Riding Out in that Shiny Car in the Night

I recently saw an article on the Internet that seemed too tabloid-like to be true. Sadly, it may have some shred of credibility.

Essentially, the author, Mike Adams of NaturalNews.com wrote: “…Fukushima reactor No. 4… is on the verge of a catastrophic failure…. The resulting releasing of radiation would turn North America into a ‘dead zone’… from an earthquake in Japan. Such an event could result in the release of 85 times the Cesium-137 released by the Chernobyl catastrophe, say experts.” As you may know, the weather patterns would carry that deadly radiation over to North America on the wind.

“The winds that blow through the wide sky in these mounts, the winds that sweep from Canada to Mexico, from the Pacific to the Atlantic—have always blown on free men.”—Franklin D. Roosevelt

Fortunately, Japan has been relatively quiet lately in the seismic sense. But what if a substantial earthquake occurred before the Japanese had a chance to take care of business at Fukushima reactor No. 4? And what’s taking them so long, anyway? Since Cesium-137 has a half-life of 30 years, that would make North America uninhabitable for, oh, say, about 100 or more years.

That got me to thinking. Let’s say that North America reaped some strange karma by being exposed to radiation poisoning by the people who endured the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki toward the end of World War II. What would be the consequences of the demise of Canada, the United States and Mexico? Well, I can’t speak for Canada or Mexico, but here are a few thoughts about a post-mortem United States of America.

"Despite the goings-on in Congress, I don't believe the USA is bordering on madness. I believe Mexico and Canada are."—Robert Brault

On the bright side, as the highest-volume consumers of natural resources, our extinction would have an immediate, positive impact on the environment. However, we are by no means the most populated country in the world, and China and India—fast-developing countries—would eventually fill our shoes in that respect.

Another high note: Monsanto would be dealt a powerful blow and the possibility exists that the rest of the world might gang up on whatever Monsanto employees were left in satellite countries and end their GMO adulteration of our food supplies for good. Then, at least, we will not have made the ultimate sacrifice in vain.

Countries could form their foreign and monetary policies without worrying about repercussions from a testy United States. That could be good or bad, depending on if you are a woman in Afghanistan (our parting agreement there requires women’s human rights be safeguarded), a Chinese government official responsible for buying U.S. debt (that will now never be repaid), or a rival non-USA corporation that will inherit tremendous market share.

What about the joy of blaming the United States for everything bad in the world? With our country gone, the call for blood-thirsty Death-to-America Jihads and the general distaste for our arrogant corporate and political agendas would be deflated like an old party balloon. The remaining world population would have no one to blame but themselves. Not a pleasant prospect.

“If you want a symbolic gesture, don't burn the flag; wash it.” —Norman Thomas

There’s a lot to resent about the United States, but I think there would also be many things that people would miss. No more overseas shopping jaunts to New York City, Chicago or Los Angeles. No more Disneyland or Disneyworld—the parent company of the overseas versions would be deceased. No more touring our magnificent western geography or placing your hands in the cement in front of Grauman’s Chinese Theater in Hollywood. No more blockbuster movies or American television—good or bad, depending upon your tastes. No more home-grown jazz, soul or R&B.

The magnificent Grand Canyon, Arizona, USA.

Since the United States is composed not only of native Americans (the people from whom we stole all the land) but also of people from nearly every nation in the world, there might be cause for some international grieving. People might even become sentimental about us, the way people often do at a funeral, regardless of the deceased's actual character. 

My father’s family arrived here from Hungary. My best friend in high school was born in Italy. My co-workers were born in India, Mexico, Egypt, South America, Europe, Japan and China. Americans may be spoiled children, of sorts, but we’re related to just about everyone out there. So, world, if you lose us, remember, you’re losing a small piece of yourself.

“Whither goest thou, America, in thy shiny car in the night?”—Jack Kerouac

Disaster Ennui

Throughout history, people have lived in difficult times.

In biblical times, a great flood, perhaps due to melting following an Ice Age, is thought to have inundated many ancient cities leaving them forever silenced beneath the ocean waters. In 79 AD, the thriving populace of Pompeii suffered sudden and inescapable death from the eruption of the Mt Vesuvius volcano. From 1340 to 1771, the Black Death swept through Europe, killing one third of the population. In 1931, more than a million people perished in a series of floods in central China, the worst natural disaster in recorded history. World War II saw the annihilation of millions of people in what was a horrific time to be alive. During the Cold War of the 1950s and 1960s, people lived in fear of a nuclear holocaust.

Black Death street scene from the 1300s depicted in artwork.

So due to natural disasters, disease, war and the threat of misused technology, human beings have had a lot to keep them awake at night for thousands of years.

Today, nothing has changed. We still have natural disasters. We still have emerging diseases. We still have war. And we continue to misuse technology. It seems the latter, however, is what might offer us the worst insomnia during the 21st Century.

Natural disasters, diseases and wars are terrible—but, forgive me, they tend to be localized and finite. Technology, on the other hand, has a way of invading every corner of the Earth, is often invisible and can have a lasting effect. Three pervasive problems that will affect our health this century, and perhaps beyond, are electromagnetic fields, genetically modified food and nuclear radiation.

If you had told me 20 years ago that society would allow untested, potentially lethal technologies to become commonplace for the sake of profits, I would have considered that prediction a bit histrionic. After all, technology has brought us many advances in medicine, transportation and everyday conveniences. It's not all bad by any means. It's all in how you use—or misuse—it. Whenever the abuse of something promises premium profits, that's where human nature can trump society's welfare. 

Who would allow the indiscriminate broadcast of electromagnetic fields through cell phone towers, electric blankets, fluorescent lighting and more? These fields have been shown to induce abnormal growths and cognitive problems, particularly in children.

Who would allow genetically modified (GM) produce and livestock into our food supply? Studies have shown serious health risks associated with GM foods, including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system.  

Who would allow nuclear radiation to contaminate our world? The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant was knowingly built near four major earthquake faults. The US Environmental Protection Agency continues to release new data showing that various milk and water supply samples across the US are testing increasingly high for radioactive elements such as Iodine-131, Cesium-134, and Cesium-137, all of which are being emitted from the ongoing Fukushima Daiichi nuclear fallout. That means in the next 10 years, we will experience a cancer epidemic beyond anything we have ever seen.

Food guessing game: Is it GM or radioactive?

The problem is, it is difficult to get away from these things. Cells phones are everywhere, as are wireless broadcasts. Our government is refusing to label GM foods as is done in Europe, so the only way to try to avoid them is by buying organic. But even organic foods are being contaminated by the carelessly scattered DNA of GM plants, such as GM flax. GM flax was never approved, but its DNA is contaminating crops in 35 countries around the world, according to the Organic and NonGMO Report. Radiation from Japan is raining down on us from weather patterns that have carried it over the Pacific and across North America.


You can’t see, feel, taste or smell any of these assaults to your health, but they are there.

Science fiction has long warned us about technological threats, but such stories were always comfortably relegated to the realm of fantasy. They can no longer be contained there. What adds to the challenge is that our leaders appear more concerned with corporate profits than with the safety of the populace. And the major news media are owned by those same corporations. It makes one wonder, are our leaders purposely trying to thin out our population or are they all just greedy sociopaths?

So what do we do? Do we live in the comfortable denial of reality television and antidepressants? Do we band together to try and fight overwhelming odds? Do we sit in shock and wait for the inevitable? I don’t know.

Throughout history, people have lived in difficult times. Now it’s our turn.

Radioactive Postcards from Japan

"Genetic heritage is the most precious property for human beings. It determines the lives of our progeny, health and harmonious development of future generations. As experts, we affirm that the health of future generations is threatened by increasing development of the atomic industry and sources of radiation… We also believe that new mutations that occur in humans are harmful to them and their offspring."—World Health Organization, 1956, before they signed an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on May 28, 1959, at the 12th World Health Assembly, not to issue statements on health and radioactivity without that IAEA’s approval.

Godzilla was borne of radiation; so was the IAEA.

When the nuclear plants in Japan began melting down and spewing out radiation, did you heave a sigh of relief that it was happening on the other side of the world and not in your own backyard? Think again. The weather patterns take the fallout from Japan across the Pacific and over the United States. Have you been reassured by news reports that by the time the radiation reaches our shores it is too dissipated to affect us? Really?

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to release new data showing that various milk and water supply samples from across the US are testing increasingly high for radioactive elements such as Iodine-131, Cesium-134, and Cesium-137, all of which are being emitted from the ongoing Fukushima Daiichia nuclear fallout. According to opendata.socrata.com, as of April 10, 2011, 23 US water supplies (including some in New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey) have tested positive for radioactive Iodine-131, and milk samples from at least three US locations have tested positive for Iodine-131 at levels exceeding EPA maximum containment levels (MCL).

But before going into details on this, let’s talk about radiation.

"There is no safe level of radionuclide exposure, whether from food, water or other sources. Period. Exposure to radionuclides, such as Iodine-131 and Cesium-137, increases the incidence of cancer. For this reason, every effort must be taken to minimize the radionuclide content in food and water."—Jeff Patterson, DO, former President of Physicians for Social Responsibility

External radiation that we are exposed to includes everything from radiation leaking from the Japanese nuclear reactors to normal background radiation from space. It is external because it is outside of us. And as long as it remains outside of us, all is well. However, when it gets inside of us, it is called internal radiation and that is an entirely different story.

Internal radiation comes from radioactive elements that enter the body through inhalation, ingestion or skin absorption. Hazardous radionuclides such as Iodine-131, Cesium 137, and other isotopes currently being released into the sea and air around Fukushima increasingly concentrate along each step of various food chains (for example into algae, crustaceans, small fish, bigger fish, then humans; or soil, grass, cow's meat and milk, then humans). After they enter the body, these elements—called internal emitters—migrate to specific organs such as the thyroid, liver, bone and brain, where they continuously irradiate small numbers of cells with high doses of alpha, beta and/or gamma radiation. Over many years, they can induce uncontrolled cell growth, better known as cancer. Many of the nuclides remain radioactive in the environment for generations, contributing to increased incidences of cancer and genetic diseases over time. That's right, we're talking grandchildren here.

For instance, the Chernobyl nuclear disaster occurred in 1986. The World Health Organization in 2005 issued a report attributing only 43 human deaths directly to the Chernobyl disaster and estimating an additional 4,000 fatal cancers. I guess they are still honoring their agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. In contrast, the 2009 report, Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, published by the New York Academy of Sciences, comes to a very different conclusion. The three scientist authors, Alexey V. Yablokov, Vassily B. Nesterenko and Alexey V. Nesterenko compiled and translated hundreds of scientific articles on the effects of the Chernobyl disaster that appeared in Slavic language publications over the past 20 years. They estimate the number of deaths attributable to the Chernobyl meltdown at about 980,000. Somehow I missed that shocking statistic when it was announced as lead story on every news station in the US back in 2009—or was it?

"Against this background of such persuasive data some defenders of atomic energy look specious as they deny the obvious negative effects of radiation upon populations. In fact, their reactions include almost complete refusal to fund medical and biological studies, even liquidating government bodies that were in charge of the 'affairs of Chernobyl'. Under pressure from the nuclear lobby, officials have also diverted scientific personnel away from studying the problems caused by Chernobyl."—Professor Dimitro Godzinksy, Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences

The grave effects of those internal emitters, mentioned earlier, are of great concern at Fukushima. It is inaccurate and misleading to use the term "acceptable levels of external radiation" in assessing internal radiation exposures. Confusing the terms "external" and "internal," in terms of radiation, floods the news media with dangerous misinformation at a time when the public worldwide is seeking the truth about radiation's hazards. So let’s talk about that truth on a local level.

When it comes to water supplies, the EPA is only testing for radioactive Iodine-131. There are no readings or data available for cesium, uranium, or plutonium—all of which are being continuously emitted from Fukushima—even though these elements are all much more deadly than Iodine-131. However, we can only work with what they have collected, so I have presented what we know in the below Radiation in the US Water Supply chart.

Water is not the only problem. New EPA data just released on Sunday shows that at least three different milk samples from various parts of the US have tested positive for radioactive Iodine-131 at levels that exceed the EPA maximum thresholds for safety, which is currently set at 3.0 pico Curies per Liter (pCi/l).

In Phoenix, Arizona, a milk sample taken on March 28, 2011, tested at 3.2 pCi/l. In Little Rock, Arkansas, a milk sample taken on March 30, 2011, tested at 8.9 pCi/l, which is almost three times the EPA limit. And, not surprisingly, in Hilo, Hawaii, a milk sample collected on April 4, 2011, tested at 18 pCi/l, a level six times the EPA maximum safety threshold. The same Hawaii sample also tested at 19 pCi/l for Cesium-137, which has a half life of 30 years, and 24 pCi/l for Cesium-134, which has a half life of just over two years.

Why is milk contamination significant? After all, not everyone drinks milk, anyway. Milk is considered a gauge of the overall condition of the food chain because cows consume grass and are exposed to the same elements as food crops and water supplies. So when cows' milk starts testing positive for high levels of radioactive elements, this is indicative of radioactive contamination of the entire food supply.

Radiation continues to leak from the Japanese nuclear plants, and those who advocate atomic energy interests will do their level best to silence or discredit any information that sounds negative about this energy source. Of course, we all know that our standard of living requires a never-ending supply of energy and it has to come from somewhere. That's on the assumption they we keep on living, business as usual.

What if... we began to question the real price we are paying to live in unsustainable homes with energy-devouring lifestyles? What if... we decided that as an investment in the future health of our families, it was essential to start lobbying for ways to decrease our need for the energy supplies that threaten our health and our national security? What if... everyone, on a grassroots level, began demanding affordable zero-energy homes, good public transportation and a fundamental rethinking of our consumption-based economy? If the late John Lennon could imagine a better world, then why not the rest of us?

"The rejection of consumerism arises out of the belief that the meaning of life does not and cannot consist in the consumption and accumulation of material things. The affirmation of simplicity arises out of the recognition that very little is needed to live well—that abundance is a state of mind, not a quantity of consumer products."—Samuel Alexander, lecturer, Melbourne Law School, and leader of Voluntary Simplicity movement (see www.simplicitycollective.com).

Talking Dangerously

"A truth spoken before its time is dangerous."—Greek Proverb

I recently had lunch with a friend who made an interesting comment. He said: “Cell phones, today, are like the cigarettes of yesterday.”  What he meant, I suppose, was that there are many health hazards connected to our stylish cell phones that have not yet surfaced.

Health hazards?  Even people in remote Third World countries can be seen urbanely clutching cell phones. So how harmful could something that common actually be?

More harmful than we would all like to believe, according to Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology. Yes, I know you didn’t want to hear that. Neither did I.

Here is their basic position on cell phones:

“A considerable body of evidence proves, beyond reasonable doubt, that microwave radiation from mobile phones and cordless phones cause a significantly increased risk for brain tumors. In addition, increasing evidence is indicating that it causes disturbed brain function, damage to the genes and other disturbances.”

Okay. Buzzkill. What crackpots are claiming this, anyway? Well, one of them is Olle Johansson, MD, professor at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, and a Nobel Prize winner in medicine. He has studied the effects of mobile phones, Wifi and other devices on human health for more than 20 years and finds the evidence related to serious hazards convincing. Surprisingly, he believes that the brain tumor issue is a minor one compared to many other harmful effects. While brain tumors affect a small percentage of phone users, other serious effects are impacting the whole population, including genetic damage, sleep disturbances, reduced learning capacity, concentration difficulties and psychological problems. Watch the news and this becomes fairly easy to believe.

My beloved iPhone may be bringing me closer to my next incarnation.

Due to the 24-hour bombardment on our bodies of Wifi and other microwave broadcasts, Dr. Johansson points out that the level of electromagnetic exposure we are receiving is huge compared with Earth's background radiation. He reasons that if microwave radiation is not dangerous, then a large number of quality scientific papers reporting  its hazardous effects must be wrong. He adds, however, that such a scenario is highly unlikely.

Professor Lennart Hardell, also of Sweden, studied more than 1251 cases of cell phone users with brain tumors as well as more than 2000 controls. Researchers reported increased brain tumor risk of 170 percent with cell phone use and 80 percent with cordless phone use after 10 years. In a separate analysis, the highest risk for brain tumors was among those who began using mobile phones before the age of 20.  For this group, the risk increased by 390 percent for cell phone use and 290 percent for cordless phone use. The moral of this and many other studies: The more years and the more hours per year a cell phone is used, the higher the risk of cancer.

“A Eurobarometer survey of almost 1,000 children in 29 countries found most had telephones after age 9.”—New York Times

But let's not rely solely on those crazy Swedes.

U.S. government-funded research has proven that cell phones influence the activity of the brain to a significant extent. After 50 minutes of exposure to a cell phone, the metabolism of the brain has been shown to increase in the areas close to the phone. The research was conducted by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Lead author of the study, Dr. Nora Volkow, is quoted as saying, “I must admit that after seeing the results I changed my way of using the mobile phone and always use a loudspeaker or handsfree.”

A recent, well-publicized Interphone study published in 2010 claimed to prove that cell phones have no effect on cancer development. However, two scientists participating in that study noted that most of the subjects in the study had used cell phones for far too short a time for brain tumors to appear. It takes ten years or more. Apparently, when researchers recalculated risk excluding people whose exposure had been too brief, they found that the Interphone study actually showed a significant risk for developing a severe form of malignant brain tumor—aka, a glioma.

By now, you've read just about enough about cancer and could probably use a drink. Me, too. So let’s steer away from that dark subject and talk briefly about cardiovascular disease. Professor Magda Havas of Trent University, Canada, did a study to measure the effect of cordless phone radiation at an intensity of exposure that was 200 times lower than approved Canadian safety norms. The study found that immediately at the start of radiation exposure, a person’s pulse almost doubled. It immediately returned to normal when the phone was turned off. She points out that this study is relevant to cell phone use as well, as cordless phone radiation is in the same range of intensity and frequency.

What about the unborn? Does cell phone use affect them? We return to Scandinavia for that one, where researchers found that cell phone use by pregnant women may affect the future behavior of the unborn child. A study of 28,000 Danish children followed up from pregnancy to age seven found that children exposed to mobile phones while in the womb were 40 percent more likely to show abnormal behavior than those who were not exposed to mobile phone calls by the mother.

“Children and teenagers are five times more likely to get brain cancer if they use mobile phones.”—Independent

So what devices are we talking about? All of the following emit the same types of microwaves:

• Mobile phones also called cell phones, cellular phones, cellulars
• Cordless phones
• Wi-Fi devices (wireless internet connection and wireless networking).

Oft-forsaken landlines may be a healthier choice.

According to Hardell, things do not bode well for the young generation of cell phone users. "Unfortunately, this radiation permeates our society and those who use a cell phone are contributing to second-hand radiation such that anyone near cell phone antennas is also exposed to this radiation." Sounds like second-hand smoke all over again, but where is the U.S. Surgeon General on this one?

“In the committee [that sets the standards], one co-chair is from Motorola and the other is from the Navy, the military-industrial establishment.”—Dr. O. Gandhi

Hold on a minute. Why would the cell phone industry put us in harm’s way? Cell phone corporations reap multibillion-dollar profits, and would suffer billion-dollar losses from research proving harmful effects.

If cell phone technology keeps rolling along, business-as-usual, what is at stake? Based on the above studies and many more, the proven effects of cell phone use include brain tumors, genetic damage, sleep disturbances, reduced learning capacity, concentration difficulties and psychological and/or behavioral problems. It may also double pulse rates and some studies indicate that it causes clumping of brain cells similar to that found in Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases.

Are telecommunications companies too big to be influenced by the average person? Well, decades ago, it was generally thought that the tobacco industry was invincible. But as smoking-related health data began mounting, people got upset about losing loved ones to preventable cancers, banded together in a grassroots effort and pushed tobacco out of the mainstream. 

“Studies show there has been a 40% across-the-board increase in the number of brain tumors in the past 20 years.” —Australia Senator Lyn Allison, after brain tumors became the leading cause of death in children under 15

What can we do about this? The Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology offer the following practical tips on their website:

• Minimize your use of mobile phones and cordless phones to very few and brief calls. Instead, use landlines as much as possible.
• People younger than 20 should use mobile phones that allow SMS messages only, but no talking, because the risks are far higher in young people.
• Fight to change cell phone technology so it is safe, just as a previous generation fought to move tobacco out of the mainstream of our culture.
  
• Pray. (I added that one.)

For more stomach-churning information about cell phones, visit: http://www.psrast.org/mobileng/mobilstarteng.htm. No one wants to believe that cell phones are harmful because we are all so dependent on them. Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that our governments and cell phone corporations have given us all a wrong number.