20 Deadly Things You've Been Told Are "Safe" (part 1 of 2)

Unfortunately both the US government and the big corporations have their own peculiar, difficult-to-fathom notion of what constitutes "safe."  Most of us would say that something is "safe" if:

• it's been thoroughly tested by objective, not-swayed-by-special-interests-&-financial-concerns researchers,
• its benefits far outweigh any potential side-effects, complications & interactions with other substances,
• it doesn't appear to inflict short-term harm of a significant kind,
• it doesn't appear to inflict long-term harm of a significant kind--and this can only be accurately and dependably ascertained with long-term safety studies and experiments that are reproducible, verifiable & assigned to qualified experts able to conduct such tests while not being tied/beholden to any organization facing potential losses if such tests reveal any significant potential harm to the public,
• it serves a useful purpose for most of the people that use it, beyond just tasting good, looking pretty & merely  giving people some sort of short-term thrill, excitement or satisfaction outweighed by negative repercussions later identified or not yet determined with complete certainty,
•  And it's not likely to contribute to or precipitate your death!

The government and the big corporations, however, often identify something as "safe" if no significant short-term harm seems to be inflicted; it's as if, in other words, long-term harmfulness is irrelevant, especially if substantial profits are involved.  They also insist on allowing products, treatments and services that are popular, glossy, and acceptable to the unique agendas and initiatives of special interest groups, government agencies and individuals with the clout and money to bypass or disregard safeguards meant to protect the public.

For the record, something should not be presented to the public as "safe" if it poses a significant risk--unless, of course, said risks are clearly outlined and presented to consumers, even if they have been discovered or identified by independent sources.  If the findings of corporate or government research hasn't identified any such risks, said results, furthermore, don't justify ignoring or not mentioning the risks to the public.  It should be left up to the public to decide whether the risks alluded to are worth considering; the public can be afforded this right only if they are kept informed about all available findings and competing perspectives.

Many things, though, are marketed as or declared to be "safe" when, in fact, they are not; this common practice is illustrated rather well by the following shameful examples:

1.  Mammograms.  The main problem with X-rays is that they are ideal for dense tissue and for bones, not for soft tissue, such as that found in breasts; beyond that, using something (ionizing radiation) that can inflict cancer to determine if you have cancer is ludicrous--especially when you consider the fact that we have technologies (sonography and MRIs) that are better than X-rays for soft-tissue imaging (and generally provide more detailed imaging) but don't pose the serious risks ionizing radiation poses. 

According to some experts, we are still pushing X-ray mammograms because they are cheaper & because doctors are intimidated into using them (ostensibly, so that thousands of medical-imaging jobs and financial interests are protected) by the medical establishment, X-ray-technology-enforcement cartels (not sure if these actually exist but, if they don't, then who's doing the actual enforcement?) and health insurance companies (who often prefer "cheaper" rather than "healthier" routes). 

For your part, do what's best for you and insist, when possible, on either sonography or MRIs in relation to cancer screening, including detection of breast cancer.  Not surprisingly, the medical establishment wants to stick with mammograms because breast ultrasound can lead to more false positives, but, which is worse:  increased chances of "false positives" or the proven carcinogenicity of the ionizing radiation imparted by X-rays? 

2.  So-called "low-dose" ionizing radiation, especially in regards to medical imaging.  Both dentists and doctors spend a great deal of time  and effort convincing patients that medical imaging using ionizing radiation is generally "safe" because it, supposedly, imparts "low dose" radiation.  Well, here's the naked truth:  there is no such a thing as a "perfectly safe dose" of ionizing radiation--not even the supposedly "low-dose" type.  Whenever possible, therefore, you should insist on non-ionizing radiation medical imaging, such as that used by sonography and MRIs. 

Then again, X-rays are indeed ideal for bone imaging, which is why dentists may still need to use this more-risky type of technology; but even dentists should quit downplaying the dangers of X-rays and, furthermore, they need to drastically cut back on how often they X-ray patients, thereby reducing carcinogenicity risks.   

As for your doctor, he/she will tell you that the insurance companies will refuse to pay for these safer alternatives but if the AMA and the government chose to push the issue (rather than cower and submit), insurance companies could be forced to pay for such, as long as a medical necessity exists.  This is only one of several areas/issues about which those who should be looking out for your welfare have acquiesced (perhaps out of sheer apathy) too easily, even if some doctors and politicians shamefully insist on denying such a reality.

In other words, they would rather please and obey the insurance companies than look out for your welfare. Of course, there may be instances when sonography and MRIs may not be feasible (or available), but, unless that's the case, these less-dangerous technologies should be given priority.

Just remember that X-rays and CT scans use potentially mutagenic and carcinogenic ionizing radiation. 

Even PET scans (which require the use of radioactive tracers or isotopes) pose a threat; these tracers are supposed to vacate your body relatively quickly but do expose you to low-levels of radiation while in your body.  Of course, there is always the chance that some of that low-dose radiation may damage cells while the radioactive tracer is coursing through the body.  Most radiology sites claim that there are no known side-effects (aside from allergic reactions and overdoses) from the use of these tracers but they seem to forget that even small levels of gamma radiation can increase the risk for cancer.

3.  Fluoridated water.  It's astounding how much money the chemical industry, the American Dental Association and the federal government have spent on gimmicky campaigns meant to convince everyone that fluoridated water is perfectly safe--not only safe, but extremely beneficial.  First of all, whether fluoridated water truly prevents cavities & tooth decay is still a hotly-contested, unresolved issue. 

What is more important, however, is that fluoridated water isn't as "safe" as it is being portrayed--to put it more accurately, it's safety has not been conclusively proven, according to many experts. Firstly, the fluoride (a known neurotoxin) that is dumped into drinking water is a waste by-product of the mining/manufacturing industries the CEOs of which would all be facing heavy fines and jail time had not the government given them special, hush-hush permission to dump their nasty poison in our drinking water . . . supposedly out of an altruistic concern for the health of our teeth?  

Secondly, fluoride tends to accumulate in the bones (and, possibly, in other parts of the body), meaning that it's effects may linger for years.  Thus far, young males seem to be more prone to bone cancer due to fluoride use but that's probably because not enough studies have been done that may eventually establish a correlation in all groups of human beings.

What's interesting is that the pro-fluoride groups don't deny that fluoride is a poison--you can see that for  yourself by finding it in the EPA's list of established toxic substances.  What they say is that the quantity put in water is too low to be harmful.  Their claims, however, fail to take into consideration many important issues, including the fact that fluoride may interact in unforeseen but toxic ways with other chemicals in the water.

For your part, do filter your water so that you can remove as much of this suspected carcinogen as you can before drinking and bathing with municipal water.  And, by the way, did you know the Nazis were inflicting fluoridated water in their concentration camps; they must have been concerned about the Jews' dental health, just before they exterminated most of them . . . you are extremely naive if you think that your government has nobler intentions!

4.  Genetically-modified organisms (GMOs).  There are three main reasons why no one can say, with complete certainty, that GMOs are safe for human consumption.  Firstly, there is no way to predict how GMOs may affect us at the molecular level once such a mostly-untested technology is unleashed into a no-holds-barred natural environment; that is, it's relatively easy to control something within a lab environment or a restricted biosphere (where GMOs should have been tried before being approved), but, out in the real world, there is no telling what complications may arise, how existing chemicals may interact with these newly-introduced entities, or how different living organisms may adapt (if at all) to something unique and untried.

Secondly, there have been no long-term (lasting 3 years or more) safety studies involving human beings (and controls) conducted using GMOs.  The many studies the food industry keeps referring to utilized, for the most part, animals and were relatively short-lasting (even a 1-year study may be too short, if you want to assess carcinogenicity).  Thirdly, some studies and experiments conducted thus far are indicating that GMOs can inflict serious harm to the animals used in these tests; examples of observed "harm" have included the development of nasty, potentially cancerous tumors. 

For your part, until adequate, long-term-safety studies are conducted that prove GMOs are safe, your best option is to avoid them, if you can; when possible, choose products labeled as "organic," a word which isn't supposed to be used if GMOs are involved.

5.  Artificial sweeteners.  Most artificial sweeteners are bad for you.  Saccharin, one of the oldest, was proven to inflict cancerous growths on animals; NutraSweet or Aspartame can damage brain cells and has been tied to or is suspected of inflicting over 200 different medical problems/complications; and Splenda or sucralose, which was created in a lab by switching elements from a normal sucrose molecule around, is also suspected of inflicting a number of medical complications.  Although these three sweeteners are used extensively, none has been conclusively proven to be "safe"--which should make you wonder why they were approved in the first place. 

One of the few alternatives-to-sugar sweeteners you might try (because it's made from natural ingredients--and isn't lab-created) is Stevia. Or you may consider (perhaps after consulting with your doctor) low glycemic index natural sweeteners like honey and Agave.

6.  High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) or, as it's being labeled now, "corn syrup." This stuff contains high amounts of fructose (as high as 80%, in some samples), which has been implicated in a number of serious medical problems, including cancer, weight gain, and liver damage.  In general, fructose (which is naturally found in fruits) isn't harmful, but it can be when we consume excessive amounts of it. 

Beyond that, HFCS is a lab-created concoction, unlike the fructose you naturally get from fruit.  Finally, HFCS is now largely made from GMO corn, meaning that you have at least two major reasons for avoiding it!

7.  Most prescribed & OTC painkillers.  Make no mistake, most pharmaceutical painkillers are bad news, especially if you use too much of them or use them for extended periods of time.  Ibuprofen, for example, may seriously damage your kidneys and, like other NSAIDS, can damage heart function.  Aspiring, a peripheral type of NSAID (though it's actually very good for the heart), can give you ulcers or punch holes in your digestive/intestinal tract. 

Tylenol or acetaminophen can seriously damage the liver--in fact, use thereof is the second leading cause for liver transplants.  The so-called "opioid" painkillers can be highly addictive and, if used for a long time, lose their capacity to quell pain.  In fact, there is no painkiller available either by prescription or OTC that doesn't involve serious potential side-effects, complications and dangerous interactions. 

Your best bet is to find alternative pain management options such as natural herbs, exercise, physical & massage therapy, and acupuncture.  Of course, consult a physician before making any decisions.

8.  Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs).  This is another item which the government and corporations with a vested interest in nuclear energy spend millions on slick campaigns designed to convince us that NPPs are a safe, clean and reliable energy source.  Well, the reality is that NPPs are not that "safe" or "clean," for a number of undeniable reasons. 

Firstly, as Fukushima, TMI and Chernobyl have proven convincingly, any disaster (man-made or natural) can greatly affect an NPPs' safety record; in other words, all it takes is one major event (a tsunami, an earthquake, an act of terrorism, etc.) and there goes a nuclear power plant's "safety!"

Secondly, contrary to what the public is told, NPPs do produce lots of radioactive waste (in the form of spent rods/fuel, contaminated water, tools & work clothes, etc.); it is this ever-accumulating waste that is posing a significant threat to the environment, especially when you consider that this isn't the type of waste you can clean up easily, cleanly and inexpensively.  Highly radioactive spent fuel stays "hot" for centuries, which is why it must be buried in concrete casks, which can and do leak after a while, potentially contaminating air, land and water wherever you put them on the planet.

Finally, the mining of the nuclear materials needed to build and keep running NPPs is itself a very dirty, environmentally-destructive process.  Look up "uranium mining," if you didn't know that.   

9.  Flu shots.  One of the problems with flu shots is that the government downplays and even hides the many complications and side-effects people are suffering because of these shots.  These complications are no doubt the result of the many chemicals and, to be blunt, strange things that are being dumped into flu shot concoctions.  It's fair to say, in fact, that flu shots today are not the same as flu shots, say, 25 years ago.

Why, for example, do flu shots, still contain things like thimerosal (mercury-based) and formaldehyde, both of which are known toxins and both of which the government has weak reasons for defending? Many people not only experience nasty complications (including death) after receiving flu shots but they end up getting the disease in spite of the shot (or maybe "purposely" because of it?).  This has led some critics, in fact, to wonder if maybe flu shots are yet another nasty depopulation tool being deployed against the unsuspecting masses.

Unfortunately, much of the data regarding flu shots (especially in regards to how many people experience complications and die from it) is, at best, questionable.  This is because the FDA and the CDC, which are supposed to oversee vaccines, have too cozy a relationship with the vaccine manufacturing industry; additionally, vaccines are highly profitable, thus potentially being the reason why complications and side-effects are being overlooked or covered up. 

For your part, do some research into the safety of vaccines, being sure to look at not only at government health, industry and university sites, but also at alternative/holistic medical information sites. You will discover (among other things) that flu shots apply for only the strain(s) that the government predicts will be a problem each year; since there are always dozens of different strains to worry about, flu shots are, at best, "a shot in the dark."  

10.  Drinking water in plastic bottles.  There are two main problems in connection with using plastic bottles for drinking water.  First of all, these bottles leach dangerous chemicals into the water, including estrogen-like Bisphenol A (BPA); this leaching process is even more pronounced if the plastic bottles containing water are left in hot places (like a parked car or a truck, just before being delivered to your local supermarket, on a hot day) or put in a freezer overnight. 

The second problem is that these non-biodegradable polycarbonate bottles are accumulating at a dangerously rapid rate all over the globe, to the point of now posing a significant public health threat (oozing BPA, dioxin, phthalates, etc.) to us and to wildlife, including sea creatures, whose survival may affect our own survival in the long run.

(see the 2nd part of this article in a separate posting)

Conclusion

If you depend on the government, big corporations (which are more interested in earning a good profit than they are in what is best for you or public health in general), the medical establishment and mainstream media (what we may here call "The Terrible Unrelenting Four" or "TTUF") to tell you what is good for you and what isn't, then you are in trouble.  There is no question that these four major power-brokers look out for each others' interests and only want to maintain the so-called "status quo."

Consider such incredibly profitable things as vaccines, cell phones, conventional cancer treatments, medical imaging technology, appetite/food enhancing products like monosodium glutamate, cooking oils & butter substitutes, artificial sweeteners, etc.  If studies or health experts contend that there is anything harmful about any of these things, do you really think that these inter-connected entities (all owned and controlled by the same billionaires who own 95 percent of the world's riches) will put what's best for you as an individual (or the population in general) ahead of their profit margins or selfish agendas?

In fact, it is this obsession with protecting profits and the viability of entire industries that has led to ubiquitous cover-ups and campaigns to defend things that, in a more ethical environment, no one with a modicum of integrity would dare defend. This has been seen time and time again, especially with such things as vaccines, GMOs and monosodium glutamate. 

Do  you really think that it's a coincidence that these multi-billion dollar profitable products are always perfectly "safe" to TTUF, even while thousands of health experts and organizations flagrantly disagree? 

If  you care about your health, you need become your own advocate.  Don't depend on TTUF to determine what is or isn't safe.  Instead, do your own research, making sure that you find out what independent, holistic medicine sources have to say on the matter.  Although some people speak disparagingly of the Internet and small, independent health publications and websites--not to mention health experts, journalists and doctors who can't be bought and will, therefore, give you a more objective opinion--they may be your best source for accurate, impartial information when it comes to what is or isn't safe. 

At the very least, get both sides of any argument--hopefully, the truth will be somewhere in the middle, although you can be sure that those persons who are financially conflicted are always more likely to lie and misrepresent the facts. Should that really be surprising to anyone with common sense?

Copyright, 2016.  Fred Fletcher.  All rights reserved.

References

(see embedded links)