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.
Decades-old assumption about microbiota revisited.
It’s often said that the bacteria and other microbes in our body outnumber our own cells by about ten to one. That’s a myth that should be forgotten, say researchers in Israel and Canada. The ratio between resident microbes and human cells is more likely to be one-to-one, they calculate.
A ‘reference man’ (one who is 70 kilograms, 20–30 years old and 1.7 metres tall) contains on average about 30 trillion human cells and 39 trillion bacteria, say Ron Milo and Ron Sender at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, and Shai Fuchs at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Canada.
Those numbers are approximate — another person might have half as many or twice as many bacteria, for example — but far from the 10:1 ratio commonly assumed.
Two Movies to watch – FREE
FREE FOR 14 DAYS!
That Vitamin Movie:
FREE UNTIL 28 January.
In Defence of Food:
“Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” With that seven-word maxim, US-based journalist Michael Pollan distills a career’s worth of reporting into a prescription for reversing the damage being done to people’s health by today’s industrially driven Western diet. Pollan offers an answer to one of the most urgent questions of our time: What should I eat to be healthy?
A different view.
Do you have any thoughts on this? Please comment if you do.
Genetic engineering and organic farming are often set up in opposition to one another. After all, how could one agricultural practice that eschews any influence other than Nature coexist with another that is cultivated in a lab? Well, in the household of Pam Ronald (TED Talk: The case for engineering our food) and Raoul Adamchak, they live together up close and personally, as the genetic scientist and organic farmer are married. Recently, the couple discussed the complexity of modern agriculture, what they see as common misconceptions of genetically engineered crops — and the implications these have on those who need food the most. Here’s their take on this hot topic.
The problem with genetic engineering is the communication. “Most consumers accept most science. But there are a few cases where established science is rejected by a segment of the population. Consider for example: vaccination, evolution, global climate change and plant genetics,” says Ronald. “Why do certain aspects of science seize the public’s imagination like this? I’m not sure I know the answer to that. But what’s surprising to plant breeders and geneticists is that 50 years ago we were doing much more dramatic things with plants, things like mutagenesis and hybridization, and they never really caught the public’s imagination. We haven’t seen anything like this before in plant biology.” For his part, Raoul Adamchak attributes much of the tenor of the conversation about genetic engineering to fear. ”So much of the information about genetically engineered crops is misinformation, and it seems like information that’s intended to produce fear in people,” he says.
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.