Tag Archives: The World Health Organization

Why Radiation Protection Makes Sense- even at ‘Low’ Exposure levels

Geiger CounterRadiation is all around us.

  It occurs naturally in our environment, coming to us from the sun, from the soil and foods that we eat, and in the air that we breathe. It is omnipresent across a diverse cross section of industries. We tend to associate radiation with the nuclear industry, but the reality is that we come across radiation sources in numerous other areas:  construction, health care, oil and gas, research, manufacturing, food processing – to name just a few.

With radiation being everywhere in our lives, it is not surprising that it garners a lot of attention, curiosity and, often, worry.

With more than 15 years as a career radiation protection professional, I’ve had to respond to many occupational radiation safety questions — some have related to regulations and compliance, others to potential health effects of exposure and ways to minimize such exposure. In all cases, it is best to rely on well established radiation physics concepts and scientific data, where available.

While there is not much that we can do to escape natural background radiation exposure, we do want to avoid any unnecessary exposure to high levels of radiation, such as the potential hazard due to elevated radon (a radioactive gas) in our homes and workplaces.

How to Protect Yourself From Harmful Mobile Cell Phone RF-EMF Radiation -  TurboFuture

Radon testing of homes is the simplest first step you can take to protect yourself and your family from radon gas, but all too often we do not make the time to educate ourselves and make this a priority. Workplaces are required to have a radiation protection program in place that is appropriate for the type of radiation and potential risk in their industry. But it takes time and investment to develop these programs, and it requires the commitment of both employers and workers to put these programs into practice.

Our challenge is that radiation and its associated risks are not always well understood.

On the one hand, we do not wish to alarm anyone unnecessarily, yet we want to make sure that the public, workers and employers are aware of the steps they need to take to stay safe.  Remember, we are talking about an “invisible” hazard that very rarely causes ill health effects in the short-term. Additionally, the existing radiation protection models are built on what we call the linear no-threshold concept, which, in simple terms, is based on studies of the atomic bomb survivors from the Second World War in Japan and other high-exposure situations, and extrapolates the information to the potential health effects of low exposures.

Low Levels Radiation

An agency of the World Health Organization (WHO) recently published a study on the health effects of low-level exposure to radiation that provides data to support the validity of the linear no-threshold model. We encourage all who read the study (available at The Lancet Haematology) to not get alarmed and to keep the study conclusions in perspective.

It suggests that extended exposure to low level of radiation increases the risk of developing leukemia.

A frightening statement, but we have to keep in mind that the increased risk is small, in line with what we have estimated based on the modeling concepts. This boils down to two things: first, it is important that we continue to apply the ALARA principle — “As Low as Reasonably Achievable” — to all our of interactions with radiation; and second, that we continue to view the numbers associated with radiation and risk in the proper context. The study points to a “small increase” of risk of dying from cancer from low levels of radiation exposure.

Let’s put this into perspective. 

If we extrapolate this study’s conclusions for nuclear workers to persons living near Canadian nuclear plants, people are 6,000 times more likely to die in a car accident, than to die from leukemia due to doses received from reactor plant emissions. Yet most of us think nothing of driving to work, driving our kids to school, or driving to visit friends and family.  The radiation risk is there, but it is significantly smaller than the risks we accept every day, often without even thinking or worrying about them.

More research is required on the health risks from low-level radiation exposure, and there are efforts underway around the world to make it happen. At the Radiation Safety Institute, we will be looking forward to hearing about more study results.  In the meantime we invite all people who are interested in the subject of radiation safety, who have a question or a concern, to reach out to our Free Information Service at 1-800-263-5803 or by e-mail at info@radiationsafety.ca. Let’s keep the conversation going.  For the Silo, Laura Boksman Chief Scientist at the Radiation Institute of Canada.

Click to view on I-tunes
Click to view on I-tunes

Canada Reassessing Glyphosate Roundup Herbicide Link To Cancer

Crop SprayingIt’s been nearly four years since we published the article below and the water surrounding glyphosate use in Canada is still murky. Roundup is currently being used in an official capacity in certain situations by government agencies such as the Ministry of the Environment to fight the invasive species Phragmites. Let’s review the earlier article:

Dear friends across Canada, top scientists warn the most commonly used herbicide in the world probably causes cancer. Monsanto is demanding the World Health Organization retract their ground-breaking report. And experts say the only way to ensure the science is not silenced is if the public demands action, now. The regulatory system is renowned for being secretive and captured by the agro-chemical industry. But we have a unique moment right now — Canada is officially reassessing glyphosate, with similar processes underway in the US, Europe, and Brazil. And the Netherlands, Sri Lanka, and El Salvador are all looking at a ban. [However, it must be noted that as of today’s posting, Canada Health’s Food Safety Inspection statement is that glyphosate formulations ARE safe http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/gmf-agm/seralini-eng.php CP]The threat is clear — this poison is used on our food, our fields, our playgrounds, and our streets. Let’s get it suspended.

Join the urgent call and tell everyone: https://secure.avaaz.org/en/monsanto_dont_silence_science_loc_cn/?bsOTIab&v=57275

Monsanto is up in arms. Glyphosate brings in $6 billion per year. It is the basis of RoundUp, the chemical cornerstone of Monsanto’s Genetically Modified empire. The company says the WHO report ignored studies showing glyphosate is safe. But these scientists are 17 of the world’s top oncology experts, not a bunch of crazies. They comprehensively reviewed independent studies, excluding those done by companies seeking product approval.  Regulators rely mainly on tests done by the companies trying to sell the poisons!

Skeleton Scarecrows

Key results are kept from the public because they contain ‘commercially confidential information’, and 58% of the scientific panels in the EU Food and Safety Agency are linked to the sector. It’s nuts, but that is the system we have. And that’s why it’s going to take all of us to make sure this crucial independent report isn’t ignored. Some countries have already put bans on glyphosate. Now with the EU, the US, Canada, and Brazil all reviewing it, we have an incredible chance to turn the tide worldwide.

Fifty years ago Monsanto’s pesticide DDT was everywhere until the seminal book Silent Spring showed it could cause cancer — a decade later it was banned. If this could cause cancer, let’s not let it be sold for ten more years. Let’s demand emergency precautionary action now.

Join now and spread the word:  https://secure.avaaz.org/en/monsanto_dont_silence_science_loc_cn/?bsOTIab&v=57275

Glysophate360IndustrialAgriculturalPackaging

We’ve done it before — helped win a moratorium on bee-killing neonicotinoids in the EU and stop a Monsanto mega seed factory in Argentina. Now let’s protect our health and make sure we aren’t being used as lab rats. This could be a breakthrough moment in the fight for the safe, sustainable agriculture our world needs. With hope, Bert, Marigona, Antonia, Oliver, Alice, Emily, Danny, Nataliya, Ricken and the whole Avaaz team.

More information: New study points to link between weedkiller glyphosate and cancer (FT)  http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8b79a572-cf14-11e4-893d-00144feab7de.html#axzz3XOmCcv9c

Supplemental-

Monsanto seeks retraction for report linking herbicide to cancer (Reuters)  http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/03/24/monsanto-herbicide-idINL2N0WP0UM20150324

Weed Killer, Long Cleared, is Doubted (New York Times)  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/28/business/energy-environment/decades-after-monsantos-roundup-gets-an-all-clear-a-cancer-agency-raises-concerns.html

The Real Reason to Worry About GMOs (Mother Jones)  http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2015/03/bittman-right-its-not-gmos-its-how-theyre-used 

Groups seek EPA glyphosate review after WHO ‘carcinogenic’ link (Agri Pulse) http://www.agri-pulse.com/Groups-seek-EPA-glyphosate-review-after-WHO-carcinogenic-link-03272015.asp  

More sources:  https://avaazmedia.s3.amazonaws.com/Roundupsources.pdf

9 Things to Know about Wearable Tech in Health and Fitness

Here’s a fun wearable Infographic from our friends at igotcrazy.com. Do you agree with their projections of use?

•    By 2019, more than 33% of U.S. adult population is expected to be using the wearable tech?
•     According to a survey wearable technologies such as fitness trackers, smart watches and GPS tracking devices are expected to be the No. 1 fitness trend in 2016.
•    Wearable devices could possibly be a way for companies to better understand their team.

Wearable Tech In Health And Fitness Infographic

Canada Needs To Adopt WHO Labeling Says MP Justin Trudeau

photo courtesy of the author
photo courtesy of the author

Article from March , 2013 –  In 1981, the World Health Organization introduced Code of Marketing for Breast-milk Substitutes. To date, 84 countries have enacted legislation making the labeling Code law in their countries. While Canada agreed and signed onto The Code and the amendments, to date it has not created any law, which would uphold this International document.

The WHO Code says, among many other items, that breast milk substitutes (including formula and infant foods) should not be directly advertised to consumers because they are sub-optimal foods to feed to babies and infants. Advertising includes newspapers, ads on Google or other websites, texting, and free samples through the mail.

Formula companies in Canada say they abide by the WHO Code by including a preamble in every commercial: “while breast milk is best…” Ask your average consumer today what they think about breast milk and formula and specifically if there is any difference. I have posed this question while working at numerous health fairs in the past 5 years. It is staggering the number of people who view breast milk and formula as having the same nutritional value. In case you do not know already, this has scientifically been proven false.

Over the past 5 years, I have written MPs and MPPs about why Canada does not uphold the WHO Code. What I heard from Health Canada directly is:

The Food Directorate of Health Canada is responsible for the development of policies, regulations and standards for all foods. The Food Directorate is also responsible for the premarket notification process for infant formulas…Manufacturers are responsible for the accuracy of information on the labels and advertisements for food and for compliance…”

This is akin to letting prisoners run the jail.

While writing my monthly (and at times weekly) concerns to government officials, I found an MP who said that, “If we were signatories to it, we should live up to it.” This was Justin Trudeau.

I am saying be politically involved. I have a stack of letters and many emails from all parties in their response to the WHO Code. It has been 30 years since Canada signed The Code. Why is it taking so long to actually do something to enforce it? Enforcing the Code would not result in taking formula off the market at all. The Code’s aim is to make healthier babies and our babies are entitled to the highest degree of health. For the Silo, Stephanie MacDonald. 

StephanieMacDonaldSiloWriter

 

 

Suck it? Public Breastfeeding.

Come on, breastfeeding is not obscene. Breastmilk has evolved into an immune-building milk tailor-made for each child to protect infants and children from illnesses in their environment. There are over 400 ingredients in breastmilk whose reasons for being there are not fully known. There is a component in breastmilk which is only there to grow the baby’s brain. That’s it. It can’t be replicated. Saying a certain non-humanmilk-based formula is ‘closer to’ breastmilk is akin to saying Michigan is closer to Hawaii than Pennsylvania. True, but one wouldn’t be closer to Hawaii’s environment, would they?

Our September Print edition cover- It is western culture that has sexualized breasts to the point where seeing a mother breastfeeding her child is obscene. image: courtesy of the author

Did you know that if you leave a naked baby on mom’s chest right after birth, they have the knowledge and ability to crawl to the breast and nurse perfectly by themselves (especially if mom was un-medicated during the birth). It is a beautiful moment to watch. That instinct is there for 3-4 months.

Should breastfeeding ever hurt? No. Just because many women do have pain in breastfeeding, doesn’t make it ‘normal.’ Most pain in breastfeeding, in my 20-year experience, is from poor latching or lack of knowledge. There isn’t enough time in a full prenatal labour/birth class to give breastfeeding instruction the time it needs. Attending La Leche League (LLL) meetings while pregnant can help prepare you (www.LLLc.ca). Or, talk with an International Board Certified Lactation Consultant if you are nervous speaking in a group. Plus, partners may feel more comfortable speaking individually. IBCLC’s are listed here: http://www.americas.iblce.org/ibclc-registry. Both LLL and IBCLC’s are available before and after you have your baby and are a tremendous resource and support.

Maternite (Motherhood) by Maria Blanchard. Due to physical conditions that prevented Maria from ever being able to have children, she powered up her paintings with sentiment and substance. CP

The World Health Organization, and the Canadian Pediatric Society both say to exclusively nurse your baby for the first 6 months of life and to breastfeed for 2 years or more. That is the world standard. It is western culture that has sexualized breasts to the point where seeing a mother breastfeed her child is obscene. There is no food on earth which can replace the vitamins, minerals, and immunities which are found in human milk. How is seeing a baby nurse in public worse than seeing the lingerie models in the mall?
Dads should not be left out of baby’s life. But, if dads were meant to feed babies, they would lactate. Skin-to-skin bonding with dad/baby increases parenting hormones and normalizes baby’s temperature, heart, and breathing.

Public breastfeeding- what’s the big dealio? image: courtesy of the author

Dads, or other support people, may use a medicine cup (like what comes with children’s fever medicine) to feed the baby. In addition, baby’s tongue works similarly to breastfeeding, so feeding a baby with cup and at the breast should not cause nipple confusion.
There are documented risks to formula-feeding (increased risks for obesity, diabetes, and general colds/flus). Plus, moms may have an increased risk of breast cancer, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes if she chooses formula feed. Breasts are part of our anatomy to feed our babies. Honour that.

For the Silo by Aboriginal midwife Stephanie MacDonald, IBCLC. Contact Stephanie on twitter @StephIBCLC

Supplemental- 30$ per scoop Ice cream made from human breastmilk on sale in London, England