Incredibly Effective Protection from Fukushima Nuclear Radiation

page: 2
57
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Limbo

Originally posted by ManFromEurope
You won't like this posting, but I am here to DEBUNK most of your illusions about vitamin C.

Fact is, and that is proven (with methods of that old-school-medicine and its statistics, you know) by MANY MANY MANY studies that the human body can only take up to 100 miligrams of vitamin C. It can not be stored by the human body. The excess will be disposed with the usual wastes in the usual way.

Take 25.000 mg of vitamin C and you will get diarrhoe.

There is no doubt that the human body NEEDS vitamin C it its role as a scavenger.
Excess might lead to renal calculi (ugly!). Its LD50 is at about 12g per kg bodyweight.


Would YOU take 15g of Vitamin C and then go into a broken nuclear reactor to clean it? Well, I would use lots of lead-gear, but that is only my opinion, I guess. Its some kind of the way this board works..


I don't mean to be rude but..

Animals in times of stress make 10s of grams of vitamins c.
This makes your assertion (unbacked by evidence I might add) a moot point.

The comment on vitmain c causing kidney stones also is a myth. I think it was pushed by Victor herbet,
a well known "quackbuster" and.mouthpiece for big pharma. Studies have shown this to be a myth.
www.victorherbert.com...

I suggest you do more research before posting disinfomation.
A good place to start www.vitamincfoundation.org...

The toxicity of vitamin c is well documented, as I recall it is less toxic than normal sugar.
The diarrhea is probably caused by reverse osmosis through the bowel wall.

Limbo

Pardon?
I might also, I find add your diatribe against Linus Pauling offensive.
He was one of the best chemists/scientists on the planet. Also he was a Nobel Laureate
How How many Phd/Nobel prizes do you have?
edit on 29-9-2012 by Limbo because:
edit on 29-9-2012 by Limbo because: (no reason given)


Ah right, so Nobel prizes make the recipient experts in everything do they?
Going on his studies into Vitamin C and cancer which have ALL been proven wrong I would say I have more experience and knowledge (and qualifications) than him in human physiology and pharmacolgy. However, non-scientific people have accepted his views on vitamin C and mega-vitamin doses and use him (and his Nobel prizes, one in chemistry (not biochemistry) and Peace) as a shining example and as a big stick to beat the debunkers with.
A lot of his other work I greatly respect him for but in this case he was severely mistaken about vitamin therapy
As I mentioned earlier, just because someone had a doctorate or PhD doesn't mean you have to accept what they say without question. extra DIV




posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 03:48 AM
link   
Where have you guys been? There was and still is a very active and informative thread on how to make your own Liposomal VitC at home here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

For those still believing you are limited by diarhhea (sp?) check out the thread. We discussed this at length and many of us tried out large doses personally.

I tried 10g or so at a time without any problems (bit of tummy rumbling).



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pardon?


Pardon?
I might also, I find add your diatribe against Linus Pauling offensive.
He was one of the best chemists/scientists on the planet. Also he was a Nobel Laureate
How How many Phd/Nobel prizes do you have?
edit on 29-9-2012 by Limbo because:
edit on 29-9-2012 by Limbo because: (no reason given)


Ah right, so Nobel prizes make the recipient experts in everything do they?
Going on his studies into Vitamin C and cancer which have ALL been proven wrong I would say I have more experience and knowledge (and qualifications) than him in human physiology and pharmacolgy. However, non-scientific people have accepted his views on vitamin C and mega-vitamin doses and use him (and his Nobel prizes, one in chemistry (not biochemistry) and Peace) as a shining example and as a big stick to beat the debunkers with.
A lot of his other work I greatly respect him for but in this case he was severely mistaken about vitamin therapy
As I mentioned earlier, just because someone had a doctorate or PhD doesn't mean you have to accept what they say without question.


You'll find that on ATS you have to back up your opinions with references or at least with a few links if you want the 'thinking' members to take you seriously.

In my understanding Pauling had a hatchet job done on his research by a bought and paid for a'hole at the Mayo(naise) Clinic. They didn't even follow Pauling's protocol


His research has been replicated on at least 3 continents successfully - you are talking out your arse, sorry!

I'm sure a few better informed peeps will come along shortly and post the relevant research, I really can't be bothered since I've read it for myself and also done the experiments on my own body. Nothing like a bit of personal reality experience to remove the need to convince the unenlightened - meh!
edit on 30-9-2012 by RogerT3 because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-9-2012 by RogerT3 because: (no reason given)


ETA: ah bollox, I suppose I should at least do a 10 second google on it for you:

Orthomolecular medical researcher and Nobel laureate Linus Pauling (pictured) long touted the value of vitamin C in the fight against cancer . He and Scottish medical doctor Ewan Cameron published Cancer and Vitamin C in 1979 in addition to publishing several earlier scientific articles on the subject. Unfortunately, a hatchet job was almost immediately published in the New England Journal of Medicine which claimed Dr. Pauling’s research was nonsense. This work is so devious and evil that I will not cite it. In 2007, Dr. Mark Levin finally set the record straight and published a paper validating Dr. Pauling’s work which pointed out that while Dr. Pauling gave patients with cancer vitamin C intravenously, the refuting paper which claimed that Pauling results were not real since they were not replicated, only gave vitamin C by mouth!

weeksmd.com...


Work of Hugh D. Riordan M.D. et al

Intravenous Ascorbate as a Chemotherapeutic and Biologic Response Modifying Agent (Riordan et al), describes the results of fifteen years of clinical studies administering intravenous ascorbic acid to approximately fifty cancer patients.

In this study, the authors put forth that 1) numerous tumor cells are highly susceptible to the toxic effects of ascorbic acid and 2) a concentration of ascorbic acid toxic enough to cancer cells can safely be achieved with virtually no detrimental effects to the individual.



NIH Research Confirms Work of Pauling and Riordan

The article, “ Pharmacologic ascorbic acid concentrations selectively kill cancer cells: Action as a pro-drug to deliver hydrogen peroxide to tissues” presents research conducted by National Institutes of Health scientists and was published in the September 12, 2005 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The NIH funded study confirms the hypotheses put forth by Riordan et al in Intravenous Ascorbate as a Chemotherapeutic and Biologic Response Modifying Agent:

1) Tumor cells are more susceptible to the effects of high-dose, ascorbate-induced peroxidation products because of a relative catalase deficiency

2) Concentrations of ascorbate high enough to kill tumor cells likely can be achieved in humans.

Neil H. Riordan PhD. commented on the study, “It is gratifying to have our research on vitamin C and cancer confirmed by scientists at the prestigious National Institutes of Health,”


That should get you started and at least point you in the direction of the authentic research, not the pharma funded panic attack!
edit on 30-9-2012 by RogerT3 because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-9-2012 by RogerT3 because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-9-2012 by RogerT3 because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-9-2012 by RogerT3 because: (no reason given)
extra DIV



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 05:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Pardon?
 


A valid point, but Pauling was an amazing chemist, so obviously an expert on the topics was was refering to..
(He did not have one doctorate but many.)

The studies on vitamin C and cancer have not all been proven wrong.
The problem with the Mayo studies (That I guess you are refering to) is that they
used oral supplements and did not replicate the studies done by Cameron which were open to selection bias
due to the way the 2 groups were picked. It's usually the case with the Mayo studies that they did not replicate
the protocol completely, so their conclusions are erroneous.
There are recent studies being done using IV ascorbate protocols.
If it was so proven wrong as you say then why are these studies being done?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Limbo



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by RogerT3
 


Cool. I did not have the information at hand about the later studies. I was aware of them.
From time to time I pop over to vit c foundation to see what's new.

I noticed also in one of those blogs someone posted that vitamin c blocked chemotherapy agents,
and posted a reference refering to this. As usual in slanted anti orthomolecular blogs, this is only
half the story....

What they did not mention are the studies which vitamin c enhancing chemotherapy.
(If anyone wants more information on this you read the following books)

Questioning Chemotherapy + Antioxidants & Cancer (Moss)
Ascorbate : The Science Of Vitamin C (Hickey & Roberts.)
700 Vitamin C Secrets: (and 1,000 Not So Secret for Doctors (Professor Sydney J. Bush)

The Bush book opens up a lot of research so it's a good primer to start.
The Ascorbate Science of Vitamin C is very in depth and a joy and an education to read.
Limbo
edit on 30-9-2012 by Limbo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 06:49 AM
link   
Thanks for this insight Kluute
Interesting why this remains unkown for the most part.

Jesse



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by RogerT3
 


You're incredibly arrogant and pompous given that it's plain that you know nothing about what you're saying.

Pauling, albeit a great scientist in his field (as every time his name is mentioned in connection with vitamin C therapies, his Nobel prizes are also mentioned...), was no clinician. Having been involved in clinical research for more years than I care to remember I was amazed that his study wasn't terminated early as his methods were a complete mess. All I can put this down to was the fact he had no experience in these types of clinical trials since, as I said, he wasn't a clinician. He didn't even publish his results in a clinical journal.

As you say "You'll find that on ATS you have to back up your opinions with references or at least with a few links if you want the 'thinking' members to take you seriously." well I think you'll find that out in the big wide world even a few links aren't sufficient especially the one you've quoted to back up your "understanding" that there was a hatchet job done on his study. I'll quote these two lines from your post "Unfortunately, a hatchet job was almost immediately published in the New England Journal of Medicine which claimed Dr. Pauling’s research was nonsense. This work is so devious and evil that I will not cite it ".
How very convenient. And how very typical. A study fails and it HAS to be a hatchet job. Grow up.
Were you aware that Pauling was sponsored quite heavily by a company called Hoffman-La Roche? This company effectively produced the majority of the world's vitamin C. So no conflict of interests there then...

What the likes of you really don't understand about cancer is that virtually any compound if used in high enough concentrations can kill tumour cells (my particular favourite's paracetamol) in vitro. The negating factor is that getting them into the body in these ridiculously high concentrations to effect the cells would always prove highly toxic irrespective of how they are administered. In vitro studies are generally the first step in formulating an hypothesis however when these are then moved on to in vivo studies that when you sort the wheat from the chaff. Even if they seem to do well in animal studies (mice, rats etc) there's still no guarantee that they'll work in humans.

The "studies" you've cited as proof of what you're arguing for, to use your vernacular, are bollocks and are typical of the pseudo-scientific studies used by people such as yourself as proof. If you read the study properly you will see that although some of the tumour growth was delayed, there was NO shrinkage in any of them. Again, this "effect" can be replicated with a myriad of other compounds.


"That should get you started and at least point you in the direction of the authentic research, not the pharma funded panic attack!"
Tell you what, go away and learn how to understand clinical studies and their implications and how to differentiate between a good, robust and useful study from those just making up the numbers or trying to prove already decided conclusions rather than the other way around.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Pardon?
 


Dude, you're probably right.

Anyway, this discussion has nothing to do with the OP, so apologies for going off topic.

If radiation becomes an issue in my neighbourhood, I'll become much more interested in the Japanese observations and consider megadosing with vitC.

Personally, I'm glad I got over my need to have a peer reviewed study give me permission to experiment with my own body. At least I now know how to get my own, cheap, home-made liposomal C into my body (and family too) at v. high concentrations without pooping it out 10 mins later
edit on 1-10-2012 by RogerT3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pardon?
reply to post by RogerT3
 

What the likes of you really don't understand about cancer is that virtually any compound if used in high enough concentrations can kill tumour cells (my particular favourite's paracetamol) in vitro. The negating factor is that getting them into the body in these ridiculously high concentrations to effect the cells would always prove highly toxic irrespective of how they are administered. In vitro studies are generally the first step in formulating an hypothesis however when these are then moved on to in vivo studies that when you sort the wheat from the chaff. Even if they seem to do well in animal studies (mice, rats etc) there's still no guarantee that they'll work in humans.


Yes but compared to paracetamol, vitamin c is highly non toxic and kills cancer cells in concentrations easily attainable in the bloodstream by I.V methods with no adverse side effects.
Water kills cancer if injected into the tumor mass.
Free radical damage causes DNA mutations and healing reactions. Ascorbate prevents this.
The tumor enviournment is a pool of free radical damage. That's why the cells DNA is scrambled.

As far as I can tell, Pauling did not have a medical license, however he had a lot of contacts in the field and was highly respected. It was a clinician who did the vitamin c studies. (Cameron)

There's no evidence that shrinking tumors affects survival.
Sure it might be a good plan to reduce tumor mass if it hurting the patient. Some chemo drugs do this very well.

Limbo
edit on 2-10-2012 by Limbo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Hey, thought this was a good place to say that there is a new website devoted to Fukushima protection that will be updated frequently. I liked it - found more info in there besides the good vit c tip. Also, it said not to use epsom salts...

Review


A new website that will be updated frequently is devoted to empowering people facing the effects of Fukushima. Whether you believe you're in danger or not, this is valuable information as we are exposed to radiation in a variety of ways regardless.

The Fukushima Radiation Protection site is designed to provide an understanding of the risks posed to Americans by the ongoing radiation crisis that began on March 11, 2011 at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan.

The site also discusses the many steps we can take now to help protect our health. No other site, to my knowledge, provides this dual approach or the comprehensive information on what to avoid and what to do. In the belief that knowledge is power, the site is designed to empower people to take important steps. As we face one of the greatest challenges to our health, the government and corporate media have been largely silent. So, we must inform and empower ourselves and each other.

...

Note: The Home section of the Fukushima Radiation Protection website links to a Quick Reference for people who are already aware of the dangers of the Fukushima radiation crisis and simply want to review steps on how to protect themselves.


Here's the site

www.fukushima-shield.info

PS- Not-for-profit and apparently the person running it doesn't take compensation for products they recommend
edit on 6-2-2014 by Kmhotaru because: Added PS



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 05:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Kluute

This is the first that I am hearing that vitamin C, in any form, counteracts radiation poisoning.

Up until now, the only things that I have heard of were potassium iodide and superoxide dismutase.

However, I have read that potassium iodide will protect only your thyroid gland (for a while), and superoxide dismutase when taken orally is totally ineffective and will do you no good for any purpose. Even if these things do some good for radiation sickness, their benefit(s) are very, very dubious for the long haul, especially if radiation not only poisons the food supply but eventually totally eradicates that food supply, this, not to mention, a cutting off of the sources of supplies to make liposomal vitamin C.

I have read that liposomal vitamin C confers no added benefit over regular vitamin C.


originally posted by: Drala
I also started making Lip C...and chronic fatigue is now more like Chronic WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! Honestly its the best thing I have ever used for a supplement, aches and pains are all gone, even a work injury form 2008...I almost don't notice it at all...actually in retrospect I have almost no pain and fatigue...almost like a bad dream I woke up from.


Like Drala, I suffer from aches and pains and fatigue. I have tried taking low-dose vitamin C supplementation periodically during the day, and, because certain health gurus recommend against taking a vitamin in isolation without all of its associated cofactors that are found in foods, I consume a food known to be rich in vitamin C along with the supplementation like a couple of strawberries, a tomato, kale, lemon juice in tea, lime juice in green tea, etc. I have noticed no difference in my being whatsoever by doing so, but every once in a while I do it anyway in the hopes of obtaining general health benefits. Similarly, I have noticed no effect from Ester-C supplementation.

Getting back to lemon juice: if you are concerned that regular vitamin C is acidic and, therefore, will turn your system acidic, then focus on consuming lemon juice (freshly squeezed, of course), Lemons, while highly acidic going into your system, are reputed to be the number one food to turn your system alkaline. Lemons are also highly regarded as being very good for general detoxification. The one drawback is that the acid of lemons may contribute to acid erosion of your teeth. I rinse my mouth with a weak solution of baking soda in water to neutralize the residual acid in my mouth after consuming lemon juice.

One more caveat: while some have recommended antioxidants in general to counteract radiation sickness, Dr. Oz warned (mostly in the context of vitamin C supplementation, if I remember correctly) that if you overdo the consumption of antioxidants, then they become pro-oxidants.

P.M.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Kluute

The article at www.examiner.com... includes an appendix written by Robert J. Rowen, MD.

I have read several other things written by Dr. Rowen, and while I do respect most of what he says, I will not go so far as to endorse him.

In the appendix, for radiation exposure, he recommends:
potassium iodide;
extra potassium supplementation;
iodine;
humic/fulvic acids;
EDTA, preferably intravenously;
chlorella;
products that offer brown seaweed (rich in alginates);
sulfur-bearing detoxification nutrients;
vitamin E and tocotrienols;
miso;
plus passing mention of vitamin C supplementation (2 – 8 grams daily) with NO MENTION OF LIPOSOMAL VITAMIN C.

This may be all well and good for a human's exposure to radiation...

but what is the radiation doing to pathogens?

If you read articles on antibiotic resistant bacteria (I could cite one, but it is an online promotion for a book) the question is this: have bacteria (some quite deadly) become antibiotic resistant due to repeated exposure to antibiotics (generally overprescribed, thus abused) or is this resistance phenomenon an outcome of accelerated evolution due to the radiation emitted from Chernobyl over the last three decades?

Tell me: what supplementation will counteract antibiotic resistant bacteria? Yogurt with active cultures??

Here are some of the pathogens that have become antibiotic resistant:
Gonorrhea;
MRSA;
VRE (vancomycin-resistant enterococcus), which is far more deadly than MRSA (100% fatal septicemia);
PRSP (penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae);
Vibrio vulnificus;
Syphilis;
TB;
and E. Coli.

So, does liposomal vitamin C do anything for these pathogens? And what does the radiation from Fukushima mean for the further accelerated evolution of pathogens? Will the radiation's effect on human DNA cause the human race to rapidly evolve in a direction very different from the evolution of pathogens presenting a doomsday scenario for the world?

Many direct deleterious effects of radiation, like cancer, can take years to be manifested. Certain pathogens can kill in hours.

P.M.



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
Radioactive contamination is everywhere and it will keep cycling thru the food chain until it finds you. It is not a disease, it is an element. It causes disease by irradiating nearby cells with gamma and X-rays. That is what causes mutations in the cells DNA and gives rise to incidences of cancer.

Vitamin C is not a cure for this or a shield or a grappling hook to get the bad stuff out of your system. There are things you can do that will most benefit you and protect you. Where did this report come from? Japan? The Government? Tepco? Scientists working for Tepco?


Hmm...

These data suggest that DU is a toxin that crosses the blood-brain barrier, producing behavioral changes in male rats and lipid oxidation regardless of gender in as little as 2 weeks in the rat.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


To establish if there is further evidence for the long-term oxidant stress injury in surviving Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) workers from Latvia.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


Chromosomal aberrations and parameters of oxidative stress in Chernobyl clean-up workers in a remote period after ionizing radiation www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


"Previous studies of wildlife at Chernobyl showed that chronic radiation exposure depleted antioxidants and increased oxidative damage. We found the opposite -- that antioxidant levels increased and oxidative stress decreased with increasing background radiation." www.sciencedaily.com...


No way!


These results suggest that plant flavonoids, which show antioxidative potency in vitro, work as antioxidants in vivo and their radioprotective effects may be attributed to their scavenging potency towards free radicals such as hydroxyl radicals.


Turns out that in the body radioactive elements function as oxidants. In nature plants produce antioxidants to deal with problems like these, or rather all abiotic (physical or chemical type) and biotic (biological type) stressors. For example, UV rays get converted into a a few different potential oxidants such as hydrogen peroxide, which should harm them except they then synthesize antioxidants such as superoxide dismutase.

When a plant starts to get sick in many cases its because their chemical factory's ability to maintain the right balance gets overloaded. A good example is this product called "Atonik", which is the natural anti-oxidant precursor chemical that plants first synthesize as the sort of 'fuel' they use to make the specific antioxidants they use to deal with their problems. I know of first and second hand accounts that plants treated with the stuff look healthier, one case point being an indoor grow up a friend reported that the grower went ape# with some nasty pesticides in a desperate attempt to kill indoor spidermites infestation. First time he used the 3 chem mix he settled on it badly damaged the plants it was just too much and broke their antioxidant index and also noticably poisoned the plants. Round 2 the grower added this Atonik stuff into the treatment and this time the plants came out looking healthier just days after because their internal mechanisms to fend off a poison attack were running on all cylinders with a full tank of high octane.

In review, ALL plants deals with ALL forms of stress via this oxidant/antioxidant balancing game.

Moving on, I've seen a decent lot of data from Chernobyl and more recently in Japan where the plants there consistently test as being depleted of antioxidants.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Bah, I've spent too much time on this post already.



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Bah, I've spent too much time on this post already.

Bah, is right. You are talking about plants?

The thread is about people. Put your plants inside if you want to protect them. As far as "helpful radioactive contamination?

Sell it to someone else.


(post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss removed for a manners violation)

posted on May, 20 2014 @ 10:54 PM
link   

a reply to: Kluute

Like Drala, I suffer from aches and pains and fatigue. I have tried taking low-dose vitamin C supplementation...


Try this:
Turmeric (Vitamin T) Vs. World Disease

The Disease & Drug Sections as follows:
Turmeric vs. Alcohol-Induced Disease
Turmeric vs. Alzheimer’s Disease
Turmeric vs. Arsenic Poisoning
Turmeric vs. Arthritis
Turmeric vs. Asthma
Turmeric vs. Brain Damage / Disorders
Turmeric vs. Cancer (Overview)
Turmeric vs. Cancer (Bile Duct)
Turmeric vs. Cancer (Bladder)
Turmeric vs. Cancer (Bone Marrow)
Turmeric vs. Cancer (Brain)
Turmeric vs. Cancer (Breast)
Turmeric vs. Cancer (Carcinoma)
Turmeric vs. Cancer (Cervical)
Turmeric vs. Cancer (Colon)
Turmeric vs. Cancer (Gallbladder)
Turmeric vs. Cancer (Gastric)
Turmeric vs. Cancer (Head & Neck)
Turmeric vs. Cancer (Leukemia)
Turmeric vs. Cancer (Liver)
Turmeric vs. Cancer (Lung)
Turmeric vs. Cancer (Lymphoma)
Turmeric vs. Cancer (Ocular)
Turmeric vs. Cancer (Oral / Throat)
Turmeric vs. Cancer (Ovarian)
Turmeric vs. Cancer (Pancreatic)
Turmeric vs. Cancer (Pituitary)
Turmeric vs. Cancer (Prostate)
Turmeric vs. Cancer (Skin)
Turmeric vs. Cancer (Testicular)
Turmeric vs. Cancer (Thyroid)
Turmeric vs. Cholesterol
Turmeric vs. Cystic Fibrosis
Turmeric vs. Depression
Turmeric vs. Diabetes
Turmeric vs. Free Radicals
Turmeric vs. Gastrointestinal Disorders
Turmeric vs. Gonorrhea
Turmeric vs. Heart Disease
Turmeric vs. HIV / AIDS (weak)
Turmeric vs. Hypertension
Turmeric vs. Inflammation
Turmeric vs. Jaundice
Turmeric vs. Kidney Damage
Turmeric vs. Liver Disorders
Turmeric vs. Lung Disease
Turmeric vs. Lupus
Turmeric vs. Mustard Gas
Turmeric vs. Obesity
Turmeric vs. Nerve Damage
Turmeric vs. Parkinson’s Disease
Turmeric vs. Rett Syndrome
Turmeric vs. Scabies
Turmeric vs. Skin Aging
Turmeric vs. Skin Burns & Wounds
Turmeric vs. Tooth Decay
edit on 20-5-2014 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Taking liposomal C caused me to develop a gastrointestinal bleed that healed after I'd been off it for a few weeks. Your mileage may vary.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss


Oxidants do the same thing to BIOLOGY (including bacteria) and antioxidants balance it out the same.

Balance out what, Radioactivity?

Understand the difference between biological and radiological.

Biologic is cellular, Radiological is atomic. Big difference. The body doesn't see the difference between elements that are stable and those that aren't . The bodies immune system doesn't detect radioactivity. The immune response to damage caused by radioactive contamination in or on the body is the only response the body can have.

In the case of ingested Isotopes and nuclides this response is limited to the damage caused, not isolating and ejecting the source of the damage. Ingested radioactive contamination is problematic in that it blasts nearby cells with ionizing radiation as long as the source is in or in close proximation to the body. This activity can mutate DNA strands and give rise to cancer.

You can ingest all the vitamins you like, you are only mitigating the damage caused by the source, not removing the source itself. Some sources activity (or Half life) is much longer than the history of Mankind.

My go to pic of what the damage path appears like "radiologically" speaking.

Alpha tracks



posted on May, 22 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

No offense, but you clearly no no clue at all about biology (sophisticated CHEMISTRY) and how it deals with things like 'natural' radiation to exist. Chemistry can only deal with the things it faces with chemistry. Sure, YOU can deal with a bully that hits you by hitting back. In this instance neither event could happen without chemistry, because its a chemical being attacking another being (of chemistry). You can use your mind to go on a computer and 'speak' your mind with your chemical appendages driven by your chemical brain. The way you react to the information that comes across the chemical screen of your chemical computer will have your chemical brain promptly synthesize hormonal chemicals to drive your chemically driven responses. If you get excited in whatever way by this chemical experience odds are you might inhale more chemical air so that you can get more of the Oxygen element into yours chemical reactor. Chemistry is the mixing of elements. Everything that is, was, or ever will be is chemistry... including the 'empty' 'air' (as long as earth has an atmosphere). Consider it a fundamental 'law' (please somebody more wise and intelligent than me correct me on this concept).

No matter what fancy words you can use it's inescapable that all things, elements in particular are the world of chemistry itself. A study of chemistry is a study of science, so chuck your superstitions aside oh environmentally pious one.

Now that you might possibly have an understandable framework for how to understand 'reality' (that wouldn't exist without chemistry because all this is is just that), now realize that all chemistry is the 'soup' of elements. Therefore beyond the mere existence of elements and said results, there's no 'magic' to be found here. These radioactive isotopes still fall within this proper set of LAWS. Even the madmade elements. There's no escaping this reality as clearly without these things there is no reality to be discussed, ever.

Now one might point out that radio, light, gamma, etc WAVES aren't 'proper chemistry'. Okay, but lets not forget that in the lack of chemistry ('space') the sources of these 'waves' disappear. Unplug your TV from the wall and hit it with a sledgehammer, then burn it in a fire. Turn off the radio. Whatever. Now of course (especially chemical man-made elements the subsequent chemicals) certain elements dont just go away, and now we're back on point. But it doesnt matter we have chemistry based elements doing thing to elements. There's nothing mysterious here. In fact, many manmade elements might just be more well understood than many that are not.

If that might be the case, considering that mans fear of the unknown is so well documented perhaps that might be the new media fearmongering campaign you anti-chemistry trolls can use to 'hopefully' cause people to commit suicide?

Off topic? Hardly since you clearly have no clue how the 'world' works. On point, the health of chemical beings is all about balance (chemically speaking). All plants require water, yet with most plants too much water will kill them (an unbalance often easily achieved). Plants, the source of every known "vitamin" (a concept more than a reality considering Curcuminoids aren't yet declared a 'vitamin'). What are 'Vitamins', or rather what are 'antioxidants'? Same thing, as far as we're concerned.

If you've bothered to read anything I've said or cited you should have noted how ALL plants deal with ALL forms of stress by chemistry. They convert even waves such as UV or 'the 'radiation' boogeyman into chemistry, and then mitigate them with chemistry. You think this is somehow different with 'magical' humans? Yes plants are biological, and biology is the most sophisticated form of chemistry, but just because humans are the most advanced form of biology we know about doesn't inherently insert any 'magic' into this equation.

And there it is: We're prone to the same chemical balancing game as those hyper-primitive plants. We MUST eat plants to maintain the balance. When the balance goes out of whack, as is the case with about most of 'America', well nevermind.

I'd wager you wont even read this, and respond in sweeping hyperbole, but assuming you might be an actual person who admires insight, well here it is: living organisms, no matter how complex, all face the same game: aging causing oxidation (corrosion) vs. antioxidant preservation. That's the balance. There wouldn't even be a discussion here if not. The concept of 'Vitamins' wouldnt exist. Yet this is all the result of mismash mixing of elements. Its not unlike pH.
altered-states.net...
Majority of the body tries to maintain, needs to be about centerline pH.

Radioactive isoptopes? They cause chemical reaction in biological organisms in the form of oxidation. Biological organisms (bacteria, plants, animals, etc) respond with antioxidants to bring the equation back to balance, that is how health is maintained. Exposure to oxidants is part of being. Likewise, too many antioxidants can also cause cancer etc. Too much or too little water will kill a plant. Too low or too high pH will burn/dissolve your skin. Too much or too little antioxidants cause health problems such as cancer (in particular).

Dry roots: pour on some water; not too much but more than usual. Too high pH? Neutralize it gently with some vinegar (in this case a large potential difference will cause a chemical reaction). Over exposure to oxidants? Attack them with more antioxidants than is normally needed (we're all exposed to 'radiation' every single day this is part of life on-earth / in-universe).

In any event regardless of anything in this post, this thread was started with science and my opening comment added many more citations to back it up. So far you haven't directly dealt with any of it especially not scientifically. PLEASE cite some scientific literature and put all of us 'environmental heretics' to bed oh wise one.
edit on 22-5-2014 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss


(we're all exposed to 'radiation' every single day this is part of life on-earth / in-universe).

From outside, yah. Radiation from outside sources passes through us and is gone. Single gamma rays, X-rays, cosmic rays from far away sources. Like comets and asteroids passing thru the solar system. Collisions are rare.

Its when the sources for these "rays" get inside us. Like that pic of the Plutonium atom in the lung of an ape. A good analogy is to stand in the middle of a room and fire a machine gun in all directions making swiss cheese of your room.

Make sure you have plenty of ammo, the half-life of your machine gun is 24,000 years. Firing miniature speed of light bullets into nearby cells will destroy some cells killing them. Others don't die, they heal. But might mutate the next time they divide, thus giving rise to incidences of cancer.

Microbiology is as vulnerable to this kind of bombardment as you are to machine gun bullets fired into you at point blank range. Or fired from inside you in all directions.

Every little particle of radioactive contamination is a "source" of radiation that, unlike an X-ray machine, has no off switch.





new topics
top topics
active topics
 
57
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join