Electropollution causes Type 3 Diabetes


Most people are familiar with type-1 diabetes and type-2 diabetes, but did you know researchers have discovered a third type of diabetes? Type-3 diabetes, as they are calling it, affects people who are extra sensitive to electrical devices that emit “dirty” electricity.

Type-3 diabetics actually experience spikes in blood sugar and an increased heart rate when exposed to electrical pollution (“electropollution”) from things like computers, televisions, cordless and mobile phones, and even compact fluorescent light bulbs.

Dr. Magda Havas, a PhD from Trent University in Canada, recently published the results of a study she conducted on the relationship between electromagnetic fields and diabetes in Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. In it, she explains how she and her team came to discover this about why electropollution is so dangerous for many people.

Blood sugar goes haywire

One of the most interesting finding in her study was that electro-sensitive people whose blood sugar decreases when they go for a walk outdoors actually experience an increase in blood sugar when walking on a treadmill.

Treadmills, you see, are electrical devices that emit electrical pollution. But interestingly, even the physical exertion of walking on the treadmill did not make up for the blood sugar spiking effect of the EMFs emitted by the treadmills. Despite the exercise, in other words, type-3 diabetics experienced significant spikes in blood sugar when walking on the treadmill.

Dirty electricity is bad for everyone, but it is especially bad for people who are type-3 diabetics. And Dr. Havas explains in her study that even having an electrical device plugged into the wall near someone who is type-3 diabetic can cause them problems.

We have to rethink environmental influences of modern living

I find this research fascinating, not only because it proves that electromagnetic waves impact blood sugar and heart rate, but because there could be thousands, if not millions, of diabetics who may be suffering from a diabetes misdiagnosis right now.

The reason I’m bringing this up is because a 54 year-old pre-diabetic man who participated in the study was found to experience serious blood sugar spikes only when he was working in an urban environment around power lines or on his computer. When he was out camping away from the city, his blood sugar was just fine.

The man tested his blood sugar every morning in different situations and his levels were always higher when electrical fields were nearby. On one of the mornings, he forgot to test himself prior to beginning work on the computer. His blood sugar levels were higher than normal, registering around 205 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL). But after stepping away from the computer for only ten minutes, his levels dropped nearly 20 mg/dL.

The degree to which electromagnetic pollution affects the body is clearly quite astonishing, and this study illustrates that. But it makes you wonder how many people have diabetes simply because of EMF pollution (and not solely due to their diet or lack of exercise, as we have been taught).

High EMFs gave this woman diabetes

Take the case of the 80 year-old woman whose house tested high for EMF pollution. Prior to installing a system of filters around her house designed to reduce “electro-smog” levels, her blood sugar was high and she was using insulin each day in order to balance her blood sugar levels. After installing the filters (which reduced EMF pollution by roughly 98 percent), the woman’s blood sugar levels dropped by 33 percent and her insulin requirements plunged a whopping 75 percent!

This idea that reducing the electropollution of your house could drastically reduce a patient’s need for insulin has never even registered in conventional (mainstream) medicine. Yet it could be a crucial understanding for tens of millions of diabetics around the world.

The study mentioned here classifies the type of diabetes caused by electromagnetic pollution as type-3 diabetes. While those with type-1 or type-2 diabetes can also have type-3, the data seems to indicate that a person can also exclusively have type-3 without any overlay of the other two types. In other words, their diabetes may be solely due to electromagnetic pollution.

And since pre-diabetics can be pushed over the edge by EMF pollution, there is no telling how many people actually have type-3 rather than type-2 diabetes.

If you ask most mainstream medical “professionals”, they will deny that type-3 diabetes even exists. According to most of them, the idea that electromagnetic pollution contributes to disease is some sort of whacked out conspiracy theory. But there’s more to the study that you need to know…

Wireless signals interfere with the heart

For one portion of the study, Dr. Havas had patients lie down on a bed with a cordless phone placed two feet away from their heads. The phone was plugged into the wall, but for each testing session, the electricity was either on or off.

Neither the patient nor the doctor administering the test was aware of whether or not the phone was live or dead during each session. (This is what is known as a double-blind study, the type most respected in clinical trials).

At the completion of that part of the study, researchers observed that EMF-sensitive patients experienced significant increases in their heart rates during the sessions when the phone was being powered and emitting radio signals. When it was turned off, these same patients returned back to their normal heart rates almost instantaneously.

Why is this important? First of all, a double-blind study is the litmus test used in the medical profession to verify that a study is legitimate. Since nobody involved knew when the power was on or off, the results are completely unbiased and hold a lot more sway than if it had been conducted a different way.

Secondly, it illustrates that EMF pollution really does speed up the heart rates of certain people. And since a rapid pulse is one of the many symptoms of diabetes, it seems reasonable to suspect that EMF pollution could be a fundamental cause of diabetic symptoms for a significant portion of the diabetic population.

This makes you wonder about the harm caused by mammograms, CT scans and other medical scanning technologies that blast the body with electromagnetic radiation, doesn’t it?

Electromagnetic radiation leads to many diseases, including cancer

Our bodies are constantly barraged by electromagnetic radiation from numerous electronic sources, and most people don’t think twice about this high level of exposure (probably because many don’t even realize it’s there), but the truth is that all this EMF pollution is leading to widespread illness.

Most of the recent research on EMF pollution has focused on cell phones, which makes sense because people take their cell phones with them everywhere they go and when they use them, they often hold them right next to their skulls. Cell phone radiation is probably one of the most dangerous EMF polluters because the devices remain in very close contact with the body for long periods of time.

A 2008 study published in New Scientist revealed that cell phone radiation causes human cell proteins to improperly express themselves. Similar studies also found that the radiation damages living DNA, creates leakages in the blood-brain barrier, and increases estrogen and adrenaline levels, disrupting hormone balance.

According to one statistic from a 2008 study, adults who use a cell phone over the course of a decade increase their chances of developing brain cancer by 40 percent. Even worse, a Swedish study found that people who start using a cell phone before the age of 20 increase their risk of developing a brain tumor by 500 percent!

Mainstream science holds conflicting views (as usual)

Of course, many in the medical establishment simply deny that electro-smog has anything to do with health or disease. And it doesn’t matter how many studies are conducted on the matter; many continue to insist that there is not enough evidence that EMFs cause any harm.

Not everyone feels this way, of course, but sadly most of today’s experts seem unable (or unwilling) to put two and two together and make the connection between electromagnetic pollution and disease.

There are many contributors to disease in our environment. EMFs represent just one. But to deny that electromagnetic pollution is harmful is quite narrow minded. Dr. Havas’ study provides more than enough evidence that at least some people are suffering because of the electrical devices that surround them.

Our world, of course, is full of electromagnetic devices — and some of them may surprise you. A typical hair dryer, for example, emits an explosion of electromagnetic radiation that’s usually aimed right at the skull. Typical office environments shower employees with electropollution from fluorescent lighting, and even exercise gyms can subject visitors to a dense field of electromagnetic pollution (from all the electronic exercise machines).

It all gives credence to the idea of getting into nature more often, doesn’t it? If you’re sensitive to electropollution, the farther away you get from the city, the better you’ll feel. No wonder most people innately gravitate to such natural environments like forests, lakes and ocean beaches.

So, does all this research mean we should all get rid of our phones and computers and return to the pre-information age? You could always join an Amish community. They’re remarkably healthy, and part of that may be due to their lack of electropollution.

But for mainstream people, a more practical solution is to install some EMF filters around your home.

Some solutions for electromagnetic pollution

As mentioned in the study, home EMF filters are one of the best ways to reduce or eliminate the stray electrical signals that plague your house. These filters will capture electrical “noise” from things like televisions, computers and phones, and return it back into the line or into the ground. These can be connected to the outlets where these devices are plugged in.

Keeping Wi-Fi devices like cell phones and wireless routers away from your body as much as possible is another good idea. If you have a wireless router at home, place it away from areas where people sleep or spend a lot of time. Even having it just a few feet farther away can make a big difference in a reduction of the electropollution exposure from it.

When charging your cell phone, plug it in across the room from you. Especially at night when you are sleeping, it is best to turn off as many electrical devices as possible and to keep them away from your bed when sleeping. And beware of electric blankets: They produce a very strong electromagnetic field.

Try to use the speakerphone as much as possible when talking on the phone, or use an “air-tube” device that stops the signal short before it reaches your head. Never walk around with an idle bluetooth attached to your head, because these devices deliver a steady stream of EMF radiation directly into your head. I would recommend not using one at all, but if you do use one, take it off when not in use.

It’s also a good idea to keep your phone in your pocket or purse only when necessary, and to keep it away from your body at all other times. Cell phones are intermittently communicating with network towers, so the closer they are to our bodies, the more radiation we are exposed to. So if you’re not going to be using it for a while, just turn it off.

Finally, it is crucial to maintain a healthy diet and get plenty of outdoor exercise. Eating lots of nutrient-rich foods, drinking plenty of clean water, and minimizing intake of toxic preservatives, food additives, and refined sugars will do wonders to build a strong and vibrant neurological system that will resist some of the impact of electromagnetic pollution.

The reason I mention outdoor exercise is because, just like in the study, certain indoor exercise equipment like treadmills can actually cause more harm than good (for certain people). So go outside and take a walk or a jog. The sunshine will boost your vitamin D levels and the fresh air will help rejuvenate your system. (Just be sure to stay away from the power lines.)

Estudio de Berkeley: Las Mamografías causan Cáncer

Traducción Luis Miranda

Está bien establecido que la exposición a radiaciones ionizantes puede provocar mutaciones y otras alteraciones genéticas que hacen que las células normales se conviertan en malignas. Por esta razón, parece increíble que la medicina moderna con frecuencia desecha la idea de que las pruebas de diagnóstico por imagen de las mamografías a las tomografías computarizadas (CT scans) pueden causar cáncer de mama. Tome este ejemplo de la página web para el Programa de la Universidad de Cornell sobre el Cáncer de Mama y Factores de Riesgo Ambiental:

En respuesta a la pregunta “¿Es la radiación ionizante una causa de cáncer de mama?”, Los expertos de Cornell dicen “Sí” y tenga en cuenta “el tejido mamario de la mujer es muy susceptible a los efectos de la radiación.” Pero luego se burlan del posible riesgo de la mamografía de rayos X diciendo que el riesgo … “no debe ser un factor en las decisiones individuales para someterse a este procedimiento. Lo mismo es cierto para la mayoría de los procedimientos de diagnóstico de rayos X”.

Si eso no es lo suficientemente confuso, ellos se vuelven y dicen: “No obstante, las exposiciones innecesarias a radiación deben ser evitadas y una vigilancia continua es necesaria para garantizar que los beneficios asociados con los procedimientos específicos son mayores que los riesgos futuros.”

¿Por qué los mamogramas provocan cáncer de mama?

El sentido común sugiere que hay un montón de razones para estar preocupados por la radiación que causa el cáncer de mama. Y ahora hay una nueva razón para estar preocupados. Investigadores del Departamento de Energía de Estados Unidos, en el Laboratorio Lawrence Berkeley National (Berkeley Lab) han descubierto que la exposición a la radiación puede alterar los microambientes de las células (el entorno que rodea las células) y eso aumenta grandemente las probabilidades futuras de que las células se vuelvan cancerosas.

La razón es que señales creadas por el microambiente de la célula, alteradas por la exposición a la radiación, puede causar el fenotipo de una célula (compuesto por todas sus características bioquímicas y físicas) a cambiar la regulación o desregulación de la forma en que esa célula utiliza sus genes. El resultado puede ser una celda que no sólo se convierte en pre-cancerosa, sino que pasa esta condición pre-maligna de la célula a otras futuras.

“Nuestro trabajo demuestra que la radiación puede cambiar el microambiente de las células mamarias, y esto a su vez puede permitir el crecimiento de células anormales con un fenotipo de larga vida que tiene un potencial mucho mayor para ser canceroso,” dice Paul Yaswen, un biólogo celular y especialista en investigación sobre el cáncer del laboratorio de la División de Ciencias, dijo en una declaración a la prensa.

“Muchos en la comunidad de investigación del cáncer, especialmente radiobiólogos, han sido lentos en reconocer e incorporar en su trabajo la idea de que las células en los tejidos humanos no son entidades independientes, pero son altamente comunicativas entre sí y con su microambiente”, agregó.

Para su estudio, Yaswen y sus equipos de investigación utilizaron las células epiteliales mamarias (HMECs), las células que los conductos de la línea de mama, donde la mayoría de cánceres de mama se inician. Cuando se colocan en una placa de cultivo, la gran mayoría de HMECs muestran un fenotipo que les permite dividirse entre 5 y 20 veces más, hasta que se convierten en lo que se conoce como senescentes, o incapaces de dividirse. Sin embargo, también hay algunas variantes de estas células que tienen un fenotipo que les permite seguir dividiendose por muchas semanas en la cultura. Conocido como un fenotipo vHMEC, este tipo de células del seno surgen espontáneamente y son más susceptibles al cáncer, porque carecen de una proteína supresora de tumores denominada p16.

Para saber lo que hace la exposición de radiación al medio ambiente celular y cómo podría afectar el futuro del comportamiento de la célula, los científicos del laboratorio de Berkeley cultivaron conjuntos de HMECs de tejido mamario normal en placas de cultivo alrededor de una semana. Luego dieron a cada sistema una dosis baja a moderada de la radiación y se compararon las células irradiadas a conjuntos de células de la mama que no habían sido irradiadas.

Los resultados, acaban de ser publicadps en el diario en línea Breast Cancer Research y mostraron que entre cuatro a seis semanas después de la exposición a la radiación, las células de cáncer de mama normal habían dejado de dividirse, mucho antes de lo que acostumbra ser normalmente – y esta senescencia celular prematura había acelerado el sobrecrecimiento vHMECS.

“Sin embargo, al conseguir que las células normales envejecieran prematuramente y dejaran de dividirse, se creó espacio para que células alteradas epigenéticamente existieran.  En circunstancias normales, estos espacios habrían sido ocupados por las células normales. En otras palabras, la radiación promovió el crecimiento de las células pre-cancerosas, haciendo que el medio ambiente que rodeaba a las células fuera más hospitalario para su continuo crecimiento “, explicó Yaswen en el comunicado de prensa.

Los investigadores señalaron que los niveles de radiación utilizada en sus experimentos no eran tan altos como los que una mujer se expone durante una mamografía de rutina, pero solo eran comparables a los que una mujer podría recibir durante una tomografía computarizada o  radioterapia, “y podría representar las fuentes de preocupación.”

Por supuesto, las mujeres son a menudo obligadas a hacerse mamografías anuales, aumentando su exposición a la radiación a través de los años. Y, como NaturalNews ha informado, la investigación previa ya ha presentado pruebas convincentes que une la mamografía con el cáncer de mama.

Por ejemplo, un informe publicado en la Revista de Archivos de la American Medical Association de Medicina Interna encontró que el inicio de los programas de control mamográfico en Europa se ha asociado con una mayor incidencia de cáncer de mama (http://www.naturalnews.com/024901. html). Y un estudio de Johns Hopkins publicado en el Diario del Instituto Nacional del Cáncer concluyó que la exposición a la radiación de las mamografías podría provocar tumores malignos en mujeres en riesgo de cáncer de mama (http://www.naturalnews.com/025560_c …).

Para más información:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ …
http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/fac …

Presidential cancer advisors warn about environmental risks of cancer chemicals

Natural News

When a government panel of experts finds the courage to tell the truth about cancer, it’s an event so rare that it becomesCancernewsworthy. Late last week, a report from the President’s Cancer Panel (PCP) broke ranks with the sick-care cancer establishment and dared to say something that natural health advocates have been warning about for decades: That Americans are “bombarded” with cancer-causing chemicals and radiation, and if we hope to reduce cancer rates, we must eliminate cancer-causing chemicals in foods, medicines, personal care products and our work and home environments.

In a directive to President Obama, the report states, “The panel urges you most strongly to use the power of your office to remove the carcinogens and other toxins from our food, water, and air that needlessly increase healthcare costs, cripple our nation’s productivity, and devastate American lives.”

When I first read that, I just about fell out of my chair. Government-appointed experts are really saying that there are cancer-causing chemicals in our food and water? That simple fact has been vehemently denied by the cancer industry, processed food giants, personal care product companies and of course the fluoride lobby — all of which insist their chemicals are perfectly safe.

ACS attacks the report

The American Cancer Society, not surprisingly, was quick to bash the report. The ACS is one of the sick-care cancer industry front groups that reinforces consumer ignorance about both the causes and the solutions for cancer. The ACS has, for decades, engaged in what can only be called a “cancer chemical cover-up” with its denials that environmental chemicals cause cancer. (http://www.naturalnews.com/010244_A…) and (http://www.preventcancer.com/losing…)

Even as cancer experts like Dr Sam Epstein have been warning about carcinogens in cosmetics, personal care products and foods (http://www.preventcancer.com/consumers), the ACS has ridiculously pretended such threats don’t exist. And just to top it off, the ACS has been warning people to stay away from sunlight and become more vitamin D deficient, thereby increasing cancer rates even further.

So it’s no surprise that the ACS doesn’t like this PCP report that dares to state the obvious: There are cancer-causing chemicals in our food and water! “The American people — even before they are born — are bombarded continually with myriad combinations of these dangerous exposures,” the report writes.

The great chemical denial

Joining the ACS in criticizing the report is the American Chemistry Council, the trade group representing the very same chemical companies that are poisoning our world right now. Remarkably, the ACS and ACC are on the same side here, denying any link between chemicals and cancer. They insist that all those chemicals in your processed foods, cosmetics, antibacterial soaps, shampoos, fragrance products, home cleaning solvents, pesticides, herbicides and other similar products are all safe for you! Eat up, suckers!

Don’t worry about the chemicals, they say. Cancer is just a matter of bad luck. There’s nothing you can do about it. So stop trying.

That’s their message, you see, and it’s a message that plays right into the hands of the cancer industry: Don’t prevent your cancer and when you get sick, they’ll make a fortune off your disease and suffering.

The radiation threat from medical imaging

The PCP report also takes a strong stand on the cancer risks caused by medical imaging radiation. It actually says, “People who receive multiple scans or other tests that require radiation may accumulate doses equal to or exceeding that of Hiroshima atomic bomb survivors.

I remember receiving hate mail from cancer industry shills when I once made the same statement in an article about mammograms and CT scans. (http://www.naturalnews.com/026113_m…) And yet that statement was factually quite correct: If you undergo several medical imaging tests in a hospital today, you can very easily receive just as much radiation as a person standing a few miles away from the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshoma during World War II. This is not an exaggeration. It is a simple fact of physics and the law of inverse squares. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invers…)

The environmental dangers of pharmaceuticals

Here at NaturalNews, I’ve been talking about the environmental pollution of pharmaceuticals for years. The fact that pharmaceutical chemicals are flushed down the drain and end up in the water supply is the “dirty little secret” of the drug industry. The problem has gone virtually unrecognized by the entire mainstream medical system… they just pretend it doesn’t exist.

Yet this PCP report takes aim at it by saying: “Pharmaceuticals have become a considerable source of environmental contamination. Drugs of all types enter the water supply when they are excreted or improperly disposed of; the health impact of long-term exposure to varying mixtures of these compounds is unknown.”

It’s about time somebody in Washington stood up and challenged the pharmaceutical industry on the environmental effects of its toxic chemicals. HRT drugs, antidepressants, painkillers and many other types of drugs are right now polluting our oceans and waterways. You can hardly catch a fish near any major U.S. city now that isn’t contaminated with pharmaceuticals.

But don’t expect anyone to give credence to this warning. This entire PCP report is being largely ignored in Washington (and attacked by Big Business).

What the report really says

The President’s Cancer Panel is headed by:

LaSalle D. Leffall, Jr., M.D., F.A.C.S., Chair
Charles R. Drew Professor of Surgery
Howard University College of Medicine
Washington, DC 20059

Margaret L. Kripke, Ph.D.
Vivian L. Smith Chair and Professor Emerita
The University of Texas
M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
Houston, TX 77030

These two people deserve your support for having the courage to publish a report that challenges the status quo of the corrupt cancer industry. So if you wish, send them a thank-you email for their work.

The report is entitled, “REDUCING ENVIRONMENTAL CANCER RISK – What We Can Do Now”

Here are some of the highlights from the report:

• In 2009 alone, approximately 1.5 million American men, women, and children were diagnosed with cancer, and 562,000 died from the disease. Approximately 41 percent of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives, and about 21 percent will die from cancer. The incidence of some cancers, including some most common among children, is increasing for unexplained reasons.

• The Panel was particularly concerned to find that the true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated. With nearly 80,000 chemicals on the market in the United States, many of which are used by millions of Americans in their daily lives and are un- or understudied and largely unregulated, exposure to potential environmental carcinogens is widespread. One such ubiquitous chemical, bisphenol A (BPA), is still found in many consumer products and remains unregulated in the United States, despite the growing link between BPA and several diseases, including various cancers.

• However, the grievous harm from this group of carcinogens has not been addressed adequately by the National Cancer Program. The American people — even before they are born — are bombarded continually with myriad combinations of these dangerous exposures.

• Some scientists maintain that current toxicity testing and exposure limit-setting methods fail to accurately represent the nature of human exposure to potentially harmful chemicals. Current toxicity testing relies heavily on animal studies that utilize doses substantially higher than those likely to be encountered by humans. These data — and the exposure limits extrapolated from them — fail to take into account harmful effects that may occur only at very low doses.

• Only a few hundred of the more than 80,000 chemicals in use in the United States have been tested for safety.

• While all Americans now carry many foreign chemicals in their bodies, women often have higher levels of many toxic and hormone-disrupting substances than do men. Some of these chemicals have been found in maternal blood, placental tissue, and breast milk samples from pregnant women and mothers who recently gave birth. Thus, chemical contaminants are being passed on to the next generation, both prenatally and during breastfeeding.

• The entire U.S. population is exposed on a daily basis to numerous agricultural chemicals, some of which also are used in residential and commercial landscaping. Many of these chemicals have known or suspected carcinogenic or endocrine-disrupting properties. Pesticides (insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides) approved for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contain nearly 900 active ingredients, many of which are toxic.

• Many of the solvents, fillers, and other chemicals listed as inert ingredients on pesticide labels also are toxic, but are not required to be tested for their potential to cause chronic diseases such as cancer. In addition to pesticides, agricultural fertilizers and veterinary pharmaceuticals are major contributors to water pollution, both directly and as a result of chemical processes that form toxic by-products when these substances enter the water supply.

• The use of cell phones and other wireless technology is of great concern, particularly since these devices are being used regularly by ever larger and younger segments of the population.

• Americans now are estimated to receive nearly half of their total radiation exposure from medical imaging and other medical sources, compared with only 15 percent in the early 1980s. The increase in medical radiation has nearly doubled the total average effective radiation dose per individual in the United States. Computed tomography (CT) and nuclear medicine tests alone now contribute 36 percent of the total radiation exposure and 75 percent of the medical radiation exposure of the U.S. population.

• Many referring physicians, radiology professionals, and the public are unaware of the radiation dose associated with various tests or the total radiation dose and related increased cancer risk individuals may accumulate over a lifetime. People who receive multiple scans or other tests that require radiation may accumulate doses equal to or exceeding that of Hiroshima atomic bomb survivors.

• Hundreds of thousands of military personnel and civilians in the United States received significant radiation doses as a result of their participation in nuclear weapons testing and supporting occupations and industries, including nuclear fuel and weapons production, and uranium mining, milling, and ore transport. Hundreds of thousands more were irradiated at levels sufficient to cause cancer and other diseases.

• Numerous environmental contaminants can cross the placental barrier; to a disturbing extent, babies are born “pre-polluted.” There is a critical lack of knowledge and appreciation of environmental threats to children’s health and a severe shortage of researchers and clinicians trained in children’s environmental health.

• Single-agent toxicity testing and reliance on animal testing are inadequate to address the backlog of untested chemicals already in use and the plethora of new chemicals introduced every year.

• Many known or suspected carcinogens are completely unregulated. Enforcement of most existing regulations is poor. In virtually all cases, regulations fail to take multiple exposures and exposure interactions into account.

• Many known or suspected carcinogens are completely unregulated. Enforcement of most existing regulations is poor. In virtually all cases, regulations fail to take multiple exposures and exposure interactions into account. [Editor’s note: In other words, people should read NaturalNews! We’ve been doing this for years!]