Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 56

Thread: Autism Rates Increase Again

  1. #21
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4422721]I agree somewhat with this theory. We eat horribly in America. Big Government forcing pink slime on our kids at school. Prepackaged processed foods were unheard of 100 years ago. Now basically everything we eat is processed. Look at the ingredients of an average loaf of bread we buy at the supermarket. It is scary. Bread should not stay fresh for 2 weeks.

    My wife and I have been trying to eliminate heavily processed foods from our diet and it is crazy hard. Deli meats is another example of something most people think is fine. It is full of sulfates and preservatives. Utter garbage.

    I have been looking in to a bread machine to make fresh whole grain bread with just 3-4 ingredients. Also looking in to juicing.[/QUOTE]


    why bother? you already made it clear that you feel processed food is wonderful and could never account for any possible health issues

  2. #22
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4422664]There is a huge difference between a possibility and a decisive assignable cause.

    It's nothing but irresponsible, misleading and potentially damaging to those who need treatment/prevention to assign blame without actual proof.[/QUOTE]

    yea obviously i was just shooting my mouth off . i have no proof its just a theory thats based in common sense

  3. #23
    [QUOTE=dickkotite;4422735]why bother? you already made it clear that you feel processed food is wonderful and could never account for any possible health issues[/QUOTE]

    You are confusing me with another poster.

  4. #24
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    7,239
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4422721]I agree somewhat with this theory. We eat horribly in America. Big Government forcing pink slime on our kids at school. Prepackaged processed foods were unheard of 100 years ago. Now basically everything we eat is processed. Look at the ingredients of an average loaf of bread we buy at the supermarket. It is scary. Bread should not stay fresh for 2 weeks.

    My wife and I have been trying to eliminate heavily processed foods from our diet and it is crazy hard. Deli meats is another example of something most people think is fine. It is full of sulfates and preservatives. Utter garbage.

    I have been looking in to a bread machine to make fresh whole grain bread with just 3-4 ingredients. [B]Also looking in to juicing.[/B][/QUOTE]


    Will no one learn from Canseco?:(


    I admit I'm pretty bad at making healthy choices when grocery choices. I wonder if Trader Joes/Whole Foods are actually better quality/less processed chemicals than the regular grocery chains, or if it's just been effective marketing?

    As someone who is trying to conceive (with a womens!) it is something I'm trying to make myself pay more attention to.

    As a complete layman, you do have to wonder how this has effected everyone's health, whether it be increased autism rates or other diseases/conditions.

  5. #25
    [QUOTE=brady's a catcher;4422760]Will no one learn from Canseco?:(


    I admit I'm pretty bad at making healthy choices when grocery choices. I wonder if Trader Joes/Whole Foods are actually better quality/less processed chemicals than the regular grocery chains, or if it's just been effective marketing?

    As someone who is trying to conceive (with a womens!) it is something I'm trying to make myself pay more attention to.

    As a complete layman, you do have to wonder how this has effected everyone's health, whether it be increased autism rates or other diseases/conditions.[/QUOTE]

    I've just recently opened my eyes to this stuff. I saw a show about "natural and artificial flavorings" that would make your stomach turn. I've always given my kids organic milk and such but that's the obvious stuff. Pesticides everywhere. Chemicals in processed foods to allow pastries to stay fresh for eternity. Bleached enriched flour, corn syrup, etc. Hormones/steroids in the meat. Chinese made seafood filled with Mercury. It is a barrage of garbage that is killing people. Who knows but this crap could be causing Autism in kids too. No one knows. We just learned that plastic bottles leak a substance BPA that can cause cancer.

    Here's one. Microwaves. They output microwave radiation to heat up your food quickly. Why would anyone in their right mind want to "radiate" their food. Do you want to eat food from Fukishima that was radiated by the fallout there? Its crazy when you think of it.

  6. #26
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,311
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4422784]I've just recently opened my eyes to this stuff. I saw a show about "natural and artificial flavorings" that would make your stomach turn. I've always given my kids organic milk and such but that's the obvious stuff. Pesticides everywhere. Chemicals in processed foods to allow pastries to stay fresh for eternity. Bleached enriched flour, corn syrup, etc. Hormones/steroids in the meat. Chinese made seafood filled with Mercury. It is a barrage of garbage that is killing people. Who knows but this crap could be causing Autism in kids too. No one knows. We just learned that plastic bottles leak a substance BPA that can cause cancer.

    Here's one. Microwaves. They output microwave radiation to heat up your food quickly. Why would anyone in their right mind want to "radiate" their food. Do you want to eat food from Fukishima that was radiated by the fallout there? Its crazy when you think of it.[/QUOTE]

    Microwaves vs Fukishima are 2 totally different things not to mention power levels. Iradiating foods could save a ton of people from things like e-coli and salmonella but people heard radiation and panicked. While you can make layman's correlations to pretty much anything one of the best ones is between food processing and life expectancy. It isn't like we all started dying earlier 30 years ago and before you go on about higher incidence of cancer that is mostly due to the longer life span and better diagnosis.

  7. #27
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,565
    [QUOTE=dickkotite;4422738]yea obviously i was just shooting my mouth off . i have no proof its just a theory thats based in common sense[/QUOTE]

    I could see how it may seem to be common sense to the layperson.

  8. #28
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,311
    [QUOTE=dickkotite;4422738]yea obviously i was just shooting my mouth off . i have no proof its just a theory thats based in common sense[/QUOTE]

    Sense isn't all that common.

  9. #29
    [QUOTE=Trades;4422797]Microwaves vs Fukishima are 2 totally different things not to mention power levels. Iradiating foods could save a ton of people from things like e-coli and salmonella but people heard radiation and panicked. While you can make layman's correlations to pretty much anything one of the best ones is between food processing and life expectancy. It isn't like we all started dying earlier 30 years ago and before you go on about higher incidence of cancer that is mostly due to the longer life span and better diagnosis.[/QUOTE]

    I haven't studied the science on Microwaves but who knows. It puts out microwave radiation. Whats that? I don't know but it sounds bad to me. I think life expectancy has risen because of advances in medical sciences. Much like the current economy it seems to me expectancy has risen despite eating all the processed crap. I don't necessarily think the higher incidence of cancer is due to longevity though. Environmental factors play a large part be it the food we eat or other things.

  10. #30
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,311
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4422820]I haven't studied the science on Microwaves but who knows. It puts out microwave radiation. Whats that? I don't know but it sounds bad to me. I think life expectancy has risen because of advances in medical sciences. Much like the current economy it seems to me expectancy has risen despite eating all the processed crap. I don't necessarily think the higher incidence of cancer is due to longevity though. Environmental factors play a large part be it the food we eat or other things.[/QUOTE]

    That is exactly the problem, people try making decisions on how things feel or sound instead of on how they are. People are using metal bottles for water instead of plastics because of BPAs but there are stories that the metal bottles leech BPAs at 20-30 times the amounts that plastics do.

    Here is a study that links higher cancer rates to inactivity and obesity...My favorite is the first line. Cancer rates are DECLINING!!!

    [url]http://yourlife.usatoday.com/health/story/2012-03-28/Report-links-rise-in-cancer-to-inactivity-obesity/53835044/1[/url]

    [QUOTE]
    [B]Report links rise in cancer to inactivity, obesity[/B]


    [B]The decline in deaths from all cancers combined continued in the [URL="http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Places,+Geography/Countries/United+States"]USA[/URL] from 2004-2008[/B], but a major government report highlights a worrisome rise in cases linked to obesity and inactivity.

    Although the overall rate of new cancer cases is declining, the report confirms research showing that excess weight and a sedentary lifestyle are risk factors for one-quarter to one-third of common cancers in the USA. About one-third of adults — almost 78 million — are obese, roughly 30 or more pounds over a healthy weight.


    "I don't think Americans understand the association between cancer and obesity," says physician Marcus Plescia, director of the division of cancer prevention for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    "We do know people are afraid of cancer. They know about the links (from obesity) to diabetes, heart disease and arthritis, but many don't know about this. They need to know."


    The report, published Wednesday in the journal [I]Cancer[/I], is co-authored by researchers from the [URL="http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Organizations/Government+Bodies/Centers+for+Disease+Control+and+Prevention"]CDC[/URL], the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries, the [URL="http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/National+Cancer+Institute"]National Cancer Institute[/URL] and the [URL="http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Organizations/Non-profits,+Activist+Groups/American+Cancer+Society"]American Cancer Society[/URL].
    [IMG]http://i.usatoday.net/yourlife/graphics/2012/0328-obesity-rates/adults.gif[/IMG]

    For people who do not smoke, maintaining a healthy weight and getting sufficient exercise may be among the most important ways to prevent cancer, the authors write. The risk factors are second only to tobacco as preventable causes of disease and death in the USA.


    "Education (campaigns) about the risks associated with smoking have been successful," says Plescia. He adds that this year's report documents the second straight year of decreasing lung cancer death rates among women. "This is an important trend. We hope to spread the same important message about obesity."


    In addition to contributing to cancer risk, obesity adversely affects quality of life for cancer survivors and may worsen prognosis for several cancers, the authors write.


    The American Cancer Society estimates that one-third of the more than 572,000 cancer deaths in the USA each year can be attributed to diet and physical activity habits, including overweight and obesity, while another third are caused by exposure to tobacco products.


    "Cancer is becoming a chronic disease because we can treat people better now and they can live longer," says Rachel Ballard-Barbash, associate director of the applied research program at NCI. "But we are beginning to see the effect of health behaviors on the outcomes for cancer survivors. There are things you can do to improve prognosis and quality of life, such as losing weight, improving nutrition and exercising. It is similar to what we learned about heart disease."


    Obesity and insulin resistance may be a high-risk state for disease progression among cancer survivors.


    The biggest increases in new cases was seen in kidney cancer (2.9% a year among men from 1999-2008 and 3.3% among women). Also increasing: pancreatic cancer, adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and uterine cancer.


    "Unlike lung cancer, where one factor (smoking) appears to be the cause, there are multiple factors putting people at risk for some of these cancers," says Ballard-Barbash. "Being overweight and inactive are among those."


    Mechanisms from obesity and inactivity that play a role in cancers include increased hormone levels, alterations in insulin levels, chronic hypertension and damaging inflammatory agents.


    Obesity also is a risk factor for colorectal and postmenopausal breast cancers, yet increases were not noted for those cancers. Plescia attributes this to aggressive screening and new treatments.


    New cases of colorectal cancers decreased, partially due to the significant improvements in adherence in the use of colorectal screening, which can prevent cancer development through removal of precancerous polyps, the authors write.


    Postmenopausal breast cancer leveled off from 2005-2008 after declining from 1999-2005. The report credits the changes to discontinuation of hormone replacement therapy, a known risk factor for breast cancer.


    Overall cancer death rates decreased an average of 1.6% between 2004-2008, the most recent years for which data are available.

    Decreases in deaths from lung, prostate and colorectal cancers accounted for nearly 80% of the decline in death rates among men, while decreases in breast and colorectal cancer made up 60% of the decrease among women, according to the American Cancer Society.


    "If we want to see continued decrease in the mortality rates for cancer, we have to promote healthy behaviors such as losing weight, being active and giving up smoking," says report co-author Ahmedin Jamal, vice president of surveillance research for the American Cancer Society.

    [/QUOTE]

  11. #31
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,311
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4422820]I haven't studied the science on Microwaves but who knows. It puts out microwave radiation. Whats that? I don't know but it sounds bad to me. I think life expectancy has risen because of advances in medical sciences. Much like the current economy it seems to me expectancy has risen despite eating all the processed crap. I don't necessarily think the higher incidence of cancer is due to longevity though. Environmental factors play a large part be it the food we eat or other things.[/QUOTE]

    [B]Radiation, Irradiation And Radioactivity [/B]



    [QUOTE][FONT=arial] [IMG]http://www.iaxtech.com/images/sunset.JPG[/IMG]Although [U]radiation[/U] is often associated with nuclear and medical technology in people’s minds, it is a general term used to describe any form of energy that can be transmitted over large distances without special conductors or conduits. For example, the sun radiates both its heat and light through space. Microwave towers radiate energy as signals for TV and mobile phone networks. X-ray machines radiate energy to image body parts. In addition, certain radioactive materials emit radiation of several types. Many sources of radiation, such as the light bulb, have little or no direct effect on the surfaces they illuminate. However other forms of radiation can penetrate and interact with the materials they strike. The sun can burn the skin as its ultraviolet component actually penetrates and deposits energy in the body cells. Likewise infrared and microwave radiation penetrate food and cook it.


    X-rays and electron beams are even more penetrating and more dangerous than heat, light and microwaves. Electrons, X-Rays and gamma rays ionize the material they strike by stripping electrons from the atoms of the exposed material. This ionized environment is very damaging to the bacteria, viruses or insects and can also change the chemical structure of materials.


    [U]Irradiation[/U] is simply the act of applying radiation (or radiant energy) to some material. Irradiation by penetrating electrons, X-rays and gamma rays ionizes materials rather than simply heating them.


    [U][IMG]http://www.iaxtech.com/images/Radiation%20symbol.JPG[/IMG]Radioactivity[/U] is quite a different matter. The natural elements are composed of a nucleus (of protons and neutrons) surrounded by orbiting electrons. For most elements (the stable elements) the number of nuclear particles is fixed. However, a few, equally “natural” elements such as uranium, radium, and thorium come with an unstable number of atomic particles in their nucleus. Periodically these elements eject energy and nuclear particles to achieve a more stable configuration. The energy that is emitted is [U]radiation[/U] and the process itself is called [U]radioactive[/U] decay or disintegration. The elements that undergo these disintegrations are called [U]radioactive materials[/U]. Stable elements can also be made unstable by exposure to intense nuclear radiation as in nuclear power generating plants, nuclear explosions and high energy particle accelerators. In the public mind there is a unclear association between irradiation and radioactive materials (which if leaked or spread would be a health hazard) leading to the erroneous conclusion that irradiation is dangerous.



    There are two ways in which radioactive materials are associated with industrial irradiation, and an understanding of the connection shows why any any worries are unfounded. The first connection between radioactivity and irradiation is the radiation source. Radioactive materials are often are used as a source of radiation energy. The most widely used radiation processing source material is an isotope of Cobalt known as Cobalt 60. This is produced by irradiation of pre-encapsulated stable Cobalt 59 in the intense neutron fields of a nuclear power reactor. After irradiation, the Cobalt 60 decays and the energy released in the decay creates a penetrating beam of radiation. When these sources are used it is essential they remain encapsulated and shielded. Provided they are shielded and correctly encapsulated they remain harmless to the public. There is a long record of safe use.



    The second way in which radioactivity is discussed in connection with industrial irradiation is mainly a theoretical concern. Radioactive materials can be created when very high energy particles (as created in nuclear reactors and very high energy electron accelerators) bombard a target. In this case, the radiation energy entering the target material can not only ionize it, it can transform a stable element into an unstable one. This is called "induced" radioactivity. After extensive research, it has been established and internationally agreed, that keeping the energy of machine sources below certain well defined thresholds will ensure that any such induced radioactivity will be negligible.
    [B]Characteristics Of Electrons, X-Rays And Gamma Rays.[/B]

    There are three forms of ionizing radiation of practical importance in industrial irradiation, electrons, X-rays and gamma rays.


    Electrons, the electrically charged particles that flow in wires as electricity, or strike the face of a television set to make the image, may seem different from the X-ray and gamma ray forms of radiation because they are usually thought of as particles. However, at high energies, beams of electrons can penetrate solid materials and they cause the same ionizing effect. Electron particle beams are therefore referred to as radiation beams even though their particulate nature is somewhat different from the wave nature of an X-ray or gamma ray.


    When electron beams strike a target such as a plastic medical device, most of the energy goes towards ionizing atoms and killing micro-organisms. If however, the electron beam is stopped in a very dense material such as tungsten or tantalum, some of the energy stimulates the metal atoms to emit X-rays. These X-rays are more penetrating than their parent electrons but only a portion of the electron power is converted. The effective capacity of the plant with an electron-to-X-ray converter is therefore significantly reduced. X-rays are also spread over a wider angle than an electron beam.


    Just as X-rays are formed from atoms excited by the electron beam, gamma rays are formed from atoms that have been excited by nuclear radiation. The physical nature of X-rays and gamma rays is identical, although they may differ slightly in penetration. The different names serve to identify the different origins.
    A most important difference between X and gamma rays is that X-rays are only generated when the parent electron beam is “on” so an X-ray source can be switched on and off. On the other hand, once a radioactive gamma ray source has been produced, it will continue to radiate for ever, though with decreasing power over time.
    [/FONT][/QUOTE]

    [url]http://www.iaxtech.com/TN2.html[/url]

  12. #32
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,311
    Food irradiation

    [QUOTE][url]http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/foodirradiation.htm[/url]

    What is food irradiation? [LEFT]Food irradiation is a promising new food safety technology that can eliminate disease-causing germs from foods. Like pasteurization of milk, and pressure cooking of canned foods, treating food with ionizing radiation can kill bacteria and parasites that would otherwise cause foodborne disease. Similar technology is used to sterilize medical devices so they can be used in surgery or implanted without risk of infection. The food that NASA astronauts eat has been sterilized by irradiation to avoid getting foodborne illness in space. The effects of irradiation on the food and on animals and people eating irradiated food have been studied extensively. These studies show clearly that when irradiation is used as approved on foods:[/LEFT]
    [IMG]http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/images/core/s.gif[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/images/core/blt.gif[/IMG] [B] disease-causing germs are reduced or eliminated [/B] [IMG]http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/images/core/blt.gif[/IMG] [B] the food does not become radioactive [/B] [IMG]http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/images/core/blt.gif[/IMG] [B] dangerous substances do not appear in the foods[/B] [IMG]http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/images/core/blt.gif[/IMG] the nutritional value of the food is essentially unchanged [LEFT]Irradiation is a safe and effective technology that can prevent many foodborne diseases. [/LEFT]
    [/QUOTE]

  13. #33
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,311
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4422820[B]]I haven't studied the science on Microwaves but who knows. It puts out microwave radiation. Whats that? [/B]I don't know but it sounds bad to me. I think life expectancy has risen because of advances in medical sciences. Much like the current economy it seems to me expectancy has risen despite eating all the processed crap. I don't necessarily think the higher incidence of cancer is due to longevity though. Environmental factors play a large part be it the food we eat or other things.[/QUOTE]

    So basically my previous posts are to show a lot of people know, you just have to do some reading.

  14. #34
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    8,930
    Today is World Autism Awareness Day. I'm pretty sure most people are aware of the skyrocketing increase of the disorder at this point. Everyone seems very concerned, save HHS, CDC and the IACC. :(

  15. #35
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    凸(⊙▂⊙✖ )
    Posts
    31,831
    [QUOTE=Jetworks;4422454]Thanks, she's doing well for the most part. Puberty has proven to be as difficult as advertised, but we're managing.



    AFAIK, the numbers found in the US outpace those found in all other "developed" countries, by a very wide margin.[/QUOTE]

    I hear you JW, and it really is pretty shocking.
    Personally I think its the 'over-vacciination' of US kids, even more so is the agressiive schedule; combined with multiple vaccinations in a single dose. It all screams out 'money for pharmaceutical companies' to me.

  16. #36
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    8,930
    [QUOTE=Fishooked;4425085]I hear you JW, and it really is pretty shocking.
    Personally I think its the 'over-vacciination' of US kids, even more so is the agressiive schedule; combined with multiple vaccinations in a single dose. It all screams out 'money for pharmaceutical companies' to me.[/QUOTE]

    Can't say I disagree with this on some level. I've never understood the "one-size-fits-all" approach when it is well-documented that not everyone reacts well to having things injected into them. I guess those kids are considered necessary in making the omelet...:mad:

    BTW, pharmaceutical companies are 100% exempt from liability due to vaccine injury.
    Last edited by Jetworks; 04-02-2012 at 05:10 PM.

  17. #37
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,000
    [QUOTE=Fishooked;4425085]I hear you JW, and it really is pretty shocking.
    Personally I think its the 'over-vacciination' of US kids, even more so is the agressiive schedule; combined with multiple vaccinations in a single dose. It all screams out 'money for pharmaceutical companies' to me.[/QUOTE]

    The vaccinations are nuts.

    Luckily, I had a pediatrician that worked with me and actually let me space some of my kids vaccinations out...gave the kids a couple and then me wait 2 weeks before coming in for the rest.




    Sent from my brain using Telepathy

  18. #38
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4422784]
    Here's one. Microwaves. They output microwave radiation to heat up your food quickly. Why would anyone in their right mind want to "radiate" their food. Do you want to eat food from Fukishima that was radiated by the fallout there? Its crazy when you think of it.[/QUOTE]

    I really hope you are joking about this.

  19. #39
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,000
    [QUOTE=FF2®;4425306]I really hope you are joking about this.[/QUOTE]

    In his defense, he doesn't really understand how microwaves work....

  20. #40
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,538
    [FONT=Arial]is Microwave Radiation the Same as Radioactive Radiation?[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial][/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial][/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial]of course not[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial][SIZE=4][/SIZE][/FONT]
    [IMG]http://www.gallawa.com/microtech/images/freqspec.gif[/IMG]
    [FONT=Arial][SIZE=4][/SIZE][/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial][SIZE=4][/SIZE][/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial][SIZE=4][/SIZE][/FONT]

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us