(ROCHESTER, Minn.) — Mayo Clinic researchers have found that multiple exposures to anesthesia at a young age are associated with higher rates of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

Children exposed to two or more anesthetics before age 3 had more than double the incidence of ADHD than children who had no exposure, says David Warner, M.D., a Mayo Clinic pediatric anesthesiologist and investigator on the observational study.

The findings are published in the Feb. 2 edition of Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

When basic science studies in the medical literature began to suggest anesthesia used in surgery causes changes in the brains of young animals, Dr. Warner and a group of researchers at Mayo Clinic took note.

“Those studies piqued our interest,” Dr. Warner says. “We were skeptical that the findings in animals would correlate with kids, but it appears that it does.”

The study utilized results of an existing epidemiological study that looked at educational records of children born between 1976 and 1982 in Rochester, Minn., and determined those who developed some form of learning disability or ADHD.

Among 341 cases of ADHD in those younger than 19, researchers traced medical records in the Rochester Epidemiology Project, a decades-long database of all patient care in Olmsted County, Minn., looking for exposure to anesthesia and surgery before age 3.

Children who had no exposure to anesthesia and surgery had ADHD at a rate of 7.3 percent. The rate after a single exposure to anesthesia and surgery was approximately the same. For children who had two or more exposures to anesthesia and surgery, the rate of ADHD was 17.9 percent, even after researchers adjusted for other factors, including gestational age, sex, birth weight and comorbid health conditions.

The results of the study, however, do not definitively mean that anesthesia causes ADHD, Dr. Warner says.

“This is an observational study,” he says. “A wide range of other factors might be responsible for the higher frequency of ADHD in children with multiple exposures. The findings certainly do suggest that further investigation into this area is warranted, and investigators at Mayo Clinic and elsewhere are actively pursuing these studies.”

The study was funded by the United States Food and Drug Administration, the Mayo Clinic Center for Translational Sciences Activities, the National Institutes of Health and the Rochester Epidemiology Project.

Source: http://www.mayoclinic.org/news2012-rst/6678.html?rss-feedid=1

Mayo Clinic findings (re anesthesia and brain damage)

(NaturalNews) Aluminum Lake food coloring, used to heavily coat liquid medicines for children, contains dangerous amounts of aluminum and harmful synthetic petrochemicals. These “petrochemicals” are carcinogens containing petroleum, antifreeze and ammonia, which cause a long list of adverse reactions. Aluminum poisoning can lead to short and long term central nervous system (CNS) damage, such as memory impairments, autism, epilepsy, mental retardation, and dementia.

Research shows that just 4ppm of aluminum can cause the blood to coagulate. This is what causes Alzheimer’s Disease and has been documented to inhibit learning. Aluminum consumption can also be associated with the development of bone disorders, including stress fractures.

Also known as tartrazine, FD&C Yellow Aluminum Lake is a chemical concoction derived from coal tar. It is known to be are productive toxin. All artificial colors contain Aluminum Lake, so when your child gets to pick between red, blue or green medicine, they’re really choosing which poison they get to consume. Several chemically enhanced food colorings contain ammonia and therefore produce compounds proven to cause various cancers in animal studies, according to CSPI, the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Most widely used food colors and their damaging actions:

• Blue #1: Research shows it causes kidney tumors in mice.
• Blue #2: Research shows even higher incidence of tumors, specifically gliomas in male rates (a type of tumor that starts in the brain or spine).
• Red #2: Toxic to rodents, even at modest levels, and causes tumors of the bladder.
• Red #3: FDA recognized it in 1990 as a cause of thyroid cancer in animals. It was banned in cosmetics, but still allowed in food and medicine.
• Red #40:Most popular dye of all. Debilitates the immune-system in mice. Allergic reactions common.
• Green #3: Causes bladder and testes tumors.
• Yellow #5: Affects behavior and induces severe hypersensitivity reactions.
• Yellow #6: Causes adrenal tumors in animals.

The following is taken directly from FDA’s Regulatory Process and Historical Perspectives: “Color additives are important components of many products, making them attractive, appealing, appetizing, and informative. Added color serves as a kind of code that allows us to identify products on sight, like candy flavors and medicine dosages.” Really?! Decoding medicine dosages on sight?

There has been a 55% increase in U.S. toxic food dyes just since the year 2000. There are over15 million pounds of dyes put in foods, drinks, candy and medicine every year, and the FDA does nothing to protect consumers from the colorful barrage of poison. 

Studies reveal that children have consumed as much as three pounds of dye by the age of twelve

Here are some popular product and “brand” names you may mistake as exempt products: RD&C dyes and colors in baked goods, beverages, candy, cereal, drugs, pet food, personal care products, cosmetics, cough syrups, NyQuil,Tylenol, Robitussin,Jello, gelatins, Cheetos, Skittles, Fruity Pebbles, Marachino cherries, sausage, Mountain Dew, Doritos, chewing gum, and powdered drink mixes.

American companies doing business in Europe currently have to change their products to natural colorings to meet European Union strict regulations. The FDA’s rationale is that because artificial food colorings are used mainly in foods and medicines of low or no nutritional value, that the American public should “already be aware” of health implications, so it doesn’t matter if other toxins are added.

Related articles:

http://chemicaloftheday.squarespace.com/todays-chemical/2009/7/7/fdc-yellow-5-aluminum-lake.html

http://www.amoils.com/health-blog/the-8-most-common-artificial-food-dyes-and-what-they-can-do-to-your-health-3/

http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/ColorAdditives/RegulatoryProcessHistoricalPerspectives/default.htm

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/165315-overview

http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/food/artificial-food-colors.htm

http://www.feingold.org/Research/dyesinfood.html

http://www.intlfoodcraft.com/color_guide.html

(http://www.amoils.com/health-blog/the-8-most-common-artificial-food-dyes-and-what-they-can-do-to-your-health-3/)

http://healingautismandadhd.wordpress.com/2010/02/12/artificial-food-coloring-is-evil/

http://jennifercopley.suite101.com/health-concerns-regarding-artificial-colours-a197580

Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/034813_childrens_medicines_aluminum_pills.html

(NaturalNews) Although Big Pharma and mainstream medicine continue to push antidepressants, especially the type known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), such as Paxil and Prozac, the documented risks and side effects of these drugs remain often ignored. While it’s true the FDA finally acknowledged SSRIs are linked to suicide and violence in adolescents, other health problems such as a risk of sudden death in women are rarely mentioned. Neither is the mounting evidence that SSRIs pose a serious threat to unborn babies.

Take the Mayo Clinic’s official web site, for example, which claims: “depression is such a horrible disease that depression treatment during pregnancy is essential. If you have untreated depression, you might not have the energy to take good care of yourself. You might not seek optimal prenatal care or eat the healthy foods your baby needs to thrive. You might turn to smoking or drinking alcohol.”

Notice all the “mights” in that plug for antidepressant use during pregnancy. The web site states the risk of pregnant women taking SSRIs causing drug-related harm to their babies is “low.” What’s shocking is that this information is currently up on the Mayo website when evidence has accumulated over the past year that antidepressants can, in fact, cause very serious and potentially deadly birth defects.

For example, a Finnish study published last July provided evidence that exposure to SSRIs in the first trimester of pregnancy increases the risk for major congenital anomalies, particularly heart problems. In fact, the use of fluoxetine (the generic name for Prozac) in the first three months of a pregnancy was linked to a two-fold risk for isolated ventricular sepal defects; another SSRI, paroxetine (Paxil), was associated with more than a four-fold increased risk for right ventricular outflow tract defects in newborn hearts.

If that’s not shocking and worrisome enough, especially when you consider the CDC reports at least one in ten Americans are now taking SSRIs, including countless numbers of pregnant women. News about birth defects linked to these antidepressants just got worse. A new study just published online by the British Medical Journal reveals that women who take SSRIs during pregnancy are more likely to give birth to children with a very dangerous and serious condition — persistent pulmonary hypertension (high blood pressure in the lungs).

SSRIs can be a serious threat to the health of babies

Persistent pulmonary hypertension is caused by an increase in blood pressure in the lungs. That, in turn, leads to shortness of breath and other breathing difficulties. This is no minor problem, either, but a severe disease with strong links to heart failure.

The new study, conducted by scientists at the Center for Pharmacoepidemiology at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, investigated 1.6 million births between 1996 and 2007 in five Nordic countries: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. In all, a total of 1,618,255 single births were included in the study. The researchers discovered that 11,000 of the mothers had filled prescriptions for anti-depressants in late pregnancy and approximately 17,000 more had taken the drugs in early pregnancy. An additional 54,184 mothers in the study were found to have previously been given a psychiatric diagnosis but these women did not take any antidepressant medication during their pregnancies.

Babies born to the women in the study were assessed after 231 days (33 weeks). The results? Taking SSRIs appeared to clearly raise the risk of pulmonary persistent hypertension. In all, the new study found three babies with pulmonary persistent hypertension per 1000 women taking SSRIs in early pregnancy. That number doubled if the anti-depressants were taken in late pregnancy.

The risk was not enormous. But pulmonary persistent hypertension in a baby is a very serious disease and any increase in cases at all is extremely worrisome, especially when it could be prevented. After all, taking SSRIs is not something a woman absolutely has to do. Exercise, sound nutrition, stress relief, yoga and a host of other natural approaches have been documented to help relieve depression.

In an accompanying editorial, researchers from the Motherisk Program Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and the School of Pharmacy at the University of Oslo concluded that mothers who take SSRIs in late pregnancy are more likely to give birth to children with persistent pulmonary hypertension.

In a media release about the new study, Christina Chambers, PhD, MPH, from the University of California, San Diego, who has also studied potential risks of SSRI use in pregnancy, said the paper confirms results of “several other papers showing small increased risks for selected specific birth defects, although not all previous studies have shown a risk.”

Related links:

• http://www.bma.org.uk/
• http://www.naturalnews.com/SSRIs.html
• http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Abstract/2011/07000/Selective_Serotonin_Reuptake_Inhibitors_and_Risk.16.aspx
• http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/antidepressants/DN00007

Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/034638_SSRI_drugs_antidepressants_high_blood_pressure.html#ixzz1jMB2th70

WASHINGTON — Fears that the U.S. might ban imports of orange juice from Brazil drove orange juice futures to an all-time high on Tuesday as health regulators began testing all incoming shipments for traces of an illegal fungicide called carbendazim.

According to the Food and Drug Administration, a U.S. juice producer had detected low levels of carbendazim in orange juice concentrate imported from Brazil, the top grower accounting for more than 10 percent of the U.S. supply.

The pesticide is banned in U.S. citrus but it is used on orange trees in Brazil to fight mold. The FDA said low levels of carbendazim were not dangerous and the agency had no plans for a recall, but it would stop any shipments of orange juice at the border that tested positive for the fungicide.

Orange juice futures jumped almost 11 percent to an all-time high on the news, which was announced by the FDA in a letter to the Juice Products Association on Monday. The orange juice market is particularly prone to volatility because of its tiny size compared to oil and other major commodities.

It was not immediately clear whether there would be a related increase in orange juice prices for consumers, as that would depend on how long futures stay high and whether this results in a shortage of orange juice shipments into the United States.

Brands such as Tropicana, from PepsiCo Inc, and Minute Maid, from Coca-Cola Co, may use a mix of juices sourced from Brazil and the United States.

“Obviously food safety issues are probably going to play a bigger and bigger role in driving food or commodity prices in the future,” said Ray Royce, executive director of the Highlands County Citrus Growers Association in central Florida.

He said the spike in orange juice futures was a double-edged sword for Florida growers, even as higher prices generally translate into richer profits for them.

“There might be concerns in some consumers’ minds about there being chemicals within the juice. I think that could almost counter-balance the increase in futures prices and subsequent returns to Florida growers,” said Royce.

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45956908/ns/health-food_safety/?ocid=twitter#.Tw3Pl6U29Bk

Environmental Working Group (EWG) Summary. In the month leading up to a baby’s birth, the umbilical cord pulses with the equivalent of at least 300 quarts of blood each day, pumped back and forth from the nutrient- and oxygen-rich placenta to the rapidly growing child cradled in a sac of amniotic fluid. This cord is a lifeline between mother and baby, bearing nutrients that sustain life and propel growth.

Not long ago scientists thought that the placenta shielded cord blood — and the developing baby — from most chemicals and pollutants in the environment. But now we know that at this critical time when organs, vessels, membranes and systems are knit together from single cells to finished form in a span of weeks, the umbilical cord carries not only the building blocks of life, but also a steady stream of industrial chemicals, pollutants and pesticides that cross the placenta as readily as residues from cigarettes and alcohol. This is the human “body burden” — the pollution in people that permeates everyone in the world, including babies in the womb.

In a study spearheaded by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) in collaboration with Commonweal, researchers at two major laboratories found an average of 200 industrial chemicals and pollutants in umbilical cord blood from 10 babies born in August and September of 2004 in U.S. hospitals. Tests revealed a total of 287 chemicals in the group. The umbilical cord blood of these 10 children, collected by Red Cross after the cord was cut, harbored pesticides, consumer product ingredients, and wastes from burning coal, gasoline, and garbage.

This study represents the first reported cord blood tests for 261 of the targeted chemicals and the first reported detections in cord blood for 209 compounds. Among them are eight perfluorochemicals used as stain and oil repellants in fast food packaging, clothes and textiles — including the Teflon chemical PFOA, recently characterized as a likely human carcinogen by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board — dozens of widely used brominated flame retardants and their toxic by-products; and numerous pesticides.

Of the 287 chemicals we detected in umbilical cord blood, we know that 180 cause cancer in humans or animals, 217 are toxic to the brain and nervous system, and 208 cause birth defects or abnormal development in animal tests. The dangers of pre- or post-natal exposure to this complex mixture of carcinogens, developmental toxins and neurotoxins have never been studied.
Chemicals and pollutants detected in human umbilical cord blood

Click here to view the full benchmark investigation of industrial chemicals, pollutants and pesticides in umbilical cord blood

(NaturalNews) Fabric softener ads often portray an image of comfort, freshness and sweetness. Yet most fabric softeners contain a grim list of known toxins which can enter your body through the skin and by inhalation, causing a wide range of health problems, particularly for young children.

Some of the harmful ingredients commonly found in liquid or sheet fabric softeners include:

• Chloroform: This substance was used as an anesthesia in the 1800s up through the early 1900s when its potential for causing fatal cardiac arrhythmia was discovered. A carcinogenic neurotoxin, it is on the EPA’s Hazardous Waste list. Inhaling its vapors may cause loss of consciousness, nausea, headache, vomiting, and/or dizziness, drowsiness. It may aggravate disorders of the heart, kidneys or liver. Its effects worsen when subjected to heat.
• A-Terpineol: Causes Central Nervous System (CNS) disorders, meaning problems relating to the brain and spine such as Alzheimer’s disease, ADD, dementia, Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, seizures, strokes, and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Early symptoms of CNS problems include aphasia, blurred vision, disorientation, dizziness, headaches, hunger, memory loss, numbness in face, pain in neck and spine. A-Terpineol also irritates the mucous membranes and, if aspirated into the lungs, can cause respiratory depression, pneumonia or fatal edema.
• Benzyl Alcohol: This upper respiratory tract irritant can cause central nervous system (CNS) disorders, headache, nausea, vomiting, dizziness and dramatic drops in blood pressure.
• Benzyl Acetate: This substance has been linked to pancreatic cancer. Its vapors can be irritating to eyes and respiratory passages and it can also be absorbed through the skin.
• Ethanol: Another fabric softener ingredient which is on the EPA’s Hazardous Waste list and linked to CNS disorders.
• Pentane: A chemical known to be harmful if inhaled.
• Ethyl Acetate: This substance, which is on the EPA’s Hazardous Waste list, can be irritating to the eyes and respiratory tract. It may also cause severe headaches and loss of consciousness, as well as damage to the liver and kidneys.
• Camphor: Another substance on the EPA’s Hazardous Waste list. It is easily absorbed through body tissue, causing irritation of eyes, nose and throat. Camphor can also cause dizziness, confusion, nausea, twitching muscles and convulsions.
• Linalool: A narcotic known to cause respiratory problems and CNS disorders. In animal testing, exposure to linalool has resulted in death.
• Phthalates: Used in scented products to help the scent last longer, phthlates have been linked to breast cancer and reproductive system problems.
• Limonene: This known carcinogen can cause irritation to eyes and skin.

If you use fabric softener, these toxic chemicals coat your towels, sheets and clothing so that you absorb toxins through your skin, the largest organ of the body. When you wear chemically “softened” clothes, you inhale these chemicals with every breath. Even if you do not use fabric softener, you can ingest these chemicals through dryer exhaust sending them into the air or simply by working with someone whose clothes have been chemically treated in this way. Fabric softeners are designed to remain in fabric for a long period of time, slowly releasing into the air.

Related links

• http://www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/laundry/consider/
• http://planetgreen.discovery.com/fashion-beauty/replace-fabric-softener-vinegar.html
• http://www.naturallifemagazine.com/0608/softener.htm
• http://shop.sixwise.com/thetoxicdangeroffabricsofteneranddryersheets2805.aspx
• http://users.lmi.net/wilworks/ehnfs.htm
• http://www.environmentalhealth.ca/special/fall07FabricSofteners.html
• http://www.norwexgreenclean.net/page/page/5367159.htm
• http://www.care2.com/greenliving/6-natural-alternatives-to-toxic-fabric-softeners.html

Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/034617_fabric_softeners_toxic_chemicals_laundry.html

(NaturalNews) To many, they are just one particular means by which to keep up with the latest styles and fashion trends. But chemical hair dyes carry with them some very serious health risks, a fact that 22-year-old Louise Henson from Skegness, Lincolnshire, in the UK recently learned the hard way.

The UK’s Daily Mail reports that the young bartender recently tried to apply Garnier Nutrisse “caramel golden light brown” hair dye to her hair in order to match the hair color of her favorite media icon Cheryl Cole, from the popular television showX Factor. But the dye caused a severe allergic reaction that left Louise with a swelled face and extremely itchy skin.

“It was like I had a severe facial deformity, it was humiliating,” said Louise to the Daily Mail about her experience. “It took a week before my face began getting back to normal.”

After being rushed to the hospital where she was given steroid injections to curb the swelling, Louise was told that the chemicals in the dye she used were responsible for the reaction. Doctors also informed her that she would not be able to use hair dyes again because they could cause an even more severe reaction next time.

The same Daily Mail report highlights injuries sustained by 24-year-old Zoe Vernon after she tried to use a chemical hair dye kit at home. The chemicals in that application caused such a severe reaction that Zoe was left with severe burns and “weeping blisters” all over her face. She compared the experience to being severely burned in a fire.

In Louise’s case, doctors did not necessarily know which specific chemical was responsible for her reaction. But in Zoe’s case, a chemical known as para-phenylenediamine (PPD), which is a petroleum-based coloring dye, was identified as at least one culprit. And Zoe is now on a mission to ban the use of PPD in hair dyes and other consumer products.

According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), exposure to PPD can cause irritation of the pharynx and larynx, bronchial asthma, and sensitization dermatitis. The agency says the chemical should never touch the skin or eyes (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0495.html).

Most conventional hair and personal care products contain dangerous and largely untested chemicals like PPD that can cause severe reactions, and even permanent health problems. This is why it is crucial to avoid them, and instead seek out natural alternatives where all ingredients are clearly labeled and verified for safety.

Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/034605_hair_dyes_toxic_chemicals_health_risks.html#ixzz1j5O0aE2D

(NaturalNews) We are in the “Age of Aluminum”, this according to a lecture by Dr. Chris Exley, PhD at a January 2011 vaccine safety conference. A common expression among those who deflect aluminum’s toxicity issues is that aluminum is prominent throughout the earth’s crust. What they fail to mention is that aluminum(Al) wasn’t widely bioavailable to humans until the latter part of the 19th Century when it began to be mined for creating metals and medicines.

Now we have aluminum appearing in cookware, wrapping foils, beverage and food containers, underarm deodorants, tobacco, over the counter (OTC) and prescribed medicines, and as adjuvants in vaccines. Al is highly reactive with other chemicals and creates antigens to stimulate immune system antibody responses in vaccines. But the mechanics of these reactions are not understood by Big Pharma.

We all have some level of Al in us with which are bodies are coping. The tissues most prone to collecting and storing aluminum are those tissues with a slow cellular turnover. Cells die off and regenerate quickly on the skin, but not so quickly in bone matter, heart tissue and the brain. Those last three organs that don’t have a rapid cellular turnover are most prone to collecting and storing Al.

Yes, the brain stores quite a of bit Al. And that’s where MS, chronic fatigue syndromes, epilepsy, ADD, Alzheimer’s, Guilliane-Barre’ syndrome (a common post vaccination injury) and other neurological disorders manifest. Aluminum compounds that are injected bypass the liver and kidneys and tend to remain in slow cellular replacing tissues.

Non-ingested Al also includes smoking tobacco or marijuana, applied sunscreens and cosmetics and chemtrails.All vaccinations contain Al. Claiming they’re safe without mercury, as some A1 proponents do, is incorrect. Exley also mentioned that most vaccines contain some iron — iron combined with aluminum creates a highly biochemically-reactive compound.

In the last 100 years, we have managed to increase the Al body burden considerably. The threshold for Al toxicity varies. But the incredible increase in neurological disorders during this “Age of Aluminum” demonstrates the need for eliminating it from our bodies as much as possible.

The Food and Drug Administration is warning patients about a potential mix-up between powerful prescription pain drugs and common over-the-counter medications like Excedrin and Gas-X made at a Novartis manufacturing plant.

The problem is a result of major manufacturing problems at a Lincoln, Nebraska, facility which was shut down last month. The Swiss drugmaker has recalled bottles of Excedrin, Bufferin and other medications which may have included mixed up pills.

Now the FDA says some of those over-the-counter pills may have accidentally been packaged with powerful prescription painkillers made at the same facility. The opioid drugs are sold by Endo Pharmaceuticals as Percocet, Endocet, Opana and Zydone.

FDA officials say they are not recalling the drugs because they are medically necessary and the likelihood that they contain stray pills is low.

On Sunday Novartis AG issued a nationwide voluntary recall of certain bottled versions of Excedrin and Bufferin, and two other products, saying they may contain stray, broken or chipped tablets from other Novartis products.

Novartis Consumer Health said the recall, which also applies to bottled versions of NoDoz and Gas-X Prevention, is a precautionary measure.

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45926072/ns/health-health_care/?gt2=43001#.Tws_wqU29Bk

Novartis said mixing of different products in the same bottle could result in taking an incorrect product or receiving a higher or lower strength than intended or receiving an unintended ingredient, which could potentially result in overdose or an allergic reaction.

The recall is for bottled packages of Excedrin and NoDoz with expiration dates of Dec. 20, 2014, or earlier, and for Bufferin and Gas-X Prevention products with expiration dates of Dec. 20, 2013, or earlier.

The company said it has notified its distributors and retailers. Consumers can find more information on the website www.novartisOTC.com as of Jan 9.

(NaturalNews) For the very first time, a scientific study published in a peer-reviewed journal has come up with a solid estimate of the total number of US deaths caused by the Fukushima nuclear disaster in the weeks following it. Epidemiologist Joseph Mangano, MPH, MBA, and his colleagues say that, based on compiled data, at least 14,000 people in the US were killed during the 14 weeks following the Fukushima catastrophe — and the majority of these deaths were in children under age one.

Published in theInternational Journal of Health Services, Mangano’s study looked at both infant and adult death rates during the time when Fukushima occurred, as well as in previous months and years. During the 14 weeks prior to Fukushima, for instance, infant deaths had been declining by 8.37 percent, while in the weeks following the disaster they increased by 1.8 percent. Among adults, a 4.46 percent death rate was observed in the weeks after Fukushima, compared to 2.34 percent, which is about half that rate, a year prior.

“This study of Fukushima health hazards is the first to be published in a scientific journal,” said Mangano. “It raises concerns, and strongly suggests that health studies continue, to understand the true impact of Fukushima in Japan and around the world. Findings are important to the current debate of whether to build new reactors, and how long to keep aging ones in operation.”

During the first few months when the Fukushima disaster was unfolding,NaturalNewsreported on radiation spikes in milk (http://www.naturalnews.com/032048_radiation_milk.html), rainwater (http://www.naturalnews.com/031871_radiation_rainwater.html), and the general food supply, both in the US and abroad. Though tangible harm in humans was not necessarily evident at that time, it now appears that this systemic poisoning translated into thousands of known deaths, and likely tens of thousands more cases of cancer and other illnesses.

“Based on our continuing research, the actual death count here may be as high as 18,000, with influenza and pneumonia, which were up five-fold in the period in question as a cause of death,” added Mangano. “Deaths are seen across all ages, but we continue to find that infants are hardest hit because their tissues are rapidly multiplying, they have undeveloped immune systems, and the doses of radioisotopes are proportionally greater than for adults.”

Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/034586_Fukushima_USA_fatalities.html#ixzz1izQKoxbg