Cell Phone Radiation / EMF / Wi-Fi Networks…

26 10 2010

According to Reuters, an estimated 4 billion people worldwide now use cell phones, up from about 3 billion around this time just last year.

Dangers Known for a Decade

Cell phones use radio waves to transmit voice data, and the dangers of consistent exposure to information-carrying radio waves have been known since at least 1998. Yet few have been willing to accept the evidence, and the cellular industry has followed in the footsteps of the tobacco industry, vehemently denying any risks.

It’s worth remembering that the telecommunication industry is even BIGGER than Big Pharma, and they have far more influence than the drug companies.

My belief is that this exponential increase in this type of radiation exposure is far more serious a threat than tobacco ever was.

To get a better understanding of the physics and biological impact of information-carrying radio waves and the electromagnetic fields emitted from your cell phone, please review the article, “If Mobile Phones Were a Type of Food, They Simply Would Not be Licensed.”

The first major indication that cell phones might be a health hazard came out of a massive, $28 million research project funded by the Cellular Telephone Industry Association (CTIA). To the industry’s surprise and dismay, the results of the study came to the opposite conclusion from the one they were hoping for.

The study’s results included findings of:

-A nearly 300 percent increase in the incidence of genetic damage when human blood cells were exposed to radiation in the cellular frequency band

-A significant increase in cell phone users’ risk of brain tumors at the brain’s outer edge, on whichever side the cell phone was held most often

-A 60 percent greater chance of acoustic neuromas, a tumor affecting the nerve that controls hearing, among people who had used cell phones for six years or more

-A higher rate of brain cancer deaths among handheld mobile phone users than among car phone users (car phones are mounted on the dashboard rather than held next to your head)

Prior to this, Alfred Gilman and Martin Rodbell had won the Nobel Prize (1994) for their research showing your body’s cells communicate with each other by subtle low electromagnetic signals. These signals carry all the vital information that are then translated into biochemical and physiological processes.

The following year, researchers discovered that animals exposed to cell phone radiation suffered double-strand DNA breakage – the type of genetic alterations that can lead to cancer, cell death and mutagenic problems.

Since then, many more scientists confirmed all of the above findings.

Illness linked to electromagnetic radiation exposure include many cancers, neurological conditions, ADD, sleep disorders, depression, autism, cognitive problems, cardiovascular irregularities, hormone disruption, immune system disorders, metabolism changes, stress, fertility impairment, increased blood brain barrier permeability, mineral disruption, DNA damage and much, much more.

The good news is that your body can, to a degree, defend itself from these types of radiation damage. It does so by pumping surplus calcium out of your cells, and by activating certain enzymes that protect your DNA, and by making heat shock proteins to protect enzymes.

The bad news is that in doing so, your body becomes fatigued, and the more it has to defend itself, the worse your health will fare. Eventually, it can start interfering with your metabolism; impair your immune system; and lower your resistance to disease and cancer.

Last but not least, EMF exposures have a sensitizing effect, so you will become more and more sensitive over time.

Cell Phones are the Cigarettes of the 21st Century

A comparison of cell phone use, which continues its meteoric rise and cigarette smoking, is illustrative. Just a few of the similarities between the two habits include:

-Manufacturers and industry leaders who either hide or debunk unfavorable study results and continue to promote their products despite awareness of the significant dangers to public health

-Government conflict of interest created by lobbies for both industries and revenues collected from use taxes

-Expensive, effective marketing campaigns aimed at every segment of society, including children

-Massive amounts of scientific data proving beyond a shadow of a doubt the direct link between these products and life-threatening damage to the human body

-The addictive nature of both products

The primary distinction between cell phone use and cigarettes is that smoking has been around long enough to confirm it can, indeed, be a fatal habit. According to a 2008 World Health Organization (WHO) report, tobacco use kills 5 million people a year worldwide, and is a risk factor in six of the eight leading causes of death.

How to protect yourself from EMF

To purchase the Bioelectric Shield click here.

In the video below, ElectromagneticHealth.org founder Camilla Rees presents an overview of an emerging public health issue — excessive exposures to microwave radiation from wireless technologies.


Multimedia Presentation on Wireless Health Hazards from ElectromagneticHealth.Org on Vimeo.

City passes first cell phone radiation law

“Once the new law takes effect, cell phone retailers must clearly display each phone’s SAR value next to the phone. Values vary from one model to the next, starting around 0.2 watts, but the maximum allowable SAR rate is 1.6 watts per kilogram for phones sold in the US. This guideline is based on the exposure from a six minute phone call.”

Blue Tooth Headset that greatly reduces your exposure to radiation.

5 Ways to Help You Minimize Cell Phone Radiation Emissions

1. Use your cell phone on speakerphone. While this is a great solution and I strongly recommend it, it’s simply not practical much of the time. Especially if you are in a public place where rules of discretion and proper etiquette prevail. Another problem is that not all cell phones have speakerphones — and even those that do may have poor sound quality. I do recommend that if you are choosing a new cell phone, make sure it comes with a speakerphone option.

2. Always keep your phone as far away from your body as possible. There’s a dramatic drop-off in radiation exposure for every inch you keep your phone away from your body.

3. Get yourself a Blue Tube Headset with an airtube. In my opinion, this new RF3 design with Aircom 2 technology is the best headset on the market. Others may actually increase the amount of radiation emitted.

4. Limit your cell phone use to the bare minimum. Your cell phone is constantly searching for signals and emitting EMR while you’re using it.

5. Turn off your cell phone when not needed OR keep it a few feet away from your body. Even when not in use, as long as your phone is turned on, it continually emits EMR as it connects to its base station.

To learn more click here, here, here.

Click here to get a free report about this topic.

Scientific studies here and here.



The First Step to Health: Assess Your “Four Factors” by Dr. Mercola

19 10 2010

There are four time-tested, clinically proven gauges of health that you can use to determine your own level of health. They are:

-Insulin levels
-Blood pressure
-Cholesterol levels

These four factors are your signs on the highway to optimal wellness. You can use these proven health indicators to monitor your success on the beginner’s nutrition plan.

Additionally, you can use these indicators as a guide to figure out when to move to the intermediate level of this nutritional plan. You’ll feel comfortable, confident and psychologically ready to move on to the next level, and your indicators of health will be in their optimal ranges.

Factor # 1 : Your Insulin Level

Insulin is absolutely essential to staying alive, but the sad fact is that most of you reading this have too much floating around, and it is pushing you towards chronic degenerative illness and increasing the rate at which you age.

Most adults have about one gallon of blood in their bodies and are quite surprised to learn that in that gallon, there is only one teaspoon of sugar! You only need one teaspoon of sugar at all times — if that. If your blood sugar level were to rise to one tablespoon of sugar you would quickly go into a hyperglycemic coma and die.

You body works very hard to prevent this by producing insulin to keep your blood sugar at the appropriate level. Any meal or snack high in grain and sugar carbohydrates typically generates a rapid rise in blood glucose. To compensate for this your pancreas secretes insulin into your bloodstream, which lowers your blood sugar to keep you from dying.
However, if you consume a diet consistently high in sugar and grains, over time your body becomes “sensitized” to insulin and requires more and more of it to get the job done. Eventually, you become insulin resistant, and then diabetic.

If you have high cholesterol, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, or are overweight, it is highly likely that you are eating too many grains — yes, even unrefined whole grains — as this is the most common culprit causing your insulin level to become abnormal.

Compounding the problem, when your insulin levels rise due to an excess of carbohydrates, they send your body a hormonal message telling it to store fat while holding on to the fat that is already there. So not only will excess carbohydrates make you overweight, they will effectively hamper your weight loss efforts too.

Your Fasting Blood Insulin Test

To find out your insulin levels, you need to get tested by your doctor. The test you need to ask for is a fasting blood insulin test, The test is done by just about every commercial laboratory and is relatively inexpensive.

Facts about Your Fasting Insulin Test:

-This test is profoundly useful. It’s one of the least expensive tests in traditional medicine, yet it is one of the most powerful. A normal fasting blood insulin level is below 5, but ideally you’ll want to be below 3.

-You can safely ignore the reference ranges from the lab as they are based on “normals” of a population that has highly-disturbed insulin levels.

-This is a great test to do BEFORE you start your program as you can use it to assess how well you are progressing in the program.

-If your level is above 5 you will want to consider significantly reducing most sugars and grains, even whole wheat grains, until you lower your level. Once you’ve normalized your insulin level you can reintroduce grains into your diet at a lower level to optimize your health.

-Exercise is of enormous benefit in improving the sensitivity of your insulin receptors, and help normalize your insulin level far more quickly.

Factor # 2: Your Ideal Weight

Unfortunately, two out of three people in the U.S. are overweight and one out of three is obese, and the rest of the world is not far behind. It has been my experience that many people are in denial about being overweight.

One effective and simple method to figure out if you have a weight problem is as follows: With a tape measure, comfortably measure the distance around the smallest area below the rib cage and above the umbilicus (belly button). Waist circumference, perhaps surprisingly, is the best and simplest anthropometric measure of total body fat. It is better than BMI (body mass index), and is also the best indicator of intra-abdominal fat mass. So if you measure your waist, men would be classified as obese if their waist size is above 40 inches, and women if it’s above 37.

BMI is a good tool, however, to find out what your ideal weight should be. The National Institutes of Health has a simple online BMI calculator that can help you painlessly calculate your ideal weight.

Your ideal weight is important for this nutrition plan. Not only because I am committed to helping your body heal and become healthier, but also because extra body weight and obesity can have major negative psychological effects that impair your ability to be optimally healthy.

If you are not at your ideal weight — overweight or underweight — you should start with the Beginning nutrition plan and stay there until you have achieved your ideal body weight; then move into the Intermediate plan to further optimize your body to fight disease and live a longer, more energetic life.

Factor # 3: Your Ideal Blood Pressure — 120/80

Ideally your blood pressure should be about 120/80 without medication. If you are on medication, you will be delighted to know that this nutrition plan tends to normalize elevated blood pressures in the vast majority of people.

Although elevated insulin levels are one of the most potent contributors to elevated blood pressure, it’s also common for stress, tension or anxiety to contribute to this problem. After you begin my nutrition plan and follow it for several months, if you don’t see an improvement in your blood pressure you need to seek out a health care professional who is well-versed in using stress-relief methods, such as my personal favorite: EFT.

In my clinical experience, over 95 percent of patients with elevated cholesterol or triglyceride levels respond to a reduced carbohydrate and insulin level correction approach. This is especially true for triglycerides. In over 20 years of practicing medicine, I have never seen an elevated triglyceride level fail to drop in response to a low carbohydrate program.

Factor # 4: Your Ideal Cholesterol Level

Most people are seriously confused about their cholesterol levels. This is because too much emphasis is placed on the importance of the total cholesterol. A far more important predictor of cardiovascular risk is actually the ratio of good cholesterol (HDL) to total cholesterol.

I use the percentage of HDL and obtain this number by simply dividing the HDL by the total cholesterol (HDL/Total Cholesterol). Ideally this number should be above 24%. Levels below 10 percent are very dangerous and usually indicate an imminent cardiovascular problem. Ideally, your level should be 30 or higher. It rarely gets above 50, but to the best of my knowledge, the higher the number the better.

It is important to note that some clinicians actually obtain this ratio by dividing the total cholesterol by the HDL (Total Cholesterol/HDL). In this case, the numbers should be lower. The cut-off point for a poor ratio would be any number greater than 4, with greater than 10 having serious problems. This number rarely drops below 2.

There is a small subset of individuals born with a genetic condition called familiar hypercholesterolemia, (about one in 500 people) in which their cholesterols are typically around 350 or higher. While this program will help to moderate their cholesterol levels, they usually do not normalize with a low insulin program such as this. (To learn more about hypercholesterolemia, see this link.)

If you’re using your HDL percentage to determine when to transition to the Intermediate nutrition plan, you must use caution and consult a trained natural health care clinician if your cholesterol is above 350.

You can also use the triglyceride to HDL ratio (Triglyceride/HDL) as another indicator of insulin disturbance. This ratio should be below 2. The higher this number is, the worse your insulin control may be.

There does not appear to be a similar genetic condition for triglycerides, so you could use the Triglyceride/HDL ratio below 2 as one indication that you are ready to move on to the adaptation phase.

For more of Dr. Mercola’s Nutritional Plan click here.

What Does the Bible Say About Same-Sex Marriage?

14 10 2010

“What, exactly, is “sinful” about a loving, committed, same-sex relationship? Can anyone tell me what it is about this that makes it sinful, apart from just saying, “God said so”? In other words, we can no doubt come up with all sorts of reasons why murder, adultery, incest, lying, stealing, lust, etc are “sinful” which don’t rely solely on “God said so.” So what is it about a same sex loving relationship that is “sinful”?

. . . Scripture has nothing to say about “same sex relationships” as we know them today. Not a word. All 6 times it comes up in the Bible they are unanimously about cultic worship, abuse or rape. None of them have a loving, mutual relationship in sight.

I find it untenable to take a stand on the idea that just because a “counter example” is not given in Scripture then the one interpretation you land on regarding those 6 passages must be universal in nature. It really undermines the authority of Scripture and here is why: It suggests that every jot and tittle in the Bible has universal implications, meant for all times and all places, EXCEPT for those places where the Bible contradicts itself. IOW, Paul’s admonition that women remain silent in ALL the churches is universal for all times and all places (normatively) BUT, since we have an example of a woman speaking in church, THAT particular command is contextual, not universal. It sets the Bible up as some systematic book that actively seeks to confirm what is universal and contradict what is not. And then we are left to sort through this “encyclopedia” to figure out which is which.

The point is – even if there were not an example of a woman speaking in church, I would hope we’d come to the conclusion through the Spirit’s leading that Paul’s words were contextually construed and meant for a particular time and space. The issue is more murky with slavery, since slavery is upheld all throughout Scripture and nowhere is it said to be sin to own slaves. So for the church to now take a stand against slavery in all forms is really to go against the moral world of the Bible – the same one you try to construct when it comes to homosexuality (which again, has nothing to do with same sex relationships).”

Click here for the response to this (part 1).

“I believe you are reading in possible connotations and then extrapolating to mean that the passages are limited to those connotations. This seems illegitimate to me because:

1. From the beginning (where ANY discussion of sexuality should start) the male-female relationship is presented as the essence of what sex is to be. It wasn’t that man needed a “helper” (as many translations unfortunately render the Hebrew ‘ezer) in the sense of “another human for companionship”; man needed woman in order to be able to fully express the image of God, which the initial overview of creation specifically declares the “Image of God” to be (Gen 1:27). The joining of man and woman in sex is what creates the “one flesh” concept…the concept that Jesus Himself appealed to when discussing sexual ethics in the NT. In Scripture, EVERY TIME sex is EVER spoken of in a positive, joyful and holy way, it is ALWAYS spoken of as involving man and woman in lifelong covenant (even in the racy, titillating, and variously-interpreted erotic poem known as Song of Songs).

2. Whenever same-sex sexual relationships are mentioned in Scripture, they are ALWAYS and EXPLICITLY deemed to be outside of God’s plan for sex. One can argue that “the Bible writers didn’t know about committed, loving, non-exploitative” same-sex relationships, but that is a HUGE assumption that requires a heavy burden of proof when the passages in question never discuss or emphasize motives on the part of the transgressor.

. . . What’s also interesting is that the one time Jesus does actually speak to a situation that may in fact include people with same-sex orientations (the discussion of eunuchs in Matthew 19), he specifically says that it is something many people find hard to accept, yet the denial of one’s sexual desire or a life consisting of “normal” marital happiness must take a back seat to a life of faithfulness to God if need be. THIS is the heart of what it means to be a disciple…”

Click here for part 2 of this discussion.

“The entire book of Leviticus is primarily about proper liturgical worship… The point of Leviticus 18 then is not to condemn homosexual behavior outright but about forming a sort of people that are distinct from the modes of worship their pagan counterparts practiced. Sex of any kind in a worship service was something that Yahweh abhorred.”

Click here for a response to this (part 3).

Quote from Gagnon’s debate with Dan O. Via in ‘Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views’:

“Jesus was quite clear when he stated with respect to sexual expression that it was better to go into heaven maimed than to go to hell whole-bodied (Matt 5:29-30). In other words, one must take up one’s cross, lose one’s life, and deny oneself in the sexual facet of life as indeed in all facets of life (Matt 16:24-26, from Mark 8:34-37; cf. Matt 10:39 // Luke 17:33; Matt 10:38 // Luke 14:27 // Gosp. Thom. 55.20; John 12:25). Denial of strong sexual urges, even to the point of abstaining from any sex that does not conform to New Testament standards, can feel like a near-death experience. Such is the the road of discipleship, the way of the cross… [do we] really want to infer that fullness of life depends on the gratification of deeply embedded impulses of the flesh? I am not pushing for deliberate asceticism. But I am arguing that the rigorous call of discipleship quite often requires that we forego the satisfaction of many desires and wants in order to fulfill God’s will for our lives and the lives of others. Those who are homoerotically inclined do have a cross to bear. I have no desire to minimize that. At the same time, I would not paint the situation in the bleak colors that Via chooses, for reasons already stated. Joining them are millions of heterosexual persons who also, for one reason or another, have to forego a satisfying, sexually intimate union. We all bear crosses. It is inevitable. If it is not sex it will likely be something else. Sometimes when it comes to doing God’s will the flesh goes only kicking and screaming. So be it. It must go. The experiences of Christians worldwide and across centuries confirm the testimony of Jesus that it is in our interest to take up our crosses. What emerges from that obedience is beautiful forming of Christ in us, the hope of our glory.”

This is a quote by Gagnon (from his critique of Jack Rogers’ article ‘How I Changed My Mind on Homosexuality’):

“The notion that ancient Israel, early Judaism, and early Christianity only marginally held an other-sex prerequisite for valid sexual unions is absurd. Biblical texts that explicitly reject same-sex intercourse are more numerous than Rogers is apparently aware of. They extend beyond Paul and Leviticus to the “Yahwist” (much of the Tetrateuch), Deuteronomy, the “Deuteronomistic History” (Joshua through 2 Kings), Job, Ezekiel, Jude, and 2 Peter. Texts that implicitly reject homosexual unions run the gamut of the entire Bible, including not only the creation stories in Genesis 1-3, Jesus’ appeal to Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24 as prescriptive norms (as well as a half dozen other indications of Jesus’ view), the Apostolic Decree in Acts and other porneia (“sexual immorality”) texts, and texts that reject overt attempts at blurring sexual differentiation (e.g., Deut 22:5; 1 Cor 11:2-16), but also the whole range of narratives, laws, proverbs, exhortations, metaphors, and poetry that presume the sole legitimacy of heterosexual unions. Nowhere is there the slightest indication of openness anywhere in the Bible to homoerotic attachments, including the narrative about David and Jonathan. The truth is that, so far as extant evidence indicates, every biblical author, as well as Jesus, would have been appalled by any same-sex intercourse occurring among the people of God. The other-sex prerequisite for marriage is not a marginal view in Scripture. It is the only view and one that is held strongly, absolutely, and counterculturally. There is as much, or greater, basis in Scripture for rejecting same-sex intercourse than there is for rejecting man-mother or brother-sister incest.”

Click here for the full response.

Here are some pics I took at the same-sex marriage celebration I went to with some friends at North Hollywood Park on August 4, 2010:

A few Christians (with differing opinions) talk about homosexuality:

Tony Campolo speaks about same-sex marriage rights:

‘The Cross and the Sword’ sermon series by Greg Boyd


“I was ignorant of the many facts about homosexuality and what the Bible says about it. Yet, without facts, I had pre-judged it; I was prejudiced. With little thought I had read into the Bible what I presumed it ought to say instead of reading out of it what it did say. My idea of not needing to study the subject was pure anti-intellectualism. I am now grateful to God that He led me to study.”

One. Homosexuality is an unchangeable nature; it is not a lifestyle choice.

Two. All people are created in the image of God. The homosexuality of gays and lesbians, created by God, is good and not evil.

Three. The homosexual is just as normal a person as a heterosexual and should not be thought of in sexual terms.

Four. Several passages in the Bible speak of same-gender sex. In every instance, the Bible is talking about heterosexuals who, filled with lust, have become sex perverts. The Bible says nothing about innate homosexuality as we know it today or about people who are homosexuals.

Five. The burden imposed on homosexuals by society is a great evil. We should stand in revulsion against, and do all we can to oppose, the prejudice, the hatreds, and the condemnation of a society that make the homosexual’s life so difficult.

Six. Homosexuals are being sinned against by our churches. Like our society, our churches need to change.

Seven. Gays and lesbians in general have the potential for outstanding character and accomplishment; some may have greater potential than most heterosexuals to be exceptional persons.

Eight. It is not only unrealistic to expect homosexuals to live without sex, but also it is psychologically harmful to them for them to do so.

Nine. Full acceptance by society, including the blessings and legality of marriage should be extended to gays and lesbians in the same way it is extended to others.

Ten. As in society, gays and lesbians should be accepted and affirmed in our churches and given any opportunity for service, including ordination, that others have.

To read more on this click here.

FB group about Christians and homosexuality here.

Playin some Bball :)

10 10 2010

‘A New Kind of Christianity’ – Brian McLaren

1 10 2010

McLaren’s fans and detractors have eagerly awaited this book, which promises to codify the beliefs he introduced in his bestselling A New Kind of Christian and other titles. McLaren, one of the most visible faces of the emergent movement, examines 10 questions the church must answer as it heads toward a new way of believing. McLaren deconstructs the Greco-Roman narrative of the Bible and addresses how the Bible should be understood as an inspired library, not a constitution. He moves into questions regarding God, Jesus, and the Gospel, urging us to trade up our image of God and realize that Jesus came to launch a new Genesis. The Church, sexuality, the future, and pluralism merit chapters, as does McLaren’s final call for a robust spiritual life. Followers will rejoice as McLaren articulates his thoughts with logic and eloquence; detractors will point out his artful avoidance of firm answers on salvation, hell, and a final judgment. All sides will flock to this with glee.

“… the doctrines of the incarnation and deity of Christ are meant to tell us that we cannot start with a pre-determined, set-in-stone idea of God derived from the rest of the Bible, and then extend that to Jesus. Jesus is not intended merely to fit into those pre-determined categories; he is intended instead to explode them, transform them, alter them forever and bring us to a new evolutionary level in our understanding of God. An old definition of God does not define Jesus: the experience of God in Jesus requires a new brand definition or understanding of God…

The character of Jesus, we proclaim, provides humanity with a unique and indispensable guide for tracing the development of maturing images and concepts of God across human history and culture. It is the North Star, if you will, to aid all people, whatever their religious background, in their theological pilgrimage. The images of God that most resemble Jesus – whether they originate in the Bible or elsewhere – are the more mature and complete images, and the ones less similar to the character of Jesus would be the more embryonic and incomplete – even though they may be celebrated for being better than the less complete images they replaced.

This is why we cannot simply say that the highest revelation of God is given through the Bible (especially the Bible read as a constitution, or cut and pasted to fit in the Greco-Roman six-line narrative). Rather, we can say that, for Christians, the Bible’s highest value is in revealing Jesus, who gives us the highest, deepest, and most mature view of the character of the living God.”

The Narrative Question

The Authority Question

The Jesus Question

The Gospel Question

The Church Question

The Sex Question

The Future Question

The Pluralism Question

Where do we go from here?