The cell phone cancer controversy will never be the same again.
The U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) is expected to issue a public announcement that cell phone radiation presents a cancer risk for humans. The move comes soon after its recently completed study showed statistically significant increases in cancer among rats that had been exposed to GSM or CDMA signals for two-years.
Discussions are currently underway among federal agencies on how to inform the public about the new findings. NTP senior managers believe that these results should be released as soon as possible because just about everyone is exposed to wireless radiation all the time and therefore everyone is potentially at risk.
The new results contradict the conventional wisdom, advanced by doctors, biologists, physicists, epidemiologists, engineers, journalists and government officials, among other pundits, that such effects are impossible. This view is based, in part, on the lack of an established mechanism for RF radiation from cell phones to induce cancer. For instance, earlier this week (May 22), a medical doctor in Michigan wrote an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal stating that, “There is no known mechanism by which mobile phones might cause brain tumors.” He went on to argue that there is no need to warn the public about health risks.
Cancer-causing Glyphosate Herbicide Found in Urine of 93% of Americans
The Detox Project, using laboratories at the University of California San Francisco, has found the presence of glyphosate, the most used herbicide in the world, in the urine of 93% of the American public during a unique testing project that started in 2015.
“Glyphosate was found in 93% of the 131 urine samples tested at an average level of 3.096 parts per billion (PPB). Children had the highest levels with an average of 3.586 PPB.”
Scientists have known for 100 years that cancer cells metabolize nutrients in a unique way, though they haven’t understood why. In a new paper, MSK researchers reconsider the evidence and offer an unorthodox explanation, turning some commonsense wisdom on its head.
Long before Louis Pasteur became famous for proving that diseases were caused by germs, he worked in a beer factory. His job: finding a way to make beer from sugar, hops, and yeast without having the yeast take over the vat, gunking up the beer.
Turns out yeast are very good at converting sugar into more yeast, and nothing Pasteur did could change that — which is why today, most beer is filtered.
This long-familiar fact about beer making is inspiring some unconventional thinking about cancer. In a paper published today in Cell Metabolism, Memorial Sloan Kettering President and CEO Craig Thompson and postdoctoral fellow Natasha Pavlova argue that cancer cells take up and use nutrients much like yeast in a vat of sugar, reproducing with wild abandon. Further, they claim that it’s this altered metabolism of nutrients — rather than any quirk of a disordered cell cycle — that lies at the heart of cancer.
“All of the information that drives the cell cycle — drives cell growth — comes from cells recognizing that they have adequate nutrients,” says Dr. Thompson.
If he’s right, then much of what we think we know about cancer is wrong.
To date there were two known forms of transmissible cancers in nature, and this included forms of tumor spreadable between Tasmanian devils, as well as between dogs and soft-shell clams.
This lead to scientists believing that such a transfer of living cancer cells was rare. The discovery of a third form, however, indicates that such cancers may arise more frequently than previously thought.
A team of researchers from the University of Tasmania, Australia, and the University of Cambridge in the UK found this new form of transmissible cancer in the Tasmanian devil in Australia, the second such cancer in the dog-like marsupial, which can only be found in the wild on the Australian island.
Known as Devil Facial Tumor Disease (DFTD), it was first discovered in the animal in 1996 but this new discovery has identified a second form of the disease which looks similar but has a genetic makeup with a distinct chromosomal arrangement from the first form of DFTD.
In approving genetically engineered salmon as safe to eat and safe for the environment, the Food and Drug Administration rejected petitions from environmental and food safety groups asking that companies selling this salmon be required to label it as genetically engineered. Congress should overturn that decision. Consumers deserve to know what they are eating.
The salmon, made by AquaBounty Technologies of Maynard, Mass., has genes inserted that allow it to grow to market size twice as fast as wild salmon. The F.D.A.’s approval permits the engineered salmon to be raised only in land-based hatchery tanks in two facilities — one in Canada, where genes are injected into the eggs of Atlantic salmon, and a facility in Panama, where the fish are grown to market size. Each site has physical barriers to prevent the escape of eggs and fish.
The salmon will be made sterile so that should they escape, they will be unable to breed with other salmon or establish populations in the open sea. Still, such safeguards may not be 100 percent foolproof. The F.D.A. and the Canadian and Panamanian governments will conduct inspections to make sure the safeguards are working. A major concern is what might happen if the technology spreads to larger-scale commercial operations around the world that might have weaker confinement barriers. At least one consumer group has announced plans to sue the F.D.A. to overturn its approval of the engineered salmon.
It will take about two years for these salmon to reach market size, and the Panama facility can produce about 100 tons of fish a year, a tiny amount compared with more than 200,000 tons of Atlantic salmon imported each year. Some leading grocery chains, responding to consumer concerns, have said they won’t sell the genetically engineered salmon.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency Wednesday withdrew approval of a controversial new weed killer to be used on genetically modified corn and soybeans.
The EPA announced the decision after receiving new information from manufacturer Dow AgroSciences that a weed killer called Enlist Duo is probably more toxic to other plants than previously thought.
It was originally approved a year ago and is designed to be used with new strains of genetically modified corn and soybeans. The agency says it needs to study whether wider buffer zones will be required to protect non-target plants.
The US government may be starting to officially recognize medicinal benefits of marijuana, as a government-funded research group has released a report claiming that weed can kill cancer cells.
The Daily Caller reported the National Institute on Drug Abuse has issued a report that recognizes potential medical benefits of marijuana, something the US government has rejected in its classification of pot as a Schedule I drug – along with heroin, LSD and ecstasy.