A new threat, using another level of security scare, is being used to expose the flying population to either excessive ionizing radiation or ultra high frequency radiation. Thanks to the attempted airliner bombing on Christmas 2009, TSA Security Laboratory Director Susan Hallowell recently announced the agency’s intent to use back-scatter X-ray machines for passenger surveillance.

Obviously we need to refine our screening techniques to provide maximum safety for our air travel. However, these X-ray machines penetrate a few centimeters into the skin and reflect back a naked body image. While some will view this as a privacy violation, this is not the immediate problem. Thomas Wiggins, a radiation company engineer, admits that before 9/11, proposing such a system would be like ordering his own death sentence. He has changed his mind and now states that they could “scan a pregnant woman 200 times without a health risk.” This is a scientifically fallacious statement.

Those implementing this near-sighted agenda have deliberately ignored the outstanding research of Dr. John Gofman (Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley) showing that THERE IS NO SAFE DOSE OF IONIZED RADIATION. This statement is based on years of serious unbiased research. Ionizing radiation in the X-ray spectrum damages and mutates both chromosomal DNA and structural proteins in human cells. If this damage is not repaired, it can lead to cancer. X-rays also damage the interior walls of the arteries. These cells are then unable to process lipoproteins correctly, resulting in atherosclerotic plaques and mini tumors in the arteries, stimulating atherosclerosis and heart disease. Dr. Gofman’s studies indicate that radiation from medical diagnostics and treatment is a causal co-factor in 50% of America’s cancers and 60% of our ischemic (blood flow blockage) heart disease. He stresses that the frequency with which Americans are medically X-rayed “makes for a significant radiological impact.” The more people are exposed to these higher doses of radiation, the greater their risk of real, life-threatening cancer and heart disease.

A report in the British medical journal Lancet noted that after breast mammograms were introduced in 1983, the incidence of ductal carcinoma (12% of breast cancer) increased by 328%, of which 200% was due to the use of mammography itself. A Lawrence Berkeley National Lab study has demonstrated that breast tissue is extremely susceptible to radiation-induced cancer, confirming warnings by numerous experts that mammograms can initiate the very cancers they may later identify. Dr. Gofman believes that medical radiation is a co-factor in 75% of breast cancer cases. With this information, it would not be very intelligent to expose your breasts to radiation from X-ray machines at airports. This is an explicit danger to American women. (Infrared mammography is a far safer diagnostic tool.)

Yes, we should improve security, but these procedures must not introduce a scientifically proven, life-threatening hazard to our health. America’s cancer rates are already rising in every category. Airline pilots and cabin crews suffer more skin and breast cancer due to higher levels of radiation while flying. Dr. Abram Petkau has uncovered significant statistical research showing that a pregnant woman flying in an airplane in her first trimester exposes her baby to enough radiation to increase its risk of leukemia sixteen times.

The other source of surveillance being considered is ultra high frequency radio waves. There are scanners available that produce a frequency 1000 times higher than is healthfully advisable. Some examples include radar, producing a wide variety of radiations and causing cancer and neurological problems; microwaves, which are also noted to cause cancer; and even ultrasound: Swedish research on the use of ultrasound technologies on fetuses indicate that it may cause subtle brain damage and be associated with delayed development and learning disorders.

The attempted terrorist attacks are cause for concern, but we need to think about appropriate security without creating a screening system lethal to our population. In addition to effectively enforcing those systems already in place, there are many other forms of security screening that could work.

I am urging you to start expressing your concern now. We must strongly protest to convince authorities that this is a dangerous and thoughtless approach, which will increase the risk of cancer, atherosclerosis, heart disease, and brain damage to our population. The risk/benefit analysis does not justify these measures, which are at best foolish and at worst genocidal.

Blessings to your health and spiritual wellbeing.

Gabriel Cousens, M.D.

Check out today’s blog to learn about the powerful anti-cancer effects of certain green veggies that might be on your plate this Meatless Monday. Don’t miss Dr. Fuhrman’s delicious recipe at the end of the blog!

Nutrition scientists have shown over and over that people who eat more natural plant foods—vegetables, fruits, legumes—are less likely to be diagnosed with cancer. But are all vegetables equally protective? If we wanted to design an anti-cancer diet, we would want to know which foods have the most powerful anti-cancer effects. Then, we could eat plenty of these foods each day, flooding our bodies with the protective substances contained within them.

So, which foods have the most powerful anti-cancer effects? Cruciferous vegetables.

This family of vegetables includes green vegetables like kale, cabbage, collards, and broccoli, plus some others like cauliflower and turnips (see the full list at the bottom of this post). They are named for their flowers, having four equally spaced petals in the shape of a cross, from the Latin word ‘crucifer’ meaning ‘cross-bearer.’

All vegetables contain protective micronutrients and phytochemicals, but cruciferous vegetables have a unique chemical composition: they have sulfur-containing compounds which are responsible for their pungent or bitter flavors. When cell walls are broken by blending or chopping, a chemical reaction occurs that converts these sulfur-containing compounds to isothiocyanates (ITCs)—compounds with proven anti-cancer activities.

Over 120 ITCs have been identified, and the various ITCs have different mechanisms of action. Because different ITCs can work in different locations in the cell and on different molecules, they can have combined additive effects, working synergistically to remove carcinogens and kill cancer cells. Some ITCs have anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, or even immunologic effects. Some ITCs can inhibit angiogenesis, the process by which a tumor establishes a blood supply.

Some ITCs detoxify and/or remove carcinogenic compounds; the combined consumption of broccoli and Brussels sprouts (rich sources of the ITC sulforaphane) increases the excretion of certain dietary carcinogens. (1) Some ITCs inhibit cancer cell growth or induce cancer cell death: cruciferous vegetable juice, containing a variety of ITCs, has been shown to induce apoptosis, or programmed cell death, in breast cancer cells. (2)

Some ITCs can prevent carcinogens from binding to DNA and initiating cancerous changes in the cell. Sulforaphane activates enzymes that protect cells from DNA damage by carcinogens. (3) But if DNA does indeed become damaged, the growth of the damaged cell can be stopped to allow for DNA repair, or the cell can be programmed for cell death. These processes can control this damage. Several ITCs, including sulforaphane, indole-3-carbinol (I3C), and diindolmethane (DIM) stop growth or induce death in cultured cancer cells. (3) Sulforaphane blocks tumor formation and induces programmed cell death in colon cancer cells. (4) Allyl isothiocyanate (AITC), present in several cruciferous vegetables, inhibits proliferation and induces cell death in bladder cancer cells. (5)

Indole-3-carbinol and its metabolite DIM may be especially protective against hormone-sensitive cancers; they help the body transform estrogen and other hormones into forms that are more easily excreted from the body. (6-7)

These observations in cell culture and animal studies have been confirmed by epidemiological studies drawing connections between cruciferous vegetable intake and cancer incidence. Inverse associations between cruciferous vegetable intake and breast, lung, prostate, and colorectal cancers have been reported. Similar associations exist for total vegetable intake, but cruciferous vegetables are far more potent:

•    Cruciferous vegetables are twice as powerful as other plant foods.  In population studies, a 20% increase in plant food intake generally corresponds to a 20% decrease in cancer rates, but a 20% increase in cruciferous vegetable intake corresponds to a 40% decrease in cancer rates. (8)
•    28 servings of vegetables per week decreased prostate cancer risk by 33%, but just 3 servings of cruciferous vegetables per week decreased prostate cancer risk by 41%. (9)
•    1 or more servings of cabbage per week reduces risk of pancreatic cancer by 38%. (10)

How can we maximize the ITC benefit of our cruciferous vegetables?  Methods of preparation and cooking can affect the availability of ITCs to be digested and absorbed.  Chopping, chewing, blending, or juicing allows for production of ITCs. Some ITC benefit may be lost with boiling or steaming, so we get the maximum benefit from eating cruciferous vegetables raw; however, some production of ITC in cooked cruciferous vegetables may occur in the gut once the vegetables have been ingested.

Cruciferous vegetables are not only the most powerful anti-cancer foods in existence, they are also the most nutrient-dense of all vegetables. Although the National Cancer Institute recommends 5-9 servings of fruits and vegetables per day for cancer prevention, they have not yet established specific recommendations for cruciferous vegetables. I recommend 6 fresh fruits and 8 total servings of vegetables per day, including 2 servings of cruciferous vegetables, one raw and one cooked. Consuming a large variety of these ITC-rich cruciferous vegetables within an overall nutrient-dense diet can provide us with a profound level of protection against cancer.

List of cruciferous vegetables:
•    Arugula
•    Bok choy
•    Broccoli
•    Broccoli rabe
•    Broccolini
•    Brussels sprouts
•    Cabbage
•    Cauliflower
•    Collards
•    Horseradish
•    Kale
•    Kohlrabi
•    Mache
•    Mustard greens
•    Radish
•    Red cabbage
•    Rutabaga
•    Turnips
•    Turnip greens
•    Watercress

Recipe: Braised Bok Choy
Serves: 2
Ingredients:
•    8 baby bok choy or 3 regular bok choy
•    1 teaspoon Bragg Liquid Aminos or low sodium soy sauce
•    2 cups coarsely chopped shiitake mushrooms
•    2 large cloves garlic, chopped (optional)
•    1 tablespoon unhulled sesame seeds, lightly toasted*
*Lightly toast sesame seeds in a pan over medium heat for 3 minutes, shaking pan frequently.

Instructions:
1.    Cover bottom of large skillet with 1/2 inch water. Add bok choy (cut baby bok choy in half lengthwise or cut regular bok choy into chunks).
2.    Drizzle with liquid aminos. Cover and cook on high heat until bok choy is tender, about 6 minutes.
3.    Remove bok choy; add mushrooms and garlic to the liquid in the pan.
4.    Simmer liquid until reduced to a glaze. Pour over bok choy. Top with toasted sesame seeds.

For an extensive collection of green vegetable recipes like these, visit Dr. Fuhrman’s website and check out his most recent book, Eat for Health.

References:

1. Walters DG, Young PJ, Agus C, Knize MG, Boobis AR, Gooderham NJ, et al. Cruciferous vegetable consumption alters the metabolism of the dietary carcinogen 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo [4,5-b]pyridine (PhIP) in humans. Carcinogenesis 2004;25:1659–69.

2. Brandi G et al. Mechanisms of action and antiproliferative properties of Brassica oleracea juice in human breast cancer cell lines. J Nutr 2005;135(6):1503-9

3. Higdon JV et al. Cruciferous Vegetables and Human Cancer Risk: Epidemiologic
Evidence and Mechanistic Basis. Pharmacol Res. 2007 March ; 55(3): 224–236

4. Gamet-Payrastre I et al. Sulforaphane, a naturally occurring isothiocyanate induces cell cycle arrest and apoptosis in HT29 human colon cancer cells. Cancer Res 2000;60:1426-1433

5. Bhattacharya A et al. Inhibition of Bladder Cancer Development by Allyl Isothiocyanate.
Carcinogenesis. 2009 Dec 2. [Epub ahead of print]

6. Yuan F et al. Anti-estrogenic activities of indole-3-carbinol in cervical cells: implication for prevention of cervical cancer. Anticancer Res. 1999 May-Jun;19(3A):1673-80.

7. Dalessandri KM, Firestone GL, Fitch MD, Bradlow HL, Bjeldanes LF. Pilot study: effect of 3,3?-diindolylmethane supplements on urinary hormone metabolites in postmenopausal women with a history of early-stage breast cancer. Nutr Cancer 2004;50:161–7.

8. Michaud DS et al. Frut and vegetable intake and incidence of bladder cancer in a male prospective cohort. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999; 91(7):605-13

9. Cohen JH et al. Fruit and vegetable intake and prostate cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92(1):61-68

10. Larsson SC, Hakansson N, Naslund I, Bergkvist L, Wolk A. Fruit and vegetable consumption in relation to pancreatic cancer: a prospective study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15:301–305.

The biggest ad in the Walgreens cosmetics aisle these days isn’t the airbrushed model hawking L’Oreal, but the huge cardboard archway with the Axe logo leading like a beacon to an aisle stuffed with flashy cans of body spray. This is where the boys come to be cool, to man up, to make the ladies swoon at their feet – or so the ads make them believe.

As the New York Times reported, male body products are all the rage among teenagers and even the pre-teen crowd. One mom counted 18 different products in the bathroom of her 13- and 14-year old boys – the body washes, exfoliators, body hydrators, body sprays, deodorant, shaving cream and hair products they think they can’t live without.

This is the beauty industry’s wet dream: to finally have the other 50% of adolescents churning with anxiety, desperate to own products that promise to make them attractive and acceptable (but always fall short). The marketing machine is selling such anxieties in a myriad of subtle ways – book tie-ins, gaming sites, endorsements from hip-hop stars and extreme athletes. A Kardashian sister was reportedly paid six figures to tweet about loving the smell of Axe. (In reality, most girls are holding their noses behind the guy’s back.)

The irony of this story, which the Times missed entirely, is that the ads promise virility and masculinity, yet the products may have the exact opposite effect on the bodies of developing boys. Most fragranced products contain diethyl phthalate, a chemical that has been linked to sperm damage and feminized genitals. Many of the products, from body spray to shampoo, also contain parabens, a chemical that acts like estrogen in the body.

In all, the 18 body-care products used by the above-mentioned teenagers contain roughly 200 synthetic chemicals that the boys are putting on their bodies each day before breakfast. This daily dose includes dozens of chemicals linked to cancer, skin problems, allergies and hormone disruption, according to an analysis of a typical suite of these products on the Skin Deep database.

How’s that for an ick factor?

By this point in the story, you may be shaking your head in disbelief. But the ugly truth is that companies are allowed to put nearly any chemical into beauty products in unlimited amounts, without conducting safety assessments and without listing all the chemicals on labels. Toxic products are often marketed as “pure,” “gentle,” “hypo-allergenic” and even “organic,” since there are no legal standards for these terms on personal care products.

The beauty industry is in desperate need of a safety makeover. The broken regulatory system keeps consumers in the dark about what they’re really buying and holds the industry back from innovating the next generation of non-toxic products. Why make safer products if they don’t have to? To help change the laws, join the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics at www.safecosmetics.org.

In the meantime, what’s the parent or girlfriend of an over-anxious body-spraying teenage boy to do? Showing him a Skin Deep analysis of his products, along with information about how phthalates may be impacting masculinity, may make a lasting impression. (Keep in mind that phthalates aren’t listed on product labels; avoid them by avoiding products with fragrance.)

Some honest feedback about what it’s like to smell them coming also wouldn’t hurt. As Stephenie Mullen, the mom quoted in the NYT story, wrote on her blog: “being in a car with my Axe covered boys (is) like going for a jog behind a mosquito truck.”

As it turns out, that image of the noxious spray cloud isn’t far off the mark from what’s happening in the bathroom each morning.

Meatless Monday is the perfect day to take a look at the connection between our health and diet. Read on to learn more about the state of America’s health and Neal Barnard, MD’s prescription for wellness.

Rush Limbaugh was rushed to a Hawaii hospital in late December, reportedly suffering from severe chest pains. The concern was a possible heart attack, but fortunately, tests showed no such problem.

This health scare should still be a wake-up call. As a doctor, I’m offering one bit of advice, not just to Rush, but to all Americans: We need to be more conservative. As conservative as possible, in fact.

With our diets, that is. Many Americans are far too liberal with their servings of meat, dairy products, eggs, and other less-than-healthy foods. And they are getting more so with each passing year. Per capita annual meat intake has risen roughly 70 pounds in the last century, and cheese intake has jumped by nearly 30 pounds in the same time period.

This huge load of cholesterol, fat, and calories has fueled epidemics of obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and other health problems. And these diseases are taxing our health care system like never before. As a nation, we now spend $147 billion on obesity-related medical costs every year. During these tough economic times, we should be tightening our belts. But let’s face it: Our belts are rapidly moving in the opposite direction.

In our grandparents’ day, people knew the value of humble beans, vegetables, and fruits, often growing them in their own family gardens. These foods have essentially no cholesterol and very little saturated fat. It pays to give them renewed respect. Indeed, people who stick to an entirely plant-based diet, as part of an overall healthy lifestyle, can do more than just prevent heart disease; they can actually reverse it, as was demonstrated in the now-classic studies of Dean Ornish, M.D.

A plant-based diet can also help you slim down, improve diabetes and hypertension, and feel like yourself again. It can also fight some types of cancer. Fruits and vegetables are packed with antioxidants and other nutrients that boost the immune system. And fiber-rich vegan diets help quickly flush carcinogens and other toxins from the body.

The only good thing about a health scare is that it reminds us how important our diets and lifestyles are to our well-beings. It’s time to trade our cheeseburgers for veggie burgers, beef tacos for bean burritos, and remote controls for tennis shoes. Yes, that’s my prescription for Rush—but it’s also my prescription for us all.

In the early part of the previous century, being overweight was a sign of wealth and, as such, a status symbol. Those who were able to afford excessive amounts of food wanted the world to see they made enough money to overeat. Fortunately, times have changed, and today people showcase their wealth in less health-damaging ways. Now, however, the other end of the income spectrum is most commonly overweight or obese. According to studies conducted by the Journal of the American Medical Association, low-income individuals and families are more likely to be overweight than those earning middle and high incomes. Of course this is a generalization, but that’s how these kinds of studies work.

As you might expect, low-quality diet is one of the main reasons for the increase in obesity among the poor. Many processed and highly refined foods (or what, in some cases, are more properly referred to as edible food-like substances) are cheaper than whole, fresh, and natural options. People with less money are more likely to buy the cheaper foods.

This is problematic for two reasons. First: highly-processed and refined foods generally have little to no nutritional value. As a result, you will have to consume considerably more food to satisfy the body’s need for nutrients. Only when the body has the nutrients it requires does it switch off its hunger signal. The negative short-term effect is that more food will be consumed, which leads quickly to weight gain. In addition, the digestion of this, low-nutrient food robs the body of energy without providing much energy in return. The result is that the person feels less full and has to spend more money to buy additional food to stay satiated. If that person were to gradually switch over to a diet comprised of more expensive whole foods, he or she would no longer be in a constant state of hunger and therefore would naturally choose to consume less. The financial saving gained from buying cheap processed foods quickly evaporates.

Second, the consumption of these processed foods contributes to long-term health risks. If a person has relied on processed foods to reconstruct the body day in and day out for decades, that body will falter later in life. Disease of some form will almost certainly be the result. Type II diabetes, arthritis, osteoporosis, and the many offshoots of cardiovascular disease are the most common to develop. The drugs needed to treat these ailments commonly cost several thousand dollars per month. And that’s just to alleviate the symptoms; the underlying disease continues to progress. Admittedly, there are rare cases when drugs can eradicate the disease; however, what caused the disease in the first place has not been addressed, therefore it may return.

To put it simply, replacing refined, processed foods with natural, whole foods is a form of health insurance. You will stack the odds in your favor and save money in the long run. In the short term, you will have more energy and greater mental clarity, both of which can significantly improve productivity. Some people may choose to put a dollar value on that.

We are beginning to experience a realization among corporate America that true, sustainable health can be directly translated into improved profits. The realization that healthier employees not only get sick less often, but are simply more productive, has clearly began to dawn.

A recent study published in the Washington Post revealed that, on average, American-built automobiles cost $1,500 more than comparably equipped Japanese or European cars. The reason? Americans are in worse physical health than their Japanese and European counterparts and therefore must pay higher health insurance premiums. This additional cost is passed on to the end consumer to allow the company to maintain profitability. The United States is less able to compete in the global market simply because its citizens are in a poorer state of health.

As the health of the American people declines, so, too, does their nation’s economy. This is not a coincidence. More people are developing disease earlier in life than in any previous generation. Those who aren’t privately insured place a tremendous burden on the taxpayer-funded healthcare system, contributing to higher taxes, a decrease in spending, a sluggish economy, and even a near-recession (or recession, depending on who you talk to), as America is now experiencing. While there are other contributing factors here, including the sub-prime mortgage debacle and war spending, a nation made up of unhealthy people is inevitably going to become an unhealthy nation economically. A company comprised of unhealthy people will never reach its full earning potential.

Large corporations are beginning to catch on. At the Googleplex in Santa Clara County, California, Google employees enjoy recreation facilities once the exclusive domain of high-priced resorts: a gym, two swimming pools, and a sand-volleyball court. But the Googleplex’s culinary options are where it shines the brightest . With 11 cafeterias, the selection of food is vast. And employees can request whatever they want—whether it’s on the menu or not. The cafeterias offer several balanced, plant-based options and a plethora of smoothies and raw foods.

Is Google going to this considerable up-front expense simply because they’re nice people? No. They are nice, but they also understand that the improved health and happiness of their employees will improve their bottom line. And it has, consistently, since its inception in 2003. The monetary return on their investment comes in the form of employees performing at a higher level. And consider the advantages that beyond-basic health can bring to a company. Employees who are in top form have a stronger immune system and are less likely to get sick and be absent from work. Companies who don’t embrace this holistic approach to well-being and productivity will not turn as great a profit and eventually will not be able to compete with the ones who do embrace it. Then they’ll have to answer to their shareholders.

The fact that “health and wellness” is beginning to be viewed as something that is of economic value is exciting. And, in my estimation, will eventually prove to be what turns our societies’ health around and thereby will be responsible in large part for resurgence in personal revitalized wellbeing. Rightly or wrongly, we are a society that bows down to the economy, revolves around it and is altogether controlled by it, so for the economy to prosper in unison with our personal heath enhancement is of great significants.