10 Facts About Water Fluoridation Everyone Should Know

On March 15, the New Hampshire House of Representatives voted 253-23 in favor of mandating infant fluoride warnings on all water bills in fluoridated communities. The bill will now go to the Senate

According to the text of the bill, the warning would read, in part: “According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, if your child under the age of 6 months is exclusively consuming infant formula reconstituted with fluoridated water, there may be an increased chance of dental fluorosis.” But dental fluorosis is not “just cosmetic.” It can also be an indication that other tissues, such as your bones and internal organs, including your brain, has been overexposed to fluoride as well

A repeated theme in recent cases where communities successfully removed fluoride from their water supply is the shifting of the burden of proof. Rather than citizens taking on the burden of proving that fluoride is harmful and should be removed, champions in positions of some authority have managed to end water fluoridation in their communities by demanding that any fluoride product used must be able to prove its compliance with the regulations, laws, and risk assessments already required for safe drinking water

1. Bottle-fed infants receive the highest doses of fluoride as they rely solely on liquids for food, combined with their small size. A baby being fed formula receives approximately 175 times more fluoride than a breast-fed infant
2. There is not a single process in your body that requires fluoride
3. A multi-million dollar U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) -funded study found no relation between tooth decay and the amount of fluoride ingested by children
4. Water fluoridation cannot prevent the oral health crises that results from inadequate nutrition and lack of access to dental care
5. Water fluoridation is a violation of your individual right to informed consent to medication
6. Forty-one percent of all American children aged 12-15 are now impacted by dental fluorosis, rising to more than sixty percent of children in fluoridated communities
7. The chemicals used to fluoridate water supplies are largely hazardous by-products of the fertilizer industry and have never been required to undergo randomized clinical trials for safety or effectiveness by any regulatory agency in the world
8. The U.S. FDA classifies ingested fluoride for purposes of reducing tooth decay as an "unapproved drug"
9. Ingesting fluoride has been found to damage soft tissues (brain, kidneys, and endocrine system), as well as teeth (dental fluorosis) and bones (skeletal fluorosis). There are also 24 studies demonstrating a strong relationship between fairly modest exposure to fluoride and reduced IQ in children
10. Fluoridation discriminates against those with low incomes. People on low incomes are least able to afford avoidance measures, such as reverse osmosis filters or bottled water

Article from Dr. Mercola

Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead

You can watch this film Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead free. It is very inspirational.
 

http://www.hulu.com/watch/289122/fat-sick-and-nearly-dead

Do You Suffer from Stress, Insomnia, Depression or Excess Weight?

Are You Looking for Ways to Change? We have a simple program that is as natural as laying back and closing your eyes.



Simply put, visualization is the process of forming mental images; it is the primary component of the imagination.

Visualization is at the core of the human ability to create, innovate and dream.

Many of history's inventors and artists attribute their success to an exceptional ability to visualize. Thomas Edison, Nikola Tesla, Henry Ford, and the great composer, Chopin all reported using creative visualization to spark their imaginations. Additionally, Albert Einstein once said he came up with the theory of relativity by imagining what would happen if he could travel through space on the tip of a light beam.

Creative visualization can transport you out of a state of stress or fear, and into a new space of inner calm, peace and tranquility. Additionally, a natural byproduct of creative visualization occurs when the body goes loose and limp, creating the relaxation response - the perfect state for learning and focusing on goals.

Mind/Body Support

Visualization has long been the primary tool for mind/body support. From a scientific perspective, we know, that because visualization directly impacts the body's neurological system, it can have a direct influence on us physically.

Try this for an example: Imagine I have just handed you a large, yellow, juice-filled lemon. You slice the lemon into quarters and bring one of the quarters to your mouth and bite into it . . . what happened? Did your mouth begin to pucker? Did it fill with saliva? This is a naturally occurring neurological response to an imagined thought.

Have you ever watched a horror film, and, in the midst of the excitement, found your palms sweating and your heart pounding? You knew it was "just a movie," right?

If your mind can cause this kind of impact on your body, is there any reason it can't relax your muscles, overpower nicotine, stimulate your metabolism, or even do away with chronic pain?

Why Use Creative Visualization and Guided Relaxation Together?

We all have an inner critic, a part of our mind which, based on past experience, rejects unfamiliar information without proper evaluation. This is known as the critical factor. Studies show that relaxation techniques subdue this critical factor, making you receptive to new ideas. Even though it may seem counterintuitive to "let go in order to gain control," this is exactly what happens during the relaxation response.

Through NewReality's visualization techniques, you experience positive and appropriate ways to imagine your personal goals. This helps you remain optimistic and motivated toward changes that bring about your success.

CVR Provides the Missing Link to Wellness

Recent research shows excessive stress can suppress the immune system. Therefore, it's vital to incorporate a program of stress reduction and relaxation into your everyday routine. By reducing anxiety and stress, and increasing relaxation, you can boost your immune system and use your own unlimited resources to improve your life.

But don't think CVR is only a nice, relaxing daydream. People who regularly relax with CVR processes enjoy a number of side-benefits. These may include:

• Increased blood flow to the brain, resulting in clearer thinking, better concentration, improved memory and enhanced creativity
• A 21% increase in serotonin, which calms the mind and body and creates an overall sense of wellbeing
• A 25% increase in endorphins, the hormones that flow through your body when you feel happy
• Better sleep patterns. Twenty minutes of CVR can be equivalent to 2-3 hours of sleep, so you may find yourself sleeping less, feeling more rested, accomplishing more, and finding extra enjoyment in life
• Soaring energy levels
• More fulfilling relationships
• Improved career satisfaction
• A clearer sense of purpose
• And last, but certainly not least, a seemingly effortless ability to manage stress

Industry Influence Dominates Historic Hearing on Toxic Cosmetics

For Immediate Release: March 28th, 2012 Contact: Stacy Malkan, stacy@safecosmetics.org, 202-321-6963; Stephenie Hendricks, stephdh@earthlink.net,415-299-9510

Industry Influence Dominates Historic Hearing on Toxic CosmeticsRegulatory Fight Could Turn Ugly as Congress Seeks to Overhaul Cosmetics Regulations (Washington DC) In response to public pressure from recent scandals including mercury in face cream, lead in lipstick and formaldehyde in hair products, the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee yesterday convened the first Congressional hearing in 30 years on the safety of cosmetics and personal care products. The hearing was weighted in favor of industry, which represented four of the six witnesses who testified. No witnesses representing health impacted salon workers or consumers were called to testify. “It’s upsetting that manufacturers, their trade groups and lawyers got most of the seats at the table but the voices of people who have been hurt by toxic products were shut out of the process,” said Jennifer Arce, a hairstylist who is suffering respiratory ailments due to formaldehyde exposure from hair straightening treatments. Arce’s name was submitted to the Committee but she was not chosen to testify. “Despite the heavy industry influence, safe cosmetics champions Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D – IL) and Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) gave voice to the strong science supporting concerns about toxic chemicals in cosmetics and were staunch advocates for public health, worker safety and consumers’ right to know,” said Lisa Archer, director of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. Michael DiBartolomeis, PhD toxicologist and head of the Safe Cosmetics Program for the California Department of Health, testified that companies have reported to his office 17,060 personal care products that contain one or more of 96 carcinogens or reproductive toxicants. The reporting is required by the California Safe Cosmetics Act of 2005. DiBartolomeis stressed the importance that any federal cosmetics legislation must not preempt states’ rights to create stronger standards, as California has done. This could be a central issue as Congress gears up to debate cosmetics safety in the weeks ahead. “This is a critical time for the future of cosmetic safety in the United States. Industry, environmental groups and both parties seem to agree that the failed 1938 cosmetics laws need to be updated, but the million-dollar question is, will it be meaningful reform or will industry write its own rules and make a bad situation worse?” said Janet Nudelman, policy director of the Breast Cancer Fund. Three legislative proposals are circulating. The original cosmetics safety bill -- the Safe Cosmetics Act, introduced last year by Schakowsky, Markey and Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) -- is being supported by more than 100 consumer, public health, medical, faith and environmental groups. Yesterday, Reps. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and John Dingle (D-MI) introduced the Cosmetics Safety Enhancement Act. That bill calls for companies to pay $500 in user fees and would grant recall authority to FDA for cosmetics. Unlike Schakowsky’s bill, it would not provide protections against carcinogens and reproductive toxins in cosmetics, would not require full disclosure of cosmetic ingredients, and does not contain as strong a safety standard. A third legislative proposal, written by the Personal Care Products Council, seeks to have FDA codify into law decisions about ingredient safety made by the industry-funded Cosmetic Ingredient Review Panel. Such a move would be “unprecedented” and possibly unconstitutional, according to Michael Landa, Director of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition at FDA, who testified at the hearing. The Energy and Commerce Committee has said there is a placeholder for cosmetics safety language to be added by Rep. Leonard Lance (R-NJ) to the User Fee Reauthorization Act that Congress will vote on in the coming months. “Essential public health protections could be set back another 70 years if industry gets away with writing its own laws that put industry profits over public health,” said Janet Nudelman from the Breast Cancer Fund. Nudelman stressed the need for meaningful reform that includes phasing out cosmetic ingredients linked to cancer, reproductive or developmental toxicity; a safety standard that protects workers, babies and other vulnerable populations; full disclosure of ingredients and FDA authority to recall dangerous products from the market—all of which are elements of the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011. "Anything less than this will fail to protect the public from the worst toxic chemicals that are lurking in our most intimate products," Nudelman said. # # # The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics is a coalition of more than 150 nonprofit organizations working to protect the health of consumers and workers by eliminating dangerous chemicals from cosmetics. Core members include: the Breast Cancer Fund, Clean Water Action, Commonweal, Environmental Working Group, Friends of the Earth, and Women’s Voices for the Earth. www.safecosmetics.org

40 Women With Breast Cancer Had This "Cosmetic Ingredient" in Their Tissues

By Dr. Mercola

New research has detected the presence of paraben esters in 99 percent of breast cancer tissues sampledⁱ.

The study examined 40 women who were being treated for primary breast cancer.
In 60 percent of cases, five of the different esters were present.

Parabens are chemicals with estrogen-like properties, and estrogen is one of the hormones involved in the development of breast cancer.
The study notes thatⁱⁱ :

"Variation was notable with respect to individual paraben esters, location within one breast and similar locations in different breasts.
Overall median values in nanograms per gram tissue for the 160 tissue samples were highest for n-propylparaben and methylparaben; levels were lower for n-butylparaben, ethylparaben and isobutylparaben...
The source of the paraben cannot be identified, but paraben was measured in the 7/40 patients who reported never having used underarm cosmetics in their lifetime."

Sources and Dangers of Parabens

Deodorants and antiperspirants are some of the primary sources of parabens, but the fact that even those who reportedly never used them still had parabens in their breast tissue clearly demonstrates that these chemicals, regardless of what products they're added to, can, and apparently will, accumulate in breast tissue.

It's important to recognize that whatever you spread on your skin can be absorbed into your body and potentially cause serious damage over time, as this research demonstrates.

(To learn more about the potential toxicity of your cosmetics, I urge you to review the EWG's extensive Skin Deep Report.ⁱⁱⁱ ) Parabens inhibit the growth of bacteria, yeast, and molds, and are used as preservatives. On the label they may be listed as:

• Methyl paraben
• Propyl paraben
• Isobutyl paraben
• Ethyl paraben
• Butyl paraben
• E216

 These chemicals are commonly used in:

• Deodorants and antiperspirants
• Shampoos and conditioners
• Shaving gel
• Toothpaste
• Lotions and sunscreens
• Make-up / cosmetics
• Pharmaceutical drugs
• Food additives

Studies have shown that parabens can affect your body much like the estrogens, which can lead to diminished muscle mass, extra fat storage, and male gynecomastia (breast growth). Other studies besides the one featured here have also linked parabens to breast cancer. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has linked methyl parabens in particular to metabolic, developmental, hormonal, and neurological disorders, as well as various cancers.

How to Avoid Some of the Most Common Culprits

Avoiding parabens and other harmful chemicals requires becoming an avid label reader. Beware that products boasting "all-natural" labels can still contain harmful chemicals, including parabens, so make sure to check the list of ingredients.  Michael DeJong, environmentalist and author of books on green living has a book called Clean Cures^iv, which is chockfull of affordable, easy, natural remedies you can prepare at home to treat ordinary ailments with items you have in your own refrigerator and pantry.

When it comes to deodorants, one option is to skip it altogether. Simple soap and water has served me quite well. For some additional odor-protection, try a pinch of baking soda mixed with a small amount of water.

Beware: There's a Brand NEW Class of Cancer-Causing "Estrogens"...

Recent research has also confirmed the existence of a previously unknown class of cancer-causing materials that can be found in thousands of consumer products. Some of them are even added to supplements and foods as "nutrients". These estrogen-mimicking compounds are: metals.

Yes, a broad range of metals have been shown to act as "metalloestrogens" with the potential to add to the estrogenic burden of the human breast, thereby increasing the risk of breast cancer. The following metals have been identified as being capable of binding to cellular estrogen receptors and then mimicking the actions of physiological estrogens^v :

• Aluminum
• Antimony
• Arsenite
• Barium
• Cadmium
• Chromium
• Cobalt
• Copper
• Lead
• Mercury
• Nickel
• Selenite
• Tin
• Vanadate

 According to Green Med Info^vi :

"... [E]xposure to sodium selenite (and sodium selenate) is difficult to avoid, as it is the primary source of supplemental selenium in mass market vitamins, foods, beverages, etc. The same is true for inorganic forms of chromium, copper, nickel, tin and and vanadium, which you will find on the labels of many mass market multivitamins. Another daily source of metalloestrogen exposure for millions of consumers is aluminum-based antiperspirants."

Cadmium Linked to Higher Breast Cancer Risk

A recent study published in the journal Cancer Research indicates that women whose diets contain higher levels of cadmium are at a greater risk of developing breast cancer. Cadmium is a heavy metal long known to be carcinogenic, and, as you can see by its inclusion on the list above, it's also been identified as a metal that can bind to estrogen receptors, effectively mimicking the female hormone estrogen. The study found that among close to 56,000 women, those with the highest intakes of cadmium were 21 percent more likely to develop breast cancer^vii .

Cadmium leaches into crops from fertilizers, or when rainfall or sewage sludge deposit it onto farmland. Potatoes and whole grains are a couple of the primary sources cadmium, but it's also present in air pollution from the burning of fossil fuel, and can therefore also be inhaled. According to the Los Angeles Times^viii :

"The study offers new evidence in a large human population that environmental chemicals that mimic the effects of the female hormone estrogen may contribute to women's risk of certain cancers, including endometrial and breast cancers.... The finding comes just three months after the Institute of Medicine, a prestigious body of independent biomedical researchers, concluded that a host of other factors — most within a woman's power to control, such as obesity and hormone-replacement medication — were the most important sources of breast cancer risk.

The report they're referring to is Breast Cancer and the Environment: A Life Course Approach by the Institute of Medicine (IOM)^ix issued in December of last year, which discusses environmental impacts on breast cancer risk.
The report is a step in the right direction, as it recognizes the need to further investigate the role environmental toxins play in the development of breast cancer. This is important, because while individuals can do their best to avoid harmful chemicals, if we really want to quell the rise in cancers of all kinds, we must remove chemicals linked with cancer from consumer products, manufacturing, and other sources of exposure. Furthermore, the IOM report also identifies ionizing radiation as one of the primary contributors to breast cancer, which of course includes mammograms...

Could More Women Be Harmed than Helped with Mammography?

Mammograms expose a woman's body to radiation that can be 1,000 times greater than that from a chest x-ray, which increases the risk of cancer. Mammography also compresses breasts tightly (and often painfully), which could lead to a lethal spread of cancerous cells, should they exist.

Earlier this year, the Nordic Cochrane Collaboration issued a report stating that mammography screening may cause more harm than good. Their informative leaflet, Screening for Breast Cancer with Mammography^x , is an important read for every woman. Even more provocative is the new book, Mammography Screening: Truth, Lies and Controversy by Peter C. Gøtzsche, Professor of Clinical Research Design and Analysis Director at The Nordic Cochrane Centre, and Chief Physician. The very first paragraph of the book's ad reads^xi :

"The most effective way to decrease women's risk of becoming a breast cancer patient is to avoid attending screening."

While this may sound too shocking to be true for some, the available data fully supports that conclusion. According to the Cochrane Collaboration, for every 2,000 women invited for screening over the course of 10 years, just ONE woman will have her life prolonged. Meanwhile, 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed with cancer had it not been for the mammography screening, will be misdiagnosed as having breast cancer, and will be treated unnecessarily. Additionally, more than 200 women will experience significant psychological distress for many months due to false positives.

The Cancer Industry is Fraught with Corruption...

There's plenty of damning information out there that can, and ultimately will, be used to call for a congressional hearing on the mammography cover-up. As far back as 1974, professor Malcolm C. Pike at the University of Southern California School of Medicine warned the National Cancer Institute (NCI) that a number of specialists had concluded that "giving a women under age 50 a mammogram on a routine basis is close to unethical." In the 1990's, Dr. Samuel Epstein warned about the dangers of mammography, stating:

"The premenopausal breast is highly sensitive to radiation, each 1 rad exposure increasing breast cancer risk by about 1 percent, with a cumulative 10 percent increased risk for each breast over a decade's screening... The high sensitivity of the breast, especially in young women, to radiation-induced cancer was known by 1970. Nevertheless, the establishment then screened some 300,000 women with X-ray dosages so high as to increase breast cancer risk by up to 20 percent in women aged 40 to 50 who were mammogramed annually."

Yet despite all the evidence against the routine use of it, mammography has remained the number one recommended "prevention" strategy for all women over the age of 40. Alarmingly, there's evidence indicating the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been negligent (to put it mildly) in their approval of a number of cancer-detecting devices. It recently became known that whistleblowers within the agency had been secretly monitored for two years; all of whom worked in the office responsible for reviewing medical devices, including cancer screening devices. The monitored employees had warned Congress that the agency was approving medical devices that posed unacceptable risks to patients.

Jeffrey Shuren, director of the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health has repeatedly tried to take action against the employees, claiming they had disclosed information that undermined the integrity and mission of the FDA. Shuren is also the official who oversees mercury dental fillings, which they have been fraudulently referring to as 'silver fillings.' Shuren promised to make an announcement about dental amalgam by the end of 2011, but just before the end of the work year, the agency conceded that no announcement was forthcoming – not in 2011, and maybe not at all.
Again and again, Mr. Shuren demonstrates loyalty to industry interests rather than public health and safety... But he's not the only one. In a 2009 letter from an unknown number of FDA employees to President Obama's transition team, the authors clearly spell out the need for a complete overhaul of the agency due to deep-rooted systemic corruption at the highest levels^xii . They write:

"Currently there is an atmosphere at FDA in which the honest employee fears the dishonest employee, and not the other way around. Disturbingly, the atmosphere does not yet exist at FDA where honest employees committed to integrity and the FDA mission can act without fear of reprisal. ... America urgently needs change at FDA because FDA is fundamentally broken, failing to fulfill its mission, and because re-establishing a proper and effectively functioning FDA is vital to the physical and economic health of the nation."

Mammograms No Longer Recommended for Women in Their 40's

The US Preventative Task Force revised its recommendations on mammograms in October 2009,^xiii stating that women in their 40's should no longer get routine mammograms for early detection of breast cancer. Instead, the panel recommended waiting until the age of 50, and only doing one mammogram every other year rather than annually. The Canadian task force followed suit in November last year.
While many cancer organizations were outraged and have shunned the task forces' new directive, it's important to realize that the main reasons for this change in guidelines were the documented dangers and short-comings of mammographic screening. All in all, there's convincing evidence that mammography is not all it's cracked up to be, and the FDA is not doing its stated job to protect your health. Instead, they're busy catering to industry and skirting the boundaries of the law to protect a lucrative business model. This is a tragedy, considering how many alternatives there are that could help stem the tide of cancer...
There's a wide variety of prevention and treatment strategies that appear to be both safer and more effective than conventional strategies like mammograms and the "cut-poison-burn" model of cancer treatment... To learn more, please review the related articles listed below.

References:

• ⁱ Journal of Applied Toxicology March 2012; 32(3): 219-232
• ⁱⁱ Journal of Applied Toxicology March 2012; 32(3): 219-232
• ⁱⁱⁱ Environmental Working Group, Skin Deep Report
• ^iv Clean Cures: The Humble Art of Zen-Curing Yourself, Michael DeJong
• ^v Journal of Applied Toxicology December 12, 2011 [Epub ahead of print]
• ^vi Green Med Info March 18, 2012
• ^vii Cancer Research March 15, 2012; 72: 1459
• ^viii Los Angeles Times March 15, 2012
• ^ix Breast Cancer and the Environment: A Life Course Approach, The Institute of Medicine (IOM), December 7, 2011
• ^x SCREENING FOR BREAST CANCER WITH MAMMOGRAPHY (PDF), The Nordic Cochrane Center 2012,
• ^xi MAMMOGRAPHY SCREENING: TRUTH, LIES AND CONTROVERSY, Radcliffe Publishing, January 2012
• ^xii CDRH Staffers To Obama: House Cleaning Urgent At Device Center, National Whistleblowers Center
• ^xiii U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, Screening for Breast Cancer 2009

Source: Green People

Source: Journal of Applied Toxicology March 2012; 32(3): 219-232

Source: Green Med Info March 18, 2012

Source: Los Angeles Times March 15, 2012

Source: Cancer Research March 15, 2012; 72: 1459

Look and Feel Younger with the BioMat

How does looking and feeling younger sound to you? Sounds good, right? No matter your age, location, income or race, this is something that appeals to both men and women around the globe. While some individuals may opt for pricey dermatological procedures, expensive ointments or costly and dangerous surgical options, looking and feeling younger is actually simple to achieve and, of course, costs much less too.

 
The BioMat is just what you need to bring rejuvenation and vigor to your life. The primary cause of the appearance of aging is stress and the BioMat will combat that factor while reinventing a youthful glow in your face. Additionally, because you experience pure relaxation you feel younger and ready to tackle the world. 

The infrared heat therapy of the BioMat calms both body and mind. This is the perfect recipe when it comes to not just feeling younger, but looking more youthful as well. One of the keys to this FDA approved item is the amethyst crystals. Amethyst crystals have proven therapeutic properties, which work on you in a positive and reparative fashion.

Imagine what your life would be like if you were full of energy each and every day. Not only would your spirits be elevated but you would also have a huge reduction in stress, and you could accomplish things that you never thought possible. No more being tired. Instead, imagine feeling vital and healthy enough to take on the world.

Further, your immunity will be elevated and the likelihood of illness is diminished. This means that while those around you may fall victim to the latest flu bug, you will remain healthy and active. BioMat sessions as brief as 15 minutes will leave you feeling refreshed, calm and energized. You receive all the daily youthfulness, energy and health benefits for a fraction of the cost of a trip to the spa.

I got my BioMat (professional and mini) last week and every time I use it, I feel like it puts me into a deep sense of relaxation and melts away the pain and stress.  I am loving it!  I am saving up for the amethyst pillow and some of the other items like the  PAL visualization system. 

These products do not have a wholesale price but because these products are so beneficial for health, JES Organics is selling them anyway at no profit. These are sold through a distributor system and some of the proceeds go to charities.