How Safe’s Your Drinking Water?

admin — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:31:21 +0000

A U.S. Geological Survey team sampled the Potomac River’s waters (part of a nationwide survey, 2003-2005) to check for nearly 300 new contaminants. Some information on what they found…
The U.S. Geological Survey published this fact sheet detailing their findings that 85 out of 277 manmade compounds were found at least once in water at the Washington Aqueduct. And of the 26 most commonly detected compounds, two-thirds were found in the treated water.

We were involved, as part of our national program, in a study here at the Potomac River, at the Washington Aqueduct water facility, to look at both source waters, which are just the waters coming straight out of the river, and then also to sample finished water that’s gone through the treatment plant. This is part of a larger study that’s taking place in several locations across the country from here to Boston, the Midwest, Texas, Oregon, to get a broad cross section of public water supplies from the ambient water here in the river to the treatment plant. …

I don’t think most people think about their drinking water coming from a river like the Potomac right here. Somebody else’s wastewater may be up the river and then it becomes drinking water?

Oh, yes. The Potomac River … is over 11,000 square miles. It’s a mix of forest, agriculture and urban land use, so there’s sewage treatment outfalls up north; there’s industrial outfalls; there’s a lot of water coming off of forest, which is pretty clean. That’s the majority of the land use. And there’s a good bit of agricultural runoff during storms and also from groundwater input. …

What did your study find in the Potomac in terms of standard contaminants and new contaminants?

… We also are looking at a broad range of chemicals to find out if they’re there. Many of them aren’t things we have standards for. They are organic, manmade chemicals, so it’s good to find out if they’re there, and we do have analytic techniques to do that now for many of those chemicals.

So what did you find?

… We found 85 of 277 compounds were detected once here in the Potomac River. … Only 35 of those compounds were detected what we consider frequently, which was greater than 20 percent of the samples. There were a few that were detected year-around — just a few. They were all detected at part-per-billion levels, which are generally lower than any health standards we have. So even though many compounds were detected, we didn’t exceed any existing standards in this river.

Does that mean it’s safe, or does that mean there just are no standards established and maybe we haven’t looked at them closely enough?

About half of the compounds had some kind of guideline to compare to for human health, and they were below that. About half of them don’t, so those are places … where toxicologists need to do some more research. …

What did you find in terms of the treatment plants along the Potomac here, particularly, say, the Washington Aqueduct?

We sampled the finished water at the Washington Aqueduct, and we found about two-thirds of the compounds we detected were still detected in finished water. There were a few that disappear altogether, and there were some that are probably created in treatment. … They were all still below existing standards in the treated water, too. …

[Did you find the same kinds of things in the other areas that were studied — Colorado, Texas, Massachusetts, Indiana?]

… Yes, we see similar concentrations and similar-type chemicals in other areas.

And is this going to lead to further testing?

Yes. Now we’ve done nine sites, and USGS [U.S. Geological Survey] wants to do 30 by 2012 for these, so we have a really good preliminary assessment … in many different river basins of different sizes with different land uses upstream of the intake.

Robert Lawrence
Johns Hopkins School of Public Health
lawrence

The USGS study is an important contribution to our understanding of just how widespread these manmade compounds are in the water supply. …

My response as a public health person is that we should take those USGS data and use them to inform the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] in developing much more appropriate clean water standards, which up to this point have not included monitoring and measuring all these organic chemicals. … Whenever you find trace amounts of that many chemicals in our water supply — and we know that some of those chemicals, even at parts of 1 per million or 1 per billion, are physiologically active — yes, that’s a real cause of concern.

You said the EPA should get the information and start drafting things, but the EPA can take a decade to draft rules. Do we have an urgent problem here?

The urgency is in protecting the watershed of water systems for our great cities and rural areas as well. And unfortunately, we have not had a very effective cooperation either between states or within regions to do that. And protecting a watershed means not allowing these chemicals to get in the source water to begin with.

So that means banning the chemicals.

It means restricting their use, and in some cases, yes, we may have to ban them. If we found, for example, that a particular chemical is repeatedly linked with serious health consequences, whether endocrine disruption or causing cancer or causing some other problem like autism, then I think we would need a ban.

Most of these things, there is no detectable safe limit available. That’s the frustrating part of it. We know that when you do a risk analysis of things that are parts per million, parts per billion, parts per trillion, that it is a continuous variable, so at some point you may have reduced the risk to the point where perhaps only 1 in 5 million exposed Americans will have a bad health consequence.

At that point, you have to have a political decision. What are the trade-offs? Are we willing to allow that level of risk in order to have this economic benefit, etc.? That debate needs to start.

Were you surprised by the findings of this USGS study, or did that fit with what you thought was probably going on?

I was surprised by the number of different compounds that were detectable. I knew we were swimming in a sea of chemical soup, but I didn’t realize the soup was quite as concentrated as it is.

… Is there a danger that if a level of a particular compound were acceptable and another one were acceptable, that you start to put a bunch of them together and then that’s no longer a safe level?

You put your finger on one of the real concerns about toxicology. It may be safe to have a little bit of compound A or a little bit of compound B, but when the two of them are together, there’s synergism, and they become really deadly. Sorting that out from a data collection and epidemiologic analysis perspective is a really difficult thing to do, but we need to get on with it, because that’s exactly the kind of concern when you have so many different compounds entering the human body. …

If you’re talking to a drinking-water system manager who says, “I’m following the EPA’s instructions; we’re holding down all the substances that the EPA has identified, and therefore your water is safe,” do you buy that? Is the water safe?

The water is safe from a bacteriologic and parasite basis, maybe from a viral basis, but not from a chemical basis. … We have no methods in place now to regulate the entry into the water system of endocrine disruptors. …

Part of the dilemma is that there are so many of these compounds to try to evaluate, and the testing procedures are so expensive. It costs $800 to do a single test of a water sample or food sample or a blood sample from a patient for dioxin. At $800 a test, you cannot accumulate the kind of data that you need to make the scientific validation as firm as most skeptics … will accept as proof.

Thomas Jacobus
General Manager, Washington Aqueduct
jacobus

… How tough is the challenge just to keep up with all [the] new sources of pollutants?

Fortunately, the drinking-water process is very effective. It can remove particles. It can remove chemicals, organics, inorganics. It can disinfect and get rid of the microbial activity.

But it was designed for a water source where … you had an idea of what was out there. But as new elements come in — synthetics, herbicides, pesticides, pharmaceuticals –[and] enter the water stream in concentrations because of more advanced development, more human activity, more animal activity, more commercial activity, those things, as they get in the water, make it harder for us to do our job. There’s no question about that.

You’re just racing to keep up with the change?

Right, and the real challenge is to figure out what to do, because we know a lot about water treatment. The water treatment industry throughout the United States is just excellent, but the treatment process you use really has to match what it is you’re trying to treat. …

Today I drink the water with great confidence, because our water meets the regulations. But of course, the question is, do the regulations match the threat? For now I think they do, but there’s this whole concept of emerging contaminants — contaminants that we’re learning even more about, we’re able to see at lower concentration levels than we were able to measure before. And then the logical question is, what is the effect of those on the river, on the fish, the plant life, and then, eventually, as you use that water for drinking, on the humans? …

You’ve been here how many years?

I’ve been here 15 years.

… Over that period of time, how often has whoever determines water-quality standards changed the standards and said: “Look, there are new chemicals out there. … You’ve got to put new filters in”? …

… Every couple of years, there are fundamental rule changes that change some aspect of the water treatment. They do that to be increasingly more protective of the public as they look at both acute possibilities and the long-term, chronic effects of exposure to water over a lifetime and knowledge of some of the chemicals that we put into the water. Even disinfection byproducts, which are created at very minute levels, we’ve changed the treatment to manage those. We’re always evolving on a parallel track with the technology [not only] to be able to do things, but to determine what that technology ought to be to meet the public health.

So we’ve got EPA, but we also have the health component and the Centers for Disease Control. And all those people feed information in as we figure out what treatment do we need to put in place to create a water that is continuously healthful. …

Health experts, other people talk to us about tens of thousands of new chemicals being used in one industry or another, from personal health care to road construction to automobiles. How many of these tens of thousands of chemicals can your Washington Aqueduct scientists keep up with?

We keep up with all the regulated chemicals. … We test here in our laboratories and send out for a few others, about 350 different substances either physical, organic, inorganic, synthetics, those kind of things. And over the course of a year, we will conduct about 65,000 tests daily, weekly, monthly, on various frequencies, depending on what it is we’re interested in looking at. We will evaluate that, and then we will report all that data back to the EPA. We report it to the public in a confidence report. …

What about unregulated substances? That’s the frontier.

And the problem is this: It’s a science issue. How do you test for something if you don’t have a test for it? One of the things that has to happen is you have to identify those exceptions, and then you have to create a laboratory method, so everybody can use the same method to get the same result.

[Did the results of the USGS survey at the Washington Aqueduct indicate to you that there’s a problem?]

It’s a problem that we need to figure out the dynamics of whether or not what gets through does have a human health effect. That’s the issue that has to be determined. Yes, we can measure at very low levels these things do get through the treatment plant, but USGS, in their work, will tell you that they’re not trying to determine what the efficacy of the treatment is; they’re trying to determine what is out there.

And so then we will take that information — “we,” the nation, the international community — will take that information and look at the health effects of that. First thing they ought to do is look at keeping it out of the water in the first place. Don’t put the pills in the toilet to go to the river. Don’t have the runoff from the cattle-feeding operations. Don’t do all of those things. Be more careful. That’s the easy part, because if you don’t put it in the water, then you don’t have to take it out.

But the quantities that we’re dealing with, we don’t know if those quantities are harmful. We don’t think they are.

Linda Birnbaum
Director, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
birnbaum

When you looked at that list that [the USGS] found, were there chemical compounds in the Washington Aqueduct intake water that were of concern to you in terms of their potential impact on human health?

Are there chemicals of concern? Yes. … In that specific study, what was reported has some chemicals that I would rather not see in the water.

But to the point where you’re worried about human health, or is it just why take the risk?

I think at this point the levels are very, very low, so I don’t have a great deal of concern that something needs to be done imminently, but it would certainly be nice to reduce what’s getting into the water so that we can avoid human exposure.

Nice? Or safer? Or necessary?

It’s a hard question. I think it would be important to try to prevent environmental chemicals from getting into our drinking-water supply. …

Risk is related not only to hazard — in other words, can they cause an effect? — but also the issue of dose. You need enough exposure as well to the chemical. So there are very low levels present in the drinking water. … People only drink this water a little bit at a time. They’re not in it and exposed continuously 24 hours a day, seven days a week for their lifetime.

… Do you know what the safe levels are?

In most cases, we don’t know what the safe levels are. And some of the new science is suggesting that levels that we used to think were safe may in fact not be safe.

For humans.

For humans. So we’re finding in certain cases that much lower levels than we previously thought were a problem may in fact have the potential to harm at least some segment of the population. We’re not all alike. There’s differential genetic susceptibility between people. There’s differential age susceptibility between people. Our susceptibility can be influenced not only by the environmental chemicals that we’re exposed to but by the different foods that we eat, which can affect the way that our body handles some of these different chemicals. So you have a wide range in the susceptibility of the human population, and while you may not be susceptible to a certain exposure, maybe I will. …

Is it alarmist for somebody to say they wouldn’t be drinking this water based on the chemicals being in there?

I wouldn’t raise the alarm. I think that the levels of the chemicals in the water are very, very low. I would like to see them continue to decrease. … A couple of years ago, when lead was reported in the Washington drinking water, I’d be out there beating the drum, saying those levels are high enough that they could potentially cause problems. These levels are really very, very low. … Very honestly, the levels of chemicals in our finished drinking water are much lower than the levels of chemicals you find in most bottled water that you buy in the grocery store.

Share This

KYK UL Approval

admin — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:27:04 +0000

Good news: KYK will have UL approval for the KYK Genesis in the US and Canada at the end of May, to go along with it’s many other certifications for safety and performance, making it the most certified and approved water ionizer in existence.

Currently no other water ionizer distributor in the US or Canada has UL approval for their products, except Enagic. Life displays the UL graphic on their site but they are lying. Tyent is not UL approved. Neither is Jupiter.

Right now there are fake review websites owned by Life claiming KYK is unsafe because they are not UL approved. They are actually just mad because we forced them to remove our products from their site and are seeking retaliation. Truth is, they are lying about their UL approval and then saying our products are unsafe because we don’t have it.

Thanks,

Alderin Ordell
www.waterforlifeusa.com

Share This

A New Danger to Kidneys

admin — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:24:51 +0000

Parade Magazine:
by Dr. Ranit Mishor

In the last decade, cases of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the U.S. have increased by 30%. An estimated 26 million Americans are affected, according to the National Kidney Foundation.

The kidneys—two bean-shaped structures found just below the ribs in your back —filter blood and excrete harmful chemicals. Kidney damage reduces the body’s ability to get rid of waste and affects blood pressure, bone strength, and blood production. Even low levels of kidney disease contribute to heart failure, arterial disease, and strokes.

The leading risk factors for CKD are diabetes and high blood pressure, followed by weight gain and smoking. Now a study suggests a link between soda consumption and kidney disease. Researchers at Loyola University in Chicago found that women of normal weight who drink two or more cans of soda a day are nearly twice as likely to show early signs of CKD. The same effect was not found in men or in people who drink diet soda.

The authors looked at data from more than 9000 adults. They suggest that the culprit may be the high-fructose corn syrup in many sodas. Others believe the phosphorus found in some sodas could be the problem.

Share This

admin — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:54:00 +0000

Share This

A New Approach to Migraine Treatment

admin — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:53:45 +0000

By Kulreet Chaudhary, M.D., Scripps Memorial Hospital La Jolla

According to an old saying, you are what you eat. Now, according to new research, your migraine headaches might be a result of what you eat, too.
In one sense, this is nothing new. Most migraine sufferers, as well as neurologists who manage migraines, know there is a connection between food and the onset of these extremely painful headaches. Many people who have migraines know that certain foods act as triggers; the most common culprits include chocolate, red wine, cheese, and other foods high in nitrates. Neurologists, in turn, will tell people to simply avoid these foods. However, until now we haven’t taken the next step of studying the greater relationship between digestion and migraine—a relationship that a study in the medical journal Headache suggests is highly significant.
The research came about almost by accident. A pharmaceutical company commissioned a study to determine how to better manufacture one of its migraine drugs to increase the drug’s bioavailability, or ability to be used by the body. The researchers approached the task by examining the gastrointestinal system of migraine sufferers to analyze what happened to the drug as it passed through the digestive process. It was already common knowledge that during migraine attacks, people often have nausea, vomiting, and loss of appetite. This research, however, showed that abnormalities in the digestive tract occurred not only during migraine attacks, but between them as well.
The implication that improving gastrointestinal function might help better control migraine headaches was groundbreaking. It suggested a whole new approach to treating migraine: advise patients on what they should be eating and drinking instead of just what they shouldn’t.
This is exactly what I have found in my practice. I have yet to encounter a patient who has migraine headaches and normal digestive function. As I started to ask my patients about their digestive symptoms during as well as between migraine attacks, I heard them mention symptoms such as gas, bloating, sleepiness after eating, constipation or diarrhea, or feeling like they never fully digested their food. Now, in addition to asking patients about their headaches, I take a detailed history of their diet. Based on the type of migraines and any other health issues they have, I make recommendations about what type of diet they should be choosing. Invariably, patients have been able to reduce the number of headaches they have and begin tapering off of their migraine medications. (In fact, many migraine medications impair digestion and actually exacerbate the problem.)
So what is the best “migraine diet”? There isn’t one. Everything you eat translates into a biochemical and neurochemical phenomenon in your body and is influenced by other physiological factors. Dietary recommendations are highly individualized to the patient and his or her specific health conditions. Someone who has migraines and also has diabetes or thyroid disease has very different nutritional needs than someone who only has headaches. Even the type of migraine headache makes a difference. We create a detailed diet for each patient that is not only specific to her physiology, but also changes over time as her physiology changes.
What we’re learning from this “accidental” research has been well understood for thousands of years in ancient medical traditions. In Chinese and Ayurvedic medicine, for example, the approach to migraine treatment always begins with diet. By focusing on the science of migraine headaches and how lifestyle factors such as diet, environment and stress influence your physiology, we are on the path to discovering “natural” cures for migraine headache.

Kulreet Chaudhary, M.D., is a neurologist at Scripps Memorial Hospital La Jolla. Join Dr. Chaudhary for a free presentation on traditional and alternative treatments for migraines on Wednesday, Feb. 4, at 6 p.m. in the Schaetzel Center on the Scripps La Jolla campus. For more information or to register, please call 1-800-SCRIPPS. “To Your Health” is brought to you by the physicians and staff at Scripps Memorial Hospital La Jolla.

Share This

Bottled Water Contaminated

admin — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:09:12 +0000

Bottled water has contaminants too, study finds

By JEFF DONN, AP National Writer Posted Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:17pm PDT

45 votes
Buzz up!

Sweden’s second city Gothenburg has decided to stop buying bottled water due to environmental concerns and will only provide civil servants with tap water, a city councillor said Thursday.(AFP/File/Teh Eng Koon)

- Tests on leading brands of bottled water turned up a variety of contaminants often found in tap water, according to a study released Wednesday by an environmental advocacy group.

The findings challenge the popular impression — and marketing pitch — that bottled water is purer than tap water, the researchers say.

However, all the brands met federal health standards for drinking water. Two violated a California state standard, the study said.

An industry group branded the findings “alarmist.” Joe Doss, president of the International Bottled Water Association, said the study is based on the faulty premise that a contaminant is a health concern “even if it does not exceed the established regulatory limit or no standard has been set.”

The study’s lab tests on 10 brands of bottled water detected 38 chemicals including bacteria, caffeine, the pain reliever acetaminophen, fertilizer, solvents, plastic-making chemicals and the radioactive element strontium. Though some probably came from tap water that some companies use for their bottled water, other contaminants probably leached from plastic bottles, the researchers said.

“In some cases, it appears bottled water is no less polluted than tap water and, at 1,900 times the cost, consumers should expect better,” said Jane Houlihan, an environmental engineer who co-authored the study.

The two-year study was done by the Washington-based Environmental Working Group, an organization founded by scientists that advocates stricter regulation. It found the contaminants in bottled water purchased in nine states and Washington, D.C.

Researchers tested one batch for each of 10 brands. Eight did not have contaminants high enough to warrant further testing. But two brands did, so more tests were done and those revealed chlorine byproducts above California’s standard, the group reported. The researchers identified those two brands as Sam’s Choice sold by Wal-Mart and Acadia of Giant Food supermarkets.

In the Wal-Mart and Giant Food bottled water, the highest concentration of chlorine byproducts, known as trihalomethanes, was over 35 parts per billion. California’s limit is 10 parts per billion or less, and the industry’s International Bottled Water Association makes 10 its voluntary guideline. The federal limit is 80.

Wal-Mart said its own studies did not turn up illegal levels of contaminants. Giant Food officials released a statement asserting that Acadia meets all regulatory standards. Acadia is sold in the mid-Atlantic states, so it isn’t held to California’s standard. In most places, bottled water must meet roughly the same federal standards as tap water.

The researchers also said the Wal-Mart brand was five times California’s limit for one particular chlorine byproduct, bromodichloromethane. The environmental group wants Wal-Mart to label its bottles in California with a warning because the chlorine-based contaminants have been linked with cancer. It has filed a notice of intent to sue.

Wal-Mart spokeswoman Shannon Frederick said the company was “puzzled” by the findings because testing by suppliers and another lab had detected no “reportable amounts” of such contaminants. She said Wal-Mart would investigate further but defended the quality of its bottled water.

The researchers recommend that people worried about water contaminants drink tap water with a carbon filter.

___

On the Net:

Environmental Working Group: http://www.ewg.org

Share This

Water Story from WFL Affiliate Manny Wallace

admin — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:52:29 +0000

When I was growing up in the 1960’s, my dad would always tell jokes. One of his favorites was the water joke which went like this. One day, a gent walks into a bar and tells the bartender that he can name any drink blindfolded and would bet the price of the drink on that. The bartender went through several different drinks and the gent named each one correctly. So, the bartender sat up a glass of water. The gent drank the water and spat it out immediately. When the bartender asked the gent what it was, the gent replied, “I don’t know, but they’ll never be able to sell it!!”

He didn’t know how wrong he was. The soda pop companies have duped you into buying their “bottled water.” Dasani, from Coca-Cola, Deja Blue from Seven-Up, and Aquafina from Pepsi. What these companies have done is to take the water they have added syrup to for a long time, bottle it, and sell it on the market for more than the soda. There are also many local water companies in all areas of the country. What most people do not understand is that the bottle is made from petroleum. They store these bottles in warehouses where temperatures can reach over 140 degrees. This leaches toxins into the water before you ever open the bottle. I have also done ph tests on the water that comes from these companies, only to find it an acidic 5.5 ph. It is actually dehydrating you. The soda is a 2.7 ph. The body needs 7.365 ph in order to operate holistically. Anything less than that creates illness and disease that could otherwise be avoided.

When I was in the military, I had the opportunity to spend two years on Okinawa, Japan. Recently, something dawned on me. I didn’t see any of the people there in wheelchairs or walkers, and rarely saw one on a cane. There was no handicapped parking places there off the base.

They eat a lot of fish products and drink a lot of green tea. Green tea has a ph of around 9.0. I worked with Okinawan civilians there that were older gents. I’m not sure how old they were, but they had excellent mobility and didn’t seem to ever be in much pain.

When I am out in public, I have my water with me in dark blue bottles to preserve the freshness of the charge from my machine. This attracts people who have questions about where they can buy the water. We have regressed since the 1960’s to the common practice of buying water. I no longer drink anything that does not come from my machine other than some milk. I make my coffee out of it.

I have never experienced anything that makes me feel like the water from the machine does. I found out that my diet wasn’t just about what I eat, it is also about what I drink. If you do not currently have one of these machines in your home, then the water you are drinking is a joke. Unfortunately, it isn’t funny like the joke listed above once was.

Manny Wallace
702-765-4183
http://www.waterforlifeusa.com/dealer/Manny.Wallace/

Share This

John Hopkins Report on Cancer

admin — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:49:42 +0000

Subject: John Hopkins Report

AFTER YEARS OF TELLING PEOPLE CHEMOTHERAPY IS THE ONLY WAY TO TRY AND
ELIMINATE CANCER,
JOHN HOPKINS IS FINALLY STARTING TO TELL YOU THERE IS: an alternative way.

Cancer Update from John Hopkins

1. Every person has cancer cells in the
body. These cancer cells do not show up in the standard tests until they
havemultiplied to a few billion. When doctors tell cancer patients that
there areno more cancer cells in their bodies after treatment, it just
means the testsare unable to detect the cancer cells because they have
not reached the detectable size.

2. Cancer cells occur between 6 to more
than 10 times in a person’s lifetime

3. When the person’s immune system is
strong the cancer cells will be destroyed and prevented from multiplying
and forming tumors.

4. When a person has cancer it indicates
the person has multiple nutritional deficiencies. These could be due to
genetic, environmental, food and lifestyle factors.

5. To over come the multiple nutritional
deficiencies, changing diet and including supplements will strengthen
the immune system.

6. Chemotherapy involves poisoning the
rapidly-growing cancer cells and also destroys rapidly-growing healthy
cells in the bone marrow, gastrointestinal tract etc, and can cause
organ damag e, likeliver, kidneys, heart, lungs etc.

7. Radiation while destroying cancer
cells also burns, scars and damages healthy cells, tissues and organs.

8. Initial treatment with chemotherapy
and radiation will often reduce tumor size. However prolonged use of
chemotherapy and radiation do not result in more tumor destruction.

9 When the body has too much toxic burden
from chemotherapy and radiation the immune system is either compromised
or destroyed, hence the person can succumb to various kinds of
infections and complications.

10. Chemotherapy and radiation can cause
cancer cells to mutate and become resistant and difficult to destroy.
Surgery can also cause cancer cells to spread to other sites.

11. An effective way to battle cancer is
to starve the cancer cells by not feeding it with the foods it needs to
multiply.

CANCER CELLS FEED ON:
a. Sugar is a cancer-feeder. By cuttingoff sugar it cuts off one
important food supply to the cancer cells. Sugarsubstitutes like
NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, etc are made with Aspartame andit is
harmful.

A better natural substitute would be Manuka honey or molasses
but only in very small amounts. Table salt has a chemical added to make
itwhite in color. Better alternative is Bragg’s aminos or sea salt.

b. Milk causes the body to produce mucus,
especially in the gastrointestinal tract. Cancer feeds on mucus. By
cutting off milk and substituting with unsweetened soy milk cancer cells
are being starved.

c. Cancer cells thrive in an acid
environment. A meat-based diet is acidic and it is best to eat fish, and
a
little chicken rather than beef or pork. Meat also contains livestock
antibiotics, growth hormones and parasites, which are all harmful,
especially to people with cancer.

d. A diet made of 80% fresh vegetables
and juice, whole grains, seeds, nuts and a little fruits help put the
body intoan alkaline environment. About 20% can be from cooked food
including beans. Fresh vegetable juices provide live enzymes that are
easily absorbed and reach down to cellular levels within 15 minutes to
nourish and enhance grow th of healthy cells. To obtain live enzymes for
building healthy cells try and drink fresh vegetable juice (most
vegetables including bean sprouts)and eat some raw
vegetables 2 or 3 times a day. Enzymes are destroyed at temperatures of
104degrees F (40 degrees C).

e. Avoid coffee, tea, and chocolate,
which have high caffeine. Green tea is a better alternative and has
cancer-fighting properties. Water-best to drink purified water, or
filtered, to avoid known toxins and heavy metals in tap water. Distilled
water is acidic,avoid it.

12. Meat protein is difficult to digest
and requires a lot of digestive enzymes. Undigested meat remaining in
theintestines become putrified and leads to more toxic buildup.

13. Cancer cell walls have a tough
protein covering. By refraining from or eating less meat it frees more
enzymes to attack the protein walls of cancer cells and allows the
body’s killer cells to destroy the cancer cells.

14. Some supplements build up the immune
system (IP6, Flor-ssence, Essiac, anti-oxidants, vitamins, minerals,
EFAs etc.) to enable the bodies own killer cells to destroy cancer
cells. Other supplements like vitamin E are known to cause apoptosis,
or programmed cell death, the body’s normal method of disposing of
damaged, unwanted, or unneeded cells.

15. Cancer is a disease of the mind,
body, and spirit. A proactive and positive spirit will help the cancer
warrior be a survivor. Anger, unforgiveness and bitterness put the body
into a stressful and acidic environment. Learn to have a loving and
forgiving spirit. Learn to relax and enjoy life.
16. Cancer cells cannot thrive in an oxygenated environment. Exercising
daily, and deep breathing help to get more
oxygen down to the cellular level. Oxygen therapy is another means
employed to destroy cancer cells.
PLEASE FORWARD IT TO PEOPLE YOU CARE
ABOUT

1. No plastic containers in micro.
2. No water bottles in freezer.

3. No plastic wrap in microwave.

Johns Hopkins has recently sent this out
in its newsletters. This information is being circulated at Walter Reed
Army Medical Center as well.

Dioxin chemicals cause cancer, especially
breast cancer. Dioxins are highly poisonous to the cells of our bodies.
Don’t freeze your plastic bottles with water in them as this releases
dioxins from the plastic. Recently, Dr. Edward Fujimoto, Wellness
Program Manager at Castle Hospital was on a TV program to explain this
health hazard. He talked about dioxins and how bad they are for us.

He said that we should not be heating our food in the microwave using
plastic containers. This especially applies to foods that contain fat.
He said that the combination of fat, high heat, andplastics releases
dioxin into the food and ultimately into the cells of the body. Instead,
he SAYS, use glass, such as Corning Ware, Pyrex or ceramic containers
for heating food. You get the same results, only without the dioxin.
So such things as TV dinners, instant ramen and soups, etc., should be
removed from the container and heated in something else.

Paper isn’t bad but you don’t know what is in the paper. It’s just safer
to use tempered glass, Corning Ware, etc. He reminded us that a while
ago some of the fast food restaurants moved away from the foam
containers to paper. The dioxin problem is one of the reasons. Also, he
pointed out that plastic wrap,such as Saran, is just as dangerous when
placed over foods to be cooked in the microwave. As the food is nuked,
the high heat causes poisonous toxins to actually melt out of the
plastic wrap and drip into the food. Cover food with a paper towel
instead

This is an article that should be sent to
anyone important in your life.

Share This

Water for Life USA Blog

How Safe’s Your Drinking Water?

KYK UL Approval

A New Danger to Kidneys

A New Approach to Migraine Treatment

Research from Affiliate Dan Bianco

Bottled Water Contaminated

Water Story from WFL Affiliate Manny Wallace

John Hopkins Report on Cancer