Radiation Disaster in Japan Still Occurring

I just spoke with a Steven Thompson who is living Osaka, Japan. He called to inform me about what is truly going on in Fukushima, Japan. What he told me was chilling.

Steven recently went to Fukushima city and found high radioactive background measurements at every site that he tested. Fukushima city is 60km (or about 37 miles) from ground zero—where the nuclear meltdown occurred. The Japanese government has stated that it is safe for residents to stay in Fukushima city.

Steven used a handheld Geiger counter to gather his data. As previously mentioned, he found radioactive levels were consistently measuring high in every area that he tested. In fact, he found that the level of radioactivity measured over 100x the acceptable limits.

He also told me that the Japanese government is discouraging its citizens from taking iodine supplements claiming that iodine supplementation is toxic. I guess radioactive iodine released from Fukushima is ok, but iodine supplements are somehow toxic. Sounds like up is down and down is up logic to me.

Furthermore, Steven told me that it is literally impossible to get iodine supplements in Japan. He claimed that there are reports that iodine supplements are being confiscated. Shortly after the disaster occurred, I wrote to a Japanese friend and asked if I could donate iodine supplements for distribution. My friend told me the same thing; unless they are hand carried into the country, they will be confiscated.

It is clear the Japanese government is not providing reliable information to its own citizens as well as the world. There are recent reports that Japanese beef, manure and feed for animals have been found to be contaminated with radioactive cesium.

Folks, this nuclear disaster is still occurring. Radiation is still leaking. Although we are not directly connected to the mainland country of Japan, we will receive doses of radiation due to the jet stream. I have reported that to you on previous blogs. The most important thing you can do to protect yourself from radiation exposure is to eat a healthy diet full of whole foods, ensure adequate antioxidant nutrients such as vitamins C, E and iodine. In fact, it is vitally important to maintain optimal levels of iodine in your body so that radioactive iodine particles have nowhere to bind in your body. More information about iodine can be found in my book, Iodine: Why You Need It, Why You Can’t Live Without It.
I will post more information about the Japanese disaster in future blog posts and in my newsletter.

Steven went to Fukushima on July 25, 2011--over four months after the disaster--to measure the radioactivity with a Geiger counter. You can see the video by pasting the following link in your browser: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0zDo-HYIT0. It is clear that the disaster is still occurring. There are nearly 300,000 citizens of Fukushima city still living there. I would not want to be living there, nor would I want my children there.

Mammograms Not Effective In Lowering Breast Cancer Mortality

Are screening mammograms effective in reducing deaths from breast cancer? The mainstream media and the medical-industrial complex would have you believe that mammograms are the best thing you can do to diagnose breast cancer at an early stage. The theory is that an early diagnosis leads to a better treatment outcome.

In order to answer the above question, researchers compared the trends in breast cancer mortality within three pairs of neighboring European countries in relation to mammogram screening. The participants were grouped into three pairs; Northern Ireland (U.K.) v. Republic of Ireland, the Netherlands v. Belgium and Flanders, and Sweden v. Norway. Each paired group had one country that was using mammography screening since 1990 while the other country did not adopt screening recommendations until years later. The World Health Organization mortality database along with data sources on mammography screening and cancer treatment were used for analysis.

From 1989-2006, the authors found breast cancer mortality similarly declined in all the countries. It did not matter which country was screening and which country was not screening via mammography. For example, in Northern Ireland (U.K.) over 70% of women aged 50-69 were screened yearly with mammography as compared to less than 30% of similarly aged women in the Republic of Ireland. Comparing the years 1998 through 2005, this study found the overall decline in breast cancer mortality between the two countries was virtually the same; a decline of 30% in Northern Ireland and 27% in the Republic of Ireland. Similar results were found in the other paired countries; mammography was not shown to decrease the mortality rate from breast cancer.

In this study the authors conclude, “…that {mammogram} screening did not play a direct part in the reductions in breast cancer mortality.” I have written about the failure of mammograms in my monthly newsletter, Dr. Brownstein’s Natural Way to Health (information about this newsletter can be found on my website). Mammography does not prevent breast cancer; it is used as a diagnostic tool only. It makes no sense to radiate cancer-prone areas of the body on a yearly basis. In fact, 10 years of mammogram radiation provides a similar amount of radiation that women received who were one mile from ground zero in Hiroshima. Even though mammograms have been around for over 20 years, there is no research that shows conclusively that mammograms improve breast cancer mortality.

It is unclear why breast cancer mortality rates have been falling. It may be due to better treatment or it may be due to differences in diagnosis. Certain non-aggressive breast cancers (i.e., DCIS—ductal carcinoma in situ) were only recently diagnosed as breast cancer in the mid 1990’s. Before then, women who had DCIS were not classified as having breast cancer. A woman diagnosed with this type of cancer would be expected to live a longer time versus a woman with a more aggressive cancer. Adding the commonly diagnosed DCIS to breast cancer statistics is bound to improve mortality rates.

What can you do to prevent breast cancer? The number one thing you can do is to eat a healthy diet free of synthetic hormones. That means eating animal products that have not been fed synthetic hormones. Furthermore, ensure that you have adequate iodine levels as low iodine levels have been implicated in animal and human models as a possible cause for developing breast cancer. More information about iodine and breast cancer can be found in my book, Iodine: Why You Need It, Why You Can’t Live Without It.

Instead of mammograms, perhaps consider thermography. A thermascan measures the heat off the breasts. Hot areas can be associated with increased blood vessels and cancer. Although thermascans do not prevent breast cancer, they do no expose sensitive areas of the body to dangerous ionizing radiation. More information about thermography can be found at: www.thermascan.com.

Finally, in these tough financial times, our health care dollars could be better spent on true preventive measures such as educating people why it is so important to eat a healthy diet. We spend too much money on procedures and drugs that do not prolong our lives or improve our quality of living. Until there is data to the contrary, mammograms are one screening procedure we could do without.