Louisa Enright's Blog

Mainely Tipping Points

Posts Tagged ‘Tim Boyd

Interesting Information: 7.83 Hz, and Sleep in the Quiet Dark

leave a comment »

Interesting Information:  December 8, 2013

7.83 Hz, and

Sleep in the Quiet Dark

I used to fuss at my younger son and his wife all the time about the sleep monitors they have in their babies rooms.  The older child, especially, is a very light sleeper.  To give her comfort, they also keep a night light on.

But I’ve given up.  And they do have to live their lives in their own way.

Nevertheless, like many of my generation who grew up without much technology, I’m worried about the overload of radiation in our world today–from cell phones, baby monitors, microwaves, wireless transmitters of all sorts (computers, Smart Meters, radios, etc.), the machines at the airports.  It’s a growing list.

I myself cannot sleep with lights on around me.  The fire alert contraption on the ceiling near my bedroom door–meant to show me where the door is in the case of fire–seems at night like a strobe light.  I covered it with several coverings of masking tape.  But I can still see it once my eyes get accustomed to the dark, and one of these days, I’m getting on a ladder and putting MORE tape over it.  The light from the clock or from the plug strip in my room or from the phone–I block or cover them up.  Then I get, blissfully, dark.  Then I have only the monthly full moon and the countless bright winter stars to thwart my sleep.

Am I nuts?

You can watch Resonance:  Beings of Frequency for free at https://vimeo.com/54189727 (James Russell and John K. Webster Directors, Patient Zero Productions).

And below you’ll find the review of this DVD from Tim Boyd in the Spring 2013 issue of Wise Traditions, the journal of The Weston A. Price Foundation.

Seems that 7.83 Hz is the resonant frequency of the earth–and as such is the frequency at which the alpha waves of our brains resonate.  If that frequency gets interfered with, ill health follows.  Reviewer Tim Boyd notes that if you put a cordless phone in a bee hive, the bees leave.

Be sure to read the paragraph on dark and wireless devices and melatonin production.

Resonance: Beings of Frequency PDF Print E-mail
Written by Tim Boyd
Tuesday, 23 April 2013 20:05
book-thumbupResonance: Beings of Frequency Directed by James Russell and John K. Webster Patient Zero Productions Available for free viewing at http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/resonance-beings-frequency/When you have a sphere within a sphere and an electromagnetic field, that arrangement creates a frequency. For at least a few centuries most of us have known that Earth is a sphere and it is surrounded by a larger sphere we call the ionosphere. Using that information, Winfried Otto Schumann calculated the resonant frequency of the earth as 7.83 Hz. I know what you’re thinking. Why would anyone care? It turns out that alpha waves generated by the human brain resonate at about that same frequency. It also turns out that when researchers constructed an underground bunker completely shielded from those waves and put test subjects in that bunker, they discovered that was bad for human health.

Other experiments with DNA in water showed that DNA strands communicate with each other at about the same frequency. Life in general seems to be tuned to 7.83 Hz. In our current era we are now adding an unprecedented amount of other electronic frequencies and noise to the environment. Between radio transmissions, cell phones and other wireless transmissions, it is becoming almost impossible to detect the Schumann resonance around big cities.

There is reason to believe this is having adverse effects on human and animal life. When cordless phones are put in a beehive, the bees don’t return. When natural electromagnetic fields are disrupted by things like cell phones or cell towers, birds and bees are no longer able to navigate. There may be other factors involved but this appears to be a significant factor in the decline of many species of birds and insects. In human populations, cancer clusters have been noted around cell phone towers.

Melatonin is a powerful antioxidant that regulates the immune system. It is produced by the pineal gland when it is dark. That is why you need to sleep in complete darkness to get the benefits of any melatonin. There is now evidence that melatonin production is disrupted by other forms of radiation besides visible light, particularly from wireless devices.

There have been a number of studies showing problems with cell phone radiation. There have also been many studies claiming that there is no problem. When you look at who carried out (or paid for) the studies showing no problem, it is obvious that the sponsor of the study had a vested interest in finding nothing. This video also points out that there is no effective government oversight or regulation of all the new phone technology. It is almost amusing when people are shocked by this fact. Large corporations control the governments of the western world. How much genuine regulation do you expect? All of this is more bad news for cell phone lovers. This one gets a thumbs UP.

This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, the quarterly magazine of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Spring 2013.

Interesting Information: How Much Sugar Are We Eating Today?

leave a comment »

Interesting Information:  August 4, 2012

How Much Sugar Are We Eating Today?

Tim Boyd reviews DVDs in the Weston A. Price Foundation’s journal WISE TRADITIONS.  In the summer 2012 issue, which I’ve just finished reading, he reviewed a DVD by Nancy Appleton, PhD, called SWEET SUICIDE–HOW SUGAR IS DESTROYING THE HEALTH OF OUR SOCIETY, made with help from the Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation.  (Pottenger did, among other useful things, the famous study of cat health, based on what they were fed.)

Here’s a revealing quote–which answers the question in the title of this entry:

During George Washington’s time we consumed thirteen pounds per year per person on average.  During George Bush’s time we consumed one hundred fifty pounds per person per year.  The difference in cancer and degenerative disease rates during those times is clear.

Those figures would be AVERAGES–which means some of us are eating way more than 150 pounds!!!!! each year.

And, remember, these figures do NOT include the sugars you’re eating that derive from grains and all carbohydrates.  Remember that two slices of whole wheat toast is the daily limit for a woman in Luise Light’s recommendations for the 1980 USDA food guide (that got erased) AND on the Glycenic Index puts more sugar into your bloodstream than a Mars candy bar or a soda (which has about 16 teaspoons of sugar if I remember correctly)  , according to WHEAT BELLY.

So how much sugar are you eating?

I’m finding that my desire for sugar–even the raw honey I use to sweeten my tea–is drastically decreasing since I cut out wheat and most grains.  For whatever that’s worth…

Mainely Tipping Points 34: Part 1: THE CASE AGAINST FLUORIDE

with 5 comments

PART 1:  THE CASE AGAINST FLUORIDE

 

Like many of you, I suspect, until very recently I never questioned the safety of fluoridating the general water supply.  Fluoride makes teeth stronger, right?  The government and many health organizations–like the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association, and the American Public Health Association–have scientific studies showing fluoridation is safe, right?  We’ve been fluoridating water for sixty years now with no ill effects, right?

My awareness of the toxicity and danger of fluoride and of the practice of fluoridation came slowly.  In 2006 when I started seriously researching food and health issues, information about fluoride toxicity emerged slowly.  There were some disturbing assessments in the Weston A. Price Foundation’s (WAPF) materials.  A local activist asked me to look deeper because she believed broken bones in children were much more common today due to fluoridation.  The fact that one of my grandchildren had already, at age two, fallen off the back of a sofa onto a thick carpet and broken his arm began to echo in my head.   I agreed fluoride was likely a problem, but I had other research and essays lined up to do first. 

In late June, I started getting ready for my family’s  annual summer visits by stockpiling food and household supplies.  Only, I couldn’t find a toothpaste for the children that didn’t contain fluoride.  Standing in the toothpaste aisles of various local stores, I remembered seeing recent email alerts concerning new information about fluoridation and brain damage in children. 

Because the FDA classifies fluoride as a drug, the FDA requires adult toothpastes to carry the following dire warning:  “Keep out of the reach of children under 6 years of age.  If you swallow more than used for brushing, get medical help or contact a poison control center right away.”  A dose is the size of a pea.      

Toothpastes, including children’s toothpastes, warn users not to swallow.  Have you tried, lately, telling children who are two, three, and four years old not to swallow when the color is luscious and the flavor delicious?

About this time, Tim Boyd reviewed THE CASE AGAINST FLUORIDE:  HOW HAZARDOUS WASTE ENDED UP IN OUR DRINKING WATER AND THE BAD SCIENCE AND POWERFUL POLITICS THAT KEEP IT THERE, by Paul Connett, PhD, James Beck, MD, PhD, and H.S. Micklem, DPhil, in the spring 2011 WAPF’S journal, WISE TRADITIONS (59).  Boyd noted the authors’ statement that the pea-sized dab of toothpaste contains as much fluoride as one glass of fluoridated water.  Boyd asked if adults call the Poison Control Center after drinking the recommended eight glasses of water per day since they would have exceeded EPA’s daily safety dose for fluoride.

Connett et al explain that controlling the concentration of fluoride is not the same thing as controlling the dose of fluoride, which includes not just drinking fluoridated water but the total dose from other sources, like toothpaste, tea, wine, pesticide residues on food, mechanically deboned meat, and food and beverages processed with fluorideated water (207).  With water, the “dose gets larger the more water is drunk; and the larger the dose, the more likely it will cause harm” since fluoride “is…highly toxic” (8-9).  Further, the kidneys only excrete 50 percent of the fluoride ingested; the rest moves mostly into calcifying tissues like the bones and the brain’s pineal gland and concentrates in the kidneys (123).    

Since scientific credentials are hugely important in the debate about fluoridation, do Connett et al have the kind of knowledge needed to assess the toxicity of fluoride? Connett’s PhD is in chemistry from Dartmouth.  He specializes in environmental chemistry and toxicology.  Until his retirement in 2006, he was a full professor at St. Lawrence University.  Additionally, for twenty-five years he’s worked in waste management.  He currently directs the Fluoride Action Network, whose website is a source of valuable information. 

Beck holds two doctorates:  Medicine from the Washington University School of Medicine and Biophysics from the University of California.  He is currently professor emeritus of medical biophysics at the University of Calgary, Canada. 

Micklem’s doctorate is from the University of Oxford.  He publishes mainly in the fields of stem cell biology and immunology.  He is an emeritus professor in the School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, UK, and has held visiting research fellowships at l’Institut Pasteur in Paris, Stanford University, and New York University School of Medicine.   

Connett et al’s fluoridation history follows the pattern I’ve seen in my research where a handful of determined men with cultural and political power successfully institute a problematic health practice.  Among the most effective men in 1950, when the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) endorsed fluoridation, were Gerald Cox, a researcher at the Mellon Institute whose research was funded by Alcoa aluminum, and Harold Hodge, the chief toxicologist for the U.S. Army’s Manhattan Project, who supervised experiments where uranium and plutonium were injected into unsuspecting hospital patients (80-81).

Connett et al show that in 1950 there were many scientists with grave concerns about putting an untested drug into the public water supply.  From the 1930s onward there was “a considerable amount of scientific literature, particularly from Europe and from the U.S. Department of Agriculture,  that fluoride posed problems to the bone and to the thyroid (83).  These studies were ignored or dismissed. 

The PHS made its momentous decision to validate fluoridation based on two flawed studies, an article by Cox and Hodge, and two ongoing studies whose results were unpublished, so had not yet been subject to peer review (82-83).  It was a rigged process.          

So, once again, industry benefit is part of this history.   At first, the metal industry benefitted, and, now, the phosphate fertilizer industry benefits.  But also there were then and are now many people who believed/believe that fluoridation would help children, especially poor children, have better dental health and who trusted that the organizations to which they looked for scientific truth had actually researched fluoride objectively. 

Astonishingly, Connett et al report that no federal agency accepts responsibility for the safety of fluoridation.   

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has never approved fluoride for ingestion and rates fluoride as an “unapproved drug”—which is why it can mandate the toothpaste warning.  Nor has the FDA subjected fluoride to rigorous randomized clinical trials for either its effectiveness or its long-term safety (270). 

At the Center for Disease Control (CDC), only the Oral Health Division (OHD) is involved with fluoridation, and the OHD is staffed largely by dental personnel.  In 2008, Connett et al note, not one of the 29 staff members had scientific degrees qualifying them to assess the toxicity of fluoride, yet this division aggressively promotes fluoridation throughout the United States (23-24). 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has an indirect role in that it regulates safe standards for all “contaminants” in drinking water.  In 2002, as it is legally required to do every 10 years, the EPA asked the National Research Council (NRC) to review the current 4 ppm (parts per million) Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) standard.  The NRC appointed a 12-member panel that, the authors state, was “the most balanced ever appointed in the United States to do any kind of review on fluoride” 137).  This panel issued its 507-page report in March 2006, in which it declared that the seemingly low-level 4 ppm maximum standard was not protective of health (25).

The ADA declared the NRC report irrelevant to water fluoridation on the day it was released—claiming erroneously that the panel only reviewed water fluoridation of 4 ppm.  The panel, in fact, “examined several studies that found adverse effects at levels less than 2 ppm” (138). 

The CDC followed six days later with the same conclusion.  To date, write the authors, the CDC has produced “no comprehensive analysis to support its claim.”  And “it’s hard to believe that in six days Oral Health Division personnel could have read and digested the report, let alone its over 1,100 references” (140).  

Ironically, in 1999, the CDC “finally conceded what many dental researchers had been reporting over the previous two decades:  Fluoride’s predominant mechanism of action was topical, not systemic.  In other words, if fluoride works at all, it does so via direct exposure to the outside of the tooth and not from inside the body” (13).  So, write Connett et al, to continue “the practice of forcing people to ingest fluoride has become even more absurd (269-270).

Part 2 will address fluoride’s specific toxicity in the body and claims of its efficacy.