It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


7 Things that Are Killing You! Part 2

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

+33 more 
posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 10:08 PM
Part 2. Please don't skip the intro. Enjoy

Part 1. 7 Things that Are Killing You.


Previous Topics Covered:
- Perscription and OTC Drugs
- Artificial Sweeteners
- Fluoride
- Plastics
- GMO Crops
- Disinfection Products

What I am not trying to accomplish with these threads:
The thing that no one should ever do is let something consume their life. Letting anything, no matter what it is, consume your life is detrimental to both your health and mental state. Information provided is meant to inform, so that in the future you can start to make wiser decisions with what you let enter your body. Do not get OCD and start stressing about everything.

What I am hoping to accomplish with these threads:
As mentioned, is to inform people of things that literally effect their life every single day, and are potentially causing illness in your day to day life. It is unnecessary and there is no reason to live in discomfort due to misinformed choices. Additionally, I hope for a reduction of the medicated society, due to over prescription of drugs thanks to improperly diagnosed disorders and diseases that are actually the result of a sick society in general. This will hopefully allow people to think clearer, feel better, and have more energy to improve the lives of friends and family and ultimately our society. As I mentioned in my first thread 7 Things that Are Killing You. prescriptions expanded by 61% to 3.4 billion annually, in the last decade alone.

For the detractors. If you don't want to hear any of the information, just press ignore at the bottom of any of my posts. Discomfort which has many faces, be it pain, soreness, sickness, headaches, depression and other problems that humans face everyday are unnecessary and should not dictate the way a person spends their life.

You are more than welcome to spend your life not feeling 100%. But those who wish to feel better, making minor changes will improve everything they do in a day thanks to being more comfortable in their body. Essentially, taking precautions could help the survivability of yourself and your family. People with kids should definitely take note, as the levels of these toxic items are less dangerous to us, but to a young child can quickly lead to devastating effects that could haunt them their entire life. To you, I say enjoy.

Educate yourself, then educate others, and some day we over turn the poisonous logic that rules our day to day life.

Microwave Ovens
The history of the household microwave ovens starts in 1945 when On October 8, 1945 Raytheon filed a U.S. patent for Spencer's microwave cooking process and an oven that heated food using microwave energy was placed in a Boston restaurant for testing. S In 1965 Ratheon, acquired Amana, which introduced the first popular home model, the countertop Radarange in 1967 at a price of US$495. S

For those who don't know, Raytheon is an extremely large Defense contractor of the United States. Some may reffer to it as a “Humanity loving corporation”. Learn more of its accomplishments here.

These days, practically everyone has a microwave, even I have one rotting in the corner of one of my counters. They have become so inexpensive that they are available for under $50. A fraction of what they once used to cost. The quick and easy nature is definitely their largest asset, if I can have a potato in one minute, I'm going to have a damn potato in one minute! But has our complacency with this household object been doing damage to our health and well being?

Challenges to the Safety of Microwaved Water
In 2006 a science fair project by a girl raised the question, does microwaving water effect it negatively? Her grandfather who later published her findings to the internet was just as surprised by the results, as the granddaughter who tested them.

Purified water was heated separately, one by microwave in a plastic container, the other on a stove. Once heated, both were allowed to cool to a normal temperature before both were used to feed two virtually identical plants. Results were immediate as the plant fed with the microwaved water grew slower every single day, ultimately leading to its complete destruction by day 9. Pictures.

Some immediately argued that since the microwaved water was heated in a plastic container, that there may have been a leeching effect of the plastic that lead to the damaging of the plant. Regardless, most people can remember a time where they microwaved something in plastic.

Additionally, the fact that she didn't replicate the experiment several times, with scientific precision it is hard to accept the information as definitive. People also claimed that the pictures show more water on the microwaved plant which people claim is proof of over watering. I disagree with this as I am sure most who have grown crops before will understand, that feeding the same dose of water to two plants, the healthy plant will consume it much quicker than a bleak, dying plant. But, it does not specifically state that they were given the exact same amounts of water each day, which I would hope would have been common sense for an experiment like this.

Furthermore some argue that it's nonsense to think anything has changed in the water. It went in as water and came out water, the same thing that would happen if heated by any other source. A google search will yield several people who use this argument.

So that's that then?

The central issue is whether there's such a thing as a "microwave effect"--that is, whether microwaves do anything that conventional heating methods don't. The main way microwaves heat up a plate of leftovers is by causing the food molecules to vibrate--an accelerated version of what ordinary cooking does. The microwave effect, if it exists, is more mysterious and potentially a lot scarier. For example, some conjecture that certain frequencies of microwave radiation can resonate with food, body tissues, and whatnot. Just as a low-power radio wave reaching a tuned-in boom box can rattle windows, a seemingly innocuous beam of microwave energy striking a harmonically attuned target may have disruptive effects.

More was discovered as microwaves made their way from the kitchen counter into the lab in the '80s to be used by scientists. Reactions could be sped up exponentially without the use of heavy solvents. This led to some troubling results.

What the scientists soon discovered was that the results the microwaves produced were hardly consistent and often had unexpected and varied results. The wondered, if these unexpected and varied results may be leading to unexpected damage to the quality of the food and liquid we eat. Source

One Suggestion that Chemists wrote:

is that this is some form of 'ponderomotive' driving force that arises when high frequency electric fields modulate ionic currents near interfaces with abrupt differences in ion mobility.

Fast forward a Decade
Others like to point out the findings of a study conducted in 1992 at Stanford University

...that found microwaving breast milk mysteriously reduces its infection-fighting properties, as well as studies that have found that microwaves can accelerate certain chemical reactions.

So are microwave ovens safe? I think that ultimately, the jury is technically still out on this one. But, similar to other topics I have looked into, it seems that popular belief is constantly being challenged by new studies and experience. Since scientists themselves refer to the reaction to what is put into the microwave is varied and inconsistent, almost implies that it could well be hazardous.

There is also a distinction to be made when talking about a simple ingredient such as water is put into a microwave, versus a complex plate of dinner, or organic material like breast milk. The chances for destruction of useful nutrients and bacteria exist in the latter. And also as mentioned, leeching from plastic that holds what is being heated is possible because the accelerated degradation of the plastic molecules. Source. But perhaps the knowledge we possess now is enough to think twice about that one minute potato.

[edit on 8-6-2009 by king9072]

[edit on 8-6-2009 by king9072]

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 10:09 PM

Though not classified as a heavy metal such a lead, it can be dangerous in high levels. Especially since it can accumulate in ones body, the brain being the worst place it can find itself. Higher aluminum levels have also been linked to Alzheimers. 2. 3.

How does it make it into us?
It's used in the manufacturing of cookware, flatware, foil, cans used for soda. It's also used commonly in the following health products: Antacids, Buffered Aspirin, Vaccines, Vaginal Douches, Hemorrhoid Medications, Anti-Diarrhea Medications, Astringents, Nasal Sprays, Baby Powder, Dentures, Lipsticks, Talcum Powder. It's used commonly in the following cooking ingredients, Baking Powder, Self-Rising Flour, Table Salt, Pickling Salt, Processed Cheese, Cake Mix. Source.

Aluminum Toxicity

Many of the symptoms of aluminum toxicity mimic those of Alzheimer’s disease and osteoporosis. Colic, rickets, gastrointestinal problems, interference with the metabolism of calcium, extreme nervousness, anemia, headaches, decreased liver and kidney function, memory loss, speech problems, softening of the bones, and aching muscles can all be caused by aluminum toxicity.

Aluminum is excreted by the kidneys, therefore toxic amounts can impair kidney function. Aluminum can also accumulate in the brain causing seizures and reduced mental alertness. The brain is normally protected by a blood-brain barrier, which filters the blood before it reaches it. Elemental aluminum does not pass easily through this barrier, but certain compounds contained within aluminum, such as aluminum fluoride do. Interestingly, many municipal water supplies are treated with both aluminum sulfate and aluminum fluoride. These two chemicals can also combine easily in the blood. Aluminum fluoride is also poorly excreted in the urine.

If you feel that you may be effected by Aluminum Toxicity you can find out with tests. Keep in mind that it is impossible to be completely Aluminum free. But the more it's avoided and removed from your diet and surroundings, its cumulative effect will be slowed and could possibly save you from Alzheimers.


Vaccines have received a lot of attention on ATS in the past, 1300 Girls Harmed by HPV Vaccines. Vaccine Information Thread. Etc etc.

A vaccine is a biological preparation that improves immunity to a particular disease. A vaccine typically contains a small amount of an agent that resembles a microorganism. The agent stimulates the body's immune system to recognize the agent as foreign, destroy it, and "remember" it, so that the immune system can more easily recognize and destroy any of these microorganisms that it later encounters.

I'll start by saying that I have never had a flu vaccine, and I have never had the flu. The same goes for my entire immediate family. People can draw their own conclusions to that statement. I hope some people can provide their own stories in this thread about their vaccine experiences. Have you been vaccinated by the flu, and did you subsequently come down with it?

There is a lot of evidence that Vaccines are far from as safe as claimed by the Manufacturers who reap billions in profit from them. Additionally, studies have found that their appears to be a link between the rise in childhood autism and the use of high levels of mercury in Vaccines. Mercury is added to vaccines as a preservative. 1. 2. 3.

It's also worth noting, that a recent study is out that appears to refute the link. Source. If I reaped the benefits of a billion dollar industry, I may go to some great lengths to make studies support my needs. Whether that's the case, and what the long term effects of the study will be, remains to be known. Keep in mind there have been many, many studies that have made the link, and only one to really refute it.

What about the other dangers, besides Mercury?
The vaccine history is fairly long and dark. Dr Mendelsohn, M.D. (1984) stated:

My suspicion, which is shared by others in my profession, is that the nearly 10,000 SIDS deaths that occur in the United States each year are related to one or more of the vaccines that are routinely given children. The pertussis vaccine is the most likely villain, but it could also be one or more of the others.

SIDS, is the acronym for “Sudden Infant Death Syndrome” which as it name suggests, is the spontaneous death of an infant that remains to be completely explained.

The statistics alone are shady enough, but one also needs to realize that statistics collected by the manufacturers are often skewed and deaths are listed as coincidental, or under other terms such as cot death, MSbP & SBS. Source

Smallpox vaccine infant deaths (UK) were estimated at 25,000 in 1880, and 6,000 in 1921. Source

780,000 people die from Allopathic (vaccinator) iatrogenic disease in the USA every year, 106,000 from adverse drug reactions. Source

The bottom line: Allopathy has always killed more children than the diseases with vaccination ( 1 2 3 4 ) and the suppression of effective non-Allopathic medicine such as Vitamin C which would prevent all cot-deaths and most other child deaths, (known since 1949)

The evidence is overwhelming to anyone who bothers to look. It's also worth noting that it makes no sense to take what could be a toxic vaccine, to stop one strain, when it could mutate the same year and leave you unprotected any ways. Is the risk really worth it? With major death statistics, as well as Severe Adverse Reactions reported world wide, and billions spent compensating victims, say NO to vaccines for you, and especially your children. Cause once they've been damaged, they may never be the same.

Toxic Aids and Cancer Treatments

Recently a lot of discussion was stirred when a mother refused to allow the government to force her child to finish Chemotherapy. Link

Some supported the Judge who over ruled the kids decision to abandon chemo for alternative methods that wouldn't devastate his body and bring him to the edge of death, in hopes of avoiding it. I have seen first hand the destructive effects of chemo first hand. And it's terribly sad to see, especially when it's someone you love. Now don't get me wrong, there are cases where chemo does work. But is it as effective as it is popularly believed?

And why, after trillions of dollars of funding and millions of educated man hours, is there not a treatment that is not only effective most often, but does not require extensively poisoning the body, in hopes of maybe poisoning the cancer while your at it? Is it not fair to demand such results after the expense that has been paid by private donations and tax dollars?

One study goes far for the case of debunking Chemotherapy as an effective treatment. : “The contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adult malignancies.”

The authors

The three authors of the paper are: (1) Graeme Morgan, Associate Professor and radiotherapist at the Royal North Shore Hospital in Sydney. (2) Robyn Ward, a senior specialist in Medical Oncology and Associate Professor of Medicine at St Vincent’s Hospital, Sydney. She is also a member of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. (3) Michael Barton, Research Director Associate Collaboration for Cancer Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Liverpool Health Service, Sydney.

Where it was published

They publish their work in the Journal of Clinical Oncology Volume 16, Issue 8, December 2004, pages 549-560. This is a peer-review well-respected medical journal. Their paper was submitted for publication on 18 August 2003. It was revised and finally accepted for publication on 3 June 2004. This means the paper has been scrutinized by fellow doctors and has undergone the normal peer-review process. It is not a back-door, arm-twisting way to get into the pages of the medical journal. Given the above, you and I (and even doctors!) should not have any doubt as to the credibility and validity of what they say in their research paper.

[edit on 8-6-2009 by king9072]

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 10:10 PM
What it found

The absolute real-life data that this article carries is most shocking: “The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.” In short, they said that the contribution of chemotherapy is not more than 3%.

Not more than 3%? That's our effective chemotherapy situation. And as I mentioned, don't get me wrong, if you find those 3 people in the hundred that it saved, they will tell you it saved your life. If you ask the other 97, they would likely tell you it ruined what life they had left. Results not acceptable considering what has been put into the industry. Once again, profit has become the driving force.

Aids and AZT
From my thread - Aids – We've Been lied to

Up until now, its been treated as a correlation between the two, if you're HIV positive, you will die from AIDS. But what is stumping experts is the fact that not all people with AIDS are HIV positive. HIV Has been around since before the USA, so why did it just start killing people 30 years ago?

The experts in the documentary go over all the evidence and discover that the correlation is not enough since it does not prove true 100% of the time. Retroviruses and viruses in general infect and ravage the host between days and upto a month, but HIV(AIDS) can take upto 10 years, which another thing that doesn't add up.

It appears just like the failed Cancer industry which is simply a ponzi scheme, the Aids industry is alll about the money. Surprise surprise? It may be that AZT the most popular treatment for aids could do more harm than help.

Information derived from the following Documentary

What are we told about AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome)
We have been told that it is caused by a tiny retrovirus named HIV, which interesting enough has been around for many, many decades prior to it ever having any link to causing the sudden AIDS epidemic. We are told that anyone of us could be at risk with unsafe sex, and that once diagnosed with HIV, we will eventually die from any one of several debilitating diseases as a result.

Oddly enough, unlike every other retrovirus which attacks it's victims immune system within days, weeks or perhaps a month or two of infection. HIV/AIDS can take up to and exceeding 10 years.

Over 100,000 studies have been conducted and yet there are still no solid links that HIV actually is the cause of AIDS to begin with. Perhaps the industry is barking up the wrong tree, and that's why it has still never delivered a cure almost 30 years later, and after utilizing more resources than it took man to make it to the moon.

How did it go so wrong?
Well, if AIDS has not been caused by HIV then millions of people have been given a diagnosis of death. Additionally, hundreds of thousands have been given drugs that could potentially cause AIDS themselves.

As people rushed to find the cause and cure for AIDS, public pressure mounted, pushing for expedient results. In the haste, one hypothesis was accepted, that HIV was causing AIDS, but it was never peer reviewed and since its acceptance billions in funding, and thousands of jobs now hang in the balance.

The doctors that produced the Hypothesis were Dr. Robert Gallo and Dr. M. Essex. This was after failing to find a virus cause for Cancer. He would later be the one to “discover” the retrovirus HIV as the cause of AIDS. Incidentally, as the press conference was going on to announce the probable cause of AIDS was discovered, the test to find HIV was being patented. It would yield royalties to the discoverers (above), and would direct $100,000,000 into the Department of Health Coffers, yearly.

This meant that the AIDS industry had just been born, and the US government was now heavily invested in it's status quo. This would lead to the suppression of contradictory claims and lack of trying anything else. Instead, people decided to continue barking up the wrong tree. It's also the reason, 30 years later, there is still no cure.

AZT – The Deadly Cure

Zidovudine (INN) or azidothymidine (AZT) (also called ZDV) is a nucleoside analog reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI), a type of antiretroviral drug. It was the first approved treatment for HIV. It is also sold under the names Retrovir and Retrovis, and as an ingredient in Combivir and Trizivir. It is an analog of thymidine.

But is it the case that the drug actually harms far more than it even comes close to helping?

Can the antiviral drug AZT, given to HIV-positive mothers in pregnancy and to their newborn babies, protect against mother-to-baby transmission of AIDS? The claim that it does so is entirely speculative. Yet the harm done by the drug is extensively documented. [AZT stands for azidothymidine. It is also called zidovudine by the manufacturer and marketed under the name Retrovir.]
AZT treatment strategy is based on a number of beliefs. One is that certain biological signals, such as elevated "viral load" and "HIV" antibodies, signify HIV infection. Another is that HIV infection is the cause of AIDS. If either or both of those suppositions are untrue, as some scientists argue [see adjoining article "Molecular Miscarriage: Is the HIV Theory a Tragic Mistake?"], then all mothers and babies treated in this way are being uselessly exposed to an unquestionably dangerous chemical.
AZT's proven toxicities include severe muscle pain, weakness, and atrophy; heart muscle changes and malfunctions; bone marrow suppression, with consequent anemia and loss of all types of blood cells; liver failure; and broad-ranging and sometimes irreversible loss and poisoning of mitochondria, the energy "factories" within our cells. The drug also leads to permanent DNA damage, and studies in mice and monkeys have raised concerns that babies exposed to AZT in the womb will face an increased risk of cancer when they grow up.

Similarly, an Italian study involving more than 200 HIV-positive children found that at three years old, those born to mothers treated with AZT during pregnancy were significantly more likely to have developed severe disease than children whose mothers were not treated. They also had a higher death rate.

Further information - Aids INC – 2 hour Documentary on the fraud of the AIDS industry.

If we have failed to find the cause, and have been improperly treating it, it could go down as one of the largest medical blunders in history. So in the future, think first before supporting the Cancer and AIDS industry monsters. Some people call the AIDS epidemic, genocide. Source

Manufacturing Chemicals

This topic is from Pretty Vacant's post in Part 1. All props to them, I am simply quoting. Anyone wishing to refute any part of it, is welcomed. Full post, here.

Let's also add some other chemicals to the list which can be readily identified in all too many personal care products and cleaning products:
Polyethylene glycol (PEG), lanolin, diethanolamine (DEA), isopropanol, triethanolamine (TEA), propylene glycol, aluminium, ether, methylene chloride, acetone, mineral oil, triclosan, and the big one sodium lauryl/ laureth sulfate (SLS/ SLES)

.. to name but a few.
Everywhere I go, I look for these chemicals in various products, and I can tell you, they're literally everywhere. I was shocked to find out that they were so commonly used! All of the mentioned chemicals can be found in either hair care products, hair sprays and styling products, hair dyes, toothpaste, mouthwash, antiperspirants, baby products, bubblebath and bodywashes, soap, shaving cream, skin care and cosmetics, fragrances, sunscreen and nail treatments.
And I'm sure these are not strictly limited to this list alone. .

Too many times I've picked up an eco-friendly dish-washing liquid to find sodium laureth sulfate used as a primary ingredient - SLS/ SLES is used in the industrial industry in engine degreasers, car wash soaps and garage floor cleaners. It can lead to direct damage of hair follicles, skin damage, eye damage and even liver toxicity.

Many of these chemicals are either linked to cancer in animals and/ or humans, or are often contaminated with carcinogens, or readily form carcinogen nitrosamines when mixed with other ingredients - such as fluoride, propylene glycol, PEG and acetone; many are identified as accumulating in the organs - such as triclosan, aluminium, and again fluoride and propylene glycol; and many are neurotoxins, which damage the central nervous system or are Teratogens, which affect the embryo, including ether, propylene glycol, lanolin, acetone and methylene chloride.

Propylene glycol can also be found in tyre sealant, rubber cleaner, de-icer, stain removers, fabric softener degreaser, paint, adhesive and wallpaper stripper. It acts as a humescent, which causes retention of moisture content of the skin.

Obviously, products containing these ingredients are allowed on the shelves because the amounts of chemicals used within are not dangerous enough to harm on an individual level. However, it is my belief, that prolonged daily use of products containing such toxins can build up to cause diseases such as cancer.

[edit on 8-6-2009 by king9072]

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 10:10 PM
Replacement of Breast Milk

Another one of the failures of modern society is the move from natural breast feeding of children. I was breast fed as a child and think that it served me well. I knew people growing up that were not, and I have watched people I know have kids and not breast fed them. Personally, I noticed that there seemed to be a link between childhood disorders and the removal of breast feeding as the primary nutrition source for babies.

Studies seem to have confirmed my observations, J Hum Lact. 1997 Jun;13(2):93-7. Published by School of Nursing, Wichita State University, Kansas, USA.

Breastfeeding, a valuable natural resource, promotes health, helps prevent infant and childhood disease, and saves health care costs. Additional annual national health care costs, incurred for treatment of four medical conditions in infant who were not breastfed were estimated. Infant diarrhea in non-breastfed infants costs $291.3 million; respiratory syncytial virus, $225 million; insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, from $9.6 to $124.8 million; and otitis media, $660 million. Thus, these four medical diagnoses alone create just over $1 billion of extra health care costs each year. Breastfeeding may also enhance intellectual development of children according to at least one medical research study. The potential societal benefits of more intelligent children is incalculable even though it cannot be directly measured in terms of dollars.

Finally, it was calculated that an additional $2,665,715 in federal funds is needed yearly in order for WIC to provide infant formula to non-breastfeeding mothers. For the average family, the cost of purchasing formula is twice the cost of supplemental food for the breastfeeding mother. Breastfeeding education and support should be an integral part of health care, especially under managed care which rewards the prevention of health problems and reduced use of health services.

More of the same results from an overview of studies discussed Here.

One of the features unique to primate infants is slow early development of the immune system, during which time energy and nutrients are devoted to the growth and development of other systems such as the central nervous and musculoskeletal systems. According to Sellen, lactation is thought to have evolved around 200 million years ago as a means of transferring the protective functions of fully mature immune systems across generations; all mammals derive essential protection from their mothers' milk.

"The mother supports the host defense of the infant in two ways," says Lars Hanson, a clinical immunologist at Göteborg University in Sweden. "One is via antibodies from her blood that are actively transported over the placenta to the infant's circulation during fetal life, and are ready for use from birth on. The other is due to the numerous and complex defense factors provided via the mother's milk, available directly after delivery."

Not only is it harming the child by setting them up for a myriad of possible problems in their future. But studies have also found that the lack of a close relationship between mother and child can lead to a whole host of it's own problems later on in life.

Many researchers have found correlations between secure mother-infant attachment and later psychological and social development. Infants who securely attach to their mothers become more self-reliant toddlers and have a better sense of self-esteem, said Alan Sroufe, PhD, an attachment researcher at the Institute of Child Development at the University of Minnesota.
He's been following a group of 180 disadvantaged children-now age 19-since before birth, looking at mother-infant attachment and multiple developmental measures such as the kids' expectations from relationships with parents and friends. He's also looking at the children's life stress, success in school and peer relationships.

Sroufe has found that even though these children lead unstable lives, if they had a secure mother-infant attachment they were likely to be self-reliant into adolescence, have lower rates of psychopathology, enjoy successful peer relationships through age 16 and do well in school-especially in math-at all ages.

Pesticides – In Honor of Audus who only likes shouting and not providing sources

More and more studies are defining the link between Pesticides and the growing cancer rates that our society experiences. As if it weren't bad enough that companies like Monsanto were Genetically engineering crops to create more of their own pesticides that leads to toxicity in humans. Studies now find links between the amounts of pesticide pollution and the growing levels of PCB's in humans, to higher levels of Cancer. Source

Not only are the effects on humans devastating, but so are the effects it creates in the soil itself.

Pesticides decrease biodiversity in the soil because they do not just kill the intended pest; they often kill many of the other small organisms present.

When life in the soil is killed off, the soil quality deteriorates and this has a knock-on effect upon the retention of water. This is a problem for farmers particularly in times of drought. At such times, organic farms have been found to have yields 20-40% higher than conventional farms.

Soil fertility is affected in other ways, too. When pesticides kill off most of the active soil organisms, the complex interactions which result in good fertility break down.

Plants depend on millions of bacteria and fungi to bring nutrients to their rootlets. When these cycles are disrupted plants become more dependent upon exact doses of chemical fertilizers at regular intervals. Even so, the fantastically rich interactions in healthy soil cannot be fully replicated by the farmer with chemicals

Effects of Pesticide Pollution on Humans

Pesticides can also endanger workers during production, transportation, or during and after use.
Bystanders may also be affected at times, for example walkers using public rights of way on adjacent land or families whose homes are close by crop spraying activities.
One of the main hazards of pesticide use is to farm workers and gardeners.

A recent study by the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, discovered a 70% increase in the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease for people exposed to even low levels of pesticides.

Effects of Pesticides on Children

Children are particularly vulnerable to the toxic effects of pesticides. Studies have found higher rates of brain cancer, leukemia and birth defects in children who suffered early exposure to pesticides. (National Resources Defense Council study)

Diet as a Source

The main source of exposure to pesticides for most people is through diet.

A study in 2006 measured organophosphorus levels in 23 school children before and after changing their diet to organic food. The levels of organophosphorus exposure dropped immediately and dramatically when the children began the organic diet.
Residues, set by governments, are limited to tolerance levels that are considered safe, based on average daily consumption of these foods by adults and children. But, as we all know, some people do not behave as average!

What can be done?

Some pesticides are so toxic that their use is restricted to licensed, trained applicators. In the US it is a violation to apply any pesticide in any way that is not in accordance with the label for that pesticide. Further, it is a crime to do so intentionally.
In most counties pesticides are classified according to their toxicity. Most acute pesticide poisonings result from disregarding the label directions.

If you must use toxic pesticides at all (and there are usually safer alternatives) - then the most important advice is: Read the label! - and then follow the instructions to the letter.
Apart from political action, anyone who is concerned about the toxic effects of pesticides should try to eat organic food whenever possible. Organic foods are grown without toxic pesticides for the most part.

If you are growing food or flowers and other plants at home, consider doing everything by organic methods. There are many strategies available to organic gardeners to avoid attacks by pests.

The toxic effects of pesticides on our foods and our land and the effects on our health and the health of our children make it an issue which is sure to become more and more crucial.

And that my friends, concludes part 2. Once again, I have inadvertently created an extremely large post. Again, after hours of writing I have done my best to correct spelling and grammatical errors, please forgive any omissions, and thanks for reading.

[edit on 8-6-2009 by king9072]

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 10:14 PM
MSG is the worst thing ever avoid it like the plague!

[edit on 8-6-2009 by Dredulous]

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 10:29 PM
reply to post by king9072

Some great work and research here man!

Someones been a busy bee lately!

I will have to read this still, I just wanted to give the thread a bump, I know how 'sequels' can flop sometimes,lol.

EDIT to add: This is what a thread should be like IMO, deep, well researched, broad, detailed, and well written and formatted. (not taking anything away from the well put, shorter and concise threads however)

This is why there is a flag contribution system.

[edit on 6/8/2009 by jkrog08]

[edit on 6/8/2009 by jkrog08]

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 11:28 PM

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by king9072

Some great work and research here man!

Someones been a busy bee lately!

I will have to read this still, I just wanted to give the thread a bump, I know how 'sequels' can flop sometimes,lol.

EDIT to add: This is what thread should be like IMO, deep, well researched, broad, detailed, and well written and formatted.

This is why there is a flag contribution system.

[edit on 6/8/2009 by jkrog08]

Hey Krog, yah busy bee redeeming myself after my ban. Part 1 has received due attention by both members and staff alike. Everyone guilty of writing a meager thread at one point or another, but I think from now on all my threads will follow the format especially illustrated in this thread.

This thread I tried to add more opposing view points as well, cause since most information is still coming to light there will always be people who will want to hear the orthodox version. I wish more threads were written that used better formatting, as it makes it easier to read.

Hopefully you get some time to look it over in-depth.

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 11:30 PM
Both threads are very informative and interesting. I have been wondering whether I would choose chemotherapy if I ever had cancer. I would really need to study it out to see if the risk of having my immune system destroyed in hopes of curing the cancer would be worth it.

Again, very interesting info. Thanks!

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 11:41 PM
reply to post by king9072

Highly impressed and happy that more and more people are becoming aware of what everyone should know. Knowledge is power. Starred and flagged! Great work.

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 02:49 AM
Thankyou for informing ATS! I am especialy aware of most of these already, being that I'm a health freak, but also,

Dont forget Codex Alimentarius

I'd appreciate if you continue on with your threads and keep informing everyone about safety and health. I would be pleased if you include Codex Alimentarius

Again, Great Work!

Star and Flag

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 05:46 AM
Brilliant thread - again! It's about time somebody delved into these issues thoroughly

I've always had a clue about the dangers that microwaves could pose - I try my best to use the stove as an alternative. . Also, I've meaning to look into the toxicity of insect spray - I've heard around that it's the worst thing there is. . .

Well done again

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 09:26 AM

Originally posted by king9072
...redeeming myself after my ban...

All it takes to get a ban is posting an uncomfortable truth.

Sort of sad, really, but not entirely surprising.


posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 10:51 AM
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 12:05 PM

Originally posted by Scarcer
Thankyou for informing ATS! I am especialy aware of most of these already, being that I'm a health freak, but also,

Dont forget Codex Alimentarius

I'd appreciate if you continue on with your threads and keep informing everyone about safety and health. I would be pleased if you include Codex Alimentarius

Again, Great Work!

Star and Flag

I think that Codex is going to be my next topic, if anyone has any suggestions I would love to hear them. Codex is so important everyone should know.

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 01:23 PM
reply to post by king9072

Codex would be a good subject to cover,another one which I feel has gotten too little attention is how technology and labor clash,since technology makes life and producing things easier for people,what happens to those who no longer have a job because they were replaced by a machine?,maybe get rid of them with something like war,codex alimentarius,diseases....?........
There are so many conflicts on the horizon,and technology is used mainly for killing,or to make killing mre efficient....
Nothing in this place is used for the right purposes,and no one considers the consequences of technology until it is too late.

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 01:25 PM
Great post, regarding the microwave topic I have never purchased one in my life, from childhood experiences with rubber cheese and superheated soup I went off them. The evidence taken at face value is damning to say the least. I dont really like the taste of anything that comes out of a microwave and to see evidence of the fact it makes the content going in worse, before it ruins it reinforces my stance on them S&F

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 01:35 PM
If these things are killing us, then how come average life expectancy continues to rise?

There's a stronger case for saying they are causing us to live longer.

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 02:00 PM
reply to post by Retseh
WOW! Ill be the first to admit that some of the hippie/new age types take these types of things to far some times. But I am just baffled at the kinds of statements the skeptic/detractor crowd gets away with on this site. You are really gonna tell me that things like msg and artificial sweeteners cause you to live longer. You are aware of the growing evedence that when artificial sweeteners are metabolized they can cause phermaldahide poisoning. Your point really brings up something else entirely are dependence on health care. The reason are life expectancy is going up is because modern health care (at least until the government takes it over and ruins it) is providing a crutch for people who are destroying themselves. Not because of there steady diet of MSG burgers. If people paid more attention to what they ate and took better care of themselves guess what, the live expectancy rate would go up even further and health care costs would plummet. If you are lucky enough to have any land, start a garden.

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 02:21 PM
Great list but I personally found one big error. That is the inclusion of Lanolin on the chemicals list. Lanolin is an extract from sheeps wool and truly is a 100% natural product.

This is just one thing that i picked up that is in error to be placed on this otherwise great list.

So please do not think that lanolin is dangerous because its really not and if anything it is beneficial to health. since it has natural antiseptic properties.

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 03:51 PM
Great posts. Im glad to say that I avoid almost all of these things, but in modern society it is near impossible to avoid them all.

I should point out that deodorant often has aluminum in it and I can't find any deodorant without aluminum. I still have a few sticks of stuff that says 0% aluminum, but im not sure what I will do when they run out.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in