Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 1 (1 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   3 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

CELL PHONES ARE ONLY PART OF MODERN RISKS

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H4 6/26/11

            The current hoopla over the risk of brain cancer that cell phones might pose is almost comical.   Not because it's silly; the threat is real and calls for more empirical evidence. It's laughable because of all the other carcinogenic or other health threats out there to which we pay so little attention.

            Take, for example, air pollution.   Ample evidence exists about the effects of short- and long-term exposure to filthy air, yet we do little to curb harmful emissions, clean up industrial waste, or to take seriously the kind of global climate changes that affect pollution.  

            Studies in Germany, Scotland and Mexico have revealed that people who breath in traffic fumes regularly have   a higher chance of getting hardening of the arteries and that high levels of polluted air reduces lung function and growth in children. The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that about two million premature deaths occur annually because of air pollution in cities across the world.

            Physicians also recognize the increased likelihood of heart attacks, strokes and other cardiovascular problems from air pollution.   Researchers suggest that living in a major city for an appreciable amount of time can place people at higher risk for cancer than if they lived in the radioactive zone near Chernobyl.  

            Then there's the water we drink.   Increasingly, around the world, it's polluted. Again, WHO estimates that one-sixth of the world's population -- over a billion people -- don't have access to safe water.   Most water in industrialized nations is now considered to be polluted to some degree by toxic bacteria and potentially carcinogenic chemicals. Even bottled water has been found to be unsafe in many instances.  

Now comes the issue of "fracking" to extract natural gas from the earth, a frightening process exposed in the documentary "Gasland."   Fracking involves pumping millions of gallons of water, sand, and chemicals into deep wells to create pressure fractures that release natural gas.   In order for companies like Halliburton not to disclose what chemicals they were using during fracking, in 2005 Dick Cheney pushed through an energy bill that exempted natural gas drilling from the Safe Drinking Water Act that had been in place since 1974. Obviously, fracking hadn't reached his neighborhood yet.

According to ProPublica, a report by Congressional Democrats released in April revealed that "gas drillers have injected millions of gallons of fluids containing toxic or carcinogenic chemicals into the ground in recent years."   An astounding 750 chemicals and compounds were used by more than a dozen oil and gas service companies between 2005 and 2009 to extract natural gas from the ground.   Twenty-nine of them are "either known or possible carcinogens or are regulated by the federal government because of other risks to human health."   The congressional report itself notes that "the permanent underground injection of chemicals used for hydraulic fracturing is not regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency."

Then there's the issue of genetically engineered (GE) foods.   They are worrying because, according to the Alliance for Natural Health, "GE organisms actually become part of the bacteria in our digestive tracts and reproduce continuously inside us."   To date, there are no human clinical trials of GE foods so we don't know exactly what that does to our bodies, but I'm among those who would like to find out before ingesting too many genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.   For one thing, it's a little worrying to know that the Institute for Responsible Technology has said that "the genetic engineering process creates massive collateral damage, causing mutations in hundreds or thousands of locations throughout a plant's DNA."

One of the things worrying scientists as well as anti-GE monitors is the possibility of creating antibiotic-resistant diseases.   Already, they say, certain toxins inserted into genetically modified food crops to kill pests have been found in 93 percent of women and 80 percent of fetuses because of consumption of meat, milk, and eggs from livestock fed GE corn.   Allergies have also skyrocketed in the U.S. and in the UK, when GE soy was introduced, soy-related allergies rose by 50 percent.

GMOs are causing genetic changes in mammal offspring.   Birth defects, high infant mortality rates, and sterility have been documented in livestock fed GMO soy and corn. Some hamster offspring have been found with hair growing in their mouths.

In a worrying new development, the Organic Consumers Association reported recently that   companies like Whole Foods Market and Stonybrook Farm have "surrendered to Montsanto" by giving the go-ahead to the USDA to approve "conditional deregulation" of a genetically engineered herbicide used on alfalfa. Opponents say this is bound to contaminate alfalfa fed to organic animals and to lead to "the destruction of the essential soil food web."   For this reason, consumers will have to be hyper-vigilant about the difference between "natural" and "organic" foods.

Why are companies capitulating?   One reason is that CEOs are growing tired of activist pressure.   They may also think the battle against GMOs has peaked.   But the main reason they're giving in is that they want the controversy to disappear.   They know that a huge amount of their annual sales comes from so-called "natural" products that are, in fact, contaminated with GMOs.  

If any of this troubles you, contact your legislators.   Just be sure to call them on a landline.

 

www.elayneclift.com

Elayne Clift is a writer,lecturer, workshop leader and activist. She is senior correspondent for Women's Feature Service, columnist for the Keene (NH) Sentinel and Brattleboro (VT) Commons and a contributor to various publications internationally. (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

What Happens When "Jane" Comes Marching Home Again?

Is America Really as Safe a Place to Live as You Thought?

Orifice Politics; What the War on Women is Really About

Why Are We Sexualizing Young Girls?

Beauty and the Beast: The Ugly Attacks on Activist Women

DSM-5 Could Be Hazardous to Your Mental Health

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
3 people are discussing this page, with 3 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

I haven't heard much hoopla, unless it is in a ton... by Clark on Monday, Jun 27, 2011 at 12:26:42 PM
I just don't want to get creamed by some dim bulb ... by Dave Kisor on Monday, Jun 27, 2011 at 6:16:44 PM
they do make people very rude, especially when the... by nativenezperce on Tuesday, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:59:17 AM