of time you spend exercising, while giving you even more benefits.

For example, intermittent sprinting produces high levels of chemical compounds called catecholamines, which allow more fat to be burned from under your skin within the exercising muscles. The resulting increase in fat oxidation increases weight loss. So, short bursts of activity done at a very high intensity can help you reach your optimal weight and level of fitness, in a shorter amount of time.

*Strength Training: Rounding out your exercise program with a 1-set strength training routine will ensure that you're really optimizing the possible health benefits of a regular exercise program.

You need enough repetitions to exhaust your muscles. The weight should be heavy enough that this can be done in fewer than 12 repetitions, yet light enough to do a minimum of four repetitions. It is also important NOT to exercise the same muscle groups every day. They need at least two days of rest to recover, repair and rebuild.

*Core Exercises: Your body has 29 core muscles located mostly in your back, abdomen and pelvis. This group of muscles provides the foundation for movement throughout your entire body, and strengthening them can help protect and support your back, make your spine and body less prone to injury and help you gain greater balance and stability.

Exercise programs like pilates and yoga are great for strengthening your core muscles, as are specific exercises you can learn from a personal trainer. Focusing on your breath and mindfulness along with increasing your flexibility is an important element of total fitness.

Is Staying Motivated an Issue for You?More than half of U.S. adults don’t get the recommended amount of exercise, and one out of four don’t exercise at all.

The most common reason why people say they don’t exercise -- A LACK OF TIME!

Unfortunately, not enough people are willing to arrange their schedules around exercise, and this is due to something much deeper than time management -- it’s due to psychological resistance.

No matter what reason you have for not exercising – feeling it’s too hard, getting bored with your routine, not knowing where to start – you can help yourself get into a more positive frame of mind. Further, instead of focusing on the negatives, like the work and the time it takes to stay active, focus on how great you’ll feel once exercise becomes a regular part of your life.

In case you weren’t aware, exercise does far more than just assist in weight loss. The following lists some of the many things exercise can do for your mind and body. Then, whenever you’re thinking of quitting, take a look.

*Improve your brainpower
*Lower your blood pressure
*Fight off a cold
*Manage arthritis
*Lower your risk of heart disease
*Cure insomnia
*Fight depression
*Lower your risk of diabetes and reverse pre-diabetes
*Build strong bones
*Lose weight
*Reduce your risk of cancer
*Boost your IQ and think better
*Relieve chronic knee pain
*Increase your energy levels
*Slow down your aging process

Irradiated Foods Exposed to Gamma Radiation

Irradiation leads to the formation of furan, which has been linked to liver toxicity, including carcinogenicity

Irradiated foods must be labeled with the statement "treated with radiation" or "treated by irradiation" and the international symbol for irradiation, the radura

Irradiated foods contain compounds called 2-alkylcyclobutanones (2-ACBs), which may promote tumor growth and colon cancer; they are found exclusively in irradiated foods

Irradiation is essentially a very effective medium for masking filthy conditions in slaughterhouses and food processing plants; You can avoid irradiation by choosing locally grown, organic foods as much as possible

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

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

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

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

You're probably well aware that certain foods, like milk and juices, at your grocery store are pasteurized -- a process that uses heat to kill off bacteria from your food, and in the process destroys nutrients and denatures the food. But you may not know that foods may also be irradiated -- a process that exposes your food to radiant energy, including gamma rays, electron beams and X-rays.

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

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

Are There Health Risks to Eating Irradiated Food? The FDA claims, "Irradiation is an important food safety tool in fighting food borne illness," noting that the sources and amounts of radiation applied to foods are not strong enough to cause the food to become radioactive. They also state that "food irradiation does not significantly change the nutrient content, flavor, or texture of food."

GreenMedInfo.com, states:
"The FDA presently supports and actively promotes the use of Cobalt-60 culled from Nuclear Reactors as a form of "electronic pasteurization" on all domestically produced conventional food.

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

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

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

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

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

More Reasons to be Wary of Irradiation Needless to say, the research to date is raising major red flags that irradiation is NOT as safe as food safety officials would have you believe. In addition to the formation of potentially toxic 2-ACBs, irradiation leads to the formation of furan from ascorbic acid, fructose, sucrose, or glucose.

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

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

Irradiation is essentially a very effective medium for masking filthy conditions in slaughterhouses and food processing plants. The foundational solution to this problem lies in preventing contamination at the source -- on the farm, during processing and shipping, and so on -- not in wiping out pathogens later using questionable technological interventions like radiation!

There simply shouldn't be any need for irradiation, as there simply shouldn't be E. coli in your lettuce or Salmonella in your poultry in the first place.

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

Public health agencies like the FDA use the term "field-to-fork continuum" to describe the path any given food takes on the way to your plate, and during any of the following steps, contamination is possible: Open field production - Harvesting - Field packing - Greenhouse production - Packinghouse or field packing - Repacking and other distribution operations - Fresh-cut/value-added processing - Food service and retail - Consumer.

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

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

Do You Want to Avoid Irradiated Foods?
In the United States, the following foods may be irradiated:
Fresh meat and poultry (including whole or cut up birds, skinless poultry, pork chops, roasts, stew meat, liver, hamburgers, ground meat, and ground poultry), Wheat and wheat powder White potatoes, Many spices, Dry vegetable seasonings, Fresh shell eggs, Fresh produce.

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

However, there are exceptions:
Irradiated meat used in another product (such as sausage) does not have to contain the radura image on the package (it does have to list irradiated meat in the ingredients, though).

Restaurants are not required to disclose the use of irradiated foods. So be aware that any time you eat out, you have no way of knowing if your food has been irradiated.

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

Source: Green Med Info June 20, 2011
Source: Green Med Info
Source: Nutrition and Cancer 2002;44(2):189-91
Source: Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry October 5,
2005;53(20):7826-31
Source: Food and Chemical Toxicology December 2007;45(12):2581-91

You are encouraged to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional.

*These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.